Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Please offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones: The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 05:32 on 1 December 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
  • Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Carlton Martial

  • To be precise, the hook should be tweaked to read ... that linebacker Carlton Martial, who in November 2022 broke the college-football record for the most tackles in November 2022, began his career as a walk-on? Cbl62 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Cbl62 @Tamzin: As a one-time post not subject to MOS:DATED, perhaps just plain "recently". —Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure,  Done. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ... that linebacker Carlton Martial, who broke the college-football record for the most tackles in November 2022, began his career as a walk-on? not sure why "college football" is hyphenated. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Went a step farther and changed it to "NCAA Division I FBS record", to match what the article and its cited sources say. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Cbl62 @Therapyisgood @Cbl62: ...broke the NCAA Division I FBS record for the most tackles...: "college football" seems more accessible than more cryptic acronyms. Also "the" seems inaccurate, as he broke the career tackles record, but there are also records for single-game and single-season. Suggest changing to: ...broke thea NCAA Division I FBScollege football record for the most tackles...Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tamzin Ack, missed you. —Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Bagumba: Definitely no objection to a more accessible description; my concern is just with whether "college football", unqualified, is actually accurate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tamzin: "the college football record" is not ok, because there are many levels of college football, NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision being one of them. However, "a college football record", generically, seems ok as it is some record at an unspecified level and for an unspecified time span (e.g. game, season, career). —Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think changing it to "career record" instead of just "record" would be fine. I share Bagumba's concern that "NCAA Division I FBS" is too wordy -- sounds like mumbo jumbo to most of the audience. I prefer bringing it back to college football but piping it to NCAA Division I FBS. Cbl62 (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changed to "a college football record" per Bagumba. Does this work for you, Cbl62? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, that works, and it avoids the "NCAA Division I FBS" bit. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it's worth I prefer the specificity of NCAA Division I FBS but I have no problem with how it's currently worded. Perhaps add "career" for specificity. Thanks for the ping. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next DYK

Japanese fire-bellied newt

Hook states "the Japanese fire-bellied newt has a toxin that blocks sodium channels in most vertebrates?" but the article states "This toxin stops the activity of sodium channels, discouraging predation by both birds and mammals" no mention of it working in most vertebrates. The source cited appears to support the statement ("a neurotoxin that blocks sodium channels present in most vertebrates"), but my attempt to change the article to match the DYK was reverted by LittleJerry. Either the article needs to change to support the DYK or vice versa - Dumelow (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the wording due to close paraphasing. They are still saying the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

He's listed as having died on December 1, but his article mentions only the year. Art LaPella (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found date in here (search for 1255) on p151 "was found murdered under enigmatic circumstances on the last day of Shawwāl 653/1 December 1255." I have added to lede. Pls check. JennyOz (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JennyOz: Looks fine sourcing-wise; however, your wording was a borderline COPYVIO of the source. I know there's only so many ways to express the idea "Person X was killed on date Y", but this was the same but for the omission of "found" (left over from the previous wording) and the change of "enigmatic" to "suspicious". I've reworded that, but I have concerns about the article more broadly. Lots of MoS issues, unencyclopedic tone, no mention of his death in the body of the article... Should this be pulled? I'm not very familiar with OTD birth/death quality standards. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Tamzin, yep I was hoping the words were few enough not to be a copyvio concern. I also sought to include the "Shawwāl 653" to ensure that date in the infobox was explained and cited. As for the rest of the article... I agree it may need work and hopefully someone more familiar with the subject area will improve it. I was only interested in citing the death date for its OTD appearance. Thanks for checking and for your tweak. JennyOz (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tomorrow's OTD

  • Please remove one of the two 19th-century anniversaries, for balance and also because they're both about Napoleons. If removing the first, please also replace the image. Thanks — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(December 2, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(December 5)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Most of the content of this blurb comes from The Roaring Lion and not the Winston Churchill article. This should be bolded also so the reader knows where the information is verifiable - Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Ahecht, you wrote the blurb. Any thoughts? Schwede66 15:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Schwede66 It was Ravenpuff that added the text about The Roaring Lion, I had just included information about Churchill. I have no objection to bolding. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 19:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dumelow, Schwede66, Ravenpuff. I think the greater concern is the copyright status. The Karsh website is very clear that they still hold the copyright to all his photographs, so the Library and Archives Canada never had the ability to freely release them on Flickr (and have since changed the licensing there to indicate "All rights reserved"). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 19:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Never mind, seems to fall Commons:Template:PD-Canada. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 20:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see on karsh.org: "All images © Yousuf Karsh". That is indeed of concern. Who knows why it was that those photos had previously been floating around with a free licence. We shouldn't run that image; I'll look for a replacement. Schwede66 20:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our posts crossed paths. Yes, it appears to meet the PD-Canada criteria. But in that case, it must also pass PD-US, which it doesn't. Am I correct? Schwede66 20:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if I'm parsing this correctly, it does not pass PD-US. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Swap with Template:POTD protected/2022-12-01 temporarily? (someone else will need to do this, I'm on my phone). Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Swapped as suggested; both the protected and the unprotected templates. Schwede66 23:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Now that the Churchill POTD isn't being run on his anniversary, we can remove the dates of his birth/death from the lead, keeping only the years. (Alternatively, we could further postpone the POTD to a future date, perhaps the anniversary of his death or the photograph itself?) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Request for comments: Do we need a second box for hooks on the Main Page?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to reject the idea of a new Main Page section. Storye book (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The issue to !vote on: Should we retain the existing DYK box as it stands on the Main Page, with its quirky hooks "interesting to a broad audience", but add a second box containing factual hooks for specialist articles?

Note: this issue to vote on is solely about whether we want a second box or not, and the discussion is about why we may or may not want a second box for WP's improvement. At this stage, it is not about logistics such as whether we have enough reviewers, or where the templates should be listed for review and prep, or Main Page overall design.

History: This issue was triggered by difficulties on Template:Did you know nominations/Talia Or (and previously many other similar difficulties on previous nomination templates). In the hope of resolving the difficulties which were stalling the progress of certain DYK nominations, a discussion and Rfc was opened at: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Request for comment: The need to update Wikipedia:DYK#gen3. The difficulty was that some reviewers felt that DYK hooks should all have quirky or intriguing elements aimed at a "general audience" (however one defines that). But some nominators and reviewers felt that sometimes a factual hook was the only type suitable for a particular article, even if that article contained potential quirky-hook material. It has been impossible to reach a compromise, and that is why the idea of an extra hook box arose, and why the Rfc has been opened here. Please see the "Possible reasons for adding another hook box" section below, for more information. Storye book (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

!voting

(Please !vote Yes or No, for or against an extra hook box, or for Other if you have a more complex view. Please keep comments brief so that the voting can be seen clearly. There is a discussion section for your longer comments, below.)

  • No - A longer explanation will be written below in the Discussion section. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, let's not make the Main Page even more convoluted. Also see discussion. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of people to mix different types of hook. Bazza (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - this sounds like putting very mundane information onto the main page. The idea of DYK is to get people to click the suitable article. We achieve no clicks on non-hooky items. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - A second box would serve unclear purpose (especially if it were effectively just replicating the DYK process/format) and needlessly dichotomize content as either "serious" or "fun(ny)"/"hooky". —⁠Collint c 15:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - I'm actually unbothered by "boring" or less quirky hooks mixed in with silly ones. If there's nothing funny to say about something, then it's quite okay to just state something important or interesting. --Jayron32 17:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. If DYK wants to modify the types of blurbs it runs, that's fine with me and something to be discussed within the project. FWIW I don't like quirky blurbs, because they're often misleading or confusing. I would prefer all blurbs to be factual statements, expressed in terms understandable by non-expert readers. Whatever DYK blurbs are run, I don't see any benefit to separating them into two sections on the Main Page. That's an unnecessary complication which would only confuse readers and make more work for admins & DYK queue prep, for no discernable benefit. Modest Genius talk 17:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - blurbs should never be so bland they need to be shoveled into a separate section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes - you nailed it. Therapyisgood (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - per Sarek of Vulcan's reasoning. It isn't that hard to find something interesting to say about an article. And if there really isn't anything better than the "singer sang song" level of comment, then don't bother taking it to DYK. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - I agree with above "no" comments. I also believe that adding an extra box would just make the main page more confusing to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia policy. I agree with Modest Genius that if the type of blurbs being run are an issue this is a discussion that should discussed within the DYK process. Also, what is "hooky" or interesting varies from reader-to-reader, and I have seen other editors like Modest Genius who dislike the quirky blurbs. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No There's a wealth of good reasoning below, but at the end of the day I'm most sympathetic to it being not needed. The main page is the introduction point. Simplicity as a design choice is well attested in the web design world and it makes it easier to navigate the main page. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible reasons for adding another hook box

(Note: this is not about criticising the policy and contents of the existing hook box. It is about whether we should add another box for articles which are peer-reviewed in exactly the same manner, but with a different type of hook)

  • Some specialist articles deserve factual hooks in specialist terminology which represent their contents or a main point of the article, such as "Scientist John Doe discovered Foo", or "This botanical species has been discovered to be related to that botanical species".
  • Hook-examples like the above, in specialist terminology, are important features of specialist journals, and in the right place they can elicit great excitement from the readers of such journals. But those people read WP too; sometimes looking for a first-stop glance at a subject peripheral to their own, to see if widening their view can shed more light on their work. Serious newspapers and magazine journalists constantly check online (including WP) for developments in academic and other specialist fields. We do have another audience, besides whatever concept we may have of a "general audience".
  • Our Main Page represents what we want the public face of WP to be. The current fun and quirky hook box represents our user-friendly side. But we do also have a serious academic side, and our articles do also serve specialist groups of readers such as those interested in baseball or railway systems.
  • The existing featured-article box is fine for featured articles, but it does not serve the need for the public airing of our newest specialist articles, which we can be proud of, too, however obscure their terminology.
  • "Specialist" can include any article whose special-interest hook is not designed to capture the casual browser. For example, Jargonese articles/hooks on baseball and computer games can be included, where only that terminology puts the point across precisely.
  • Even if a new Our newest specialist articles (or however-named) box were to be added, specialist article nominations and their hooks could of course still be featured in the existing DYK box. This request for a second box is only for those articles for which a quirky hook is deemed inappropriate by the nominator.
  • The additional hook box would not need to compromise space or cause slower uploading. It could be, for example, a scroll box. (The scroll box idea is just to suggest that an extra box could be done; how it is actually done is not at issue at this point). Storye book (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

  • I just do not see the point of having two separate article sections on the Main Page, one for "quirky" hooks and another for specialist information. Any desire to promote specialist articles on Wikipedia already have their own avenues, mainly DYK, but theoretically even other Main Page sections such as TFA/ITN/OTD and so on. Such a section would feel very redundant to DYK, which was always intended to promote topics that may not necessarily be familiar to our general readership. In addition, the comments above imply that specialist topics such as baseball, railways, computer stuff, and so on can never be interesting to a broad audience. If there is a desire to promote specialist topics on Wikipedia, what's preventing an editor for simply writing a hook about that specialist topic that still appeals to a broad audience? A specialist topic doesn't need to limit its audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You say, "the comments above imply that specialist topics such as baseball, railways, computer stuff, and so on can never be interesting to a broad audience". That is not the case, my friend. What I actually said was, "specialist article nominations and their hooks could of course still be featured in the existing DYK box. This request for a second box is only for those articles for which a quirky hook is deemed inappropriate by the nominator". Storye book (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a nominator does not want a hook that is interesting to a broad audience, and one is impossible, the nomination should be closed. A hook doesn't necessarily have to be quirky, but the rules currently state that a hook must be interesting to a broad audience. Barring a change relaxing or dropping that rule (and based on currents trends in the WT:DYK discussion, I frankly don't see a consensus for that happening anytime soon), a nomination can be rejected if no suitable hook is possible. If the nominator rejects all hook options, that's also a reason for closure since no consensus on a hook can be reached. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That puts nominators of specialist articles with informational (non-quirky) hooks in a situation where they have nowhere to go. They have no compromise/re-write of guidelines to permit their hook, and they have no other place for their hook to be aired. So they have to close their nomination, or it gets closed anyway. That is why we are here, asking for another box. No-one wants the hassle of another Main Page box, including me. But there is nowhere else to go. Storye book (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The solution is very simple: write a broadly interesting hook about a specialist topic. Editors have been able to do that for years no problem, so I don't see how it's impossible. I can understand if writing broadly interesting hooks about a field are impossible, but that's rarely the case. In most cases, a broadly appealing fact about a subject can be found if you know where to look. Even if one particular subject doesn't have a broadly appealing hook possible, that doesn't disqualify others in that field from having such hooks if it's possible. I don't see why there's an insistence on an "informational (non-quirky)" hook even when a broadly appealing hook is possible. For example, take the article Mami Kawada. Anime music is a very specialist topic and one that is niche. Yet the article was able to run on DYK with a non-specialist hook: ... that Mami Kawada's music career began after she was discovered by her music teacher? It didn't have a hook that went ... that Mami Kawada performed the opening themes to the anime Shakugan no Shana? because, despite being a specialist topic, a broad interest hook was still possible. Instead of insisting on a specialist hook, why not just simply follow existing guidelines and write a hook that is broadly appealing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree with your general point, you picked a horrible example of a non-specialist hook. That hook should have been tossed in the trash. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Back in the day we had subject-specific portals that could have subject-specific and specialist DYKs. Specialist content should be targeted at specialists, not given to all random strangers. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Kusma:. You say "Specialist content should be targeted at specialists". How do you suggest that we do that, if not with hooks on the Main Page? Storye book (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Put them on a page where more of the readers are specialists. You may not get many readers, but those you get actually care. —Kusma (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Bazza 7: You say, "I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of people to mix different types of hook". Do you mean that we could have two types of hook - quirky and factual - in he existing DYK box? Or do you mean that a single hook can contain quirkiness and factual information at the same time? Whichever is your meaning, I agree with your comment, and that is the type of compromise that we were looking for. We have been told that it's not going to happen. That is why we are here. Storye book (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Storye book I originally meant the former, but am happy to adopt your other interpetation of what I wrote as well! Thanks. Bazza (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Jayron32: You say, "I'm actually unbothered by "boring" or less quirky hooks mixed in with silly ones. If there's nothing funny to say about something, then it's quite okay to just state something important or interesting". You are, of course, right. However we have been told that such a compromise is out of the question. That is why we are here. Storye book (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not terribly sure what person told you that, but sometimes people are wrong. --Jayron32 17:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      There have been several statements to the effect that a compromise is not going to happen, or about what would happen if there were a no-change decision. One, by Theleekycauldron, on the Talia Or nom template, said " It seems that a compromise on a hook that satisfies both the nominator and the consensus of current guidelines is not obtainable at the moment". (The context was that the nominator wanted a factual hook, and the guidelines were perceived to demand a hook "interesting to a broad audience" which was in turn perceived to mean a quirky or intriguing hook). There have been a few statements by other people in the same vein, some saying that if a hook cannot be made "interesting to a broad audience" as described above, then the nomination should be closed. There have been suggestions that in exceptional circumstances a nomination with a factual hook should be referred to IAR, but I don't know what that is. There is a page WP:IAR which is called "ignore all rules", but it contains no formal process. On a DYK nom page it would have no sway. Storye book (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Look, I don't know what to say. When I'm named Emperor of Wikipedia, I'll make sure all of the hooks, boring or quirky, get posted to DYK. Until that point comes, however, I'm not sure what I can do for you. --Jayron32 19:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thank you, Jayron32. And thank you, everyone here, for voting as you have, so far, and for saying what you have said. This discussion - so far - has clarified for me what has happened with DYK and why we are here in this discussion today.
      Until this year, of course there had always been problems and brief spats on DYK templates, but on the whole it worked. Quirky and intriguing hooks aimed at the broad audience were passed, gave pleasure on the Main Page, and brought attention to new articles - all fine by all. And besides that, informational hooks were passed without tears or hostility, and achieved the same thing on the Main Page. It was like a sort of Paradise lost. Then a small group of reviewers took the guidelines literally and in narrow sense of "only quirky hooks will be passed, and nothing else", then they took issue with a small subset of nominators who wanted non-quirky, informational hooks for readers who may not be broad-audience-classified. Such nominations were the subject of a great deal of pressure to give in to the quirkiness requirement, and when nominators resisted, rejection was intimated. This caused a great deal of unhappiness on both sides. A formal discussion was raised, but all that did was to clarify to all that no compromise was going to happen, and that rejection from the DYK process was what our informational-hook nominators could expect.
      Before, the system worked. Now it is broken. Running away to create another Main Page Box is not going to work, because some comments by voters on this page suggest going back to the old pre Paradise-lost days, when we were permitted both sorts of hooks - but those days are gone.
      I am not permitted to close down any discussions, myself, as far as I am aware. But what I can do, is to stand up and say to those whose refusal to compromise is going to block the informational-hook nominators from the DYK process - please compromise. You no doubt have been doing your best for WP, but what you have actually done is to stall and antagonise many DYK templates this year, your actions have resulted in two Rfc discussions which have got nowhere, and while you sit triumphing in your castle of quirky-hookness, there are nominators out there who will be permanently left out of the chance to air their articles for the public. Who cares how many clicks an informational hook gets? What matters for some articles and some nominators, and ultimately WP in that case, is quality clicks, not only random browsing clicks by general-audience people who, faced with an article that they did not expect, may immediately close their browser window. I'm clearly not going to see a good result here, and neither are nominators of articles which certain reviewers have deemed good enough for WP but not good enough for hooks.
      In summary, there used to be inclusivity regarding both points of view in the DYK nom process. Now there is none, and one point of view is to be rejected from the system. I have tried and failed to regain that inclusivity by creating two Rfc's. For goodness' sake. All that is needed is to correct "interesting to a broad audience" to "interesting" in the DYK guidelines, and be a little more inclusive on DYK templates, and the problem is solved without any harm to WP. Storye book (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      This is not a great summary of the situation. The broadness criteria has been asked for and implemented for much longer than this year. Quirkiness is not a requirement, and is only sought out for one of the eight hooks; even then sets are sometimes run without a quirky hook. DYK continues to work and function up to this very day, with the main issue being constant delays in prep building and in queue transferring, which points to an issue of there being too many hooks per current manpower rather than too few. CMD (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I was using "quirky" according to its dictionary definition; a quick google gives us "having or characterized by peculiar or unexpected traits or aspects", i.e. not necessarily silly. I take that definition to mean the aspect used in the "broad audience" hooks to grab a casual browser's attention. Yes the broadness criteria did work for a long time, as I have said above. Pity that didn't last. DYK is functioning well in general, but no longer working as to certain aspects of inclusivity, as I have explained. And arguments on DYK templates about inclusivity have often, at least temporarily, taken valuable promoters and prep builders away from their primary work. Storye book (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I don't see how or why a hook can't be factual and broadly interesting to an audience at the same time. I mean, if a hook wasn't factual, it wouldn't have been allowed to run in the first place (hooks regularly get pulled for being inaccurate, for example). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Yes, of course the quirky/intriguing hooks have to be true. By factual, I meant as opposed to quirky. So long as they are true, it should be possible to make them either quirky/intriguing, or simply informational. If we could have a formal compromise, written into the guidelines, then we wouldn't need to be here, asking for a separate box. Storye book (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Modest Genius: You say, "If DYK wants to modify the types of blurbs it runs, that's fine with me and something to be discussed within the project". You are, of course, right. However it has been discussed innumerable times on the DYK templates, and formally in the discussion linked above (see the History paragraph). And it has become clear that no compromise is going to happen. If you are a DYK nominator wanting a factual hook for your specialist article, then without such a compromise regarding the guidelines, you are going to have to withdraw your DYK nomination. That is the current situation. I don't want the hassle of an extra box any more than all the "no" voters above. I want a compromise so that we can have both wholly factual and wholly quirky/intriguing hooks in the same Main Page DYK box, as we have had for years. But it was made clear that it was not going to happen, which is why we are here. Storye book (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why have you proposed something if you don't think it's a good idea? That seems like a WP:POINTy waste of time. Also, those linked discussions are very TLDR and lack a closing rationale, so I can't work out who (if anyone) has decided that hooks cannot be factual. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why did I start this Rfc? Please read the list of reasons above, headed "Possible reasons for adding another hook box". It's one of those things that you do because you have to, not because you want to. That's why. And I did say that I was considering doing this, in the other Rfc discussion, because I was worried that it might not be permissible. But I was given to understand that it was OK to do this. As for who, I'm uncomfortable naming names because everyone has a right to their opinion, but I suggest that you read through the other Rfc discussion, linked in the History paragraph, above. Storye book (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I know Story book means well, but I can't help thinking that what's being proposed is that we supplement the current "Did You Know?" section with a new "Why on Earth Would Anybody Care?" section. EEng 00:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's a little confusing to me that we're using "quirky" to mean interesting. @Storye book and Jayron32: quirky has a narrowly and specifically defined meaning in DYK terminology: it refers to the silly hook, of which there is exactly one in every set, at the bottom. The bottom hook should be quirky; the first seven simply currently need to be broadly interesting. Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Riner is interesting, but not quirky. The first hook proposed at Template:Did you know nominations/Pronunciation of GIF is quirky. They're not the same term. Could we please note that down? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you. I have explained my meaning above. Storye book (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion ended?

Thank you, everyone, for taking part. I believe that this discussion has now ended, and that the consensus is clear. I would like to get this discussion closed now, by removing the Rfc template above, by bringing in a closer to close it for us, or both (or of course anyone is welcome to close it down for me). I am writing my intention here so that if you have objections to the closure, you have the chance to say so. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is changing the Main page layout so difficult

I am aware that the Main page has been proposed for redesigned for centuries, but it looks like none of them has been adopted yet. What makes adopting a new Main page design so difficult, and how can we overcome them (just like updating the Vector skin)? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe because the page is fine, nothing broken, and readers and editors are used to it. Leaving things alone sometimes is the best remedy. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia's culture is against change for the sake of change or fixing things that are not broken. There isn't any consensus that the Main Page is currently broken, and any changes that would affect any of the content areas (DYK, ITN, TFA etc) would need buy-in from their supporting community. For any changes, you would need to convince a lot of people that change is needed and then go through a well-made RfC. —Kusma (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Say what? DYK was added only a couple years ago, with a bizarre requirement for "recent edits". Why is that relevant? Most of the items are interesting because they are relatively obscure, regardless of "recent edits". Also recency exacerbates poor vetting of the items, such as hooks that have been way off base -- look up the hook for Action bias back in September. Martindo (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
18 years, not a couple years. While I would agree with a more reader-oriented DYK, I know DYK people would say DYK exists to promote new article creation. Art LaPella (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A different view : Wikipedia in Android on Chromebook
There was a change made in 2020 so that DYK and OTD appeared in the mobile view. This is the view used by the majority of our readers and so presumably that's what Martindo is talking about. The previous suppression of those sections seems to have happened in 2016 but I don't recall the exact details.
So significant changes are being made but some editors don't have the big picture. For example, there are other views available in the apps for Android and iOS. These don't have DYK for some reason but do have other sections like Top read and Random article. Top read is particularly interesting because it highlights the most popular articles of the day and these are often surprising. For example, Dusty Springfield mysteriously spiked into the top read a few days ago.
I've been using the iOS app on my phone but just tried the Android app now this Chromebook supports it. Note that the sections which are shown are customisable so you can tinker with them yourself. And the default view had five columns on this screen (right).
So, to get the full experience of change, get out of your filter bubble and try all the views.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No matter the experiences other formats provide, if DYK, for example, isn't on their screen, then they are not looking at the main page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy more than a proof. Martindo (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, if a True Scotsman were looking at Wikipedia's main page and it didn't have DYK on it, the True Scotsman would not be looking at Wikipedia's main page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People can reuse Wikipedia's content in any way that is compatible with the license, for example by via mobile apps or ad-carrying versions like Wikiwand. That doesn't mean we need to consider the experience of people using Wikipedia's content anywhere but on Wikipedia as anything other than (potentially) inspiration for how we want people to experience our content here. —Kusma (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not talking about third-party tools. The Android app shown above is an official Wikimedia product and changes are being made to it. See recent discussion, for example. Even if you just use the desktop browser view, there are continual changes. For example, there's the new Vector 2022 skin, which has a big effect on the look. And there's lots of tinkering at a low level. For example, see Balance. So, there's not a timeless, monolithic main page which never changes.

Heraclitus, I believe, says that all things pass and nothing stays, and comparing existing things to the flow of a river, he says you could not step twice into the same river.

— Plato, Cratylus
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WMF mobile apps are so disconnected from the Wikipedia community's needs that I see no reason to view them differently from any non-WMF third party tool. —Kusma (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The previous suppression of those sections seems to have happened in 2016 but I don't recall the exact details. Those were "removed" from mobile a long time ago in WMF's attempt to find the best content to display on the mobile main page when they first developed the mobile skin and support. They introduced technical debt to do it then. Subsequently, other software was developed in the stack to support better user control of styling, which permitted us to more fully control what's displayed. Which is basically the only reason we see this content now on the main page (and not because anyone actively asked for it back, per se). Izno (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • CactiStaccingCrane If you tried to get consensus for the concept of "the Main Page should be changed", you might obtain it, but then the real disagreement is around what to change it to. That's usually where efforts to change the MP fall apart. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's true. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A camel is a horse designed by committee. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An extremely well-designed animal given its habitat, hopefully Wikipedians can actually replicate such an efficient design on this project. The descriptor we use, a "never-finished encyclopedia", resonates and, a thought, maybe a camel should become one of Wikipedia's symbols with the quote you use applied to it. Hmmmmm, maybe it really should be discussed as an alternate symbol with the quote attached, I can imagine some good designs just quickly thinking about it. So, where's my penny? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Added reasoning: apparantly camels originated in North America and migrated across the world, the same as Wikipedia (thanks Jimbo and Larry and the rest). Do either of you want to make this a "thing", I'll play. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a great idea, especially after the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi CactiStaccingCrane. I didn't mean as an official mascot or used on official names or capacity, but like that Japanese cartoon girl is already used as an unofficial mascot. This could be fun. Have to run, Thanksgiving stuff, and Happiest Thanksgiving to you (if you celebrate it)! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On second thought...maybe too much eggnog for me. If done right an unofficial camel mascot would work but probably not be popular, camels have their fans but not universal fans. Wikipedia does nicely adhere to the quote "A camel is a horse designed by a committee", and as long as people realize the amazing design ("design" not used in a "God" created it way - that would be Goddess) and functionality of a camel, but maybe making a mascot image of it would stretch the point. Unless Wikipedians in one of the countries which widely utilize camels would like to unofficially adopt a camel mascot. I've always liked camels when visiting them in zoos, and rode one once, but, unlike moose, I've never seen what a camel really looks like in the wild where its muscles would be fully developed (I felt the ground literally shake before looking up to see a natural giant muscle-bound moose run by). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Idea lab

I found the Vietnamese Wikipedia to be one of the most modern and usable Main page on Wikipedia. We can reuse a lot of the flat design, header, and even the task center for our new Main Page redesign. (See also the Main page redesign discussion there) However, some of the features are unsuitable here because of accessibility problems, such as using flexbox in IE 6, 7, 8, and 9. I'm going to mess around with the Vietnamese main page code a bit to make a demo for English here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll need to correct the fault which makes that page too wide for the browser window, regardless of that width. (Using Chrome Version 107.0.5304.107 (Official Build) (64-bit).) Bazza (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Vietnamese main page has an attractive look and their task centre is a good idea. What I notice is that they don't have an In the News section and have split DYK to replace it. DYK takes the place of ITN at top right and there's a new section of Good Articles underneath the FA section. As Storye book just proposed a similar split of DYK above, they should take a look at how they did it.
But they still bury the featured picture down at the bottom. I don't know why this is done when it seems so obvious that the featured picture should be at top right in the two-column view -- balancing the featured article and giving due prominence to a picture that is usually easy on the eye.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think trying to resolve the whole world has been a predominant issue of previous main page discussions. Moving things around on the main page is one of those "no one will agree" kind of questions. Can't we just start by eliminating our rainbow colors? An RFC with a main page marked up more or less as it is today but with much less color I anticipate could gain consensus. Izno (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MediaWiki no longer supports browsers older than IE11 and given how few pageviews we get in that regime, we don't either. In fact, flex box is used on the main page here today, in case you missed that. Izno (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia splash page English article count

On the international splash page for Wikipedia, the English article count is off by an order of magnitude, having "657 000+ articles" presumably due to a missed zero in an update. (Would this be a message for here or Meta-Wiki's Main Page?) Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a message for Phabricator. —⁠andrybak (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's not actually wrong, is it? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since all other languages there have more updated article counts, this gives a false impression that the English language WP is way behind them. So an update for en WP there is warranted. Brandmeistertalk 18:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How embarrassing that the Wikimedia Foundation with its staff of 550 and $160 million annual income can't correct such a straightforward and obvious error 2.5 days after it was reported - Dumelow (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Solving the problem is blocked on updating a volunteer-maintained tool; it's also the day after US Thanksgiving, so I imagine a lot of people are on vacation. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They could presumably just replace it with text that says "6,570,000+" while they work out what has gone wrong with the automatic update? Even if its slightly behind it would be better than the 657,000 that has been up for the past three days - Dumelow (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing we, here on the English Wikipedia, can do about this. This also has nothing to do with Main Page. Anyone is welcome to write and submit a patch. — xaosflux Talk 23:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vahurzpu: what makes you say that the tool is volunteer-maintained? Legoktm (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Legoktm: not looking too carefully and making a mistake. The "volunteer-maintained tool" I was referring to was pagecounts on Toolforge. Given that the source was hosted at https://github.com/MaxSem/pagecounts, I saw a Toolforge tool with source on a random personal GitHub, maintained by a user whose userpage didn't mention being an employee, and assumed it was volunteer-maintained. Looking more carefully, it appears that MaxSem used to work for the Foundation, and JDrewniak (WMF), who ended up actually fixing it this morning, is a current employee. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is weird that the code of this staff-maintained tool is stored on GitHub and not https://gerrit.wikimedia.org. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on WP:POTD template formatting

I've done what you described above, which was missing from the original request - Dumelow (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For context, the timeline is:
  1. Original request: Special:Diff/1124093224.
  2. Original fix: Special:Diff/1124093189
  3. Second request: Special:Diff/1124257325
  4. Second fix: Special:Diff/1124310153
—⁠andrybak (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dumelow and Schwede66:, and for anyone else wondering what this is about, I think what this is all getting at (in a rather convoluted way) is that Dumelow, as you're probably already aware, you made an error when you copied the unprotected version to the protected version. That operation requires copying of the blurb and, if necessary, image/credit details etc, into the relevant positions on the protected template. It doesn't mean copying the entire Wikitext of the unprotected template, though, because they have a different format. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Amakuru, I don't have much knowledge of POTD and will steer clear of fulfilling such request in the future. Can anyone explain why POTD is unique on the main page for having protected and unprotected versions of the template? It just seems to complicate things - Dumelow (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d be keen to learn about that, too. Here at Errors isn’t the right place. Post at Talk:Main Page? Schwede66 17:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want to say, Dumelow, although you didn't get it right, you also did nothing wrong. Please continue to fulfill error requests such as these. Mistakes happen. Very few people know these things. You are now one of them. It may an uncomfortable way to learn something but I am happy there is one more admin that understands how this works just a little bit better. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dumelow: oh yes, indeed, fully echo C&C here - I didn't notice your "steer clear of fulfilling such request in the future" comment earlier. Please do continue to handle them, it's not really rocket science once you understand the basics!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thirded! Schwede66 04:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dumelow, Schwede66, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Ravenpuff: continuing the discussion here, per your suggestion. Regarding why the POTD process differs from that of other sections of the main page, I don't really know the full history... I suspect it was just a historical accident though, someone set it up that way and a bot was written to match, and that's how it stayed. Some of this was alluded to at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_8#Further_discussion as well. Certainly I'd be happy if someone wants to propose an alternative way of doing it. The best way would I think be something akin to TFA, where editors edit the actual template that will appear on the main page, and it simply becomes protected by default 24 hours before its run starts as a result of transclusion at WP:Main page/Tomorrow. The main things that would need to happen to make this a reality are: (1) amend the default template for creating POTDs so that it has a user-friendly version of the "main page" format rather than the {{POTD}} template currently used; (2) amend AnomieBOT so that instead of doing the copying and archiving it currently does, its only role is to insert the previous few days' POTDs into the template, much as FAC bot does for TFAs; and (3) edit the main page and the derived versions Tomorrow and Yesterday to transclude the new-look POTD templates. Plus anything else I haven't thought of yet!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Users who often know much about the history of WP settings include Stephen and xaosflux; I'd be keen to hear from them. Schwede66 19:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also appreciate reform here; it is what has stopped me from attempting to support POTD using modern code under the hood, since otherwise the TemplateStyles will be copied onto many pages (an issue with the main page archives also as discussed somewhere or another). (The tables are a mess and it leaks into the main page styles directly to support small resolutions.) Izno (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]