This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I put the NSBPs in the span, but I'm not so sure about the magic word, especially in urls that are date-dependent (TFA, OTD, and POTD), although another sysop is welcome to try it. I'd also personally prefer the links to go on the right side of the header (opposite the title), but don't have the CSS skills to make that happen, unfortunately. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
So after my polite request above John M Wolfson made two further untested changes to the main page. Could I make the request a bit stronger then and ask that you do NOT edit the main page in future unless the change is fully tested and supported by consensus? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Why were these added with neither testing nor a consensus discussion? I have reverted pending a really good reason these are suggested to be necessary (because I don't see it). It causes FOUCs even for people who aren't admins, never mind MSGJ's comment above. --Izno (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks cool, I guess, but note that I've never been involved with any main-page operations. Maybe if an admin notices that a compromised admin account vandalized one of the sections? But that seems like a pretty unlikely case. The only other use case I can think of is being curious about what code is used to create a particular section, in which case these links would save some digging through the Main Page stuff.Maybe something more useful would be a {{navbar}}-style small and unobtrusive v · t · e set of links for each section (with appropriate talk page links), for admins? (Or even template editors?) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I created the links for the ease of ERRORS-centric admins such as myself who are unfamiliar with how to get to the transcluded templates of such niche topics as POTD and OTD, and prior to getting the mop I assumed they already existed. I don't know what "FOUC"s are, I did not myself experience FOUCs (and consider that an easily fixable issue), but while they were up they passed my basic tests of being unseeable when logged out and not causing major issues on a mobile device. Enterprisey's idea of VTE links seems workable, and I'm open to further tweaks in the sandbox, but other than the fairly weak argument of aiding a compromised account I see no reason why these links shouldn't exist and some reason why they should. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there any real benefit to having admins unfamiliar with how to get to the transcluded templates find an easy link on the MP? I kind of think there are more downsides than upsides. Even typo fixes are best at least mentioned at ERRORS, and the links are right there. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, for someone working at errors I imagine the links at errors would be sufficient, perhaps those are not discoverable as links of interest somehow? --Izno (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I dispute Martin's description of my further edits as "untested", as they were cosmetic/link changes from the initial edit. (I also did test the initial edit in Preview, but can concede such was inadequate.) As a gesture of goodwill and deference I will, however, not make any changes to the Main Page until consensus in this discussion is obtained, as these changes were more controversial than I initially thought. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Nice work
Very interesting main page today in just about every section, clicked through to a lot more articles than I normally do. Kudos to all involved. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Wow! Yes it must surely be a record. Well done to everyone who got all those articles up to scratch — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I was never asked about combining these into one nomination. They aren't a natural set, and are two seperate nominations. Hence, neither has gotten the full day they deserve by right.
THE PAGES HAVE A MASSIVE ERROR:Adolphe-Joseph-Louis Alizard is described next to the image of Gilbert Duprez, and vice-versa. So their time on the main page served to miseducate people.
Yeah, it's a fair point. I think the multi-set thing should probably be just for items which are visually very similar, and obviously linked, like members of a coin or note set from the same issue. During my time as coordinator, I scheduled several different views of Bath Abbey together, which is something I probably shouldn't have done, as each could stand in its own. I'm neutral on whether to run them again, but if we do, let's space them out significantly so that readers don't feel like their getting deja vu. — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If it wasn't for the error, I'd probably let it go, but with the error... But, aye, at least a year before they reappear. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs10:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, and yes it's a shame we didn't spot the error at the time. I'd say at least a year until the first, and then at least another year until the second... That's not so long in Wikipedia time! — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Rechecking, I guess it's kind of right, but confusing as it describes the person not pictured as well immediately after, and then gives a plot summary that minimises Roger's role, despite being ostensibly about him in one case, and kind of summarises the last three acts of the opera as "they then all go to Jerusalem", it's kind of easy to miss when playing "spot the difference". Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs22:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Redesign of the "Wikipedia languages" box
Hello all! A few of us have redesigned the "Wikipedia languages" box that appears at the bottom of the main page. The main change is improving the visual hierarchy, but we've also removed some duplicated or misplaced information. You can see the changes by comparing current to proposed. An admin has requested that we ensure there is consensus before implementing, so you are invited to leave any comments at Template talk:Wikipedia languages § Redesign (please do so there, not here, to avoid a WP:TALKFORK). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Diego Maradona photo
I think Diego Maradona is far more deserving of the front page "In the News" photo rather than some obscure and very local championship in Japan that not many follow outside Japan. werldwayd (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Much, much better, I like the new one, much less awkward and straight. Didn't I suggest almost exactly the same wording a few weeks back?† Encyclopædius17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Three of today's four OTD items are Germany-related, but none is about the 250th anniversary of Beethoven's birth, which has drawn widespread media attention in recent days. A missed opportunity. – Sca (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, good. There's apparently a bit of uncertainty about whether he was born on Dec. 16 or 15, but none about that. It would be good to say that he was born and baptized in Bonn. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
But DANG! — The baptism's's merely listed, along with two other anniversaries: "Ludwig van Beethoven (bapt. 1770) Pierre Paul Émile Roux (b. 1853) Alicia Boole Stott (d. 1940)." Woefully inadequate. (Who the heck are Roux and Stott compared to Beethoven?) Don't your realize that LvB is the ultimate megastar of Classical Music? (Would it help if I said Beethoven is the Bob Dylan of Classical Music history?) It's almost as if there were some cabal against featuring this historic anniversary in OTD. – Sca (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
You can raise a suggestion at WP:ERRORS by all means. I can't see if Beethoven has ever featured on OTD so given such a prominent anniversary it might be good for a blurb instead of just births/deaths/baptisms. And as you say, it's been publicised for a few days now so it's not like the chance hasn't been there to do anything about it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, we've never had an OTD item about someone's birth/baptism, where the significance lies with the individual rather than the event itself (Beethoven's baptism, although celebrated now due to his fame, was totally insignificant in 1770); the births/deaths line underneath the blurbs can serve this purpose instead. There's no stipulation that the three individuals included must be of roughly equal renown, and I think we're doing a pretty good job of commemorating Beethoven already. — RAVENPVFF·talk·20:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
You don't think "the significance lies with the individual rather than the event itself" – ??? Unvorstellbar. No Classical composer is more significant than LvB. Obviously, his brilliant and tragic future was unknown at the time of his birth. Doh. – Sca (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
PS: From German Wiki's OTD, Dec. 17 —
1770 – Der deutsche Komponist Ludwig van Beethoven (3. Sinfonie, Fidelio) wird in Bonn getauft, wahrscheinlich wurde er am Vortag geboren.
(Trans: The German composer Ludwig van Beethoven (Third Symphony, Fidelio) was baptized in Bonn; he probably was born the previous day.)
SCA, do you have a actionable solution to your problem, or are you just here to yet again tell unpaid volunteers working in their free time that they are terrible at their unpaid, volunteer jobs? --Jayron3215:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
2) The problem is not mine, it is, or was, English Wikipedia's.
3) I made no personal comments, and only addressed the editorial issue as I saw it – in an effort to improve our product. Anyone was, and is, free to disagree with anything I said.
4) Your comment above is polemical, snide and insulting. It ignores WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and is inappropriate for an impartial administrator. Please desist from casting aspersions at me or other users or maligning our motives. Thank you.
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.
To me, the first layout is mildly problematic: the second line is longer than the first, making it somewhat less clear where the first blurb ends and the second starts. Yes, I know there are bullets at the left end, but they're less distinctive than when the second line of the first blurb is clearly shorter than the first, as in when I'm logged in. (1) Is this perspective shared by others, or am I unusual? (2) If it's shared by others, is there any way that we could tweak something (maybe with CSS?) so that the first is longer than the second? If this were a permanent thing, I'd suggest that we place a nowrap around certain words so that they'd always appear together, regardless of browser settings, but obviously this would take a ton of time and testing to do manually every time, and the only other way I can envision to force this (tweaking wording of blurbs) would be ridiculous. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nyttend: when you are logged out you are almost certainly viewing the page in vector (assuming you are using the web view) - so that is already going to be a big styling difference. This may also vary based on your resolution; we normally would only no wrap items that are very useful to keep together, like the units identifier with a number. Do you want a specific word on this specific blurb addressed - or just want to discuss this condition in general? — xaosfluxTalk14:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's Vector. I'm mentioning this blurb only as an example; I really just want to discuss the condition in general. I only brought in nowrap to say "I know this wouldn't work". Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not fundamentally something we can or should control. Mobile display particularly is damaged by attempts to control where words wrap. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
So then we can't tell the CSS to render the last line's length no more than a certain percentage of a previous line's length? Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Certain percentage of container for a specific arbitrary passage. Or start a new line with a paragraph or new list bullet would be ways. Both of which are content decisions and/or impact the total column length of course. All of it arbitrary at that point though. --Izno (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm surprised to see, on the main page under Featured Article, a photograph of a dinosaur tooth, with a British penny for size. I know that happens in articles, but I know that it's specifically discouraged--with good reason. I myself have been to England several times--but now it's been a few years (and I've been to several other countries since then), and I'm trying to remember what the British penny looks like and how big it is. In addition to that, they've changed the size of the penny in my own lifetime. At least, they did so with decimalization; the old penny (pounds, shillings and pence) was about the size of the OLD, CLASSICAL U.S. silver dollar (NOT the current ones). Have they changed the penny since? I'm not even sure. I do know they've changed at least one coin SINCE decimalization. (The five new pence coin was originally the same size as the old shilling, since under the conversion they were mathematically equivalent, so they made the new coin to be interchangeable with the old; later they made a smaller 5 P.)
Hmm! I see that in my own--uhm--zealousness? to jump on things, I completely overlooked that rather conspicuous detail. I see now that it is the current British penny (I did have to go and look it up--but then I'm fretting about the size of the coin, and not the size of the tooth). Point taken! But I do happen to be well over 50. (On the other hand, by the time I first set foot in Merry Olde England, as a young man, the shillings and the 240 pence to the pound WERE history--albeit recent history.) Uporządnicki (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You already have the metric system measurement there for the rest of the world, why not have an American penny so Americans can know the size? And doesn't America have the largest economy in the world anyway, so its penny would be more widely recognized? DreamFocus14:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"In the United States, the Democratic Party wins control of the Senate..."
Not true. They have won 48 out of 100 seats. The only thing they accomplished was preventing the Republicans from maintaining their majority, which is all they could do ever since the results of the regular elections. "Winning control" hasn't been on the table for them since then. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
More specifically, in a 50-50 senate, the vice president casts the deciding vote to determine who is in the majority. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Do these two independent always vote with them? That seems odd. Specific information should be listed, not vagueness. DreamFocus01:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Nearly all RSes consider it a win for Dems being able to control the house (NYTimes, CNN, etc.), which is what we should follow the sourcing given how we reported the election results in Nov. --Masem (t) 01:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This does seem inconsistent - if they're independents, they are by definition not part of the Democratic Party. I'm no expert on this topic, but would it be more accurate to say that the Senate Democratic Caucus has won control, rather than the Democratic Party per se? Modest Geniustalk12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that's overly pedantic. The two did not run as Democrats, but because they caucus with them, the Democratic Party has won control.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to comment on the voting issue, that shouldn't really apply because even not all Democrats always vote with the party position. However, the independents caucus with the Democrats, which is why the Democrats won control, as reported by RS. It's the caucus size that matters, not the votes. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It will need to be nominated at WP:ITN/C. It appears the death has only just been announced so it should still be eligible; however it will need to be expanded as it is just a stub at the moment. P-K3 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to mention it, but at the moment the image is slightly cropped at the top and bottom in both Firefox and IE. I'm using the MonoBook skin. It's most noticeable on the Over One Billion Edits line, where the bottom one or two rows of pixels are missing. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)23:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
In about 40 hours, two days before Wikipedia's 20th birthday on January 15, we'll reach edit number 1,000,000,000. (See Wikipedia:Time Between Edits#Projections for details.) I think that's a reason to celebrate! Are there any plans to post something to the main page? I'm not acquainted with the processes for this page... — Chrisahn (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Last year we had a red banner underneath the Wikipedia globe logo to commemorate a certain number of articles created. ~ HAL33314:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is as "reader centric" as the x'th article being available for main page inclusion; I wouldn't be too opposed to maybe a short duration watchlist notice of "Congratulations on revision X, EDITOR" with a link to somewhere discussing it (WP:VPM maybe?) — xaosfluxTalk16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking whatever we're doing to celebrate the anniversary, just mention "and recently received its billionth edit" or something? —valereee (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay responding on the question about foundation-run CN banners for Wikipedia 20. There is a CN banner running starting today for a week. It will be seen for non-logged-in users until 21 January. You can read the banner text, check out the template and get some information about it in this FAQ page. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think, and this also concerns the future of the Main Page (MP), we should include alt texts in images to make it more accessible to those using screen readers. I believe there's a parameter for that on MP templates. GeraldWL15:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Xaosflux, I too see that. However I don't think that is sufficient as alt text, as it just copy the caption. For Peter Badcoe I expect it to be something like "Portrait of Peter Badcoe", as screen readers probably can't render "c." as "circa." For now, all alt texts here only follow the caption, so I request a different one. GeraldWL01:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
POTD images have a parameter "texttitle" which I have never really known how to fill out, and have tended just to duplicate the title of the article to which the image is linked. I think I "could do better" in this respect, now that I realise what it is all about. For example, today's texttitle is "Venus with a Mirror", whereas it might be better to have "Painting by Titian showing Venus with a mirror". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: thanks for the note, the screen readers should already being identifying that there "is an image" so we don't need to do something like say "picture of ...", but if the depicted media type (like in your example a "painting") is relevant, including it could be helpful. Pings to a few other admins that deal with MP content prep for input: @Casliber, Valereee, and Maile66:. — xaosfluxTalk14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text for this image of Elizabeth II should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat" @Xaosflux, thanks for the ping. I'd actually support all images on the main page requiring an alt text. We had a discussion about requiring alt text for DYK back in November. There was some opposition because what makes a good alt text isn't well understood by sighted editors, and I think that's a valid concern. The gist of MOS:ALTTEXT is that alt text should convey any information the image conveys to the sighted. It doesn't mean we describe what's in the image. That's not a difference that's easy for sighted people to understand. —valereee (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis, you mean that a better alt for the image of Elizabeth would be something like "Elizabeth II greeting the public"? Yes, that's what the alt for this photo is. It's a likely caption, too, and the alt shouldn't simply repeat the caption; apparently it's better to simply put "refer to caption" as the alt. Some editors might think the Badcoe photo would need an alt saying "Black and white photo of head and shoulders of a man in Australian Army officer's uniform, turned three-quarters to the right." —valereee (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, yeah, but sadly that's not how the alts for the MP photo currently is. The TFA alt simply reads "York City War Memorial", and the ITN image simply repeats the caption. "Refer to caption" could be fine, however what if the image (like the TFA) has no captions? Suggest having "Photo of the York City War Memorial", instead of just repeating the article title. GeraldWL14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: I'm certainly not the main audience for alt text reading, but I'm not following why adding "photo of the" would be an improvement here - that it is an image, and the rest of that phrase is already there - basically I don't think the fact that this image was originally produced via photography is important in this case (again, I'm not the primary audience so I may not have the best understanding). — xaosfluxTalk14:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
undent: Photo of I would say makes it clear what kind of image of the memorial is. Is it a drawing? Painting? Closeup of a specific memorial? "Memorial" does not do a good job communicating that much as a basic level. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I think photo/painting/engraving/etching or whatever maybe has to be balanced with brevity. My understanding is that the most important bits of info should go first in the alt. The point of an alt is to allow low-vision readers to get from the image the most important pieces of info that sighted readers get. The image to the right had a hook that said * ... that between 1920 and 1938, the NAACP flew a flag(pictured) at its New York headquarters to mark each lynching that occurred in the United States? The image was captioned "Flag flown by the NAACP". It clearly needed an alt; the crucial information being conveyed to sighted readers was the words the flag had on it. —valereee (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, imagine having the screen reader read "Flag flown by the NAACP". Then the caption is read "Flag flown by NAACP". It's repetitive. GeraldWL12:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know. That's what I'm saying: the image needed an alt that said something like 'Flag reading "A Man Was Lynched Yesterday" or something. That's what the image is conveying to sighted readers that is not being conveyed to those who are blind by the text or caption. And of course we aren't going to write a caption that explains what the flag says; that would look very strange to sighted readers. This is an image that obviously needs an alt. But many editors would write an alt saying 'Plain black banner with silver wording reading "A Man Was Lynched Yesterday"'. Which it shouldn't; at minimum the most important stuff should be first in the alt, and the fact there are silver words on a black background is not part of the information the image is conveying to sighted readers. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
So, I've been trying to provide alts for DYKs. What is the best way for this one: Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1? It's this ugly scary weapon, short-handled and with a sort of sickle and a weight at the end of a chain...is that part of what the image communicates to sighted readers? Or do we just refer to caption? —valereee (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Calling them what they are is fine; "two kusarigama, short-handled sickles with weighted chains attached at the blade" or similar seems fine. --Izno (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Valereee When I expanded the weapon article, my thought was "cool-looking scary weapon". I see how you arrived at your opinion though. :) SL93 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
"refer to caption" is completely useless alt text on the Main Page, because the alt text is the caption ... so I've gone and removed it here. Honestly as a screen reader user I don't think alt text is that useful on the Main Page and shouldn't be a priority here. I found this discussion through an off-wiki chat about the Main Page. Graham8705:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: The crux of the issue is that on the Main Page images do not have thumbnails or frames, so the caption parameter behaves differently there than almost everywhere else ... the caption is the image title and also the alt text. Alt text/"refer to caption" can be useful in articles, especially where the caption doesn't fully describe the image for all readers, but this doesn't apply for the Main Page. Also the Main Page just contains brief overviews/snippets of articles so longer descriptions aren't necessary there. Graham8702:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Wording for banner at top of talk page
Do you think we could make the wording on the banner at the top a little less... combative? Right now it reads:
Welcome! This page is only for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia's Main Page.
It is not for general questions unrelated to the Main Page, nor is it for the addition of content to Wikipedia articles.
Irrelevant posts will be promptly removed without prior warning.
Click here to report errors on the Main Page.
Proposal
Something like:
Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia's Main Page.
For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, visit the Teahouse or check the links below. To add content to an article, edit that article's page.
Irrelevant posts may be removed.
Click here to report errors on the Main Page.
I think rewording would make it more welcoming to new users, since Wikipedia is difficult enough to navigate and edit as is. Personally, if someone accidentally posted here I don't think it's too big a deal to just point them in the right direction. Thoughts? Fredlesaltique (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this something on which we could perform a crude experiment? For instance, if we try the proposed new wording, could we compare the rate of reverts before and after? If the rate isn't noticeably higher, and we don't notice any other detrimental effects, then the politer version should be preferred. In other words, it seems worth a try, provisionally. Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
My wording was just a response to Art LaPella's comment immediately above ("after 100 reverts"), and the implication that some people are perpetually busy with reverting numerous inappropriate contributions to the main this page. Thinking about it, I probably check the main this page often enough myself to know that there aren't that many cases per day when this needs to be done, but sometimes I see a response steering the errant contributor to a more appropriate venue. The test would be whether the need to do this jumps up if we soften our language. I have no idea if there is an easy way to measure this quantitatively, but maybe we only need to worry if the effect is obvious. Jmchutchinson (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I think if reverts are still occurring under our current banner, then however we word it bears no correlation to how many reverts we will end up having to make. It seems to me that people are just not reading it, the same way people fail to notify editors that they're bringing to WP:ANI despite the big warning at the top of the page.--WaltCip-(talk)13:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the banner! I simply just used the suggested message! Feel free to change it if you think it could be better. Frogface08 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, it looks like I got the ball rolling lol. I've learned that making bold changes on well-trafficked pages leads to ruffled feathers, so I usually post here first to gauge things. @Jmchutchinson:@WaltCip: The way I see it is reverts just come with the game, kinda like how in a restaurant you don't try and prevent 100% of potential customer scams cause it's part of the territory, you just assume good faith and roll with it. Plus people are going to make mistakes, just kinda happens.
The following discussion 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.
Am I the only one that is bothered by the use of "Over" instead of "More than"? Also, why is "Over One Billion Edits" in title case. It should be: "More than one billion edits". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It's bothered me from the get-go, but I figured it must have been due to lack of space or something. Kinda pressed for time IRL and didn't bother asking, but I'm glad you did. Armadillopteryx06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Over One Billion Edits is exactly right. By contrast, More Than One Billion Edits or More than one billion edits are clunky. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, like Johnuniq "over" seems pithier and more alliterative. Is it even incorrect? Merriam Webster (def 2 of 5, sense 3a) defines it as "more than," and AP Style book simply says "more than, over: Acceptable in all uses to indicate greater numerical value." ? Fredlesaltique (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
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.
Adding a link to the Teahouse in the “Other areas of Wikipedia” section
There is a consensus for adding a link to the Teahouse from the Main Page. The exact form this should take is unclear. Three ideas were suggested and received a favourable response: (1) adding an extra link to the Teahouse; (2) replacing the link to the Help Desk with the link to the Teahouse; (3) creating a splash page and linking to that instead. With option 1 editors had two concerns: (1) text should be added to explain to editors which venue is more appropriate for queries; (2) some editors felt having two links was redundant, and option 2 (replacing the link) was preferable. Unfortunately, discussion has pettered out and it's hard to ascertain a consensus for which of the three options there is most support for. Would suggest starting a new poll with the three options listed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
It's a good idea, but can we find a phrase to guide users whether the teahouse or help desk would be more appropriate for a query? Perhaps then both sites could be mentioned within a single line of text. Jmchutchinson (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jmchutchinson: How about something like this? "A place for newcomers to ask questions and get help with using Wikipedia." Maybe we could change the phrase for the help to "A place for experienced editors to ask questions and get help with using Wikipedia." Those are my suggestions and open to other interpretations as well. Interstellarity (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I will also link this discussion on the Teahouse talk page so that the people that work at the Teahouse can see this post and offer their suggestions. Interstellarity (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd say replace the current "Help desk – Ask questions about using Wikipedia" with just "Ask questions about using Wikipedia", linked to a splash page including WP:Help desk, WP:Teahouse, Help:Editing, WP:About, WP:FAQ and maybe a few others. The difference between the different help pages—some of which are sets of instructions and some of which are places to ask further questions—confuses even experienced editors; the nuances are far too complicated to cram on to the Main Page. ‑ Iridescent19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
What would the title of the splash page be called? Would it be an existing page or a page that doesn't exist yet? If a page doesn't exist yet, we could draft a page on what the page would look like. Other than that, I have no objections to whatever the final decision regarding this proposal would be. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I assume a new page as we don't really have anything existing (that I'm aware of) that isn't too complicated. What I'm picturing would basically replicate the "Stuck?" section of Help:Contents, with slightly expanded explanations of the entries. ‑ Iridescent19:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Iridescent, is WP:Questions what you have in mind? I'm somewhat opposed to adding an additional step in the process; it just adds to the impression that Wikipedia is an impenetrable maze. Just take people who want to ask questions to a place where they can ask questions, rather than trying to precisely funnel them via a multi-step questionnaire. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that's still too cluttered and technical—if we're going the "intermediate stage" route we need something very brief and very unambiguous. ("WP:FAQ to see frequently asked questions, WP:Teahouse for beginners to ask questions, WP:Help desk for users with some experience of Wikipedia to ask questions" is about as long as I'd go.) ‑ Iridescent19:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
In order to decide this, we'd need to have a clear idea of what differentiates the intended purpose of the Teahouse from that of the Help Desk. Wedon't. Until that question is resolved or we manage to merge them, we don't have a way to answer this well. In terms of de facto practice, I'm fine with it pointing to either but might slightly favor the Teahouse. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec)Keep it simple....don't make readers looking for live help click through and read multiple pages just to find the right place. Best to link the teahouse - a one stop asking place with our most friendly editor's familiar with repetitive entry level style questions. No link run around....if the teahouse is the wrong place the volunteers there will direct them to the right place.--Moxy🍁19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I think if a user doesn't know the Help Desk exists (and therefore how to access it), then their level of experience means that they are probably better suited to be using the Teahouse instead. Giraffer(talk·contribs)08:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It's good, but I think the wording should be revised. Possibly changing the Help desk line to something like 'For questions about editing Wikipedia' and changing the Teahouse one to 'Beginners focused help forum about editing and using Wikipedia', would be better. Beginners can ask questions at the Help Desk, but the Teahouse is generally better, and we don't want to make it seem like people are restricted in their choice of venue, but we also want to highlight that the TH is better for newcomers. Giraffer(talk·contribs)15:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Building on Iridescent's idea, maybe "Help - Ask questions about editing and using Wikipedia" could be better. A benefit of this idea is that there is room for links to more venues/pages than just the Teahouse and Help Desk. Giraffer(talk·contribs)15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
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.
Was there an avian date of significance this week that was being celebrated?
TonyTheTiger The was a problem with February 4 (Nine Inch Nails live performances) - effectively having a load of unsourced sentences in it - that was raised while it was on the main page, so someone quickly swapped it out with the one from precisely a year ago (we've done this before), obviously not realising that the previous day's had been a bird as well. I wouldn't have checked either tbh. Black Kite (talk)22:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like today's FA is in an equally terrible state, as it's sat on the MP all day littered with dozens of maintenance tags that were applied this morning. Perhaps someone should start checking these articles before they actually get to the Main Page? Just a thought. Black Kite (talk)22:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding Cebuano to the list of languages
I just wanna say, that I am not a speaker of Cebuano, I don't even know where the language is from. I just think that even though Cebuano has less speakers compared to others like German and French, that it should be added to the list of languages on the bottom. Even Swedish is listed on there, and from a simple google search Sweden's population is less than how much native speakers of Cebuano there are. Cebuano is also the 2nd largest wiki on Wikipedia. I see no reason why it should not be listed at the bottom of the page. Max20characters (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Max20characters: you can propose changes to that here: Template talk:Wikipedia languages - keep in mind the primary inclusion criteria for that list is that there is another wikipedia language project with a lot of articles. There are Wikipedia in LOTS of languages, see [3] to help find it in the language you would like to read. — xaosfluxTalk23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The pandemic is still ongoing. The amount of deaths is two million and the total infection number is rated at 10% of the world population more or less, with multiple governments across the world in lockdown. It is very likely for the pandemic to last for nearly another year unfortunately, so it seems premature and odd to remove the template as if Covid19 stopped having any impact at all. –Elishop (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Halaman Utama. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 16#Halaman Utama until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 16:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello all! A few of us have redesigned the "Wikipedia languages" box that appears at the bottom of the main page. The main change is improving the visual hierarchy, but we've also removed some duplicated or misplaced information. You can see the changes by comparing current to proposed. An admin has requested that we ensure there is consensus before implementing, so you are invited to leave any comments at Template talk:Wikipedia languages § Redesign (please do so there, not here, to avoid a WP:TALKFORK). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Remark: this is from Template:Other areas of Wikipedia. — xaosflux Talk 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
