This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Is there a reason for having a permanent link to Syrian civil war at the "In the news" section? There are countless ongoing news topics in the world, more or less dozens at each country. Why is that one particularly special? Cambalachero (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to see it removed, start a discussion at WT:ITN where such discussions usually occur. When a major news story is constantly changing, it is common to place it in the ITN section as a "sticky" link rather than letting it rotate off over time; some months ago a decision was made where many editors agreed to place the Syrian Civil War as a "sticky" link in ITN. No discussion has yet been started to decide to remove it. You're free to start that discussion if you wish. --Jayron32 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not requesting to remove it, I was just curious. Where did that discussion took place? Cambalachero (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2012#Hundreds killed in Homs; Colvin, Ochlik, too. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a year ago. Is it not time to revisit whether or not it should still be a sticky?--WaltCip (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's been revisited more recently than last February (specifically September 2012). However, it's certainly been a long enough time that it wouldn't be obnoxious to bring up the subject again. -- tariqabjotu 17:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I didn't know about that feature of "sticky" topics. I think that perhaps the link should stay until there's a good other sticky to put instead, but in any case it should be discussed at the same venue pointed here. Cambalachero (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The link seems to have disappeared from the front page. Could it be restored please. Ta. Rcclh (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And get rid of that recent deaths ticker too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tone made the edit to hide it. I've asked him to undo it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I will like to call to your attention that tomorrow is the 150 anniversary of the London Tube, the first underground metro rail in the world. I believe this commemoration merits a note somewhere in tomorrow's main page. Just a suggestion. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the anniversary is Thursday, and we have got the Metropolitan Railway lined up to be the featured article of the day. If you'd like to get involved in similar processes in future, check out WP:TFA. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance for future suggstions. Please check The Economist, which back then reported the event and the TfL site here, these reliable sources say the anniversary is on the 9th not the 10th (I am aware that the panels on Baker St station says otherwise, but I will go for the reliable sources). Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

According to our article, the formal opening ceremony was on the 9th but the actual public opening was the next day. I guess you can reasonably claim either as "the" anniversary. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

On 9 January 1863 there was a ceremonial run on the railway to a 700-seat banquet at Farringdon. The following day (a Saturday) the railway opened to the public and the railway was overwhelmed with almost 40,000 passengers, requiring extra trains to be put on and some booking offices having to be closed several times. The history books, such as Jackson and Green, write significantly more about the public opening. There are on-line sources such as London Transport Museum, the BBC and Museum of London that quote the 10 January date.

The scheduling of articles for the main page are requested at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests. We have Richard Nixon running tomorrow on the 100th anniversary of his birth day. Edgepedia (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 10, 2013 to make it clear that it marks the 150th anniversary of the opening to the public. Any further tweaks are welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 17:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As many eyes as possible on Nixon over its 24 hours on the main page, please. I will be unavailable as one of the main editors for a good part of that as I am flying.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You guys are doing an excellent work, congrats.--Mariordo (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the recent horrible crime in Saudi Arabia worthy of mentioning in the news section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F480:4:179:226:9EFF:FE7D:23CA (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not welcome such POV pushing and attacks on nations anywhere, including talkpages. If you continue with this behavior, you will be subjected to sanctions preventing you from editing. Getting (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I see many users suggesting inclusion of particular stories to ITN. I agree with Crisco 1492, feel free to nominate it. I don't see how this justifies a threat to an obvious new user, with sanctions and accusations of POV pushing(which to be fair I didn't pick up on, unless I'm missing something?). What happened to WP:AGF? Perhaps a little more guidance and a little less hostility will result in more productive editing. Robvanvee (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP referred to Saudi Arabia as the worst nation in the world, but that was removed by someone else. This story, by the way, has already been nominated for ITN at WP:ITN/C; it's still unclear whether it will be posted, but, unfortunately, many of the supporters are supporting it [the nomination for ITN] for political reasons. -- tariqabjotu 11:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah...thank you Tariqabjotu. As I said, unless I'm missing something. Robvanvee (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have little doubt that the above IP traces back to Sri Lanka. Sadly, these kinds of things happen often. Tons of Malay and Indonesian housemaids have been killed in the Arabian peninsula, or killed in retribution when they fought back. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Feel free to nominate at WP:ITN/C — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Traditional Day" in Benin needs to be repiped to Fête du Vodoun.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Neither article is particularly good though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus got vandalized (it's been reverted). Why not fully protect the things we put on our front page for the twenty-four hours (articles and images) or for as long as it's the top of ITN?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Images on the main page are fully protected already. TFAs are not edit-protected routinely, although they may be given semi-protection or even full-protection if warranted; they are move-protected while on the main page. TFAs are often (though not always) improved to some extent by appearing on the main page and it would be a shame to force everyone to use ((edit protected)) to improvements to the day's flagship article. Vandalism to the TFA is generally short-lived, and the edit filter prevents some vandalism edits even being saved. The most recent story at ITN may well be a developing news item, and forcing full-protection would be problematic too. See Wikipedia:For and Against TFA protection. Bencherlite^Talk 23:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the Main Article not a regular patrol point for members of the CVU? (Well it is for me but i'm only one member so the actual outcome may be much different.) Is there such an article for discussion of if the Article of the day should be Semi-Protected? MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 11:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See also Special:RelatedChanges/Main Page. I think almost all requests for categorical protection vastly underestimate the dedication of the Recent changes patrol. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed an amendment to the wording of the restrictions on GibraltarpediA articles on DYK. For details, please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposed minor wording change to Gibraltarpedia restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The direct link from Google to the main page seems to have disappeared. Top links go to here and here. The main page is a much better shop window; does anyone know why the link been removed? Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You would have to ask Google. I agree the Main Page should be their first recommendation for any reader who types "Wikipedia" into the search box. Binksternet (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually for me www is the main link but en.wikipedia (which redirects to the main page) is the second link under the main link. India, Mitt Romney and simple are the other links. The link to wikipedia articleis in another result completely and only comes after the news links. The en vs www issue is one of language more then anything else. Either way as you say this is the wrong place, in fact in multiple ways. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't get a link to this page, even with a search for Wikipedia Main Page. Has there been a ___NOINDEX___ tag transcluded on to the page?  An optimist on the run! 21:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not noindexed. Possibly Google has logic that if the front page of a website (en.wikipedia.org) redirects to another page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) then it will show the shorter URL in search results. Prodego ^talk 21:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake - missed the difference between http://en.wikipedia.org and http://www.wikipedia.org   An optimist on the run! 21:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Slightly earlier than perhaps is usual, a discussion has started at WP:TFAR about what article to run on 1st April 2013. The thread is on the talk page at this location. Please do not leave comments or suggestions here, otherwise the discussion will be split between multiple venues which is not a good idea. Bencherlite^Talk 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article? Modest Genius ^talk 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that's what it's meant to be for, but you might want to mention the other page at WT:TFA/R, since I've seen discussions there from time to time on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have left a pointer to the TFAR discussion at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article and Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page as well. Bencherlite^Talk 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

appearing in place of the WikiPedia logo on the upper left-hand corner of all the pages? I tried clicking on it, but all it did was renew the Main Page. What is it and what is it for? Cheers, Shir-El too 17:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What browser are you using? I can't seem to replicate the problem in the latest releases of Firefox, IE or Chrome. 129.234.235.156 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems moderately redundant to give the same 1933 cricket event two prime slots on the main page. 96.246.28.108 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, will look for an OTD replacement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Wut? You guys censored the second most popular sport in the world not played in Serbia? –HTD 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Huh? Do I hear chirping? In all seriousness though, same event = TFA prioritsed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Some seemingly random Merkin bore rears it's ignorant head, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.233.92 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry some random college football game 99% of the world doesn't care about isn't the flavour of the month here. --85.210.109.66 (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like cricket, then maybe edit some other non-cricket articles to get them upto DYK/FA status. It's not rocket science. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A cricket cartel is obciously at work here: Not only is there a feature article about somebody getting hit by a cricket ball, but there is a dyk about cricket.202.179.19.14 (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the FA is about the supposed "Adelaide leak" of information to the press that followed someone being hit by a cricket ball – although no one else apart from WP appears to call it that and quite why the page exists at all, let alone is on the front page as today's featured article is a little mystifying. It's the latest in a series of TFA's I've seen about minor aspects of genuinely notable events that have no independent notability in themselves, but that have been blown up out of all proportion and given made-up names by one or two WP editors and eventually catapulted to the front page. It's embarrassing. The Action of 1 January 1800 from earlier this month springs to mind. There's a difference between bringing to the front page genuinely interesting but obscure topics and just spinning out minor facets and passing details of such topics into articles in their own right. N-HH talk/edits 10:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• @202: The OP was referring to OTD.
• @N-HH: No comment on either the current TFA or the action of 1 January, except that Wikipedians are allowed to give events neutral names where there are no standardised English-language ones. 1740 Batavia massacre comes to mind here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Every time someone complains here about cricket on the main page, a kitten is shown footage of Mitchell Johnson's bowling. Please, before complaining, think of the kittens. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

@Crisco: I agree that sometimes we have to create more descriptive titles but equally we have to be careful about appearing to totally invent semi-proper names for things and afford them some kind of encyclopedic imprimatur. Plus the absence of a formal, accepted name for some event or thing – or indeed of any name, whether commonly accepted or not (sometimes of course you get an event known by a variety of names) – should surely be a warning sign that the thing in question might not have any pre-existing, discrete notability. As secondary points, I'd question whether any title with the word "massacre" in it is really neutral, plus that I quite like cricket. N-HH talk/edits 12:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• A literal translation of the Dutch name would be (roughly) "Murder of the Chinese", which is... somewhat less encyclopedic. No comment on cricket, as the sport is about as foreign as Brazilian cuisine to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree, but you come across as such a blowhard, I'm forced to disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.34.214 (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick note about the non-neutrality of "1740 Batavia massacre": "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. (copied from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)" --Khajidha (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we ought to be careful as to what we name articles, since many incidents and scandals nowadays are given pseudonyms by media higher-ups based on potential ratings and subsequent profit, e.g. anything that ends with gate. In the interests of remaining encyclopedic, article titles should rightfully be generic and, well, "boring".--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We've strayed a bit from where we started, and from front page issues, but just to say that I agree and understand that policy is – very sensibly – pretty clear about it being OK to use terms like "massacre" when that's genuinely part of an accepted and long-standing name for something, even though it's prima facie non-neutral and may even be said to overstate the event in question. I only raised the point about lack of neutrality in the context of WP having to create descriptive names, when no accepted name exists, which was the example given. N-HH talk/edits 09:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The banner should say which one. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What banner? Modest Genius ^talk 11:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday and early today, all pages when I was logged in had a banner advertising for Wikipedia:Merchandise#Wikimedia/Wikipedia Shop with a text saying something like Happy Birthday to Wikipedia, 15% off on all merchandise today. Wikipedia launched on January 15, 2001. There was only one Wikipedia at the time and not multiple languages. I guess the term English Wikipedia wasn't used until other languages were introduced. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I logged in several times over that period, and never saw any such banners. Nor do I have the 'suppress the fundraising banner' gadget enabled. Odd. Modest Genius ^talk 00:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Banners? I've logged on here and haven't come across any banner...Of course that could be because I hardly pay attention to advertisements on any site..lol Maybe I need to pay more attention to the entire page instead of only half..--67.142.175.20 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Which anniversary rather than which Wiki (unless Which has a Wiki of its own). Perhaps a number should be included another time (and a 'voting-themed main page' for 15 January 2019). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was incredibly obvious you were talking about which birthday... -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that banner. Maybe you had to be *not* logged in on the main page to see it, as with the fundraising banners? - Tenebris 02:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.109 (talk)

• Nope, I saw it three or four times while logged in. They were supposed to have different days, one for logged in editors and one for logged out editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

((sudo)) The Main page includes:

! style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-tfa-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">((#ifexpr:((formatnum:((PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/((#time:F j, Y))))|R))>150|From today's featured article|Featured article <span style="font-size:85%; font-weight:normal;">(Check back later for today's.)</span>))</h2>

This results in a validation error: "The element h2 must not appear as a descendant of the th element." See the W3C markup validation for Main Page. Per the HTML Living Standard, the <th> element may contain "no header, footer, sectioning content, or heading content descendants." That is, you can't use <h2> in a table header. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean shouldn't, not can't. It certainly can (and has for years).

I think the semantic markup (h2 headers following a display:none;'d h1) is more correct than the alternative (using divs for the headers). I suppose the tables could be removed (to appease the folks who hate using HTML tables for layout), but nobody has been able to get the resulting output to look the same, as I recall. Getting the two columns to be the same height is the main problem, I think.

What do you recommend? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On re-read: is the issue only the combination of th + h2? Would td + h2 be acceptable? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking that. Looks like it is allowable for td. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I tested here. The visual output looks identical and the validator is no longer throwing errors about th + h2.

I suppose it's fit for a passing admin to sync that sandbox revision with the live page now. Adding a ((sudo)) tag. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK to me in terms of output, even if I was tempted to give you a ((Uw-notenglish)) for the code discussion ;-) –  Done Bencherlite^Talk 18:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Just cleaning up stuff bit by bit. I am working on the other validation errors. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a redesign of the Community portal. Do you think the description at Template:Other areas of Wikipedia ought to be changed ? Cenarium (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm reticent to abet an anti-US diatribe, but if I remember correctly (I can't be arsed to scan the archives) a subject (or one as close as the executive and legislative branches of the US) should be represented in not more than one section on the main page at a time. I think the decision was raised during a discussion of the saturation of the main page with 9/11-related topics. Does this not apply today or would a similar setup (for the election of the UK prime minister in 2015, for example) be met without resistance (assuming a relevant FA and FP exist, of course)? 129.234.235.156 (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Both the featured article and the image are american centric topics today, this should be avoided in future imo. lesion (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

americana? Never heard of it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Americana. For what it's worth, I agree that the current TFA and TFP should not have run on the same day. Modest Genius ^talk 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought Americana was a type of Coffee. And I knew someone would point out what the OP has ;) --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that having two sections devoted to American topics is ridiculous. Over half of the native English speakers in the world live in the US, so to be fair we really should have three sections for American topics. — RockMFR 00:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why bother having any topics about anywhere else in the world at all, by that jingoistic rationale? Or do you genuinely think that English-speaking people should only read about things from English-speaking nations? 87.112.228.104 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• If so, Rock could prepare for a massive AFD. Everything in Category:Indonesia and its subcategories, for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We have plenty of days with no American topics at all. An occasional day with several is only to be expected. Seriously, this isn't a big deal - nor is it a new topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That was actually my error because I hadn't realized that the public presidential inauguration ceremony was in fact on the 21st. —howcheng {chat} 08:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Since yesterday I'm geting the main page of the previous day only, it is as if it were "Main Page yesterday".I have this problem on two different computers, though it occurred on the newer machine only today, so it is not an error in the PCs. I deleted the temporary files and the cookies on the older machine, but to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.255.138 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is being dealt with, and is a known problem. See immediately above. --Jayron32 20:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Same problem here. This is like the wiki version of Groundhog day. :D I guess we have to be patient. Thank you, have a nice day. 130.79.37.163 (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also experiencing this. My Wikipedia view is showing 23 January that's now 2 days out of sync. Is this a server problem or updating problem? User:SKC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.135.88 (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We believe the issues with the main page should be resolved. If you continue to have problems, please report it on the Village Pump. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In "On this day" section, why republic day of India is not incuded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.48.232 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably because there is limited space in the section, and every single observance cannot be listed every single year. It was listed last year: [1]. --Jayron32 05:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Republic Day (India) has too few references (it's not tagged though). Citing that article should be easy. A holiday of a major English speaking nation should have not been removed, if the major reason is lack of space; a badly cited article could have been a better reason. –HTD 05:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? The history section seems to have been tagged since November last year according to the date on the tag. The article has had a lot of edits recently so it may have been removed for a while but the tag was there about 2 weeks ago. I'm pretty sure a maintenence tag like that anywhere in the article is enough to make it ineligble for SA/OTD. Howcheng gave ineligibility due to the tag when removing [2] I doubt it would have been removed otherwise, nothing was added to the SA section. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It must've been tagged when Howcheng saw it. –HTD 14:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW in case there's confusion what I mean is the section is tagged now and was tagged about 2 weeks ago, and as you say must have been tagged whe Howcheng looked at it. I can't say if it was tagged when you looked at it or not since there have been a lot of edits and I'm not planning to check to see if it was removed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As stated earlier, when I saw it, it wasn't tagged. Some paragraphs were uncited, yes, but I dunno if it's bad enough to be tagged, or to be left out entirely on OTD. It's judgment call for either option. –HTD 15:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Two of the subsections in History have no references, so IMHO the tag is justified. —howcheng {chat} 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A few months ago, there was a Main Page redesign competition with the (original) aim of redesigning the Main Page for January 1. Obviously, that didn't happen, but it seems like (at least looking there) the process has stalled. Has the discussion moved elsewhere? Are there still plans to redesign the Main Page? -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like there's always someone who wants to do this. We should just put it into WP:PERENNIAL. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but seemed to have a lot of steam, with a structure that appeared to be heading toward an actual change. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I mostly ignored that page since I considered it doomed to fail. It seemed way to similar to the last serious attempt in being structured like a contest. While I appeciate the design by committee approach doesn't tend to work well, I think it's clear the contest approach doesn't either. Nor does an excessive elements in isolation approach. Also I think it's clear that anything like this is going to take a long time, unfortunately unless there one or more people willing to push it for 6 months to a year, and with the temperament, patience, collaboration, community engagement, communication skills andtimeneeded, I'm not sure it's going to succeed even if the right approach is used. And that includes learing from previous failures. I didn't pay enough attention to say this is the case there but in general one big problem with these sort of things is we tend to get people who push it for a while, possibly without learning from the history, but quickly stop once it becomes clear it is not going to be simple. I believe David Levy made similar points. P.S. looking at the page, it seems it was slightly better then last time in actually having suggestions to test the design and some suggestions for a criteria and being less of a free for all but it still seems a bit flawed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that people will veto any redesign which in any way weakens their concept of what the Main Page should be. Given the number of differing opinions on the page, in practise this means that all current elements must be kept with roughly their current prominence for a redesign to have any chance of succeeding. That's one heck of a design constraint. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 09:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the only way to proceed is to ask people what they absolutely hate about the main page - what are just bad design choices and make like hard/annoying, or not make wikipedia what it is suppost to be. At least this way we can isokate the factors and hopefully make a productive change as a result, rathrr than having a series of "what i think the main page should be"s. Cpuld be a. an idea...--Coin945 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What would it take for the proposal with the most votes in the straw poll to become the new main page format? --Pine^✉ 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A miracle. More seriously, an RfC on this page with at least several hundred contributors, with consensus clearly in favour of the change. Modest Genius ^talk 13:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we "undesign" the Main Page first? Take it back to a simple search page, then we can have more fruitful discussions about what needs to be added (or added back) and what form those additions take. --Khajidha (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am thinking about starting an RFC with a simple choice, "support" votes would be supporting changing to the design that had the most votes in the straw poll, and "oppose" votes would be for keeping the current design. Would anyone like to comment on this proposal before I boldly go ahead with this RFC? Personally I will be neutral on which design we should have, but I think we should have the RFC. --Pine^✉ 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the submissions are rough drafts, never intended to serve as final designs. The idea was to use one as the basis for further development and refinement.

The problem, as several of us warned the organizers, is that the first stage was structured as a competition, with zero consideration of what elements needed improvement/replacement. So instead of collaborating to address the community's concerns, individual participants created designs suiting their personal preferences (most of them cruder than the existing main page alternatives) and voted on them as package deals.

Like last time (when similar mistakes were made), the endeavor fizzled when people realized that the approach (competing against each other instead of collaborating) failed to yield much useful data to carry forward.

That's not to say that nothing of value can be salvaged. The 2006 main page redesign almost failed for the same reason, but it was refocused and ended up succeeding. We certainly can consider the designs proposed and feedback received, but we first must determine some concrete goals apart from "change". —David Levy 22:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, what specific steps would you propose? Creating a working group or an RFC about what the goals should be? --Pine^✉ 08:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The first step probably should be to determine which editors involved in the redesign attempt wish to continue. Then we can solicit additional participation and work toward formulating a viable set of questions to ask the community. —David Levy 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I understand your point of view, but I also worry that such a process could be like the perennial discussions about RFA reform which involve countless proposals for change but none of them get enough support to move forward so the result is stagnation. How would we prevent that kind of gridlock in the kind of process that you're suggesting? --Pine^✉ 20:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

By determining the community's actual concerns and working to address them (instead of throwing random ideas against the wall to see whether they stick). That's what was done during the last successful redesign (and not done during the subsequent failed attempts). —David Levy 21:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so would you suggest that we set up a dedicated talk page or Wikipedia page to invite people to suggest ideas, and that we invite the participants in the most recent redesign attempt to participate? I think we would clutter this Main Page talkpage if we tried to have this discussion here, so where would you suggest that we have this discussion? --Pine^✉ 21:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I just tagged Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal "historical" and temporarily moved its talk page to Wikipedia talk:2013 main page redesign proposal (thereby placing the latter title on previous participants' watchlists) before archiving it. Then I posted a discussion invitation on the new talk page. We might want to also contact those editors directly. —David Levy 22:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, now discussing at Wikipedia talk:2013 main page redesign proposal. --Pine^✉ 00:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Today is the International Latvia's de jure day. Please add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardRech (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this day listed in Public holidays in Latvia, and my search for "latvia de jure" did not turn up any relevant articles. Perhaps you could point out which article should be selected? —howcheng {chat} 16:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the original poster is referring to this. --Khajidha (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. That article happens to be featured on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 4, so we wouldn't be listing it on January 26. —howcheng {chat} 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair what the OP appears to be referring to is only an aside in the article. The article is largely covering Latvia regaining its independence in 1990 while the OP is referring to Latvia's initial independence which is covered in various places but doesn't seem to be in a distinct article. If this day is really recognised as a holiday in Latvia as the op seems to be suggesting, we probably should have an article on it. I admit to being a bit surprised though, even in terms of the initial independence, I would have thought the day they declared independence or something of that sort would be more important then the day they were recognised by the last group of major powers at the time. Either way there's nothing we can do until its better covered in a distinct article. N.B. It does seem this day has some significance in Latvia [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK: desgregation ? Reelly? Shenme (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a question we can help you answer? --Jayron32 00:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the answer that needed to be questioned. Shenme (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And as the person responsible for the original typo, I apologize. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There will be changing of the welcome message, and other changes. 198.228.228.18 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I disabled the template. As it clearly says, you need to specify exactly what change is needed and get consensus for the change, neither of which you've done so far. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It says there are 3 types of nail clippers, but I only see two? Robvanvee 05:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The right two are of similar, but not identical, design. The rightmost one has an added file/pick and has a concave-curved cutting area. The middle one has a straight cutting area. --Jayron32 06:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

While the cutting areas of the right two are differently shaped, I believe the center one also has a file/pick. You can make out the flanges on either side of the lever and the thin blade of the file under it. --Khajidha (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• The image description page says one was for toenails and one was for fingernails. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The sinking occurred in 1945, not on 1942 as stated in "on this date." -Arch dude (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks (although, for future reference, errors on the Main Page are better noted in the Errors section at the top of this page). -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How important person is Sakine Cansız that she is on the main page news for almost two weeks. Please protect Wikipedia from being a political side. Thank You.212.156.67.30 (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I fear I never have properly understood the parameters of ITN, but I must concur. Who? Sca (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Items are only bumped when new ones replace them. This one's persistence is a result of slow news, not relevant importance. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 13:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of 'who', as that she was, in fact, a prominent political activist, even if you or I had not heard of her - and that every indication is that she and two colleagues were the victims of political assassination in the heart of a major western capital. That sort of thing is big news whether or not you'd previously heard of the victim. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

How come you decide it was a political assassination? An oracle maybe? 212.156.67.30 (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This was the view given in reliable independent news sources - in my case, the BBC. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It was removed on 17th January but came back after days. So its nothing about replacing news in order. Some people on Wikipedia is pumping news about her and her aims. This makes Wikipedia project a political side. Pls be aware of it. 212.156.67.30 (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It was restored (along with another item, glad to see you mentioned that oh wait you didn't) with this edit, with the reason specifically given as "main page balance" (the need to keep the left and right columns of a roughly similar size). The reason those two items were the ones that were restored were because they were the next most recent, and like I stated, news items stick about in chronological order so there was no reason to skip it for another item instead. GRAPPLE X 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And who, exactly, are you accusing of this bias? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am accusing no one. I a m trying to say everyone must be more aware for keeping Wikipedia neutral. Because some people are really tring to use Wikipedia for their purposes. Thanks.212.156.67.30 (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

'Some people'? What people? Please answer this question instead of dodging it. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am accusing no one.

You're accusing unspecified persons of "pumping news about her and her aims". You asserted that "people are really tring to use Wikipedia for their purposes" two sentences after claiming that you're "accusing no one".

It's been explained that the items are added and removed based on the events' chronology, but you continue to reiterate this baseless accusation. —David Levy 15:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Just thinking, since this kind of question comes up so often, with people asking why so-and-so is in ITN so long. The Did you know... section gives a subheading that it's "from Wikipedia's newest content". Perhaps some kind of subhead under ITN or link to what that's about would help head off this frequent question. It couldn't hurt to help inform readers what that section is about. Thoughts? Jonathunder (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If we want to make the section's purpose clearer, we should start with the name. Unless and until "news" is removed, people will never stop mistaking it for a news ticker.

This has been discussed several times, with general agreement that a name change would be helpful. We just haven't managed to come up with a viable alternative to "In the news". Let's try again. —David Levy 02:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How about "timely articles"?--WaltCip (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Timely" seems appropriate, but it doesn't describe the articles themselves. "Timely updates", perhaps? —David Levy 02:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Timely updates is a good suggestion. Jonathunder (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I like From the news. I think it's probably because it suggests that the articles have been selected from the news, rather than a stream of events currently in the news? I don't know... Timely updates seems a bit archaic(?) to me. 129.234.235.194 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The articles aren't selected "from the news". That's precisely the misconception that we seek to dispel.

The section does relate to events "in the news". The problem isn't that the name is inaccurate; it's that it's misleading. Readers see the word "news" and mistakenly assume that ITN's purpose is to report news. (In actuality, its primary purpose is to highlight encyclopedia articles substantially updated because of events in the news.) As noted above, this misunderstanding will persist unless and until the word "news" is removed from the name.

"Timely updates" (which, as I just realized, I halfheartedly suggested in 2006) doesn't have the same ring to it, but perhaps clarity is more important. —David Levy 22:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Recently updated articles"? Modest Genius ^talk 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• That would overlap with DYK's state purpose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a serious suggestion, following on from David Levy's 'halfhearted suggestion'. Modest Genius ^talk 01:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Newsly Updated"? Linguistically I don't especially like it either, but.... (Maybe "News-ly Updates"? Or "Newsy Updates"?) I guess "Newly Updated" would make more sense. Sca (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to reconsider some other suggestions from earlier. Bazza (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Pekinensis' suggestion of just bare links to the relevant article is the best I've ever heard. By not using headline style phrases, we would sidestep the perception of this being a news ticker. --Khajidha (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The only problem I see with that is that without a title, the section would not match the other sections on the Main Page which all have titles. I'm rather partial to Articles on Current Events as it seems to get the point across as to what the articles are without using the confusing "News" term. Even Articles from Current Events would work for me, since that section is at the top of that Portal anyways. 63.192.83.15 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Khajidha was referring to the blurbs, not the heading.

But some news tickers do contain bare links. And while that works in the context of news articles, it wouldn't work in the context of encyclopedia articles (many of which are about more than the recent/current event, making the reason behind the link unclear).

We could, however, make the items seem less like news headlines by switching to the past tense.

Regarding the name, I think that simply "Recent events" is worth considering. —David Levy 20:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Topical updates". 87.112.228.104 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Recent Events" is simple & direct, but doesn't answer the question of why this or that recent news event isn't listed any more than "In the News" does. Sca (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As has been discussed in the past, it's impossible to fully convey the section's nature in a concise manner. We can only hope to determine which name is the least bad. —David Levy 05:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To David Levy: I really don't understand your point about how this would "[make] the reason behind the link unclear". If I want more detail about why a certain person, place, thing or event is in the news it would seem logical to go to more news outlets. If I want more information about who/what that person, place, thing or event is, I would go to an encyclopedia. That is what I think the purpose of this section is (or should be): background on things from the news, not the news itself. --Khajidha (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We certainly are in agreement that ITN's purpose isn't to report news. But it features encyclopedic updates reflecting events in the news. Excepting articles written specifically about said events, a list of bare links would fail to convey why we decided to point readers to the articles. —David Levy 05:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why couldn't that just be in the title or at least a tagline after the title such as what is used for DYK? "Articles reflecting current events", "Topics from the news" or something like that. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I don't mean that readers wouldn't understand why the links exist. I mean that they wouldn't know why a particular link was provided (unless the article was solely about the recent/current event).

For example, a bare link to Boeing 787 Dreamliner would fail to convey anything about the battery concerns leading to the aircraft's international grounding, so readers would be sent to that article without knowing why. —David Levy 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that people who had heard the news stories would know why it was in the news and that those who hadn't heard the news stories would just overlook this section or treat it as similar to a random article link. I just don't see the need for there to be an explicit "why it is here" in this section. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that people who had heard the news stories would know why it was in the news

They might. Or the situation may have developed further.

Either way, the section isn't intended to serve only "people who had heard the news stories".

and that those who hadn't heard the news stories would just overlook this section or treat it as similar to a random article link.

And that's a problem. Many readers fall into this category, and you advocate that we stop serving them.

As noted above, we're in agreement that ITN's purpose isn't to report news. But we do seek to convey the relevant context (and point readers to Wikinews via the articles).

I just don't see the need for there to be an explicit "why it is here" in this section.

Those who hadn't heard the news stories would just overlook this section or treat it as similar to a random article link. How would that be an improvement? —David Levy 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How would my idea stop serving people? As I said, I see this section of the Main Page as for people that already know why something is in the news, but want more information on that something in general. If you haven't heard the news, then anything other than an actual news report won't tell you what's going on. As we are constantly saying "This isn't a news feed". In all honesty I'm beginning to think the section isn't really needed. If you really want to learn more about something in the news you would just type the name into the search box. --Khajidha (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How would my idea stop serving people?

"Those who hadn't heard the news stories would just overlook this section or treat it as similar to a random article link."

As I said, I see this section of the Main Page as for people that already know why something is in the news, but want more information on that something in general.

As I said, the section isn't intended to serve only "people that already know why something is in the news".

If you haven't heard the news, then anything other than an actual news report won't tell you what's going on.

Wikipedia's coverage isn't comparable to journalistic reporting, but any article linked from ITN should contain enough information about the recent/current event to provide a basic understanding thereof. As noted above, many also contain pointers to relevant Wikinews articles.

As we are constantly saying "This isn't a news feed".

Nor is it a list of links presented without context.

In all honesty I'm beginning to think the section isn't really needed. If you really want to learn more about something in the news you would just type the name into the search box.

The idea is to inform readers of Wikipedia articles that have been written or substantially updated to reflect events in the news, thereby advertising the encyclopedia's dynamic nature. We could leave it to readers to discover the articles, but how would this be an improvement? —David Levy 14:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think there's much need to "advertis[e] the encyclopedia's dynamic nature" at this point. It's a wiki. It changes. The Main Page even says that "anyone can edit". As for the rest of your points, I don't see how you expect the section to serve those who haven't heard the news without it being seen as a news feed. That's the entire problem we constantly have with this section. To give the uninformed "enough information about the recent/current event to provide a basic understanding thereof" we have to write out extended headlines that give the impression of being a news feed. --Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think there's much need to "advertis[e] the encyclopedia's dynamic nature" at this point. It's a wiki. It changes.

You overestimate public awareness/understanding of Wikipedia and wikis in general.

And that isn't the section's sole purpose.

The Main Page even says that "anyone can edit".

That conveys nothing about the updates' relevance to current/recent events.

As for the rest of your points, I don't see how you expect the section to serve those who haven't heard the news without it being seen as a news feed.

I don't expect the misconception that it's a news ticker to vanish. We can only hope to minimize it.

The key distinction is that we don't include items for the purpose of reporting news. That doesn't mean that we should deliberately withhold details for the sake of ensuring that no one learns of an event via ITN. (And you've ignored my point regarding the articles' Wikinews links, which benefit "those who haven't heard the news".)

To give the uninformed "enough information about the recent/current event to provide a basic understanding thereof" we have to write out extended headlines that give the impression of being a news feed.

I was referring to the articles themselves. You stated that "if you haven't heard the news, then anything other than an actual news report won't tell you what's going on." This is untrue.

And as noted above, simply switching to the past tense would greatly reduce the similarity to news headlines. —David Levy 16:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How about Topical Articles? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Topical" strikes me as too general and vague. "Updates From the News"? Sca (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

News confuses readers, as David Levy said. In fact, I myself misunderstood that section until not long ago, and I'm not a newbie here. We need a better title, not a perfect one, which probably doesn't exist. Jonathunder (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to eliminate the misconception that ITN is a rundown of top news stories. Describing its content as "from the news" probably wouldn't accomplish this. —David Levy 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The current title is fine. The issue is that ITN is supposed to direct people to decent Wikipedia articles to get more information about topics they may have seen in news sources. Thus, if they read, on a major news website, that there was some major battle somewhere yesterday, they could come to Wikipedia and find, say, an article about the larger conflict the battle was a part of, and possibly to also contribute to Wikipedia's coverage of said topic. ITN is about highlighting Wikipedia articles which have information that may be relevent to the sort of things people may be finding in the news. The title is OK the way it is, because no other suitably concise title would capture that concept. ITN is not supposed to be comprehensive, which is why we say it isn't a news ticker; that just means we don't expect every item to appear in the news should drift by, but it is supposed to have information about things that are in the news recently or currently, highly dependent on the quality of the Wikipedia articles that cover it. The notion that it isn't as comprehensive as Google News, nor is it trying to be, is not a reason to change the name. --Jayron32 16:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That isn't the notion. The notion is that the name frequently causes confusion.

As acknowledged above, "In the news" isn't an inaccurate name. (Indeed, ITN pertains to events in the news.) It's simply a misleading name. Readers see the word "news" and mistakenly believe that the section's purpose is to report news.

Of course, it's reasonable to opine that the other possible names have problems worse than this one. As I said, it's a matter of determining which one is the least bad. —David Levy 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As a recovering journalist I still have a problem with that fact that, to the casual user — of which there are millions if not billions — "In the News" by itself will always look like what we say it isn't, a compendium of briefs from the latest news in general. (And a not very efficient one.) "Topics in the News"? "Wiki Topics in the News"? Sca (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It confuses more than just the casual user. I edited for years and looked at the Main Page hundreds of times with that misconception. It's possible I'm just thick. Or, the name is confusing. Jonathunder (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's time for proposals and voting now, my personal favourite is Timely Updates, or at least "update" should be included as we're refering to recent changes/updates in WP reflecting news events. --87.153.235.243 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If we're gonna vote, it should be done more formally than people randomly throwing up ideas, and it should probably be at a different venue, like Wikipedia talk:In the news or something like that. Such a formal change should also be announced via major noticeboards or WP:CENT. --Jayron32 06:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to give the message that "this section contains news, but is not a news service"? "Timely updates" may mean many things. I'm leaning on a title that contains the phrase "Current events". TFA/P/L and OTD all proclaim what they are from their titles alone; DYK is quite harder to get (many people miss "From Wikipedia's newest articles", even yours truly). –HTD 14:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Timely Updates" has a nice euphony to it, but again "timely" doesn't really convey that the updates are generated by news developments.

Another, possibly half-baked thought: "Newsborne Updates" — ??

Yes, "newsborne" is a coinage, but linguistically no different from "airborne" or "seaborne."

Sca (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"What's up", "What's going on", "What's happening", "Recent events", "Current events". Those tell you from the get-go that it has something to do with news, while avoiding the word "news". "Timely updates" may mean a time check (lol), updates in the Wiki software, updates about the website, etc. –HTD 16:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, "timely" could mean they're just in time (JIT!) to meet some deadline or other. "Recent Events" isn't too bad. Sca (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

All things considered, "Recent events" seems the least problematic of the suggestions thus far.

As discussed in the past, we'd best avoid non-literal expressions (such as "What's up" and "Hot topics"), which are likely to confuse non-native English readers and others unfamiliar with them. —David Levy 18:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, all things considered, "Recent Events" seems least bad. It's straightforward and has the advantage of not implying that they're absolutely "the latest news." Sca (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I like 'Recent Events' too. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely "Current Events" is the obvious solution, as the section is a snapshot of Portal:Current_events anyway? — Pretzels ^Hii! 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is. It looks like the Main Page and the Current Events portal both include versions of the same ITN template. And ITN is not as rapidly updated as the Current Events portal. If we changed ITN to be 'Current Events', it would increase the justification for complaints like the one at the top of this thread. 'Current' implies up-to-the-minutes. 'Recent' is a lot more flexible. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In 'the paper world' there are newspapers and there are news journals (The Economist, Newsweek etc) - with the latter covering 'news in depth'/background information: perhaps what is needed is to redefine ITN as being 'news in this sense' (and also 'ongoing situations' etc) Jackiespeel (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Are they still printing "Newsweek"? Ha! Sca (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to describe the category and took a title out of the air :)

Is the concept/category a better description of what ITN is intended for? 'Background to In The News'? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see Richard III finally made ITN, 528 years later. Sca (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Today's date on the Main page has been discussed in the past, the most recent brief conversation here. The one thing that wasn't discussed has to do with the problems with updating the Main page that are taking place today. I just got the header tag that warned us about the updating problem, so I came to the Main page (which admittedly, I don't do very often) to see what was happening. The very first thing I did was to look for today's date. After all, how can one even tell that an update has taken place or not if there is no date? I finally found the date in the "On this day" section. If you don't want people to hunt, hunt, hunt to see if an update has been performed, then the date must be at the very top in the "Welcome to Wikipedia" section. It should be no more nor less conspicuous than the date on the front page of a newspaper. Just a suggestion. Thank you for listening. – Paine (Climax!)  21:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an unusual situation. Under normal circumstances, users are unlikely to seek out such information. Displaying the date at the top of the page would cause confusion, as it would be seem incorrect in many time zones.

We display the UTC date in the OTD section because its content relates to anniversaries occurring thereon (so it would be more confusing to omit this explanation). —David Levy 23:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is an unusual situation. And I don't know about you, but with times changing for the summer, and not remembering whether to add or subtract this many hours or that many hours, I pretty much stay confused everytime I see a signature with "00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)" tacked on at the end. Confusion should be the least of concerns. Since the Main page is effectively a news page that is updated daily, it seems to me to be unconscionable that there isn't a date at the TOP that would change when the page is updated daily at midnight, UTC. Nor is that UTC time "incorrect" in any sense. How could it possibly be incorrect? Rather than incorrect, it is simply a reference time that can apply the world over with just a little arithmetic. (I'm an old man, so I'm pretty sure it's less confusing for most people than it is for me.) – Paine (Climax!)  00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've amended my wording to better convey the intended statement. —David Levy 00:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I "seem" a bit picky, David, but the date in the "On this day" section has the same problem you perceive and mention above. The only difference is that readers have to hunt for that date because it's part way down the page and in the right column and not at the top where I feel it should be. This Main page is just like a "daily" in that it provides news about many things Wikipedia and many things about the world. It really does need the date where readers can see it right from the start when they first light up the page. – Paine (Climax!)  01:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I "seem" a bit picky, David, but the date in the "On this day" section has the same problem you perceive and mention above.

I've already addressed this.

The only difference is that readers have to hunt for that date because it's part way down the page and in the right column and not at the top where I feel it should be.

Under normal circumstances, readers have little or no reason to "hunt" for the date. If placed at the top, it would cause more confusion than anything else.

This Main page is just like a "daily" in that it provides news about many things Wikipedia and many things about the world.

ITN is the only section related to news, and it isn't updated on a daily basis.

It really does need the date where readers can see it right from the start when they first light up the page.

I respectfully disagree. —David Levy 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to have the date either, but it would be nice to have it as a customizable option. Users can add a clock to the personal toolbar (at Preferences: Gadgets: Appearance); I'm surprised there isn't a way to add the date. Lesgles (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree with that as well. The Main page received over a quarter-billion hits in the last month. A good many of those hits had to be from outside the editor base and would not benefit from options. – Paine (Climax!)  20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You oppose the introduction of an option on the basis that it would benefit only some users (while not affecting the others)?

Or do you mean that you regard it as an inadequate alternative to the addition that you've proposed? (In case you didn't realize, Lesgles was referring to a site-wide feature, not something confined to the main page.) —David Levy 19:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Your option one happens all the time, so no. Option two, yes, of course. – Paine (Climax!)  23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Update message TOP or BOTTOM

With all due respect, I don't understand why placing a note at the TOP such as "Updated at 00:00 (or simply 'Midnight'), 16 February 2024 (UTC)" is a big deal. The second place I looked for it was at the BOTTOM. Wouldn't placing an update message at the BOTTOM be appropriate? – Paine (Climax!)  20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've explained why displaying the date outside the OTD section would be counterproductive. Stating that the page's content was updated at the start of said date would be downright inaccurate; DYK is updated twice more each day, while ITN has no update schedule. Additionally, all of the sections are edited (sometimes involving significant content changes) as needed. —David Levy 19:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere I received the impression that the Main page was updated at midnight on a daily basis. My bad. BTW I don't mean to sound patronizing or brown-nosish, but I like the way you sometimes respond to sections of a post. Most editors don't do that nearly as well. – Paine (Climax!)  23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Today's featured article", "On this day" and "Today's featured picture" all change at midnight UTC; "Today's featured list" appears only on Mondays, arriving and departing at midnight UTC. "Did you know" rotates a few times per day, depending on backlog; "In the news" is updated as and when there is consensus to add a new story. Between each of those updates, there will sometimes be tweaks to the wording as people spot mistakes or improvements. So, yes, midnight does see a change to the page, but not a complete change, and it is not the only time that the page changes. Bencherlite^Talk 20:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Bencherlite, and you too, David Levy, for helping me get all this straight. A lot of good work goes into this page, and it's no wonder that it is the second most viewed page on Wikipedia. – Paine (Climax!)  00:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The Main Page is definitely not updated every day; it was last edited on 17 January, so displaying the normal link at the bottom of the page would be downright confusing for many. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's updated through transclusion, which is enough. Editing isn't the only way to update. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

But the software doesn't know when we change a transcluded page; it only knoews when the page itself is changed. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, that's what you're getting at. I'm thinking that it could follow the related changes bar, limited to what is transcluded here (i.e. only for the so many templates) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Where's it gone from ITN? It was there this morning, five hours ago, but has disappeared. 86.133.209.252 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The power went out to half the article. Please stand by. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Like --Jayron32 19:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Issues with referencing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• See WP:ITN/C. There actually aren't any bona fide issues with referencing. The article has general references that cover the game summary. There are no challenges or disputes on the article talk page regarding the game summary, so inline citations are not required for those facts, per WP:MINREF. I'm going to restore it in a few minutes, as soon as I finish double checking all the relevant policies and facts to ensure that I'm not missing something. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks both. 86.133.209.252 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  As noted at WP:MINREF, the use of ((citation needed)) or any similar tag" is a challenge (one of the circumstances in which inline citations are required). —David Levy 14:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  You can't just slap a tag on the article without stating specifically what's wrong with it. Your tag doesn't count, and you should know better than to stonewall like that. Please put up concrete evidence of disputed facts or get yourself out of the way of those of us who want to improve Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  Firstly, I didn't introduce the tag. I reinserted it after it was removed.
  Secondly, I've explained what's wrong with the article; it contains statements of unknown accuracy lacking inline citations. You seem to be suggesting that they can't be challenged without specific knowledge that they're false.
  Thirdly, I'm offended by your implication that I don't "want to improve Wikipedia". You and I disagree about what course of action to take, but I would never question your motive in that manner. —David Levy 16:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  No AGF in that response, Jehochman. Don't you know that when you post like that, half the power goes out of your words. – Paine (Climax!)  05:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I might have got the wrong end of the stick here, but the need for citations for the 'game summary' section seems a little odd - if you require that, then surely every film and tv programme article on Wikipedia with a 'plot' section should also be tagged? They are descriptive passages about what happens, and I don't think I've ever seen a reference in them. Surely the 'game summary' is the same sort of thing - a subjective description of what went on. Even if it's got references, that won't - and can't - make it objective. It's simply not possible. So why bother to reference at all?. 86.133.209.252 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's slightly different, though I do understand why the two would seem comparable. A plot for a film or book, etc, is essentially sourced to the subject of the article—if I wanted to append a citation for the plot to Eraserhead, I would simply have to cite Eraserhead, which is redundantly circular. A sporting event, however, is a historical happening, just like a battle or an election or the Lindbergh kidnapping, and consists of a series of events which need detailed above a raw "the guy in the hat killed the other guy in the hat". A game summary will need a series of facts in order (take the last match of the 2011–2012 Premier League, for example, where simply stating the 3–2 score is inadequate, but it would take even just one good source to show the sequence of goals and their unusual timing), and even one or two citations to verify the actual order of play is enough for me. I'm not saying this Superbowl article doesn't meet that (haven't even checked, to be honest), just that would be a good principle to work by on any sporting game, whether it's as high profile as the Superbowl or as low as the MacCarthy Perpetual Challenge Cup. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And the summary also contains historical statistics (information not related strictly to last night's game). At ITN/C, someone just mentioned an example with no obvious source. —David Levy 16:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Which thing are you referring to? This is about the fifth time I've asked you for specifics. That's why I think you are acting in bad faith. It's like you can't hear the question I'm asking over and over again. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In this instance, I was referring to Ryan Vesey's note that "we need a source for the statement 'It was the first time a team scored a touchdown on its first drive of the game since the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII'."

In previous instances, I plainly stated that I had no knowledge of whether most of the information was accurate. On my talk page, you responded by demanding that I consult sources and determine which claims were false.

As it turns out, while sourcing the statements, Ryan discovered that some were incorrect. I wonder how long they would have remained in the article — linked from the main page — had the item not been pulled temporarily. —David Levy 17:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Some" was what percent? Anytime an editor gives an article a close reading and checks the sources they are likely to find minor inaccuracies and opportunities for improvement. Where we disagree is that I felt the article should remain on the home page because it is timely news, and a good way to bring in new editors to work on a new article, and others felt that the article needed to be at a very high standard before being placed. WP:V does not require heavy inline sourcing of non-contentious material. If the run was 108 or 109 yards, it really doesn't matter that much (do we have a laser measurement?). It's not the same thing as naming a person as guilty of a crime. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Some" was what percent?

I have no idea, nor do I regard this as relevant. It wouldn't have surprised me if all of the statements had been correct. There was only one way to find out.

Anytime an editor gives an article a close reading and checks the sources they are likely to find minor inaccuracies and opportunities for improvement.

And thankfully, the item's temporary removal incentivized such scrutiny.

Where we disagree is that I felt the article should remain on the home page because it is timely news, and a good way to bring in new editors to work on a new article,

The section's purpose isn't to report news. It's to direct readers to encyclopedia articles written or significantly updated because of such events. We maintain certain quality standards, and the idea of relaxing them (on the basis that the item will "bring in new editors" to address the problems) has been proposed and rejected on multiple occasions.

and others felt that the article needed to be at a very high standard before being placed.

The section's normal standard. It's perfectly reasonable to express disagreement therewith (and even to assert that Tariqabjotu and I erred in applying it), but there's no reason to assume bad faith.

WP:V does not require heavy inline sourcing of non-contentious material.

We requested normal incline sourcing of material with no clear sources.

If the run was 108 or 109 yards, it really doesn't matter that much (do we have a laser measurement?). It's not the same thing as naming a person as guilty of a crime.

Agreed. But articles linked (especially bold-linked) from the main page are held to a higher standard than "non-libelous". —David Levy 19:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Still not sure why it's not up there? Every major sporting event championship has always been part of the ITN section. Every article is constantly being improved, so where is the line for when it is "good enough"? --dashiellx (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's up. Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually plentyy of major sporting championships were never listed because we never had a good enough article. In plenty pf other cases the listing was held back because the article was not up to scratch. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason for the removal of the Syrian Civil War from that section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.88.169 (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion at WP:ITNC where the decision was reached. --Jayron32 06:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop doing this, there is a world out there you know... Lesion (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

One's football, one's politics. Not too similar. There's a world out there alright, so write us a featured article about it and we can see about addressing your concerns. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You do know that you can edit WP and therefore contribute to the Featured Articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with User:Criso. This issue has arisen 3 times recently by my count, and I don't pay a huge amount of attention often so this number is probably higher. The previous instances concerns were raised and the consensus appeared to me to be that this should be avoided in future. User:Lugnuts, there are already a lot of "non american" FA and images, plenty to avoid this situation. This is not veiled antiamericanism, I just feel the encyclopedia is global and should not concentrate on any one country on the main page. I would say the same if it was any other country too, but it doesn't tend to happen with any other that I can see... Lesion (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And have you considered that it's not a coordinated attempt to push US-centric content, but how the die fall? POTD, OTD, TFA, and the other sections don't coordinate with each other. Last I saw this issue arise it was two US politics articles, which is a little close. This time it's sports and politics, and unless Michael Jordan runs for President I don't see them in the same category on the main page anytime soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think anyone is actively pushing for this situation to occur, it is random. If there was some check to avoid it that would be good. Lesion (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely you mean "How the dice fall". Otherwise you mean "how the die falls" which doesn't work here since you are talking about two variables. Well-intentioned but not quite right.83.70.170.48 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say the same if it was any other country too, but it doesn't tend to happen with any other that I can see...

You noted above that you "don't pay a huge amount of attention often", so perhaps you shouldn't make such assumptions.

Six days ago, the featured article was Reception history of Jane Austen and the featured picture was a portrait of Thomas Cranmer. —David Levy 20:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the phrase you're looking for is Confirmation bias. This is obviously just coincidence. The FA was obviously selected because of the Super Bowl, but the POTD? That has nothing to do with it. The inauguration coordination may have been a bit more eyebrow-raising, but intentional coincidences like that one are far from unprecedented, and unintentional coincidences of this nature are almost unavoidable. -- tariqabjotu 22:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The two are barely related, other than the nationality. Politics and sport are far enough apart that this isn't a problem IMO. Modest Genius ^talk 15:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thirded. The avoidance of statistically likely coindcidences is frankly a waste of administrative time. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

However, if someone wants to keep an eye out for such coincidences, Howcheng (or someone filling in for him, as Crisco 1492 has been doing) probably wouldn't mind swapping some scheduled images. But this needs to be brought to the scheduler's attention beforehand. Complaining about a TFA blurb and image already on the main page is unhelpful. —David Levy 01:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Possible, although the law of averages says the replacement picture is likely to be an Australian boid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Will anyone be complaining about references to the English monarchy on the Main Page tomorrow? (adjective deliberate)Jackiespeel (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Now they will. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I being especially stupid? Why would they? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Follow the link — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In connection with the question of 500 years of unpaid car parking fines. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

...and what other royal-related story? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN posts are chronological. We don't make the news, we just post bullet points about the news. It's as simple as that. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering how to make improvements to the Main Page? 108.7.147.32 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested in this discussion. —David Levy 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What has happened to the list of other languages in the LH column? They are still displayed in the other language versions of Wikipedia but not in the English version. And it's not just on the main page there's a problem. As far as I can see, it is the case for all articles which point to other language versions. --Ipigott (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I've solved the problem: if I click on Languages, I get the list. So perhaps I caused the problem myself. --Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I can never really read most of the main page content. It's too violent, in my opinion :/ --Yrtneg T 03:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"We live in a dangerous world". GRAPPLE X 03:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Today especially I see the Main Page flowing with much blood... - filelakeshoe 09:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Violence is now a language in our world. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Like begets like. Break the chain. There is nothing admirable in adopting the values of bottom-feeders. - Ac44ck (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There's hardly anything "violent" on the Main Page today. But you're welcome to read any of our millions of articles if you don't like the Main Page. Most of them don't contain much violence. --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck south western Colombia today, leaving around 143 homes destroyed and around 8 people wounded. Is this applicable to be on the main page?

Also, most Latin countries are celebrating the first day of Carnival with cities such as Rio De Janeiro and Barranquilla displaying massive festivities for 3 days! Is that good too?

Thank you!

86.179.38.240 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Manolo

You're welcome! You may want to contribute to discussions at WP:ITNC and WP:OTD where such matters are decided. --Jayron32 02:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• At least 51 people are killed when a bus and truck collide near Chibombo, Zambia.
• Tunisian opposition politician Chokri Belaid is assassinated near Tunis, sparking protests and calls for new elections.

Taken from ITN, so... Chibombo is linked, but not Zambia. Yet, in the following item, Tunisia is piped and Tunis is also linked. That's rather inconsistent and seems to have been made at the whimsy of the admin who moved the item onto ITN. If anything, Zambia is the country needing to be linked as it wasn't the subject of a revolution some 1-2 years ago and wasn't involved in an ouster of the then-President. James ^{(T • C)} • 9:20pm • 10:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We link countries directly relevant to the events (as in the case of a politician's assassination leading to a plan to dissolve the national government) and don't link countries in which the events merely happened to occur (as in the case of a traffic accident). —David Levy 10:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was that lesser-known countries would get linked and better-known countries delinked. However, I won't push the matter as I do see your point. James ^{(T • C)} • 9:26pm • 10:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was that determinations regarding which countries are "lesser-known" and "better-known" are too subjective and too easily influenced by personal and systemic biases. —David Levy 10:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata appears to have gone live, and as a result (as I understand it), interwiki links are now automatic. This has overridden ((Main Page interwikis)), and produced a complete list of every Wikipedia. On Classic skin (where interwiki links and categories appear at the top of the page), this has the effect of pushing the page half-way down my screen. Can anything be done about this?  An optimist on the run! 19:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have reverted back again, at least for now...   An optimist on the run! 20:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It was announced via the relevant mailing lists that the English Wikipedia's Wikidata deployment was postponed again, so I assume that this was some sort of test.

The topic was raised earlier today at Wikidata's "project chat" forum (specifically regarding the Hungarian Wikipedia's main page, at which the issue can be observed), so I posted a message there. —David Levy 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I received a reply, which pointed me to a MediaWiki documentation page. Apparently, simply inserting ((noexternallanglinks)) will suppress the Wikidata list. —David Levy 22:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I tested this via an edit preview at the Hungarian Wikipedia, and it appeared to work. So I've preemptively inserted the magic word at Main Page. (Because the feature isn't active here, this required the temporary creation of Template:Noexternallanglinks, which transcludes nothing.) —David Levy 22:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems a good solution - thanks.  An optimist on the run! 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the photo for today's featured article, Beyonce's "Single Ladies" be a screencap of from the music video? One that's already been declared as fair use, of course. It just seems like a photo that would be more overwhelmingly recognizable. Rselby1 (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The main page does not use fair use images. Hut 8.5 12:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi I would like someone to add edit watch Selected quote please 86.173.149.162 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that the leadership of the Catholic churches gave it enough thought when they appointed or elected Benedict the XVI to be the head of the Catholic churches. Rumor has it that Pope Benedict did not want to be considered as candidate. It was also reported that he came before the cardinals and argue his case as to why he thought he should not have been elected Pope. His gesture in this regard forces the cardinals to see his remarkable courage and his ego-less desire to aspire at this high post19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaplant2013 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, this is not a page for idle conversation about topics of the day. This page is for discussing changing or updating information about Wikipedia's main page. If you wish to improve Wikipedia's article about Pope Benedict XVI, we could always use the help in making our articles better, but unless you have something about Wikipedia's main page, this really isn't the place to discuss our feelings about news items of the day. --Jayron32 19:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this page is an obvious target for spam and other types of posts in need of reversion, I think we should consider this. Sure, you can restore an old revision with Twinkle or Popups, but it's so much easier to just press "rollback". There are tons of times we have to add ((subst:unsigned))s to pages ourselves anyways – I've seen five experienced users in the past two days either forget to sign or hit the cursed fith tilde by mistake, and SineBot only auto-signs for users with >500 < 800 edits (fixed —Noiratsi (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)) – so it wouldn't create a huge burden or anything, and it would make reverts take one click, not three (or two hovers and two clicks). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Support this. Turning off the SineBot for this page will really simply reversions here, being such a spam-prone page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Although this page would have to watched with ((subst:Unsigned)) unholstered for legitimate newbie comments. --Inops (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Support - We can manage any legitimate unsigned comments as effectively as we can manage comments which are clearly vandalism. This page receives a lot of traffic from experienced editors as well.--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Support - seems like a good idea, and if it appears to be a mistake, we can overturn it. --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Support: I just undid a good faith but misplaced edit to this page and agree it would have been easier had it not been autosigned. —Noiratsi (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done as sooner is better than later and there doesn't seem to be any opposition :) —Noiratsi (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how this happened, or if this is even the right place to report it, but in today's "did you know" section, it lists "Battle of Newtown, Alabama", where it should be "Battle of Newton, Alabama" (not "Newtown"). Just thought you should know. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've corrected the error.

For future reference, we have a dedicated main page error report page (located at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors), at which messages sometimes receive faster responses. —David Levy 16:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/bulgaria-government-resigns-national-protests-073220738.html TehPlaneFreak (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. 129.234.235.233 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi TehPlaneFreak, if this is a suggestion that we should include this on the main page, then the best thing to do is join the conversation here: WP:ITN/C#Bulgaria PM resigns. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! TehPlaneFreak (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Any reason the featured article of the day has been about an eagle for three consecutive days? —  AjaxSmack  03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:TFAR has a discussion about this; it was intended as a loose theme to tie together several otherwise-unrelated articles and pictures. GRAPPLE X 04:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's systemic raptor bias. There's a well-known strong anti-passerine element at Wikipedia which is crowding out all bird point-of-views except those from birds of prey. I think we need an RFC to more fully investigate this. --Jayron32 04:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, and a secret remains... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget The lunar module Eagle in POTD! 86.133.209.129 (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not just that... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• And today's POTD (Morgan Pressel's hole-in-one) carries the trend... :D onebravemonkey 09:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Anything strike you about Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 February 17? Bencherlite^Talk 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Psssst, they're on to us! No helping! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but don't worry, they'll never find that clue now... Bencherlite^Talk 09:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Great! Perhaps a new addition to the top of the Main Page: Today's Eagle Count? onebravemonkey 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Or perhaps we can grow up and focus on the best product we can manage, rather than tortuous phrasing to amuse a tiny clique. Kevin McE (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say "Just close your eyes and think of Wikipedia", but then you'd probably dream of eagles. On a serious note, it's going to last less time on the main page than Lugo did. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's going to be sarcasm failing to work on the Internet again. When are they going to fix that?onebravemonkey 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I got it! Cary Grant in POTD and the mention of his film The Eagle and the Hawk. I'm off to do some serious editing now, Kevin McE. ... 86.133.209.129 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Aha! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One of these nights, the long run of Eagles jokes will end and some desperado on the border will leave the hotel California--when hell freezes over. Jonathunder (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh... so everything is dust in the wind? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we're in Kansas anymore... Jonathunder (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Meh, tornadoes still give you wings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm amazed at where this is going... --Jayron32 14:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I feel sorry for the TFA selector, walking through this world all alone. Freedom? That's just some people talkin'. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Liberty and freedom don't come cheap.--WaltCip (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) The same will know why he put LIBERTY in gold on the Main page today, and took the liberty to stage another eagle tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, the eagle's out of the bag now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Is someone peeing about again? Good! :-)   An optimist on the run! 15:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

At least they're not taking the piss. GamerPro64 15:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh that thread was good. Thanks Optimist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While I've got everyone's attention about the TFA slot, I'll just issue my usual advert/reminder that if you want to help choose which articles appear as TFA, please nominate or comment at WP:Today's featured article/requests. The more dates that are filled by the community's views, the fewer empty dates I have left open to play these puerile, pathetic games with fill in off my own bat. Thank you. You may now return to your regular diet of bird-based puns. Bencherlite^Talk 15:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well prepared advert. Here is mine: take away a few restrictions, and I will follow, - until then: find prepared noms here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, please stop complaining about TFAR whenever I try and encourage more to participate. It really isn't helpful. If you have issues to raise, try my talk page and / or the TFAR talk page. Bencherlite^Talk 16:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are still craving for more eagles, tomorrow's POTD is a Bald Eagle. :-) Th4n3r (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's almost as if TFA and POTD were working in harmony for a change... Bencherlite^Talk 00:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Downright odd, the coincidences behind this thread. Erm, ... out of Eagles references now. Woof? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have one, never fear, at The Last Resort as I Take It to the Limit. With the POTD, the TFA, and all linked recent TFAs on "eagles", all I can say is The Eagle has Landed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, and when are we going to see the inevitable entry concerning the band of Don Henley, Glenn Frey, et al? Stizzleswick (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly not tomorrow, considering the quality of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The caption reads "Raja Shelducks prefers", should that be "Raja Shelducks prefer"? Seems like a grammar issue? ★★RetroLord★★ 04:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Odd, not showing up like that for me. Tried purging the cache. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Fixed by closedmouth. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(I added the above request for comment, in hopes to obtain more input in this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

The development over at Today's article for improvement has progressed significantly over the last few weeks, and we are preparing to début the new feature on the Main Page shortly. Concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. This has been successfully implemented at the Main Page Sandbox. The details of this the automatically updating process can be read more or less here and elsewhere on the TAFI talk page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is successfully implemented? Is anything going to be done to address the horrendous imbalance caused by this section? Is DYK being shortened? Is OTD being lengthened with less significant events? Is ITN expected to keep news stories from weeks past (as if that doesn't happen already)? -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I need to agree with Tariqabjotu's concerns; I'm currently against implementation until we figure this out...the imbalance is simply too much with the current design. —Theopolisme (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, and a laudable project. Personally, I would welcome lots more OTD content - why would this be a problem? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily saying that more OTD hooks is a problem. Then again, do we really want that many? Possibly ten? And I'm quite certain there are some days that don't have enough hooks in reserve so we'd need to create some new ones. This isn't a problem if the coordination has already begun, but given that's a successful implementation, I'm not sure it has. I feel like I contribute to the Main Page a lot and this is the first time I've heard of the proposal. I imagine at some point, someone would have contacted the DYK, ITN, and OTD projects to figure out how the content in those three sections might need to change to accommodate TAFI.

This, of course, is a great time to emphasize the need for a Main Page redesign. -- tariqabjotu 21:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was established?: the proposal, for a single line with a bare link, looks nothing like the example, which has three DYK-like hooks, multiple links and eight lines and takes half the space of the DYK section. Something so different from what was discussed should not be added without further centralised discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. TAFI was meant to slip in neatly at the bottom of the left hand column with "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - today's Article for Improvement" and a random list - not several multi-linked hooks (why give alternative wikilinks if you want people to go to one article, incidentally?) The present mock-up also creates undesirable amounts of whitespace. So either TFA/DYK have to be cut back, or ITN/OTD have to be expanded. Neither consequence was part of the original proposal so there is no consensus for anything other than the previously approved wording and minimalist design. Bencherlite^Talk 22:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I missed the discussion, and I've been assisting with the section's subsequent development to improve its format and address concerns that I was unable to raise. It's quite true that the current draft differs significantly from the one originally proposed and shouldn't be implemented without further discussion.

In my opinion, the section shouldn't even be added to the column (due to the aforementioned balance issue), but I didn't learn of the plan until after such consensus was established. My assumption has been that the other sections will be adjusted to compensate, but I agree that their organizers should have been contacted in advance and encouraged to comment.

One possibility that occurred to me today is to expand OTD to include a mini-TFA-style writeup about one selected anniversary, ideally pointing to a good or featured article. But we obviously mustn't implement that idea or any other major change without discussion and consensus. —David Levy 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not always possible. Not every day has an event which is written to FA or GA standards. There are even 1 or 2 days where there are only 5 eligible articles, making it impossible to expand OTD on those days. —howcheng {chat} 22:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that not every date has a GA or FA (hence "ideally") and that some dates have few or no eligible articles in reserve.

The rough idea (which obviously hasn't been fully fleshed out or tested) is to highlight one of the better articles (GA or FA if available) with the image and a longer blurb, without necessarily increasing the total number of items. —David Levy 23:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The original proposal was approved with ~90% support, plus an early endorsement from Jimbo. Then someone asked about the color of the bike shed.... 71.212.238.161 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Kill two birds with one stone. Have Howcheng (or someone; not looking to volunteer anyone for anything) provide a list of the days that have very few eligible articles to the WP:TAFI crowd, who would work on a couple of articles from those days to get a bigger pool of eligible articles. Win-win. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  Now THAT'S a good idea... --Jayron32 00:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  And that may very well be a reasonable idea. I wasn't necessarily trying to suggest TAFI is a bad idea; it's just a bit surprising that it has already matured to the stage of imminent implementation when issues like this have not been ironed out. We shouldn't have to hastily come up with a solution; this should have already been decided. And if the solution was to lengthen OTD, fine. If it was to shorten DYK, fine. But the mockup by Nick was called a successful implementation, so I don't think a solution to this obvious problem had been considered until this thread. And that doesn't even account for the other issues (regarding whether consensus was really reached) that others have brought up. -- tariqabjotu 00:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  The matter was addressed in an earlier draft, which contained static simulations of the various sections (with extra items added to ITN and OTD). The current version contains live transclusions of the actual main page sections (which obviously haven't been padded to compensate for the imbalance). By "successfully implemented", I believe that NickPenguin was referring to the TAFI transclusion (including the randomization code), which no longer is simulated.
  I agree, of course, that further discussion and planning are needed. Personally, I don't believe that any new section should be added to either column unless and until we're prepared to also add a new section or subsection to the other column. Otherwise, ITN and OTD (especially the former, at which staleness already is a problem) will become badly overloaded. —David Levy 01:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with others that more centralised discussion is needed. On a personal note, I was aware of the discussion but purposely did not join in because I was undecided and the details of how it was going to be implemented were fairly unclear, e.g. there was the concern about edit conflicts and the proposal for randomisation. I therefore assumed one a proper proposal was implemented which I could actualy judge, this would be discussed again as seems to be the norm for serious chages to the main page. I'm not convinced I was the only one in that regard.

Incidentally how was the original discussion particularly the implementation proposals advertised? For example, AFAIK, the advertisiment for here being the main page talk page seemed poor. There was some mention of TAFI here Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#WP:TAFI but that was before the VPP discussion had started. AFAIK, the next mention was Talk:Main Page/Archive 172#WP:TAFI proposal where it was presented as an idea which already had consensus despite not being even mentioned on the talk page of where it was going to be implemented (from memory this is when I became aware of the proposal). While the discussion continued (most of it came after the mention here and the subsequent addition to CENT) this isn't a great form of advertisement. Someone else mentioned that had been no advertisement at WP:CENT, which was later rectified.

I would note while there was some discussion of the implementation details in the VPP discussion, this began after the non-advertisement advertisement here and no one ever told us the discussion had expanded in that way AFAIK. Was it noted at WP:CENT where from the time stamps I think the advertisement was also added before the discussion had expanded? Definitely over half the main line comments to the basic yes/no proposal are timestamped before the discussion began on implementation details although I haven't checked to see how many people in that group left a latter comment such as in the implementation discussion. And if you look at the discussion on the implemented details the participation was rather limited and while I don't think less participation in such nitty gritty is uncommon, it doesn't help if people aren't aware. Remember that there's no reason to expect people are going to hang around a discussion, many leave their comments and don't come back. And some may check out a discussion and decide not to leave comments like I did. Unless it's advertised neither have any way of knowing nor any reason to think, the discussion has expanded, even if the old advert remains in place. Don't get me wrong, it does seem there is consensus for something, but precisely what isn't clear to me and whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be what is shown here.

(In case it isn't clear, I also think this has been an example of how 'not' to propose a change to the main page. This isn't a criticism of anyone involved, simply a suggestion for future proposals, such as for any further discussion on this proposal. Beyond the problems highlighted, I would note there was about 1.5 times the total !votes for Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#GA Main Page slot proposal which failed as there was for the basic yes/no TAFI proposal. I know !vote counting isn't a brilliant method of determining participation, it depends significant on strength of feelings and other factors but it is one gauge. Not that the discussion GA discussion is a great example anyway as it was evidently competing with Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 86#One GA per shift? Jimmy's on board for reforming DYK, a highly related proposal occurring in a different area which got over double the !votes as the one on WT:MP, although that may have also been because it proposed modifying a section.)

Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well. I think we can all agree that my phrasing was less than ideal. I think we can also all agree that something is going on with TAFI that has gone largely unnoticed, but needs to be dealt with more succinctly by the community at large. Having read as many of the background discussions as I can find, my feeling is that there is general support to have TAFI on the Main Page.

However, the more I think about this, the more I feel this is going to get tightly rolled into the Wikipedia talk:2013 main page redesign proposal. Mostly because the current structure has become so rigid and glass-like that any attempt to integrate a new element will be met with difficulty. I also have a feeling that the latest redesign proposal is going to be successful, which is good.

So my question is, how do we proceed? Should we implement something for TAFI on the Main Page in parallel with the Redesign Proposal, or focus solely on the redesign? Truthfully the TAFI process seems to be chugging along, and it would be a waste if the system cannot be fully implemented in the near future. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 07:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Balance wise, don't expect ITN to be able to stretch any longer than it is without fundamental changes to how it works. We just about process one blurb a day. Were the section to be any longer you'd be looking at >1 week old "news" being a regular Main Page feature. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, TFA + DYK is usually longer (sometimes quite a bit longer) than ITN + OTD, so perhaps the solution might be to switch it to the right-hand column? Also it would be easy if necessary to allow a little more length to the TFA blurbs, which are often shortened during the process. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Such placement would have no thematic basis. The left-hand column highlights Wikipedia's most polished articles and newly created/expanded articles, so appending links to articles in need of improvement at the bottom is a natural progression. Conversely, the right-hand column highlights recent events and historical events, so throwing in TAFI would break that theme (and miss an opportunity to expand the other). —David Levy 03:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a rather weak thematic link, imo, between TFA (our best articles) and articles for improvement (some of our worst). Alternatively, how about putting in all ten of the the proposed articles and running it across both columns? Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a rather weak thematic link, imo, between TFA (our best articles) and articles for improvement (some of our worst)

1. Wikipedia contains far worse articles than those selected for TAFI.

2. I disagree that the thematic link is weak. Since 2006 (when DYK and OTD were swapped for this very reason), the right-hand column has highlighted — from top to bottom — our most polished articles and those for which polishing has just begun. The idea always has been to present both sides of the coin, acknowledging that Wikipedia is perpetually in development, with articles spanning the spectrum. The bottom placement of TAFI (linking to articles that the community is encouraged to begin polishing) is a logical expansion of this theme.

Alternatively, how about putting in all ten of the the proposed articles and running it across both columns?

Even setting aside the aforementioned themes, it makes no sense to divide a single section in that manner. —David Levy 05:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment has anyone notified WT:FPC? --IP98 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  How does the planned change stand to affect that process? —David Levy 03:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  It doesn't, but they occupy a piece of the main page same as ITN, TFA, DYK and OTD and probably deserve a heads up. --IP98 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  That section isn't the "same as ITN, TFA, DYK and OTD", as it doesn't appear in either column (and therefore needn't be adjusted to accommodate an addition thereto).
  But I see no harm in leaving a note, so feel free. (And don't forget WT:TFL.) —David Levy 03:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW My PC is 1024x768. I never see DYK, it's "below the fold" for me. I have no opinion on that, just FYI only. --IP98 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• The last time we were trying to get the implementation for the TAFI done, it was me who got the CENT notice. But I do not have a clue as to where exactly do we need to be advertising. Can some experienced editor start the necessary centralised proposal/discussion/approval, and get it advertised at all the places it should be, including all the other sections on the main page? (I believe we missed the watchlist notice the last time around). Also, now we need some clear cut consensus as to how exactly things are supposed to go from here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated sandbox

I have updated the Main Page Sandbox to bring it back in-line with the original proposal, as well as responding to some of the criticisms presented here. However, I have retained the multiple articles format for a few reasons. One, is that having one article or several generates the same amount of whitespace, so that will be an issue in either case. Two, is to reduce the likelihood of edit conflicts by having only one article up at a time. Three, is to encourage participation by being more likely to have a article interesting to a potential editor. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the minimalist approach (bare links with no blurbs). But we generally avoid the use of phrases like "click here", and any link that reloads a page should be labeled as such (to avoid surprising/confusing readers). I'll make some tweaks. —David Levy 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the current new approach. Keep it short and simple. --Ipigott (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Description of changes:

I replaced the purge link (the behavior of which probably would surprise and confuse readers even if labeled accurately) with a link to the complete list of selections. For the purposes of the mockup, this is located on the weekly subpage, but it could go anywhere (including the main project page) and take whatever format is desired.

The section now contains even less text (greatly reducing the likelihood of it wrapping to a second line, as the previous verson did under my browser configuration), formatted to resemble other main page sections more closely. —David Levy 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If we remove the purge link, as far as I know there is no way to generate a different list. Refreshing the page in the browser does not change the list, you have to purge the page with that link. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 08:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the identical link in DYK works. But given the link to the complete list, there's no need to generate a new abbreviated set (an inferior solution that forces users to purge the page repeatedly — scrolling back down each time — before seeing all ten article links).

The randomization's intended purpose is simply to avoid encouraging too many users to edit a single article or small number of articles simultaneously. —David Levy 09:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that your concern probably is that the same cached page will be delivered for long periods. I seem to recall that the actual main page is recached fairly often, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable in this area can weigh in.

If that isn't the case, it should be trivially easy to have a bot purge the page at regular intervals, which surely would be much easier on the servers than it would be to encourage thousands of visitors per minute to do it (even given the small percentage that actually would). —David Levy 09:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a major concern, but yes, I was just worried that the same list would appear for an extended length, and not all the articles would get their time in the sun. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the line "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______" ought to be there in the section. We already had consensus for adding that line, and I personally see no reason to be removing it, as it ends up creating further confusion as to what this new section is about.

I personally also prefer a one line description of the article chosen, so anyone can understand what the article is about. (e.g. "A tomboy is a girl who dresses and acts like a boy.") This will be more along the lines of how the other sections have some caption or line about the articles involved. (There was certainly some agreement for the one-line description, though I am not sure if a consensus was formally established). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of available space (which, as discussed above, is far from abundant).

The process has been renamed "today's articles for improvement" (because multiple articles will be used at a given time), so it no longer makes sense to list only one (which would be quite confusing). But we can't list two or three and include an introductory message without exceeding the agreed-upon amount of text (resulting in its wrap under many more configurations). Likewise, descriptions greatly increased the section's size, prompting the above discussion. —David Levy 09:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be quite a controversial idea, but I wonder if DYK could be asked to limit themselves to 5 hooks. (AFAIK there was previously a system of 5 hooks in 3 queues everyday, which was changed to the current 7/8 in 2 per day. If there is consensus among the community as well as a general agreement in DYK, we might be able to reach some headway on this matter.) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the notion of DYK going back to their previous system of "5 hooks in 3 queues" (as TheOriginalSoni says). It's essentially the same amount of articles so it's not like any more or less work must be done on their part. And that gives Tafi more lines to explain what it is, list the article(s), and provide a nice definition of what it is/they are. I never said this out loud, but I really did love those succinct definitions. A great way to get people hyped, and want to get into editing an article.--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where TheOriginalSoni got those numbers, but I can't recall the last time DYK used 5 hooks. At the moment, we're at 7 hooks 3 times a day, which is a total of 21 hooks per day, and we're just keeping even at the current rate and with a backlog of about 250 hooks under review. These days, DYK tends to cycle between 6 and 8 hooks per set and 2 and 4 sets per day, depending on the number of new and newly expanded articles that are submitted and reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this, where 6 hooks thrice a day was made to 8 twice a day (which again changed after that). Maybe I confused the number of DYK hooks I thought was ideal (five) with what it previously was (six).

Could there be consensus within DYK to reduce the number of hooks at any given time to 5 or 6? Those extra lines could be very useful for easily solving the question of formatting here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression there was a backlog of hooks. Wouldn't that increase the backlog by reducing the number displayed? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a backlog of hooks (currently 262), and yes, reducing the number of hooks will increase the backlog. As stated above, the current rate (21 per day) is keeping the backlog from growing, but not reducing it. I doubt there would be a consensus to reduce the number of hooks within DYK. I certainly would be opposed to it, and to losing the flexibility to change as the submission level waxes and wanes. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. TAFI has to find its own space. It should not be stealing from other projects. I have suggested in the past, however that the DYK and ITN slots could be candidates for the addition of tabs (along the lines of my mockup here from a previous proposal). Of course, the easiest solution to the TAFI unbalancing problem is to have it stand as a bar that runs across the entire width of the page, below both DYK and OTD. Resolute 05:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the multiple article, I personally think that we could change the text to this - "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - one of Today's articles for improvement". Considering the limitation of the space for TAFI and weighing the potential confusion that might be caused by having a single article, or by having no introductory message, I think the latter has more potential to cause problems. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the multiple article, I personally think that we could change the text to this - "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - one of Today's articles for improvement".

It isn't an exact science, but with a bit of effort, the setup currently in use on the main page enables us to keep the columns more or less balanced for most readers.

The TAFI draft currently appearing in the sandbox consumes a predictable (and fairly consistent, in terms of its impact on the two columns' balance) amount of space under a wide range of settings. Conversely, a short sentence will wrap for many users and not wrap for many others, so each one added to TAFI will increase the difficulty of maintaining column balance.

Considering the limitation of the space for TAFI and weighing the potential confusion that might be caused by having a single article, or by having no introductory message, I think the latter has more potential to cause problems.

Certainly, readers would be unfamiliar with TAFI, but why would they become confused? Simply clicking through to one of the articles (tagged with the explanatory template) or the complete list (to which even an more detailed explanation could be appended) would provide the necessary information. —David Levy 19:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a little bit of context for the articles, maybe just two words like Collaborate on: or something that captures that idea. Three links in an otherwise empty box seems a little too minimal. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

How much would such a construct (whether two words or a complete sentence) actually convey? Readers are invited to "collaborate on" and "help Wikipedia by joining fellow editors in building" every article in the encyclopedia.

We already proclaim that "anyone can edit" (complete with a link to Wikipedia:Introduction) at the top of the page. If that prominent message fails to convey the idea to a main page visitor, I don't see how the proposed text will help.

Note that DYK is the only section containing a basic description of its purpose ("from Wikipedia's newest content"). TFA, ITN, OTD, TFP and TFL lack such text, despite being less self-explanatory (and more likely to be misunderstood) than TAFI will be. —David Levy 22:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but all the other sections have some sort of context drivers at the bottom of the sections, linking to the larger projects behind the content. The current version of TAFI is the only section that contains none of these links. I realize the section content is ultimately just a bunch of links, but there are no contextual links links to the feature itself, to show that it is a driven process, not random selections. I guess the "more selections" link is supposed to be the context driver. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that such a link is important. I should have been clearer in noting that the "More selections..." link's current destination is merely a temporary example lacking the full content that would be presented (including a suitable TAFI introduction/explanation). The link could even lead directly to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement, provided that it's reworked a bit. —David Levy 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what others prefer, but being a new section added, I think we should be giving a line of description such as Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - one of Today's articles for improvement under the TAFI section. If it is possible, we could also think of having the extra line of introduction along with the article, so it becomes more clear and concise to the readers what the article is about. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  You made the same comments above. I replied. —David Levy 07:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but either I did not understand what you meant, or you meant something else entirely. I do not see why having several articles with no supporting text is better than one article with supporting text. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  I explained why above. Instead of countering my arguments or requesting clarification, you simply repeated yourself at the bottom of the subsection. —David Levy 21:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  And I said that I did not understand your reply. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  And instead of requesting clarification (thereby enabling me to determine what element[s] you didn't understand and attempt to rectify the matter), you disregarded my input and reposted your comments at the bottom of the subsection. —David Levy 21:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  Instead of going tangentially and not answering the question for 3 consective times, I think you could have simply answered it the second time round. Clearly, I did not regard/realise your reply to be anything but a deviation of topic from what I proposed, and not a direct reply. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  Instead of going tangentially and not answering the question for 3 consective times, I think you could have simply answered it the second time round.
  I've already addressed your points. Unless and until you inform me of which responses (or portions thereof) you don't understand, I have no means of attempting to clarify them (and I see no point in simply repeating myself, which won't make my replies any clearer).
  Clearly, I did not regard/realise your reply to be anything but a deviation of topic from what I proposed, and not a direct reply
  I indented my messages one level below yours. In one instance, I even used a template to quote the individual comments to which I responded (as I've done in this message). —David Levy 22:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  And I've mentioned that I did not understand how you addressed my points. For instance, I still do not see how no description and 3 links is more preferable version and in line with current Main Page sections. Your reply to the same makes no sense at all to the original statement. The second reply is more direct in what it approaches, but still fails to answer the main question behind it- Is it more preferable to be having multiple articles mainly because the project has been now renamed in the plural (Consensus, per se, was for a single article, but thats not a major issue), or to have a single article but with a succinct description, (like all other sections on the main page) so readers less confused on what "that word" means. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  You keep telling me that you don't understand my earlier replies. I realize that. But unless you can be more specific (e.g. by quoting particular comments and explaining what elements don't make sense to you), I don't know how to begin clarifying my points. Sorry. —David Levy 23:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  I seriously do not know if its a genuine case of misunderstanding or I am actually being passively bullied here (which is the feeling I am getting anyways.) I do not understand how anything you said is a possible or even sufficient reply to my statements, and would have much rather preferred that you simply re-state your point in another fashion, so that I'd be better able to understand. I still do not see anything remotely satisfactory to the the doubts I raised. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I seriously do not know if its a genuine case of misunderstanding or I am actually being passively bullied here (which is the feeling I am getting anyways.)
  I'm sorry that you feel that way. I assure you that I have no desire to bully you. Please assume good faith. (I disagree with you, but I assume that you're acting in good faith.)
  I do not understand how anything you said is a possible or even sufficient reply to my statements, and would have much rather preferred that you simply re-state your point in another fashion, so that I'd be better able to understand.
  I'd like very much to do just that. But without determining where the confusion lies (i.e. what aspects of my replies have led to the communication lapse), I don't know where to begin or how to rephrase my comments. —David Levy 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  How hard is it to just try and explain what you said just once again!? Its really getting onto my nerves, the way you tangentially but categorically avoid the main question I try to ask.
  Just simply try to explain whatever you said once again, if possible, in more direct words. I do not see the point of what you said there. Which is why I am unable to understand it, which again is why I cannot pinpoint what the problem is. Because I see everything you said there to be incomprehensible.
  Seriously, if you're going to rephrase yourself, just do it. Otherwise just hat all the conversation that we had that went off-topic, and let someone else answer my question/doubts. I truly do not wish to continue this conversation, and get back to finalising TAFI for the main page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I replied to your comments as plainly and directly as I know how to. You regard "everything [I] said there to be incomprehensible", and I sincerely don't know where the problem lies or how to rephrase my messages in a manner that would make them clearer. If you could be more specific, perhaps I'd gain a better understanding of where I've gone wrong. Conversely, responses to the effect of "None of what you said made any sense. Try again!" are unhelpful.
  Again, I'm genuinely sorry. I don't mean to mock you or evade your questions. I honestly don't know how to resolve this communication difficulty. —David Levy 14:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I am out of this conversation. Do you mind hatting everything after the first post where I restated things? I prefer someone else to explain your position or to leave things as is than in continuing this discussion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I am out of this conversation. Do you mind hatting everything after the first post where I restated things?
  Yes, I do mind. I noted that the same points were addressed above. Hatting that portion of the discussion might lead others to overlook my earlier replies and believe that no one has responded to your comments.
  I don't object to hatting the entire exchange (including your 06:49, 10 February 2013 message) or everything after my 07:17, 10 February 2013 message. —David Levy 14:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As a bar across the page

What's wrong with Resolute's suggestion (which I actually thought of independently although can't remember if I expressed) of "Of course, the easiest solution to the TAFI unbalancing problem is to have it stand as a bar that runs across the entire width of the page, below both DYK and OTD [and above - or maybe below - TFP]."?--Coin945 (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a sensible idea, but it's inconsistent with the decision reached in the aforementioned discussion, so we'd need to establish consensus for a significantly different approach (an alternative layout requiring a larger amount of content to justify the use of a standalone, full-width box).

TAFI could appear six days per week, with TFL taking its place on Monday. (The TAFI selections are the same for a full week, so skipping Monday is preferable to cluttering it. And Monday happens to be the day on which the TAFI selections change, so that actually would provide a helpful opportunity for the project's members to switch over to the new set and make sure that everything is ready.) —David Levy 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need to change the approach too much. The mock up above had two TAFI links in it one on top of the other. In this case, you could put them side by side. Resolute 20:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean that to justify the addition of a dedicated box, we'd need to expand beyond the short line of text approved by the community (e.g. by including more selections and restoring the blurbs present when this discussion began).

This wouldn't be difficult. The question is whether the community prefers it over the original (relatively low-key) approach. —David Levy 21:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Check out this diff page from Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/main page placement for an example of a bar across the page. (Note: on this page, the TAFI area would actually be above the "From today's featured list" area.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a layout example.

Today's articles for improvement Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help! The terms foobar, fubar, or foo, bar, baz and qux (alternatively quux) are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. (Full article...) Reload this page to view another TAFI selection.

This would solve the problem of uneven columns between TAFI and "On this day" entries in entirety. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support the above with the purge option. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(I've struck my support here, in support of a different version below in the discussion. However, I still like the layout style here.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Like--Coin945 (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Like Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Here's ALT 1: Sans the purge option. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help! The terms foobar, fubar, or foo, bar, baz and qux (alternatively quux) are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. (Full article...) More selections...

Proposal

Stick to the formating of the TAFI (specific number of hooks and overall length/space) as approaved by consensus of the general community and place,as originally aproved, to the left and add an empty green header bar to the right with no text and no prose below. I recommend implementation of the "Today's Article For improvement" even if it has to be done by leaving an empty space in the lower righthand section. I trust the good faith and work of editors here, but the local consensus on this talkpage should not hold up the overall general community consensus to add TAFI to the main page. I know it needs to be done right, but it also may need to just be done - one way or another, with the understanding that the main page may need further adjusting.

I disagree that this needs to be held up until a solution is found, but I also feel I should provide a suggestion towards that solution anyway. The blank green bar is the most neutral manner of balancing the new addition on the left, but is it even needed? It could be left blank for now. Holding this up for the sake of balance is like saying it cannot be implemented until another new feature is decided on for the opposite side of the page. That won't happen, I'm sure, but....... there is another sister project to TAFI. we could look to the general community again to see if they would like to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week to the right hand side column. This project was suggested during the discussion to bring TAFI to the Main Page. At any rate, just my two cents.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Stick to the formating of the TAFI (specific number of hooks and overall length/space) as approaved by consensus of the general community and place,as originally aproved, to the left and add an empty green header bar to the right with no text and no prose below.

A blank heading with empty space below it? What would that accomplish? And why would it be green?

I recommend implementation of the "Today's Article For improvement" even if it has to be done by leaving an empty space in the lower righthand section. I trust the good faith and work of editors here, but the local consensus on this talkpage should not hold up the overall general community consensus to add TAFI to the main page.

That consensus doesn't trump the longstanding consensus to balance the two columns (which wasn't adequately taken into account). We're attempting to find a feasible means of honoring both.

I know it needs to be done right, but it also may need to just be done - one way or another, with the understanding that the main page may need further adjusting.

We don't rush content on to the site's most viewed page before it's ready. It's much more important to present the material well than it is to present it immediately.

The blank green bar is the most neutral manner of balancing the new addition on the left, but is it even needed?

I don't even know what purpose it's intended to serve.

It could be left blank for now.

That certainly seems more sensible than an empty section does. But as discussed above, even padding ITN and/or OTD, while not ideal, is preferable to imbalance.

Holding this up for the sake of balance is like saying it cannot be implemented until another new feature is decided on for the opposite side of the page.

Alternatives have been suggested.

That won't happen, I'm sure, but....... there is another sister project to TAFI. we could look to the general community again to see if they would like to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week to the right hand side column. This project was suggested during the discussion to bring TAFI to the Main Page.

Similar ideas have been proposed (and rejected) on multiple occasions. —David Levy 23:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A blank heading with empty space below it? What would that accomplish? And why would it be green?

I believe he meant just simple blank blue space on the right. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

He/she mentioned that (as a possible alternative) later in the message. I was addressing the suggestion that we "add an empty green header bar to the right with no text and no prose below". —David Levy 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

TheOriginalSoni is correct. I meant to say blue empty header box. The purpose is graphic balance.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

An "empty header box" (whether green or blue) is not the same as "just simple blank blue space".

The latter would arise by adding TAFI to the left-hand column and doing nothing else. You mentioned this as another possibility, and it would be preferable to the creation of an empty section. But as discussed above, better options exist. —David Levy 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you feel one of the above options is preferred I can undertand that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The balancing of the columns

Just to make sure, everyone here does realise that on any sized version of the main page other than at specific size parameters, the columns are not alligned, right? Every time i access the main page on my phone or itouch (when i want to edit, that is, not when i want to just view - I'll use the 'mobile' version for that), there are chunks of white space dangling at the bottom. And guess what? I don't care. I don't think anyone cares. Yes, it is nice if we can get both colomns to balance, but the fact of the matter is, it's pretty darn impossible, and i see no reason why they have to. They never used to have to until we make the decision to... oh i can't remember when it was. But the point is, I think this thing might be being enforced by people who are a touch too anal. I'll reiterate. On the whole noone cares. If we make the change, and get distressed letters from our fans..ermm..readers about how distraught they are over the patch of white emptiness that stares into their soul, then maybe we can do something about it. Secondly, this 'white space' occurs at the moment, on many platforms, and when you like your internet on a permanently scrolled in or out version. Therefore, I argue that this whole white space issue is white noise, and we should just get on with it. I'm not asking you to hold up the white flag, or trying to make this discussion go white hot...and that's not a white lie. (sorry.. i'm stuck on this colour phrase website at the moment...). The point is, that, yeah, I think we're ready to go up. A little white space never harmed anyone! (well, unless you swatted a fly with a blank sheet of paper.. in which case an A4 sized white space critically hurt a fly... :/).--Coin945 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And guess what? I don't care.

Others do.

I don't think anyone cares.

Please speak for yourself.

They never used to have to until we make the decision to... oh i can't remember when it was.

It was a major concern during the 2006 redesign, so it's been at least that long.

But the point is, I think this thing might be being enforced by people who are a touch too anal.

Right, denigrate those who disagree with you. That's constructive.

I'll reiterate. On the whole noone cares.

...excepting those of us who are anal.

Secondly, this 'white space' occurs at the moment, on many platforms, and when you like your internet on a permanently scrolled in or out version.

Admins (myself included) strive to minimize the white space as much as possible. As noted above, the longstanding layout enables us to keep the columns more or less balanced for most readers.

Indeed, people's settings vary greatly, so the balance will never be perfect or 100% consistent, but we generally manage to keep it within an acceptable range under most configurations. Inserting TAFI without compensating for its addition would worsen the balance. That won't happen (because admins will continue to compensate for imbalance), but when this discussion began, the version displayed in the sandbox would have caused significantly greater difficulty. —David Levy 07:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Options

Lets take a step back and look at our options for implementing the design discussed at the Village pump, where TAFI goes beneath DYK on the left hand side. Doing this generates too much blank space on the right hand side. As I see it, the only way to put TAFI on the left hand side is to do at least one of the following things:

1. Decrease the space for Today's Featured Article
2. Decrease the space for Did You Know?
3. Increase the space for In The News
4. Increase the space for On This Day

As far as I know, we have categorically eliminated option 2 because it would put DYK even further behind their backlog. And we have tentatively eliminated increasing ITN and OTD because there is not enough content to be viable in the long term. I am left with the following options:

1. We implement by decreasing space for Today's Featured Article
2. We add one item to each of ITN and OTD in the short term, and after TAFI matures with it's Main Page exposure, we reevaluate it's position in a month or two. This may coincide with the 2013 Main Page Redesign
3. We propose another method of implementation, such as a full page width bar, and seek consensus to implement TAFI in that manner. This would require another RFC which may or may not succeed.

I know I might be creating a false dilemma here, but the only truly viable option I see is number two where ITN and OTD add one additional item. This is the simplest solution to get the implementation completed. Note Today's version of the Main Page (Feb 11th) doesn't have any whitespace problems at all with the current implementation. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If there is no issue with the current sandbox should that be implemented?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The mock-up at the beginning of this section created an imbalance that was very difficult to rectify within the current framework. This latest version is substantially easier to balance, requiring only about two additional blurbs between ITN and OTD. I think it's conceivable that ITN and OTD could handle that on a daily basis. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the problem that there is too much of a backlog in DYK? Why not put TAFI on the right hand side, and add some hooks to DYK, which would reduce the backlog, and help the balance. MChesterMC (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This was addressed above. —David Levy 09:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Which does not really remove the possibility of such an option. I personally would have no problems with such a proposal. There might be others who concur too. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Which does not really remove the possibility of such an option.

Nor did I claim that it does. I simply noted that a relevant discussion thread (including a response to the question asked) exists above. —David Levy 14:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We did go over moving DYK to the right hand side and it was categorically eliminated. The left hand side is for featuring article type content, the right hand side for event type content. With the current structure in place, and the idea of changing it a significantly larger problem than is necessary to tackle with this problem, I suggest we leave it alone. TAFI fits into the category of content on the left, so it should go on the left

Anyways, getting back to things. I propose we do a more specific announcement with ITN and OTD, contact some people involved with the project and such, and let them know about the proposal to increase each item to one extra hook per day. If that is deemed an acceptable option, then I propose we do that and implement on the Main Page, it being the simplest method to accomplish that goal. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN has no set number of blurbs. We routinely adjust the quantity to improve the columns' balance. As one of the admins who handles this (and Tariqabjotu is another), I can tell you that a single extra blurb isn't a big deal.

OTD is managed primarily by Howcheng. It typically contains five blurbs, but quantity adjustments sometimes occur there too (as noted in the documentation), so apart from a small number of dates with a shortage of eligible articles, it shouldn't be a problem there either. —David Levy 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well I will post another blurb on the ITN and OTD pages, with details of this proposal and a specific link to this section. If you or someone else is aware of the specific people who should be directly contacted, please leave them a message on their talk pages directing them here. Once we have confirmation that the other two affected projects have no major concerns, then we can establish a firm start date and launch on the Main Page. Update: I have posted invitations. Please invite specific people to comment as well. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• From an ITN point of view, the spacing should not be an issue, as ITN doesn't have any fixed number of blurbs at all. ITN is generally the most flexible section, and blurbs will be removed, or old blurbs brought back, as needed to keep the main page balanced. It shouldn't affect the day-to-day functioning of ITN one iota, excepting that the oldest blurb is likely to be a day or two older than it currently is, but that's a small consideration. User:Howcheng and anyone else that pitches in at OTD is likely in for a bit more work, as that has a set number of blurbs for each day, and rarely changes off of five; ensuring that OTD has an extra blurb each day is going to require a bit more extra work than ITN will need, which is negligible. --Jayron32 05:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  OTD lists are updated annually, with some or all of the items rotated in and out. On all but a few dates (for which shortages of eligible articles exist), including an additional item requires virtually no extra work; one of the blurbs that would have been swapped out can simply be retained, with only a modicum of effort to ensure that it isn't topically similar to one of those being swapped in (something that already occurs). Alternatively, an additional blurb can be swapped in, but this isn't required.
  I'm prepared to assist in this area, in which I as fairly active in the past. (Until recently, the TFA blurbs were less consistent in length, so I sometimes expanded OTD to reduce the need to restore old ITN items.) —David Levy 05:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

People often complain here about how long "news" is retained in ITN as it is! I don't think leaving items there longer is going to be popular with main-page readers. OTD has been short by one item in the current layout (at least in my setup) for ages, so to balance, two new items would probably be ideal. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For most dates, that's a viable option. —David Levy 07:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see why it's quite so unthinkable just to put TAFI in the right-hand column, per my earlier suggestion. It could always be styled so as to make it clear it belongs in a separate content theme. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Placing TAFI in the right-hand column isn't "unthinkable". Maintaining/expanding the existing themes is simply better. —David Levy 07:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is going to be a million times easier to get this implemented if we stick with the left hand side below DYK scenario because a) it has been approved by the community, and b) we don't have to call an RFC, throw out the approved proposal, and vote on a new proposal that may not pass.

It seems to be the case that everyone agrees on implementing TAFI on the Main Page. It also seems to be the case that everyone wants to implement their particular flavour of TAFI on the Main Page. The reality is that only one flavour has been approved: left hand side below DYK. We need to make that approved proposal work. Then, after everyone gets used to it on the Main Page, and the process becomes successful, only then should we start proposing bigger changes, like maybe having it's own section. Maybe part of a section called "How to be an editor", with introductory instructions and some suggested articles to improve. Maybe we include one GA each week. But that kind of thinking depends on getting it on the Main Page first. Maybe we have a mini-WikiCup for TAFI. Little steps. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe I stated earlier that there are one or two days where there are only five eligible articles, so those are the days when OTD would not be able to expand at all to fill the extra space. Then there are a handful of days where there are less than 3 eligible backup blurbs, so we may have a difficult time if TFA and/or DYK happen to be long on those days (meaning we'd be showing 7 items at least). Would there be an objection to hiding TAFI when necessary? —howcheng {chat} 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I had never considered simply hiding TAFI when necessary, that would certainly work. If there is any way you could generate a shortlist of days that only have 5 eligible articles, earlier we had a great idea presented where TAFI could work to improve OTD articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Hiding TAFI when necessary sounds like a fine option, as long as it is temporary and absolutely required (for the given day). Hiding it once a week on an average would be fine for me, but more than that probably wouldn't. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TAFI moving forward?

Here are links to the Village pump discussions:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI

I've updated the Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox to better reflect consensus for TAFI's layout per the discussion at archive 97 above. Consensus was to have one TAFI listing, rather than the three that are currently present at the sandbox page. I feel that there should be at least some sort of randomization regarding entries that are listed when editors open the Main page, since at least 7 TAFI entries will be existent. I support either a purge option or a link to the entries as is currently at the sandbox page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've undone your edit, which increased the section's size to two lines.

As discussed above, the main page already contains a prominent invitation to edit articles (which applies to all of them, not merely those selected via the TAFI process), and the "More selections..." link would lead to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement or a related page containing a suitable introduction (in addition to the template included in each of the articles). —David Levy 08:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And I've undone yours. Why don't we start with the proposal that was community approved, and then let consensus decide what it should or should not be, than forcing our own proposal onto others.

The current consensus was that TAFI should have a single line of its own, and I would rather see it being changed by consensus only. As for "the main page already contains a prominent invitation to edit articles", I think that this applies more to articles in the TAFI than those outside; since those are already reasonably developed enough to require a special invitation to edit. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And I've undone yours. Why don't we start with the proposal that was community approved, and then let consensus decide what it should or should not be, than forcing our own proposal onto others.

The version that you removed from the sandbox was the product of discussion and collaboration, both here and at the TAFI talk page.

The current consensus was that TAFI should have a single line of its own, and I would rather see it being changed by consensus only.

Then why did you just revert from a single-line layout (created to incorporate the collaborative improvements made at the TAFI talk page, while honoring the consensus regarding the section's size) to a two-line layout?

As for "the main page already contains a prominent invitation to edit articles", I think that this applies more to articles in the TAFI than those outside; since those are already reasonably developed enough to require a special invitation to edit.

Sorry, I don't understand. Users are invited to edit every article in the encyclopedia. —David Levy 18:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Users are invited to edit every article in the encyclopedia.

Yes. We are. But I would argue that the message "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is so small that we all kind of skim over it. And even if we read it, it wouldnt mean much. The name of this encyclopedia is "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia". And that is what it has become. The place for school students to come to get the neat concise answers to their next assignment. Even if someone did decide they were going to edit an article, they would probably have to spend ages pressing the randomise button or searching through endles stub lists until they found something of interest. This has happened to me and more often than lot I've lost interest as a result. This is not just saying 'yes. you are theoretically able to edit any article you so choose', but rather 'hey, guess what? this is a bunch of articles that you'd probably be interested in and that need a lot of work. though many will say that everything you'd possibly want to work on has already been made a GA or FA by now is false, and TAFI is here to prove it. please don't hesitate to come by and lend your knowledge and expertise to these articles which may take your fancy'. Long story short, we are not saying you are technically allowed to edit these articles (as that message implies), but really encouraging people to get involved. That is the semantic difference here.--Coin945 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand and support the idea behind TAFI. I don't mean to suggest that every article in the encyclopedia presents the same opportunity to engage in improvement.

My point is that the main page already contains a prominent message — linked to Wikipedia:Introduction — informing readers that they can edit the encyclopedia'a articles. So a heading labeled "today's articles for improvement" conveys the concept that the articles linked below have been selected as prime candidates for improvement. There's no need to tell readers that they're invited to edit said articles, as they're included in the existing invitation. We need only advise them that these articles are especially suitable choices, which the heading accomplishes on its own.

And again, there's no consensus for a two-line layout, and the actual "More selections..." link would lead to the same page. —David Levy 18:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Our main point is that the general introduction does not really do a lot to make the potential editor realise that they can actually help the encyclopedia. While we claim to be "An encyclopedia that everyone can edit", most of the topics that would garner general interest are woefully "perfect" and do not really invite many editors.

Because TAFI is specially designed to attract editors to edit not-our-best articles which would still invite a lot of interest, a separate line of the same for TAFI makes more sense, regardless of the redundancy.

And again, there's no consensus for a two-line layout.

There was no decision in the original discussion as to how many lines we would have. What was discussed was "what those lines would be". In both these cases, we had an original decision, and I would like to see a good reason before we deviate from it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Our main point is that the general introduction does not really do a lot to make the potential editor realise that they can actually help the encyclopedia.

If that's so, we need to fix it. This is one of the most important facts to convey.

While we claim to be "An encyclopedia that everyone can edit", most of the topics that would garner general interest are woefully "perfect" and do not really invite many editors.

As stated above, I understand the issue and support the idea behind TAFI. But the plan doesn't call for us to perpetuate the misconception that most articles are "perfect" and off-limits to improvement.

As I said, if the message at the top of the page is failing to make potential editors realize that they can actually help the encyclopedia, we need to fix it. Implying that their participation is restricted to a handful of specially selected articles is one of the worst things that we could do.

Because TAFI is specially designed to attract editors to edit not-our-best articles which would still invite a lot of interest, a separate line of the same for TAFI makes more sense, regardless of the redundancy.

I don't assert that such a line makes no sense (though I'm confident that we could come up with something better than "improving one of today's articles for improvement"). It's a matter of priority. Given the need to minimize the section's size (reflected in the above discussion, in which it's noted that even a single-line version presents issues), we can't afford to double it for the sake of appending a redundant message.

And I'll again point out that DYK is the only section containing a basic description of its purpose ("from Wikipedia's newest content"). TFA, ITN, OTD, TFP and TFL lack such text, despite being less self-explanatory (and more likely to be misunderstood) than TAFI will be.

Of course, I don't oppose the idea of placing TAFI in a full-width box, thereby sidestepping the column balance issue and enabling the inclusion of significantly more content.

There was no decision in the original discussion as to how many lines we would have.

As mentioned early in this discussion, in the mockup, the section (not counting the heading) consumed a single line.

What was discussed was "what those lines would be". In both these cases, we had an original decision, and I would like to see a good reason before we deviate from it.

The above discussion demonstrates "a good reason" to minimize the section's size (assuming that it appears in a column). —David Levy 10:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, if the message at the top of the page is failing to make potential editors realize that they can actually help the encyclopedia, we need to fix it. Implying that their participation is restricted to a handful of specially selected articles is one of the worst things that we could do.

Please note I mentioned "most topics that would garner general interest", and not "most topics". That being said, I really don't see how we imply that the participation of editors could be or would be restricted to a handful of articles. What we want to show is that editors can actually edit these articles, starting with TAFI. Until we agree upon an appropriate change to the general introduction, there is no need to not have the special introduction for TAFI. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't insert replies into my actual messages (thereby orphaning most segments from my signature). I've refactored your posts to instead quote the text to which they respond.

You've yet to demonstrate that the current invitation fails to convey the intended message. On what do you base this assertion?

If you're correct, text inviting users to edit specially selected articles would exacerbate the problem. (To be clear, I'm referring strictly to a scenario in which the current invitation is inadequate; I don't mean that a TAFI-specific invitation inherently would have this effect.) —David Levy 12:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you just revert from a single-line layout to a two-line layout?

When I said single line, I meant that there be a single line describing TAFI, which, is indeed what has been already agreed.

The version that you removed from the sandbox was the product of discussion and collaboration, both here and at the TAFI talk page.

First thing - Discussion is not consensus. Second thing - The fact that NA used a different layout, I reverted to that layout, and Coin said in favour of that shows that consensus is not in favour of your most preffered layout. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

When I said single line, I meant that there be a single line describing TAFI, which, is indeed what has been already agreed.

Not counting the heading, the section's mockup included a single line, period.

First thing - Discussion is not consensus.

Indeed, but it's the source thereof. I'm responding to your "forcing our own proposal onto others" remark by pointing out that I haven't acted unilaterally. I collaborated with others to revise the draft in a manner reflecting the community's concerns. You needn't agree with the result or support its implementation, but there's no need to condemn the efforts behind it.

Second thing - The fact that NA used a different layout, I reverted to that layout, and Coin said in favour of that shows that consensus is not in favour of your most preffered layout.

Firstly, "consensus" ≠ "unanimity".

Secondly, have you read the entire discussion (including the calls to minimize the section's size)?

Thirdly, I don't assert that the specific layout in question is backed by consensus (which can't be gauged without additional feedback). I assert that it has the potential (perhaps after additional tweaking), while the layout to which you reverted fails to account for the aforementioned size concern. —David Levy 10:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not counting the heading, the section's mockup included a single line, period.

The mockup included a line of decription, which was agreed upon by everyone. Unilaterally removing it over supposed concerns of redundancy is not the way to go. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Again, the mockup contained a total of one line.

2. Again, my edits were collaborative, not unilateral.

3. Again, the text was removed due to space constraints, not redundancy. (I've cited the latter to explain the prioritization.) —David Levy 12:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding to your "forcing our own proposal onto others" remark by pointing out that I haven't acted unilaterally. I collaborated with others to revise the draft in a manner reflecting the community's concerns. You needn't agree with the result or support its implementation, but there's no need to condemn the efforts behind it.

Reverting others' efforts to try and improve the layout, and completely ignoring other concerns on the same is a bad form to approach things. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed said concerns continually. I'm addressing them right now. You needn't agree with me, but on what do you base the assertion that I'm "completely ignoring" this input?

Conversely, your reversion to a two-line layout ignores the concerns regarding space constraints. —David Levy 12:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't assert that the specific layout in question is backed by consensus (which can't be gauged without additional feedback). I assert that it has the potential (perhaps after additional tweaking), while the layout to which you reverted fails to account for the aforementioned size concern.

Removing all description lines is not the only way to minimize the sections. What is the problem with having a single article instead of 3? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I explained the problem below. (Are you skipping parts of the discussion?) I'll copy and paste what I wrote:

Even if the number of article links were reduced to one, such an addition would increase the section size's variability and the likelihood of the text wrapping to a second line.

—David Levy 12:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do I read you correct when you are saying that one link is more likely to wrap to a second line, than three? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I mean. I'm referring to the difference in the combined text (three article links vs. one article link and the proposed sentence). —David Levy 13:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The current layout has 3 articles + sentence; which wraps to 2 lines. If we reduce it to 1 link+ sentence, I think we can wrap to a single line in almost all cases. What will be the problem with that? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You might not realize that this is highly dependent upon a user's configuration (screen resolution, text size, window size, etc.). So what you (or I) see isn't necessarily the same as what someone else sees.

I've tested various layouts under a variety of settings. The version containing three article links and no sentence remains a single line under extreme conditions. The version containing one article link and a sentence does not; it appears as a single line under my usual configuration (and presumably yours), but it wraps to a second line under other settings realistically in use.

In one respect, this actually is worse than a setup resulting in two lines for everyone, as it impedes efforts to counter column imbalance. —David Levy 14:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Layout

Present layout as per Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox (as of this post):

• Somewhat support (for now) - Succinct and functional; doesn't overextend the length of the left column on the Main page. Just add in as a prefix to the entries to provide some context: "Help Wikipedia by improving one of Today's articles for improvement:" Perhaps consider only listing one TAFI entry for starters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  (I've struck my support here, in support of a different version below in the discussion). Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Even if the number of article links were reduced to one, such an addition would increase the section size's variability and the likelihood of the text wrapping to a second line.
  And as noted above, the "More selections..." link is intended to lead to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement (or whatever future page best serves as an introduction to readers), so a second link would be redundant (as would inviting readers to "improve" an article for improvement). —David Levy 14:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternate layout ideas

• Here's some layout ideas. They add more lines, but they also provide more context. I'm aware of the discussions about limiting the size of the TAFI area. These are just some ideas; possibly for future reference. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ALT 1

ALT 2

ALT 3

Today's articles for improvement Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help! The terms foobar, fubar, or foo, bar, baz and qux (alternatively quux) are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. (Full article...) More selections...

• ((suppport)) I like this one the best. but I think it should have a purge button as well as a "more selections" one. If we decide to go with another version, I still think we should keep the wording here: "Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help!".--Coin945 (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  Comment - I actually prefer ALT 3, because it provides space for a link to WP TAFI and an area for a topic summary for articles that are listed. However, consensus at the Village pump discussions was for TAFI entries to be listed in the left column of Main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  As noted above, the current version's "More selections..." link would lead to WP:TAFI (or whatever future page best serves as an introduction to readers). —David Levy 14:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Leaning Support Comment - I like this one better, but consensus would need to be obtained for it to be implemented. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(I've struck my support here, in support of a different version below in the discussion). Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

As discussed on the TAFI talk page, if the section appears in a column, including an image is infeasible. (Some of the articles lack suitable images and others have images of varying proportions. Given the randomization, this would cause the section's size to fluctuate from one moment to the next, making balancing the columns impossible.)
I've changed the full-width version from purple to pink (its most likely color scheme if implemented). —David Levy 09:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

An easy fix is to simply omit images for the time being, although images do add eye appeal and draw attention to the subject. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, omitting the image would eliminate that issue (though the layouts in question still would consume significantly more space). —David Levy 14:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to implement

Since we have received input from ITN and OTD, I am proposing the implementation of this version of the Main Page, with TAFI located on the left hand side below DYK. The specifics of this proposal are as follows:

1. The section will contain only links to three articles, and a link to another page containing the full list and project related information
2. The three articles are randomly selected from subpages, which are preloaded on dated subpages in the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/ space (for example, Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/8/1). The subpages are prepared in advanced.
3. The whitespace issue will be monitored by interested admins, and content will be added and removed on the right hand side as necessary. If ITN and OTD cannot provide enough items, TAFI will be omitted for that day.

I find this version to be the closest to the spirit of the originally approved proposal. It is important to note that no one at these discussion has said that they do not want to put TAFI on the Main Page in principle. All of the reasons not to put it on the Main Page have strictly been about formatting issues. Although this version may not be exactly as originally proposed, or everyone's favourite method of implementation, it is the closest we can get to the original proposal while still minimizing the potential for formatting issues. Thus this version has the widest appeal, and is the most easily acceptable compromise. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here's what the current layout looks like (from Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox as of this post). Note how random entry generation is in place when the page is purged, in which new entries are displayed (try it out at the sandbox page by purging the page):

Maybe we should just proceed with this layout for now, because it would fit. I strongly recommend using mid-dots between entries, ((•)) which creates  • , rather than mdashes as above, because mdashes are typically used to denote interjections or parenthetical notions in writing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Go for it. --Jayron32 04:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see a consensus from the broader community for this. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What would you consider to be the broader community, in this case? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because everyone's lost interest in this discusison by now. That's what always seems to happen when important discussions become walls of text. FYI, this isn't the format I would have chosen (I find it very distant and vague), but bad TAFI is better than no TAFI, right? Once it's implemented, we can iron out all the creases.--Coin945 (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sven Manguard, in the event you are unaware of previous discussions, there was consensus for TAFI to be presented on the Main page. For context, please see:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that "I didn't agree with this myself earlier" is not a synonym for "no consensus" nor is "I didn't hear about this earlier". Not sure which option Sven is expressing here, but either way, consensus for this has been clear at every step along the way, and there have been widespread, very visible discussions. --Jayron32 16:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gee thanks Jayron32, because of course needlessly being an asshole is the correct way to go about rebutting an oppose vote. As to the comment that warrants a response, no, Northamerica1000, I had not seen Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI. I had only seen this page, which looks like it has only have a dozen participants. I think that the consensus there is strong enough for this to go forward, so I am striking my oppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sven: thanks for checking in. Happy editing, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion contains multiple references/links to the previous discussion and subsections thereof. I don't see how Jayron32 was "being an asshole" by assuming that you'd read at least some of it (including the first message) before opposing the proposal.
To be clear, I appreciate your follow-up and don't hold an honest mistake against you. But the error was yours (and regardless, there's no need for name-calling). —David Levy 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record Sven, I laughed. Anyways, everything's all good now. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons explained by NickPenguin.
  I realize that this layout might not seem ideal to everyone, but we need to minimize the disruption to other sections of the main page (and the maintenance thereof). Everyone here is acting in good faith, but most of the counter-proposals appear to stem from insufficient familiarity with the issues faced, including the variability caused by differences in local configurations. (In other words, what you see on your end or I see on my end isn't necessarily what others see on their ends.) —David Levy 09:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Y Support. Let's move forward. I prefer using mid-dots between entries rather than mdashes. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  They're en dashes (not em dashes). And as noted below, we use them for this purpose in the other main page sections. I don't oppose the use of either symbol in principle, but we should utilize one or the other consistently. —David Levy 09:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  I see. After checking out Main page, yes, this is how listed entries are formatted (E.g. Recently featured articles at the bottom of "From today's featured article".) Consistency is certainly important. Thanks for the clarification. Struck some of my comments above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Coin, something is better than nothing. We can sort out the smaller problems later. Right now, we need to look at the many problems hitting us as we reach the Main page. Of course, I am hoping that we have the option to change the format again if required. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, that option always exists; nothing is set in stone. —David Levy 09:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Alternate 2 does a much better job explaining TAFI. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Firstly, please explain how the sentence adds any information that otherwise isn't conveyed. Secondly, please address the space/balance issue. —David Levy 12:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Fortunately, future changes can occur. It appears to be functional at this time to work with this simple layout, which can be easily implemented on the Main page in a timely manner. After this, adjustments, addition of links, etc. can be enacted per future discussion on this talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  In particular, if the TAFI section works well, the community may be open to the idea of relocating it to a full-width box (most likely shared with TFL, which appears only on Mondays), thereby sidestepping the column balance issue and enabling the inclusion of a great deal more content. —David Levy 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like the best compromise, given all the considerations discussed above, and it can always be changed/improved later. - Evad37 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with above. Time to implement.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is the time and the format/placement appears to make the most sense. Let's try it out. Jusdafax 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a good start for TAFI-on-the-main-page. 80.229.43.89 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support don't see why not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Move to close This has been flogged enough. The numerous discussions given on this proposal has given editors ample opportunity to raise their objections, the bulk of which are variations on a flavour. Since the structure is already in place and well tested, I move we implement on the earliest and most convenient Monday. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  Note: One loose end is the issue regarding the main page's cache. As discussed, I've posted a request for a bot to purge it at regular intervals. —David Levy 18:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  Edit to prevent archiving. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  I've asked about requesting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge once an hour every 15 minutes at the bot request. Neo Poz (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposal - Does anyone mind changing the more selections to point to the TAFI main page? We can change the words appropriately, but I would much rather prefer the potential reader of this column to be able to directly access a page which explains the scope of the section in a single click, than 2. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat oppose having "More selections" link directly to the project page, because TAFI's main page includes nominations, etc., rather than entries that have been scheduled as actual Today's articles for improvement. I do like the notion of a link to TAFI being available in the Main page box somewhere, but it may not be feasible at this time due to space constraints. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The plan is to either link to a new page or rework WP:TAFI's content accordingly (with the nominations subpage no longer transcluded there). The latter is more intuitive and consistent with the other main page sections' project pages. —David Levy 10:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As explained in the discussion, that's exactly what's planned. The current target is a temporary example, linked because a suitable target page (containing a TAFI introduction and the full article list) hasn't been created yet. —David Levy 10:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The TAFI page does contain a full description and a list of articles (to the right) at the top. What it does is to have a lot more content lower down, which might be slightly counter to what should be. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The description focuses on project coordination. It should be replaced with a reader-friendly introduction focusing on article improvement. (Most of the page's current content should be relocated to a coordination subpage.) —David Levy 11:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have boldly moved most of the content from the main TAFI page to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Coordination, and added that link into the tabbed header. We should work on the main TAFI page until that one is all fixed up and appropriate to be linked form the Main Page. As an aside, the box with all the current articles that Northamerica1000 whipped up looks pretty sweet. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternates

• Additional options, sans the example image and with TAFI information to provide context. Notice how the lengths of each column are balanced in the example layout below the alternates. See also: Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/main page placement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

ALT 1 – with 1 TAFI entry:

ALT 2 – with 3 TAFI entries:

• Support Comment - This provides context about what TAFI is, and I like the notion of editors having three article choices from the start. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main concern delaying implementation is the amount of space consumed (and resultant column balance issues). This version is displayed as at least two lines (double the length), and it will wrap to three lines (triple the length) for many users. (As discussed above, this is highly dependent upon a user's configuration — screen resolution, text size, window size, etc. — so what you saw and screen-captured isn't necessarily what others would see.) It also incorporates interpuncts in a manner inconsistent with the other sections (where dashes are used).
  The example image below, while undoubtedly presented in good faith, is misleading. It apparently is intended to illustrate that the proposed layout doesn't interfere with column balance, but this is subject to the aforementioned variability issue. (The columns were balanced on your end, but that doesn't mean that they would be balanced for other users.) Also, it relies on the addition of two extra items to OTD (despite the explanation by Howcheng, the section's primary maintainer, that it isn't always feasible to add one), with no indication of what's been added to ITN (where we already have a staleness problem).
  And this is all for the sake of appending a single sentence (which, as discussed above, is redundant and would link to the same page as the "More selections..." link). —David Levy 08:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support This makes it much clearer what TAFI is. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Firstly, please explain how the sentence adds any information that otherwise isn't conveyed. Secondly, please address the space/balance issue. —David Levy 12:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Firstly, this alternate actually contains a link to the TAFI page. Secondly, I don't see a space/balance issue. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Did you read the discussion (or even the message directly above yours)? —David Levy 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Based on the picture below, there isn't a space/balance issue. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  You still haven't read it. —David Levy 21:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  I did read it and I don't see your concern. It isn't that big of an issue. I just prefer the wording on this one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  I explained that the picture below is misleading, as it doesn't accurately depict the page's appearance for all users and relies upon the inclusion of an infeasible quantity of OTD (and probably ITN) items to achieve the balance shown. So while you can't see a space/balance issue in that image, it exists.
  I also noted that the "More selections..." link is intended to lead to the same page linked via the proposed sentence ("the TAFI page"). These matters previously were addressed in the discussion. —David Levy 22:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Example layout (Full-sized version):

• Comment That looks great when I read it on my desktop with my widescreen monitor. However, I frequently use my tablet to browse the wiki, and this version always wraps around. The internet is increasingly being browsed by mobile devices, and I think we should take into consideration lower screen resolutions, since these kinds of users are becoming more common. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 12:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello NickP: Yep, I'm aware of these types of variances per device/browser/screen size; just an example. Yes, people definitely browse on mobile devices more nowadays; the above is more of a computer screen example. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes

I note that there are still items on my watchlist which have pending changes. That may be a mistake. However, it got me thinking that since most pages which get main page exposure are heavily vandalised, particularly if the article is already in a poor state, it might be worth considering some kind of pending changes on these (i.e. don't lock them out from IPs etc wishing to contribute, but perhaps allow their changes to be monitored before they become part of Wikipedia). Maybe it's been discussed above (it's all a little TL;DR for me) but I was just wondering if this was a consideration? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Check out this archived discussion where consensus was against adding pending changes to TAFI articles: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#PC1. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, no bother, it wasn't actually a "proposal", just a discussion, so your oppose not required. I know, from watching hundreds, if not thousands of main page listed articles, the vandalism is significant. I guess since the TAFI will be more general than specialist, perhaps more people will be watching it. Anyway, thanks for your note and your oppose and your link to the previous discussion, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Although, less than a dozen opposes to the proposal in total for something that may appear on the main page seems a little weak, borderline pathetic. Maybe we need to revisit it at a wider forum than just the Village Pump?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)