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.

Request withdrawn by the OP. Per the FAQ and the instructions at the top of this page, discussions/requests regarding the links to other languages should go to Template talk:Wikipedialang. Modest Genius ^talk 11:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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

---

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

Someone forgot to add Sinugboanong Binisaya and Winaray to list of Wikipedias with more than 1,000,000 articles, they are in the reference List of Wikipedias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.115.26 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe this list excludes Wikipedias with large numbers of low quality bot-created articles. I know for a fact that the Cebuano Wikipedia is that big because somebody ran a bot to create huge numbers of articles about places. Note that it has a very low value for the "depth" column in that field, and very few active users. Same for the Waray-Waray Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 00:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

ok never mind, I thought it was a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.115.26 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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.

The shortcut redirect to this page, T:MP, has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_2#T:MP. Modest Genius ^talk 10:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Modest Genius ^talk 10:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

On the main page, it says that there are 6,085,305 articles to edit, although the Special:Stats page says the number is 6,085,316. Please can an admin fix this. XLK123 (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, the count is never exactly correct as articles are constantly deleted, created, and moved in and out of mainspace. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In order for Wikipedia to function efficiently, certain level of caching is required, especially for frequently visited pages like the main page. This means that those pages will not be constantly regenerated to keep numbers always up to date. The number is, all for intents and purposes, very close to reality. BeŻet (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Purge#Theory for an explanation of why the Main Page is often slightly behind Special:Stats. The MP gets purged multiple times every day, so is never more than a few hours out. If you're ever concerned by a large discrepancy, you can purge the Main Page manually, no admin rights needed. Modest Genius ^talk 12:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really an error at all, but ((CURRENTDAYNAME)) in the TFL code is the only remaining example of a magic word in the Main Page source; the rest have been replaced by the #time parser function. I think that this should be replaced with ((#time:l)), which will ensure consistency in the source and allow it to be more easily adapted somewhere else – such as to display content from another day (e.g. on the yesterday and tomorrow display pages), which can then be done with an intuitive modification of the parser function rather than calculating the day names to replace Monday and Friday. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § CSS issues

 – —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Because Hut 8.5 removed my entry on WP:MPE as a non-error, I'm posting it here instead: I'd like to hear someone explain to me how "bouncing anime breasts" made it into a DYK hook on the Main Page of one of the most publicly-viewed websites in the world.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not censored. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with censorship. It has everything to do with how this hook appears to readers who aren't "in the know" in terms of Internet slang and culture. What the hell does "bouncing anime breasts" mean to someone who doesn't have any clue what anime is or isn't waist-deep in that Internet subculture?--WaltCip (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's pretty self-evident what it means even to those not in the know, they even provided a link to the technical genre for those who don't know what it is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't know what anime is can click on the link. Hut 8.5 12:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously the point I'm trying to make isn't getting through. I'm not sure whether it's an inability to properly explain my grievance or what. I still feel that taken out of context, the phrase just doesn't make sense.--WaltCip (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you prefer "anime bouncing breasts" instead? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In a way, that would actually be clearer and more descriptive.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikilink Breast physics somewhere?-- P-K3 (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe that is actually a Wikipedia article. Yes, pipe to it from "bouncing breasts".--WaltCip (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Jesus tap dancing Christ. Should've known that this was one of The C of E's! ——Serial ^# 13:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Hey! This article and hook has nothing to do with me! I was just explaining the reason why it is allowed at DYK and suggested a tweak to make it more gramatically correct to the guy who commented about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, The C of E!—but are you suggesting that I should've known is wasn't your hook because it doesn't indicate that you know all eighteen verses of The Sash?! :D ——Serial ^# 14:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Which one, traditional or Thornlie Boys version? :) If you'd like to look at one of my hooks in this set, may I direct you to Cranbrook RFC? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki is not censored but lmao I have no idea why this is here, but it's slightly interesting, but I'm not sure why it's a DYK. At this rate, first doja cat and bouncing anime tiddies, next, the Cock and ball torture article because it's haha so funny. Not really, imo, the DYK space could've had something more relevant. I think it only made it here because of its silliness. Ed6767 (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you said "it's slightly interesting", which is probably enough to fulfil the "likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article" criterion. Bazza (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I would not call them anime breasts but maybe call them anime style breasts at least when i downloaded the video onto my phone it was not anime but it was anime style as a watcher of anime I know what anime is like 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• That hook worked for me. I clicked through to get the gist of the story but manged to resist watching the video. There's some more gratuitous anime up at the moment "... that a normally closed entrance to Hynes Convention Center station is opened for Boston Marathon spectators and anime fans?" Andrew🐉(talk) 06:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• The mobile version of the main page is missing the Did you know and On this day sections. There seems to be no good reason for omitting them that I can think. I would think mobile browsers could easily display them, and the main page is quite short without them. Can we incorporate these into the Mobile main page? There is a link to the mobile version in the footer of the Main page which takes you here. Whizz40 (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Whizz40, the reason is that english wikipedians can't get themselves organized to change the structure of their own main page. Every time it ends up in a discussion that everyone gets tired of, the people driving it give up, walk away and then nothing happens. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Whizz40 If you are using a browser on your phone, you can easily switch it to the desktop version by scrolling to the bottom of any page and touching/clicking 'desktop'. The mobile version does not have full functionality, for various reasons. This doesn't have to do with changes to the Main Page itself. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  331dot, "This doesn't have to do with changes to the Main Page itself". Yes it does.. English wikipedia is opted into a deprecated system, because they won't fix their main page... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Fair enough, though it was my understanding that the mobile version is simply a slimmed down version of the desktop version- it didn't have to do with what features the main page has in general(which is indeed very contentious). 331dot (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  331dot, that's the deprecated part.. for FOUR years now. Just to contextualize my frustration over this.. So often the developers get flack over not announcing their changes or not providing a migration path. But there has been a migration path for this for over 4 years and still this community has not been able to get their shit together. At least 6 people have volunteered their time to move this page forward and have given up. Edokter even LEFT in 2016 over this shit.. And in the end (somewhere this year), the developers will flip a switch (you are not getting more than 4 years), stuff will break, people will cry wolf and developers will once again be blamed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's news to me. I too was under the impression the mobile MP was set by software and we had no control over it. If it's just a case of migrating to a non-deprecated system it should be easy to build consensus. Proposals to change the design or content of the MP do indeed flounder, but that's a very different beast to simply updating the technical implementation. Is there previous discussion somewhere? Was it part of Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update, which seemed to be progressing well until coronavirus hit? Modest Genius ^talk 11:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Modest Genius, TheDJ is spot on with his assessment here. What's worse is that this has led to Cargo cult programming of smaller wikis looking to English Wikipedia as a "best practice" and inheriting its technical debt. All these pages load slower and show a fraction of the information and punish mobile users simply because a small amount of the Wikipedia editing community cannot compromise with the installation of a user style.

Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update was progressing well but got the same pushback as previous attempts because certain vocal individuals nitpicked small aspects of the change - such as Vector stacking the two column boxes on smaller displays.

I think User:QEDK has proposed the smallest possible change here that can successfully upgrade you at Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox. While imperfect, it's a starting point for further conversations and at least moves the project in the right direction and allows mobile users to finally see the rest of the page without having to switch to desktop view. Jdlrobson (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid the technical details go over my head, but I'll repeat my expectation that a technical update that doesn't change the current appearance would easily gain consensus. Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox looks fine to me on desktop (Firefox, logged in, monobook) and mobile (Safari, logged out, default skin). The only possible objections I can see are a) whether mobile users should see the whole MP or just the streamlined version they do at present, and b) if they do see the whole page, should it be ITN or DYK that appears immediately after TFA in a single-column layout? Those are both legitimate discussions to have, but neither are important enough to prevent implementation if the current technology will break soon. Modest Genius ^talk 15:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Modest Genius, if a streamlined version is still wanted that can easily be resolved after this technical update by the addition of the nomobile class. Your expectations are met with the proposed first change. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To my recollection, Edokter left because he attempted to create a super-consensus, threatened to block anyone whom he deemed to be interfering with the discussion, and got called out on it. Just thought I'd clarify since some people here may not have been around for that.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update was moving along, which would have allowed us to control what sections are on the mobile page - but there were at least some parts of it that some people didn't like so it was stopped. Like TheDJ mentioned above, this can be at least frustrating enough that volunteers may disengage and direct their efforts to other things that have less friction. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

WaltCip, ok sure. Edokter got so frustrated over the lack of progress that he burned out, set a fire and left.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I recall Edokter kept trying to force his esthetic preferences along with any functional fixes. He seemed to consider his personal taste as being objectively better. If something does not work or will soon not work, FIX that. But the outcome should still look like what is here now. After fixing functionality, THEN we can discuss esthetics.--Khajidha (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Let's take a look at removing the dependency on this feature then, who is best equipped to look at this? Better late than never! and in the meantime, can we be bold and simply include OTD and DYK in the Mobile version?  Whizz40 (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's limited to just two sections to speed load times and reduce download sizes, especially for those on (sometimes expensive) mobile data plans. See this FAQ. I would support adding a button or link that would then load all section if selected, without every mobile user downloading the whole thing by default. Modest Genius ^talk 11:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the best solution would be to have a second main page, such as the current mobile one, that leads to one displaying the full details. This could be set in the preferences to show either one. Whilst not an optimal solution, it's a fix. For what its worth, most mobile users could simply be redirected to https://wikipedia.org and have a link to the main page from there. That would irradicate the need for two pages, and also reduce strain on mobile data plans.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That won't solve the problem of more data being used. Even if part of it is hidden by javascript, it is still loaded, even if you never click 'show'. >>BEANS X2t 09:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If the ability to have a separate mobile Main Page is going away, then just turn the thing off now. Then we can decide what we want the one and only Main Page to be. --Khajidha (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• If no one has any issues, we can hack a fix in the interim and work on the redesign later. @Xaosflux and TheDJ: See if https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox?mfnolegacytransform=1&debug=1 matches https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK: the hacks for the actual main page mobile sections are on the back end, in that it has an overriding generation unlike every other page right now. Comparing to sandboxes won't have the same result. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, the mfnolegacytransform parameter turns off the backend transformations on the main page only. It does not work on Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox but it is also not needed. So whatever you view on mobile on that page will also work on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/?mfnolegacytransform=1&debug=1.

  With that in mind Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox looks like exactly what's needed here as it looks identical to the main page and is the minimal possible changes needed. I would recommend going with this solution. It's going to be the most straight forward change. Great job!

  I think for the community to accept this the following needs to be true and this change ticks both boxes with the smallest amount of code:

  • Vector or other skins not impacted in any way ✅ (CSS only touches Minerva)
  • Minerva content stacked ✅

  Note to deployer:

  • Move Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox2/styles.css to Main page/styles.css
  • Update Main page with content of Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox using the mobile editor. The mobile editor will let you preview the page with the transformations to check its compatible. When I test this I see "In the news" and "Today's featured article" just as we currently display.
  • Hit save and double check Vector and Minerva look like they did prior to edit
  • Visit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/?mfnolegacytransform=1&debug=1 and verify that shows the other sections (not sure today's featured article)
  • Let me know the changes have been made.
  • I can then when you are ready change the configuration variable which will make all the other sections display on mobile. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK shouldn't be inserted into second place, rather appended after the two sections that are already in the mobile view. Does the new style cater for the twice-weekly featured list section? Stephen 20:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Stephen, there's no way to control where DYK is placed without doing a major redo of the layout of the page and TFL shows up fine. This is much better than the current mobile main page so we should just start with this and work from there. – BrandonXLF (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As Brandon says, people will not agree to any change, so I simply proposed the least amount of change possible that would essentially unbreak it from the MobileFrontend developers' viewpoint as well as preserve everything, the consequence to that is that we cannot redo any aspect (partially to preserve the principle of least change), because as soon as you change one thing it will be nitpicked to another. I'll drop a note at VPP so we can actually go forward with this asap. Thanks for the reminder, Jdlrobson. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Adding a note that I will go through with this tomorrow, only a very few Minerva desktop skin users should be impacted. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Jdlrobson:  Done --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  A config change is still needed but once that's done all sections will be revealed. Before that config change is made, is there any objections from community members that require follow ups (such as hiding specific content on mobile/Minerva skin)? Jdlrobson (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Jdlrobson and QEDK: I think Today's featured picture should be centred as it is now a block element and the elements in Wikipedia's sister projects should have a width of 49% as Minerva is never wide enough to accommodate 60em on content. These changes can wait, but Minerva looks very odd without them.

body.skin-minerva #mp-tfp tr td:first-child a {
	text-align: center;
	display: block;
}
body.skin-minerva #sister-projects-list > div {
	width: 49%;
}

– BrandonXLF (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

BrandonXLF, seems uncontroversial to me. Jdlrobson (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: I did it, forgot to post here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Jdlrobson, everything's fine to me and no one has objected anything else, so everything is ready unless you want to wait longer to see if anyone has any concerns. – BrandonXLF (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As page followers may have observed, I've moved the rest out of the main page code (mostly by hand but checking my work with a few of the previous shots at this).

I'd also like to make one further change. This diff would re-add the portal links in Minerva, limit the Minerva 'responsive' version to 840px (so desktop Minerva would mostly see what desktop Vector et al see--there's a bit of scrunchiness in the right column but that's all), and make Timeless a bit more responsive. I found when I went to write the Timeless responsive parts that Minerva already had most of it, but Timeless only needs it around 840px (and Minerva is a similar number), so I thought it made more sense to do it this way and get everyone on the same bandwagon.

You can check it out at WP:Main Page/sandbox and adding ?useskin=skinname. (Where skinname is minerva, timeless, vector, etc.)

Any objection to merging this to live? --Izno (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Izno, there's no margin between the TFA and the ITN boxes in Minerva and I think some of the border is missing. – BrandonXLF (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh hey, that's cool. I think it's the border-collapse that minerva is setting. Will look. Also the hlists have not great spacing though I'm not sure if that will go away when the special casing is gone. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And the hlist issue currently impacts the Wikipedia languages section if/when that gets turned off. Jdl and DJ have looked at that in MediaWiki:Minerva.css and MediaWiki:Mobile.css. The bare hlist class looks fine in Minerva in e.g. Template:Warcraft universe. Does the stuff in Mobile.css need to be in Minerva.css? vice versa? --Izno (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Solved the hlist problem. --Izno (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As I thought, it was the border-collapse interacting with that random middle gutter cell, which was collapsing to its transparent rather than the desired 1px solid blue. --Izno (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: There's a gap above TFP and a bit of extra space above "Sister projects" header. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Took care of TFP. I don't see an issue with sister projects. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: Now there's a gap above TFL. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've resolved the stuff with QEDK on Discord and a couple more changes to the sandbox. Anyone else want to take a look? --Izno (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Izno, all the borders and stuff seems good. I think the welcome box with the portals seemed a little crowded on mobile, so went ahead I added a border above the portals. Also the portal links collapse too late when using Timeless No they don't, I forgot I had an user script on. – BrandonXLF (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that's the right thing to do with the portals but it's better than it was. --Izno (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Portals have now been returned to Minerva (and fixing the sadness that was top banner for Timeless), and it has two columns on desktop resolutions. --Izno (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 May 2020

((requested move/dated))

• Main Page/styles.css → Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css

– The styling for the main page is clearly not an article, and should be in the Wikipedia namespace, like Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday, Wikipedia:Main Page/Day before yesterday, Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox, etc. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(To be clear, since Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css exists, this is proposing implicitly history merging the current CSS for the main page with past attempts at rewriting the main page using CSS). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This was created by QEDK earlier today — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

MSGJ, Pppery is right. You may want to blank or delete Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css prior to such a move but you'll still have the history. You can also use Template:Main page/style.css if you want to start from a blank page.

Whatever you do when renaming, be sure to update the reference in Main page if doing this so as not to break it! Jdlrobson (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There's very little lineage between one and the other. I've moved it to Wikipedia:Main Page/February 2020 styles.css in prep for moving the other. --Izno (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be  Done. --Izno (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

TFP broken in new mobile view

New mobile view looks good. DYK is above ITN now but I don't think I care that much. The TFP section is objectively broken though. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Main_Page/styles.css has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For this problem, please change body.skin-minerva #mp-tfp tr td:first-child a { to body.skin-minerva #mp-tfp tr:first-child td:first-child a { on the styles.css page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

For convenience:

• MinervaNeue (mobile)
• MonoBook
• Timeless
• Vector legacy (2010)
• Vector (2022)

. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What most needs to happen is that the mess that is Template:POTD row needs to be updated per the work that Edokter started at Template talk:POTD row#Rebuild and then we can remove the CSS from the main page CSS page since we shouldn't be jumping so far into the internals of the embedded template here, the implementation of which may change. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• The mobile view looks good now -- thanks for fixing this. I've still got to switch to desktop to post though. The toggle should be easier to find. Scrolling to the bottom of the page is a pain. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note, there's a current proposal at the Village Pump to focus the main page on issues around race. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The margin for #mp-topbanner should be reduced from 6px to 4px (none). This change will make the margin consistent with all the other margins between horizontal elements on the page. Since the 4px margin is provided by the element below the top banner, there is no need to specify the bottom margin. margin: 1.2em 0 6px; should be replaced with margin-top: 1.2em; at Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css as only the top margin needs to be specified. See Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox to see the change.– BrandonXLF (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The current style of the top banner's bottom margin is inconsistent and should be changed. I've added an edit request template so that admins will see this. TJScalzo (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not censored but Jainism has nothing to do with Nazism and needs a different image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ahimsa_Jainism_Gradient.jpg would be a better image as it still has the Jain hand but not the swastika 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The swastika is much older than Nazism. Jain symbols explains the importance of the swastika in Jainism and is already linked in the image caption. Modest Genius ^talk 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

1.Ayana Hello! If you go to the bottom of the Jain symbols you will find that the Jain swastika does not have any relation to Nazism. The symbols or of two different ideologies, sadly not everyone is aware of it. The more you know :)
Modest Genius PS: Thank you!

Should we re-target our help page link in" that anyone can edit." top banner?

Reasoning

In April we changed Wikipedia:Introduction to Help:Introduction after a merge talk that consolidated all the neglected multiple page tutorials that people did not complete (this was a good thing). However originally Wikipedia:Introduction contained information about Wikipedia and being bold and vids on how to edit. The current target page of Help:Introduction does not contain this information or any information at all .... nor is it getting potential editors interested in reading on about how to edit. Stats show us that almost no-one is clicking the non-action action buttons to learn more . I am suggest we link to one of our normal overview help page about editing like Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia or Help:Editing that is navigable with a TOC, is formatted for all devices and works with screen readers, TV boxes and does not need people to click and load 66 pages. Not a secret from me that I have a real problem with the fact we are leading potential new editors to a 66 page tutorial that is not in a normal format and a HUGE read. Lets keep this simple and target a page that is small with information on it. Seeing thousands of potential editors giving up before there is any serviceable information is very disheartening...as over the years we have learnt that sending potential editors to huge multiple page tutorials simply does not get us new editors . What do other think here...keep sending potential editors to a tutorial no one is doing or a page with actual information on it? .....--Moxy 🍁 14:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Polling

Discussion

Should George Floyd protests be added in the "ongoing" section next to Hong Kong protests? A50E10AN500ER (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A50E10AN500ER, it is already the third item of the "In the news" section. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the rules. If something is already in the "in the news" section does that mean it can't be listed in the "ongoing" section? Because it is distinct from the other "in the news" events," at it is still ongoing. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A50E10AN500ER, see Wikipedia:In the news § Organization of the ITN section. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Andrybak Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates is the right place to discuss moving it to the ongoing section. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Closed)_Ongoing_consensus:_George_Floyd_protests. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems like it could replace the Hong Kong protests, since nothing has been added to their timiline since October of last year. Ksnow (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Ksnow

Per the above link, it's slated to go into the ongoing section as soon as it drops off the main feed. I haven't been following Hong Kong closely enough to be able to weigh in on what should happen with that. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we re-target our help page link in" that anyone can edit." top banner? --Moxy 🍁 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reasoning

In April we changed Wikipedia:Introduction to Help:Introduction after a merge talk that consolidated all the neglected multiple page tutorials that people did not complete (this was a good thing). However originally Wikipedia:Introduction contained information about Wikipedia and being bold and vids on how to edit. The current target page of Help:Introduction does not contain this information or any information at all .... nor is it getting potential editors interested in reading on about how to edit. Stats show us that almost no-one is clicking the non-action action buttons to learn more . I am suggest we link to one of our normal overview help page about editing like Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia or Help:Editing that is navigable with a TOC, is formatted for all devices and works with screen readers, TV boxes and does not need people to click and load 66 pages. Not a secret from me that I have a real problem with the fact we are leading potential new editors to a 66 page tutorial that is not in a normal format and a HUGE read. Lets keep this simple and target a page that is small with information on it. Seeing thousands of potential editors giving up before there is any serviceable information is very disheartening...as over the years we have learnt that sending potential editors to huge multiple page tutorials simply does not get us new editors . What do other think here...keep sending potential editors to a tutorial no one is doing or a page with actual information on it? .....--Moxy 🍁 14:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Polling

• Support Hillelfrei ^talk 16:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Abort, per comment in discussion section below. I strongly oppose a switch to any of the pages suggested, all of which have myriad major problems, although I would be open to a switch to Help:Introduction to Wikipedia, the first page in the Help:Introduction series. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Use Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Editing for the first time. Ideally, we would put together a new or at least revised, "2020-ready" page on how to get started as an editor, maybe using that page as the base, and make it specifically designed to be encouraging, and basic (more concise), and user-friendly. People will absorb the technical and policy stuff over time. All they need to know to get started are the highlights of the following, in an easy-to-digest summary: WP:Five pillars, WP:Core content policies, WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Civility, WP:Consensus, Help:Wikitext, and perhaps WP:Simplified Manual of Style (just so we don't have to clean up after them too much). Or maybe see ((Welcome)) and related templates and what projectspace pages they link to; maybe something else needs to be added to my list. I think the Missing Manual page is a reasonable framework from which to start, and is more-or-less good enough to use as-is, even if we don't work it over.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, the missing manual is unfortunately a complete nonstarter. Even putting aside the "needs update" tag, at over 50,000 bytes, the average new editor will take one look upon opening it and immediately give up. There's absolutely no need to be teaching beginners things as niche as block quote markup before they start editing. Our 2020-ready tutorial is the Help:Introduction series (the main link from ((Welcome))). Help:Introduction to Wikipedia, the first page, covers being bold and using talk pages (the two most vital things to know), encourages account creation if you're not already logged in, and invites you to learn more, which leads to simplified information about the other things you mentioned. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 10:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, then that's a better starting point, and a good-enough-for-now target.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of Help:Introduction to Wikipedia as per Sdkb above. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I am removing the RfC template, since it makes no sense to have an RfC about the best intro page right now when we are scheduled to shortly have a discussion about which link to use for the new introduction page to be linked from the header. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Restored for so many obvious reasons . Fell free to object but do not stop the process. Fell free to recommend your favorite page. --Moxy 🍁 23:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've found it a bit odd that TFA and DYK are both green and ITN and OTD are both blue, even though e.g. TFA is no more closely related to DYK than to OTD. Why the arbitrary grouping? At Help:Using colours#Wikimedia colour schemes, it looks like hues 330 and 030 are unused for the main page, so we could potentially give each box its own color. Has this been considered before? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review the long history of attempts to change the main page styling. --Izno (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, 330 is used by TFL, which appears twice a week. Modest Genius ^talk 15:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers; I'll dig through the archives more to try to find the prior discussion at some point. If the specific issue I'm bringing up have been discussed before, it'd be helpful to have a link, since I was unable to find it previously. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 10:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not super knowledgeable about which rabbit hole I need to go down to find information on the FA selection process for the main page. So, I'm trying to determine with a bit of certainty if today's FA was selected due to today also being Juneteenth. Or if this was just a coincidence. From what I can determine, the blurb for the main page was created on 22 May which predates George Floyd's death by three days. So, that's ruled out for a reason and just chalked up to coincidence. But was today selected for this article due to Juneteenth? (Note: I don't have a problem with this. I'm just curious.) Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 11:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It was selected for the date because of Juneteenth. I do the scheduling for June and I sent my choices to my fellow TFA coordinators on 20 May then did the grunt work of scheduling once they had looked over the list, and I did mention the observance as the reason for selecting the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! †dismas†|^(talk) 12:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

People who click that link are presumably looking for a reader's introduction to the site, not a comprehensive encyclopedic understanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia:About, our primary reader-focused intro, is not in the best shape currently (partly since it's too much like Wikipedia), but it's still the more appropriate target. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I would support but first we need to fix the WP:About page since I think the Wikipedia article is in a better shape currently although i do agree its not the best for a new reader. I would be interested in fixing it but not sure how to begin since its not in the best shape 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

1.Ayana, I think the best strategy is probably a full re-write after some WP:TNT. It's just way too long currently (compare it to the about page on any other major website) and gets into a bunch of unneeded detail. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I was looking at the pageview statistics for the main page here and saw huge, relatively recent cliffs: one in mid-November 2019 that dropped the main page from ~16M daily pageviews to just ~10M, and a second on May 30, 2020 that dropped daily pageviews from ~10M to ~5M.

What happened? Did Wikipedia have a deal to be the home page of some browsers that ended? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's predominantly driven by desktop. However, the views by all agents are more or less constant, which leads me to believe at least one or two bots are now identified as true bots rather than a user. And indeed, there is now an 'automated' category. Whatever that means. --Izno (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And automated is defined as anything that isn't a spider but appears to be automated anyway. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, interesting! Seems it's largely driven by a reclassification of traffic, then. April 30 was the launch of a new category, "automated". The earlier fall corresponds with a rise in spiders/web crawlers, although it doesn't fully explain that dip. Thank you for identifying that! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Might also be a change in trends. Or in layman's terms, we're not as popular as we used to be. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a chance. The graphs clearly aren't indicative a trend. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't look like a trend. That looks like a change in data collection/handling/reporting methods. —valereee (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Immediate edit suggestion for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 25. You're missing out, this should be in Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/Holidays_and_observances#Moveable_days so you don't miss out in future years. - hahnchen 10:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles with orange-level warning templates are not eligible. See WP:OTDRULES, particularly point 5. You'll need to address the problems with the article before it could even be considered for the selected anniversaries list. Modest Genius ^talk 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Needs more citations and should not be linked on the Main Page or added to the list until the citations are added 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Nadar - "Hermaphrodite" (Seventh Gallica image).jpg, an image, named after the words used at the time, notable for its historical importance as the earliest photodocumentation of intersex people, got readded to the list of pictures to be censored from the Main Page, despite the discussion that was quoted to justify it explicitly stating in its closing that the discussion only applied to specifically putting it on Intersex Awareness day.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and this would be the first image censored for sexual content alone in almost a decade, and the first one for non-sexual nudity since . Although the original discussion framed it as "something done regularly", this is simply false. A check of Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/Unused will show that the last image censored for sexual content alone was The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife in 2013 and the last image censored for mere nudity was...

...Now there's a question. As far as the page shows, this would be the first image to ever be so censored, or at least to have been so censored and remain censored. September Morn was censored for the actions of the nominator and worries about the age of the model, and File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg was stated to be "too Cheesecake-y", which is a weird reason, and should probably also be added to the POTD rotation.

We have regularly had nudity on the main page. Why should a historically important image, which I was encouraged to work on by non-binary friends, (and, although I don't bring it up much - because that's kind of the nature of the identity - I consider myself agender, since I have no real definitions of masculinity and femininity to base any gender identification of myself on) be banned from the Main Page? It seems a violation of the principles of Wikipedia to do so.

And I am especially uncomfortable with the ONLY image censored for nudity being an image of an intersex person. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 16:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The old discussion is a bit buried in the archives; for convenience, here's the summary by the closer:

Following questions on my talk page, I will clarify that I only find the community opposed to using this image as proposed here. My reason is, there were two primary rationales for opposition: 20 people opposed because they believed the image is too graphic for the Main Page per the principle of least astonishment, and 21 opposed because they found the image disrespects its subject (and intersex people more broadly) and would therefore be an inappropriate image to represent Intersex Awareness Day. (This includes four people who opposed on both rationales.) Consequently, either problem alone would have been sufficient to defeat this proposal. Nevertheless, I am unwilling to say that there are any further conclusions regarding consensus to be drawn from this. Quite simply, I am unwilling to say: "There is a consensus that photographs of human genitalia are too graphic for the Main Page" without an RfC dedicated specifically to that question, given how controversial such a finding would be. Meanwhile, the opposition on the grounds that the image objectifies and humilitiates its subject was inextricably linked to the context (a day promoting respect for intersex people), with 15 of 21 people who cited this objection explicitly claiming that the photograph was inappropriate for Intersex Awareness Day. I am not confident that this opposition would exist for other uses of the photograph, and therefore I will not say that there is consensus against ever using this photograph on the Main Page.

It does seem, at the very least, that the old consensus applies only narrowly. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, let me say I can see why I was wrong to suggest it for Intersex Awareness day - probably a little too in-your-face sort of awareness, and too much focus on history, as opposed to the present day for a day meant to focus on a greater understanding of intersex beyond just, well, it existing. But LGBTI history is important, and I'd like to see it included on a non-claimed day. I do think the last discussion was poisoned a bit by the presenting of censorship as a regular event in POTD, instead of the vanishingly rare event it is, with many of the once-censored images having now appeared on the mainpage. I'm not sure I'm getting the count right, but, at what I think was the height, there were about 71 images listed. There are now about 30. Our level of censorship is rapidly decreasing, and the most common two reasons today for not featuring an image has been that the connected article is either too short, or it or something very similar appeared on the main page multiple time, which isn't censorship, it's just pragmatism. There's only six images besides this one to be censored for content alone, and it's such a random list, including one censored for seagull excrement. And the weird thing is, I'm pretty sure that we've had as bad or worse content in most of those categories before on the Main Page already. We've put actual moments of death on the main page before, in the form of helicopter camera film. We've had the bodies of Civil War soldiers. I think we're being arbitrary. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 16:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'll say first that I think we should be extremely sensitive to the concerns Adam has brought up that we might be setting a double standard — not showcasing this image but showcasing an equivalent one of a non-intersex person would be unequivocally wrong. That said, I think we ought to be more cautious overall about which images we allow on the Main page, per WP:LEAST and (to the extent that WP:NOTCENSORED as a policy overrides WP:LEAST as an explanatory supplement) per WP:CENSORMAIN via WP:IAR. So my view would be that most cases of nudity should not appear on the Main page, including this one. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding consensus, the discussion XOR'easter linked above was pretty widely attended, so I think in order to come up with a more definitive generalized standard, it'll be necessary to hold an RfC at WP:VPP, a discussion listed at WP:CENT, or something similar. Discussion about this specific photo has its place, but I think the bigger question that needs to be resolved first is whether prominent photos of genitalia are okay on the Main page in general, and then application of that decision to this specific case should be easier. I'd suggest the best way to go about the wider discussion would be to come up with a list of reasonable considerations (not hard criteria) and put those forward as a proposed standard. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Sdkb: That last discussion was closed no consensus to keep the image off the main page, and I don't see how the absence of consensus can be used to say it shouldn't appear. As for the genitals: We have had images of genitals on the main page before, so if we create the rule in response to this image, then we're censoring in response to intersex, and there is no avoiding that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 18:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Adam, especially this last comment. The main page frequently shows both male and female nudity, from biology diagrams to ancient artwork to photographs. I once requested a DYK change its image so that piles of naked Holocaust victims were not displayed, but I think the reason for that is clear. To use this image as the argument to even start a discussion about pulling nudity altogether (which would probably end up opposed because if Wikipedia is not censored, why should its front page be?) would be intersex discrimination. To not allow this on the main page when there is no preexisting rule is intersex censorship. If people can look at nude men and women, they can look at nude intersex people. Simple. Kingsif (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Your view is that, if this discussion prompts a discussion that creates a generalized standard for all nude images (of any sex or gender), that standard is discriminatory, even if it is applied perfectly consistently? Sorry, that does not make any sense. I presented my view clearly above, and it's consistent with what I've argued before outside of an intersex image context, so I'll let it stand on its own.

  And I'm not saying that recorded consensus at present should mean it stays off the main page; I'm trying to assess what the best way would be to go about ascertaining a more definitive consensus that could be used to create more detailed guidance. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Grandfather clauses. It's discriminatory as it'd be a new rule in response to this, which applies to it retroactively. It's not like there was a rule discussion in place already, it'd be created specifically because of an intersex person, despite it not having come up in previous examples. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  WP:Grandfather clause is redlinked for a reason.

  despite it not having come up in previous examples Huh? Nudity on the main page has absolutely been a perennial question. See the "see also" section at WP:CENSORMAIN. Whether or not you agree with me that we ought to keep most nudity off the Main page more generally, you'll be doing yourself a favor if you acknowledge that it is an understandable viewpoint one can hold without being prejudiced against intersex people. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  An "understandable viewpoint"? Sure, yes. Based on policy? No, I don't think so. For example, I have the understandable viewpoint that Nazi emblems should be kept off the Main Page. More specifically, I think the Nazi symbol pictured at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5 is very offensive and should not be featured, ever. However, based on policy and guidelines, I cannot think of a good reason to do so, except perhaps unless the day coincides with a major Jewish holiday. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Coffeeandcrumbs, WP:IAR is a policy. It's not one to be invoked lightly, but that's why I suggested high-visibility forums above. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sdkb, I am not convinced it is "improving" Wikipedia to censor these photos. Because improving Wikipedia is the basis of any legitimate invocation of IAR. I have yet to see a good argument to how this is helping Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia. We offend people no matter what we do. I think covering every subject, without censorship and shame, helps improve our encyclopedia more than catering to those offended by human anatomy. In fact, ignoring our own policy on censorship, for the sake those easily offended, leads us down a POV slippery slope to more censorship. Which offenses are worth invoking IAR and which are not? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Coffeeandcrumbs, that's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint as well. I don't agree with it, but we could debate it at a wider discussion about what our guideline should be for nudity/profanity on the Main page. All I'm saying here is that such a discussion should be held (which is apparently somehow prejudiced).

  I don't think it'd be useful to get further into why I oppose most nudity on the Main page here, since this is too local a forum to set a meaningful standard. Again, let's have a larger discussion. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• It is possible, however, to suggest that an image being displayed purely as a POTD image is actually not quite what WP:NOTCENSORED is about. Consider "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link." Now, if Hermaphrodite was an article featured on the Main Page (as TFA, DYK or whatever) then one could certainly make an argument for the fact that such an image would be appropriate as it is lending an amount of information to the reader of that article. However, simply appearing as POTD detaches the image from its context, at which point one could argue that it isn't being used as such. In the end, though, probably the best thing is to have a discussion about its suitability. Black Kite (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There are only 30 images on the Unused page of POTD, and the vast majority of those are there for reasons of being connected to too short of articles, leaving only seven images in the history of POTD which have been pulled for content, and none in the last eight years. If not being censored is a virtue - and I think it is - we could get through all fifteen years of censorship in one week of controversy, and much of it wouldn't even be that controversial: Oh no, a seagull pooing. The horror. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't even start with the seagull. How anyone could think that is so offensive boggles my mind: "will invite too many juvenile comments from the peanut gallery." What a sorry excuse for censorship of a fascinating image. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

On your other point: POTD is presented next to a sample of the article, just like TFA. It'd arguably have far LESS context in DYK. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And a GA to boot. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What will happen? I did this to my own site using mediawiki and nothing happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThesenatorO5-2 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It has happened in the past a number of times, e.g. when someone's account has been hacked. It's not possible any more though, the button to delete the page is now hidden, even for admins. Hut 8.5 06:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What happened was that readers edited it to ask "Where is the main page?" and replied to each other, which was pretty funny. The admins who deleted it by accident were laughed at (but not in a bad way) and hijacked accounts that did it were desysopped and blocked. Acalamari 07:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It can't, these days, be deleted because it has more than 5,000 revisions. This technical fix was brought it not to stop the Main Page being deleted, but after an incident where someone deleting the Sandbox crashed the entire site for half an hour (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive355#Apologies_everyone...). Prior to WP:BIGDELETE, it has been done a few times, and not always by hacked accounts, including this rather priceless one - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive363#I_deleted_the_Main_Page. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite, section "Edit history" of page information claims Total number of edits 4,236. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Note, we have a special "shitty hack" in the software specifically for the English Wikipedia to prevent deleting or moving our main page (search for "cant-delete-main-page"). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Some more background can be found at Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page. --Jayron32 17:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• I know I'm straying, but what do we do if a page with more than 5000 edits (I don't have an example) really needs to go?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • See WP:BIGDELETE, the stewards can still delete them. Also the en.wp.main page is also specifically protected by a "hack" in the code specific for en.wp: see The code that implements the protection. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Red header says: "Irrelevant posts will be promptly removed without prior warning." A warning is always prior: this is tautologous and should be trimmed. For that matter, if it's done promptly there's no time for a warning anyway. It's sloppy English and in a prominent place. Cheers Spicemix (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedians often revert bad edits first, and afterwards warn the offender not to do it again, so Wikipedia warnings are not always prior. I can easily imagine a newbie wrongly thinking "My cause is so earthshaking that nobody could possibly just revert me, without even asking me about it first." People make irrelevant posts anyway, but at least we make clear it they are unwelcome. Art LaPella (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Prior warning is not tautological. A person could remove the offending post, then issue a warning afterwards not to do it again. It reads fine as is, and should not be changed as the prior portion adds clarity and is also not confusing for anyone. --Jayron32 17:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Prior" is redundant. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Emphasis and clarification are not purely redundant. They add to understanding. --Jayron32 14:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask: Wikipedia:Main Page history, written once a day by a bot, hasn't been written since 16 July, and Amalthea, running the bot, hasn't edited since 18 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I will start doing this manually until we figure out a solution. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As described at the BRFA, it's a pretty straight forward task. Effectively taking a snapshot of the main page and creating eg Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 July 20 with its content. If this is still needed, I'm happy to create and host a bot to do that, assuming it's not possible to contact Amalthea to get their bot fixed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been trying to contact Amalthea for months to start archiving twice a day when DYK switches twice a day. I don't think we will see them any time soon. If you do create this bot, it would be great if you could set it up to take two snapshots (at 11:50 and 23:50) when User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates is equal to 43200 and once a day (at 23:50) when equal to 86400. If you look at the history from January 2020, I was doing the second snapshot manually. But I got tired after a few weeks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is that 11:50 and 23:50 UTC? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Amalthea used to do it at 11:20 UTC but Ravenpuff was hoping we cut it a little closer so we catch any late ERRORs changes. Ravenpuff suggested 11:59 UTC and 23:59 UTC. But I am afraid that is too close. The bot should have some room in case of a server lag. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Seems fine to me. BRFA filed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

11:50 and 23:50 are fine with me as well – my previous suggestions of 11:59 and 23:59 were definitely more idealistic than practical. Thanks! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If anyone else would like run a bot for this, you can request approval at WP:BRFA - if you are looking for someone else to run a bot for this you can ask at WP:BOTREQ. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Main Page. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Wikipedia:Main Page until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ^{the ultraUsurper} 05:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this was speedily kept. — 🦊 20:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Following this request at WP:BOTREQ, I've made Template:DYK image. It's similar to Template:Main page image, except it calculates the width automatically based off the dimensions of the supplied image (using a module), so it doesn't need to be manually supplied. Might prevent errors / forgetting to add the width. Feel free to use if it might help. Other than that, thanks for the great work you all do at DYK :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, this is great. Can you program in an override for special cases? It would also be helpful to standardize across TFA, TFL, ITN, and OTD. I would vote to up merge it into ((Main page image)). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I can add an override, yup. I'm not sure what the specifications for TFA, TFL, etc. are, as in if the images need to be different sizes? At a glance, it looks like they're all the same as DYK? 140 for squares, 120 for tall images, 160 for long ones. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I can assure you that they are exactly the same. (I am one of the self-appointed adjuster of image sizes for all the sections on the main page.) We should move this discussion to WT:Main Page to get a blessing from all involved but I think there won't be any objections to an up-merge instead of a wrapper.

With you permission, I would like to move this discussion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, fine with me :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

For those not aware, image sizes on the Main Page need constant adjusting. I have had the pleasure of making these adjustments for the past few months and David Levy selflessly filled that role for years before me. ProcrastinatingReader has created Module:DYK image to make this task unnecessary. I thought it would be good to give everyone an opportunity to object before we standardize the use of this module across all sections of the main page and make it an integral part of ((Main page image)). This means TFA, TFL, ITN, DYK, and OTD. It may also be possible to integrate into POTD as well which is a bit different. This will make things work easier and better, yet still have an option to override for rare cases when necessary. Are there any objections, comments, or suggestions for improvement? Courtesy ping Ravenpuff who I know is as intimately aware of what talking about. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to look into the new template's code yet, but I think that standardization of Main Page image sizes is definitely a worthwhile step. With regard to POTD, I believe that this should be excluded from the scope of this template, as they're evidently not displayed in the same manner as other images on the Main Page, and POTD image sizes may vary, depending on e.g. the length of the accompanying blurb or the level of detail, even for similarly proportioned images. Also, if this is to be implemented as an update to ((main page image)), it should ideally be set up such that images in past archives of Main Page sections aren't retroactively resized. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If |width= is given it takes priority over the automatic determination of width, so I don't think past archives (which manually supply |width=) should change. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I assume invoking Module:DYK image at ((TFLcontent)) and ((In the news/image)) is easy and analogous. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. It pretty much just takes a file name and returns a width (120, 140 or 160). For the sake of naming, it should probably be renamed from DYK image to something else if to be used more broadly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds useful. Can I suggest testing it for a week e.g. on Main Page/Tomorrow, before implementing on the MP itself? Modest Genius ^talk 10:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The template is not used on the main page directly. It appears on sub-templates like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 25, 2020 and Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. We will know if there are issues long before it reaches the main page via multiple layers of transclusions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Plan for implementation

Here is my plan for implementing this, in the order I plan to implement it.

1. Move Module:DYK image to Module:Main page image ––  Done--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
2. DYK: move Template:DYK image to Template:Main page image/DYK and change to accommodate module move in #1 ––  Done. Started using on preps. Will pause until these preps go live before moving forward.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
3. TFL: add an invocation of Module:Main page image to Template:TFLcontent (fully protected) –– Need help with edit request at Template talk:TFLcontent.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC) --  Done. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
4. TFA: create a wrapper of Template:Main page image at Template:Main page image/TFA ––  Done--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
5. ITN: move Template:In the news/image (fully protected) to Template:Main page image/ITN and add an invocation of Module:Main page image
6. OTD: create a wrapper of Template:Main page image at Template:Main page image/OTD ––  Done.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I should be able to implement all these changes myself, except for ITN and TFL, for which I will need the assistance of an admin. Starting with DYK preps and TFL blurbs should allow us plenty of time to preview before it reaches the Main Page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. It's definitely cleaner to use wrappers rather than add this into Template:Main page image directly, but for the images that don't already have a wrapper (DYK, TFA, OTD), since they use the same image sizes and share the same properties it's maybe worth just using one 'generic wrapper' template for autosizing. Slightly easier to maintain. So TLDR of this approach would be to just move Template:DYK image to something like Template:Main page image/auto (or some other name). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a reason for that. I killing two birds with one stone. DYK, TFA, and OTD have some HTML elements that are better moved into the wrappers I am proposing to create. ---  C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. One other note for admins, before these hit main page they should be full protected. I believe the cascading should take care of the protection on the templates automatically, but I'm not sure if cascading works the same way on modules. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Module is now fully protected. I will watch the templates as they reach Tomorrow's Main Page. If the cascade fails, I will request PP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am slightly confused why we are running four TFAs on military/war back-to-back-to-back-to-back. August 7 was Second Silesian War. August 8 was Cyril Bassett. August 9 was 2nd Red Banner Army. And August 10 will be Battle of Azaz (1030) (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2020). Therapyisgood (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, can you swap August 10 and August 13? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that August 10 is a special occassion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

They were all requested at TFAR or were listed at TFARP. At least they were in different periods and areas... --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the image is at the right of the template. This means that there is sometimes a word or a few words to the left of the image before the main part of the blurb.

I suggest that placing the image at the left of the column, and using ((clear)) after the image would be better, as you'd then have the image with its caption, then an unterrupted blurb under the image. Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, can you create a sandbox to demonstrate how this would look? We have to see how this affects screen of all sizes. I think moving the image to the left creates more problems than it solves.

I am also having a hard time understanding the issue in the first place. What do you mean by "a word or a few words to the left of the image before the main part of the blurb"? How small is your screen? Have you looked at the main page on mobile? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: - Can't do the sandbox thing, looks like some coding is going to be needed to move the alignment of the image. It should be relatively easy to add a ((clear)) below the image though. My screen is nice and big, lapton views with latest version of Firefox at 170%. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, I have been playing with your idea at my sandbox. I invite you to the playground. I really do not understand what you intend ((clear)) to accomplish. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs:, What I intend the clear template to do is to prevent a narrow column of text to the right of the image. Sandbox version that I saw didn't have that issue though does have text to right, but not a narrow column. Down to image width I think. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anyway to make that work in a sustainable way. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: - with the clear template after the image, the text is all below the image. That is a big improvement. Iff we are going to do this, it might be better still with the image centered. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You're assuming everyone has a big display with lots of white space real estate. The current set up makes the most of the area available while keeping the list's bullet points aligned for legibility. You can always create your own specific stylesheet. Bazza (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: I'm not assuming that at all. This is an issue that is not affecting the view on a mobile phone, but only those using laptops and PCs. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I never said anything about mobile phones. I'm one of those people using a laptop and you are assuming I have a big display area with lots of white space real estate; I don't and appreciate the frugal use of available space the current layout employs. Bazza (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: have you compared Coffee's sandbox version to the current MP? Can you see the difference between the two (apart from the different image)? Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Yes, I did that when the sandbox version was first posted. It has a unused space to the right of the image, up to the ITN's right hand border and the height of the image. It's a waste of screen estate. Two of the four bullet points are below the bottom of the browser window despite the ITN's top being further up the browser window than on the main page (because the usual welcome banner and portal links are absent); on the main page, all four are visible. I can't see the benefit of pushing content further down to leave a large unused area. Bazza (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The line for births and deaths looks a little odd on its own. There should be a subheading "Births and deaths" above the line, to separate it from the other events. --Viennese Waltz 13:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, it's pretty self-evident. It's been this way for years and apart from one person making an overtly odd assertion at the ref desk, this has never been a problem. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  One thing we can do is this:

  • Nawrūz (d. 1297)
  • George Grove (b. 1820)
  • Frederick Sanger (b. 1918)

  This uses ((abbr)) to add an alt text to explain what "d." and "b." mean. It is also better for WP:ACCESSIBILITY for people with visual disability and screen readers.

  I could write a template to simplify this for Howcheng and any one else that updates OTD. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sounds like a good idea. I was thinking we can expand to add bap. (baptized) and bur. (buried) as well. —howcheng {chat} 03:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  As the editor responsible for getting this subsection on the MP in the first place, I fully support Howcheng's suggestion to add bap./bur. This opens up more articles to appear where the exact date of birth/death is not known. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't support those two. They have religious or cultural significance and you'd need to consider equivalents in all other beliefs to maintain balance. Bazza (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm surprised we're not already using ((abbr)) for those abbreviations and support doing so. Whether baptisms and burials should be allowed is an issue for WT:OTD. Modest Genius ^talk 11:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I should have balanced my earlier response by saying that any improvement to WP:ACCESSIBILITY is a Good Idea, and I commend Coffeeandcrumbs for proposing it. Bazza (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have created Template:Born and died list to do this. The template can easily be expanded to include fl., bap., bur., and/or dis.. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Excellent work. @Bazza 7: please note we already have one entry for "buried" (Hamnet Shakespeare). —howcheng {chat} 06:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Howcheng: Thanks. My concern (as I stated earlier) is over baptized being a ceremony of a specific religion; I realise the intention is to use recorded baptism dates as a means of verifying a person's first year in the absence of a birth date, but is there a more neutral word which would do instead? i. appeared hopeful, but is imprecise in ages covered. Out of curiosity: is "buried" assumed to include "cremated", or any other body-disposal method? Would f. be a more general and inclusive notation? (I was going to suggest fun. but it didn't seem right.) Bazza (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think we should work out such matters on a case-by-case basis, and not apply imprecise terms wholesale, especially when they are hardly if ever used at all in such contexts. If we definitely know that Shakespeare was baptized, why not mention that explicitly instead of something hopelessly vague like "initiated"? That said, however, my preference would be to restrict OTD appearances to births and deaths alone – there is a sufficient pool of articles for that, without having to go into the vagaries of various other abbreviations. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The presence of anything but notable current events on the Main Page jeopardizes the impartiality of Wikipedia both as a lens for directing interest and in its subsequent massing of information. I urge the leadership to consider the impact of what frequently amounts to arbitrary geopolitical agitation on the most sensitive speakers of our language. ModulatorDemodulator (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• If we were having issues with the "subsequent massing of information," we probably wouldn't have six million pages.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Erm, might want to tell us which most sensitive speakers of what language you're talking about? I assume you mean English or American, but I also assume you're aware people with many different first languages contribute to Wikipedia? There's no such thing as "our language". Also, what "arbitrary geopolitical agitation"? Without examples this makes no sense at all. Fgf10 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Among others: children, idealists, English language learners, people of mixed or immigrant or foreign descent. By "our language" I am referring most narrowly to English as is used on English Wikipedia. The surrender of Japan in 1945 is a good recent example of a contentious point of recall. You just have to ask, Why? ModulatorDemodulator (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do we mark the end of one of the most significant conflicts humanity has ever seen? Seems obvious to me. I'm not following you. Why is the end of a war somehow more or less relevant to the groups of people you mention? And how is that geopolitical agitation? Also, there's no such thing as "English as is used on English Wikipedia", there's a number of different variants used, despite the continuing attempts to turn it all into American. Fgf10 (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• It is these editorializing questions of significance and relevance that an encyclopedic body ought to leave implicit. It is, however, my opinion that the increased welfare of the living is a greater interest than the fractious recycling of warfare. I consider it agitation in the sense that a person with an emerging understanding of the broader world could reasonably be confounded by the Main Page. Is it appropriate for an (asymptotically) egalitarian reference to foreground any of its contents? (I deploy the roundabout phrase to encircle the multiplicity of dialects.) ModulatorDemodulator (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In other words "won't somebody please think of the children". And that rather patronizing attitude is rejected just as strenuously now as ever before. We are thinking of the children. We are providing them with information on where we have been so that they may understand where we are and better plan and work on where we are going.--Khajidha (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• I appreciate your response. Who are "we"? Wikipedia will provide its information to those who seek it regardless of any interventions on the Main Page. I suppose I am questioning the rationales behind the selection and sequencing of the promoted content. ModulatorDemodulator (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  You may research that for yourself at the various pages related to each section. Those pages are WP:TFA, WP:DYK, WP:ITN, WP:OTD, WP:TFL, and WP:TFP. --Izno (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Those links were very helpful. Thank you. ModulatorDemodulator (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I also wonder how "notable current events" can be chosen any less arbitrarily or be any less possibly fractious than notable past events. --Khajidha (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we revive the fact about Dua Lipa's song Break My Heart tommorow? We'll let you know.--AnOrionPicturesRelease25 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the Did You Know? for Break My Heart already ran on July 28, it's not going to run again. P-K3 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I already reported this at WP:AIV and requested page protection, but John W. Beschter is being incessantly, heavily vandalized by a range of IPs, and it doesn't seem like anyone's gotten around to blocking them or protecting the page yet. Any admin with eyes on this page who could help? Armadillopteryx 02:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The page has now been protected. Armadillopteryx 03:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask why so many TFA subjects are american Roman Catholic priests? Is there some body that puts them forward to be featured in this way?Dean1954 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

One editor is doing a series on Georgetown University presidents, many of whom were ordained.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. It does seem a bit skewed to me, that we see subjects of one nationality and one confession so often. Nothing to be done, I suppose Dean1954 (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

All we TFA coordinators can do is play the cards we are dealt, that is, the FAs people choose to write.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

What's the policy on how many days before an election we stop putting an article related to a candidate on the main page? I stupidly can't seem to find it. —valereee (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I don't know exactly but, if we are talking about a U.S. election, I would say now would be a good time to stop. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, that's what I'm wondering. I just made a dyk, and I'm thinking...is that all right? I thought I'd seen 30 days, but maybe it was 100? —valereee (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure we have one. Unlike a particular country’s media having restrictions on political advertising in the days before an election it would be hard to know or police for every country in the world. Stephen 01:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no particular policy that I'm aware of. In 2008, both Obama and McCain were FAs and they were run as joint TFA's on Election Day. That won't happen this time as neither Trump nor Biden is a FA nor likely to be anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

valereee, if you are talking about the nomination I think you are talk about, we could apply the same Obama/McCain policy. We just have to find an article on the "other side". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There's actually discussion right now at DYK talk about this. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK's generally understood rule is to hold it if there is less than 30 days before the election. Though personally never really understood that because a DYK article on the front page isn't likely to sway people to vote one way or the other. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I just found a very good resolution gif of Hurricane Laura from today (August 27) from NOAA and recommend we change the still image on the main page to the gif:

Victor Grigas (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we normally use GIFs on the Main Page; they may lead to slower loading times and are generally less preferable to static images of storms at peak intensity, which are the norm in cyclone articles and also more visually impressive. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort made on the gif, and it may be useful in the article, but for accessibility and other issues, I think I agree with Ravenpuff that a static image is preferable for the main page. --Jayron32 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this gif was on en wiki's main page in January, as far as I know there were no problems with access:

Victor Grigas (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have filed a request for a change in the fully-protected module that controls the size of images on the main page. It is intended to avoid very large image outcomes such as the Corbin Building on DYK today. I propose calculating the image size based on surface area instead of width, which does not account for very tall and thin images and very short and wide images.

Please comment at Module talk:Main page image. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the page Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday, please replace

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="clear:both; margin:0.5em; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Did you know... <span style="font-size:85%; font-weight:normal;">(For today)</span></h2>
<div id="mp-dyk" style="padding:0.1em 0.6em 0.5em;">((Did you know))</div>

with

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="clear:both; margin:0.5em; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Did you know...</h2>
<div id="mp-dyk" style="padding:0.1em 0.6em 0.5em;"><!-- Take archived DYK section and replace timestamps (which are formatted in bold and italic) with paragraph breaks
-->((#invoke:String|replace
  |source=((#section-h:Wikipedia:Recent additions/((#time:Y/F|-1 days))|((#time:j F Y|-1 days))))
  |pattern=%*'''''.-'''''
  |replace=
  |plain=false
))</div>

This will transclude actual yesterday's DYK hooks from Wikipedia:Recent additions. With timestamps removed, it would show all yesterdays DYK hooks archived to Wikipedia:Recent additions. I have implemented such transclusion of Wikipedia:Recent additions at Wikipedia:Main Page/Day before yesterday.

Demo – transclusion from Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/April#25 April 2024

Did you know... Celestial globe by Åkerman ... that Anders Åkerman started the production of terrestrial and celestial globes (example pictured) in Sweden? ... that the West Georgia Wolves football team won 13 games in 13 years before folding, but upon returning two decades later compiled consecutive undefeated regular seasons and became national champions? ... that Fūka Izumi became a voice actress despite initially doubting that she could be one? ... that seven countries competed in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 for the first time, the largest single expansion of participating countries since the contest's first edition? ... that the young Turkish open water swimmer Aysu Türkoğlu has completed three of the Oceans Seven series? ... that the Indianapolis African-American community raised $100,000 in just ten days in 1911 to establish the Senate Avenue YMCA? ... that Edgar Wright's pitch for an Ant-Man film in 2006 helped to shape the early films of Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? ... that while touring for her album Wallsocket, Underscores handed out pizza before her sets? ... that The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 has been the first, second, and third volume of the Oxford History of the United States?

—⁠andrybak (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd comment that Wikipedia:Recent additions is not full-protected, so transcoding it onto Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday (which is) is somewhat problematic. At the same time, I question why Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday is full-protected at all? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, looking at protection log, it seems that it was fully protected with cascade protection until February 2020. Full protection is there to disallow changing the format of the page (i.e. make sure it stays the same as the Main Page). This is similar to Portal:Current events, which is fully protected, but its parts are not fully protected (e.g. Portal:Current events/2020 August 29). —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday is fully protected because we want to keep the format consistent with today's Main Page. Any changes to it should be discussed and implemented along with changes to the Main Page if necessary. It is NOT cascade protected. There is no issue with Wikipedia:Recent additions not being protected. It will remain unprotected if this change is applied. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

andrybak, I have two questions,

1. How does this proposal deal with the switch from two-a-day to once-a-day as DYK is oft to do?
2. I see it looks for the pattern '''''. That pattern sometimes appears within hooks when the target article is bolded and in italics. Have you accounted for that?

Other wise, I am warm to the idea. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, tests for both two-a-day and once-a-day in my sandbox: Special:Permalink/975674678. As for the pattern—it also checks that a literal asterisk precedes the single quotes *'''''—on Wikipedia:Recent additions, only the timestamps follow this pattern, while hooks always have ellipsis after the asterisk: * .... —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrybak, the outcome for two-a-day is not ideal but it is certainly an improvement from our current version which doesn't even attempt to represent how the Main Page looked yesterday.

You have my support. Thank you! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Test with more elements of the Main Page layout: Special:Permalink/975738958. I've also updated the demo above. —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to transclude yesterday's Wikipedia:Main Page history as that would also show yesterday's ITN.– BrandonXLF (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

BrandonXLF, interesting idea! I've tried it on Wikipedia:Main Page/Day before yesterday—Special:Diff/959689254/975743845. To account for days, when the bots haven't created a subpage for Wikipedia:Main Page history, the full layout could still be there as fallback. The issue with this approach is that it doesn't use the custom headings "From the day before yesterday's featured article" and "Two days ago" for TFA and OTD sections. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrybak, you could ((#invoke:String|replace)) to replace those texts. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors § Today's POTD

Among the Sierra Nevada, California, is an 1868 oil-on-canvas painting by Albert Bierstadt (1830–1902), a German-American painter best known for his lavish, sweeping landscapes of the American West. Bierstadt painted the landscape in his Rome studio ...

• Ravenpuff and Cwmhiraeth, this is not a TFA. POTD should begin by describing the featured picture. The focus of the blurb should be the painting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  This painting doesn't have its own article, so we don't have a lot to write about it specifically; we generally use the artist's article as the bolded link in such cases. I reworded the blurb as it would look a little strange by not placing the bolded link at the front of the blurb (this has some precedent, e.g. 2020-05-02 and 2020-06-03), but I do see the benefit of placing the painting title first and wouldn't object if the blurb is reworded as above. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I am sorry I missed those appearances. I have not been paying attention to POTD recently. But from what I remember, the first thing we usually mention is what is pictured. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree with this. The purpose of POTD is not to show off pictures, that's the job of Commons. The POTD is there to show off encyclopedic topic which is illustrated by a high quality picture. SD such, the topic should be blurbed first, similar TO TFA, with a description of the pic itself appearing at the bottom, if and only if the picture itself is encyclopedic.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  The end result of this theory of thought is that we have created a round about way to feature sub-par articles. Just because the file is hosted on Commons, it does not mean that the file was not a significant contribution to Wikipedia, a contribution worth recognizing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an image host, I have long argued that pictures with suitably adequate articles should be featured, not just "nice to see" stuff with no encyclopedic value. It's a shame we don't place more focus on the article that features the TFP and even more of a shame that we think we should feature pictures about topics which are so non-notable that they don't even have an article. Hardly encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Among the Sierra Nevada, California, is very much notable. Wikipedia's short-comings should not be recast as a short-coming of the image. File's have encyclopedic value. No amount of text could fully encapsulate what it means to listen to Symphony No. 31 (Mozart). No amount of text can offer more encyclopedic value than actually looking at Rain (Van Gogh). We should not be so text obsessed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I was speaking generally: if a TFP has no associated article, then it's probably not a great candidate for an encyclopedia, rather it is best highlighted at Commons where it's all about the graphics. TFP used to summarily link to absolute shite articles which was incredibly embarrassing for Wikipedia. In the last year or so, at least the text offered in the TFP blurb is now cited in the article in question. If we don't even have a target article about the TFP in question, it shouldn't be running at TFP, leave it to Commons. Simple, this is an encyclopdia, not a showreel. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  The FPs are chosen for being pretty pictures which add significant value to one or more articles. That's what it says in WP:FP?, rule 5. The articles don't have to be about the actual picture itself, and in many cases they won't be. Often the picture itself isn't even notable. But assuming the FP candidate bods did their jobs correctly, there will be at least one article for us to link to, which the picture helps to illustrate. The point of the TFP entry is to highlight that article, with the relevant picture nice and big next to it. The point isn't, and never has been, to just show the picture itself, with the article as an after thought. And contrary to what Bazza says below, we shouldn't feel obliged to start adding new articles for pictures which might not even be particularly notable in themselves, when the FP process didn't promote the picture for that new article in the first place. Today's POTD was intended to highlight the artist Albert Bierstadt, with his associated article, and that's exactly what it did.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Then I call bullshit. The Bierstadt article currently features 28 images. I'm not clear how this particular image adds "significant value" to the Bierstadt article. It's just one of a dozens of others similar images. Happy to be talked around, but right now, this is a shocker. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  We need to refractor this discussion to Talk:Main Page and post a notice inviting WT:FPC if we mean to accomplish anything with this discussion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Amakuru, I have created the article, BTW. No worries if it is too late. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for creating it, that's a useful additoin certaionly. I have linked the article from the blurb... I'm not sure it's worth doing a wholesale rewrite and refashioning of the linked articles at this point to be honest, given how late it is in the day. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed, good work Coffeeandcrumbs on making such a decent stub. Almost good to go at DYK! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors § Tomorrow's POTD

• Change [[Template:POTD/2020-09-01|Albert Bierstadt]] to [[Template:POTD/2020-09-01|''Among the Sierra Nevada, California'']]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done. Thank you for the suggestion. --PFHLai (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• While I have no issue with the addition of specific alt text as per the discussion above, this shouldn't affect the display of the link in the "Recently featured" list for the following day's POTD, which is based on the texttitle parameter and not the alt text – it should be restored to "Albert Bierstat", to reflect the bolded article. Pinging PFHLai, who made the change. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

   Done. Yes, whichever way you cook the blurb and alt text, the linked and bolded article from today's POTD is definitely just Albert himself. We have no article on the painting. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ravenpuff. Thanks for the fix, Amakuru. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. What was recently featured is not the article. When this appears on the Main Page, Yesterday's "featured picture" was the painting. I remind every one again this is not Today's featured article. Whether we have an article on the featured pictured or not is immaterial to the fact that the featured picture is the painting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A way round this might be to require any nominated POTD picture to have an article on it (for works of art) or its subject matter (for photos, diagrams, portraits), no matter how short. Even a stub would do, as long as its content is properly formatted and referenced. Might even prompt any admirer of the picture to expand said article a bit. Bazza (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That puts a lot of burden on coords like Cwmhiraeth. What we need is a nomination process so we can use the power of the crowd.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"the featured picture is the painting". No, it isn't. It could have been, and now that you've written the article, maybe in another universe it would have been the actual topic of this day's blurb. But in this case, per the coordinators' decision when scheduling it, the FP was a picture highlighting our article about Albert Bierstadt. And that's what should appear on the template as the bolded article, and for the subsequent two days. I wouldn't be averse to a nomination process similar to that for TFA - I think we discussed that a couple of years ago when we were going through a similar round of introspection about POTD... my worry is that there wouldn't really be the volume of interest necessary to make the process sustainable. The big hairy audacious goal would be to get to a point where we no longer feature articles at POTD that wouldn't pass muster for ITN/DYK/OTD. I wasn't able to do that during my time as coordinator, because I simply didn't have enough time to do it daily, and nobody else was helping. POTD has always been something of a poor relation in terms of editor engagement, which is a shame as it does an important job. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If we build it, they will come. If we build a "credit" system into it, I am sure editors will want it. We can even make it part of the WP:WikiCup next year. There are so many paintings, so many species of animals, and so many sets of banknotes that need improvements to the article to properly post them at POTD. The same way coords do at TFA, if there are no nominations, the admin can just choose one and schedule it, just like they have always done. However, if even 10 nominations a month came to the project, that would be a huge burden lifted off the coord. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As one of the TFA coords, I suggest you follow the nomination process a bit before getting too excited about using it for POTD....it's not quite as simple as "If we build it, they will come"... heh. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That was only in reference to the theory that people will not be interested. I know it will take a lot work and shepherding. As with all my ideas, I will spend a lot of time towards its success. But our current system for POTD selection is very opaque and requires a big learning curve. We need a user-friendly process to invite contribution. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you figure that the painting was not the featured picture? The painting was displayed on the Main Page. The painting is what you see when you click on the link for yesterday's featured picture. It was chosen to illustrate the article on Bierstadt, but Bierstadt was not the featured picture. This painting was. --Khajidha (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

On the "From today's featured article" section, the "Recently featured", "Archive" etc links are not leaving a padding to the right border like it would normally do. Anyone else see this? -- AxG / ✉  15:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the same thing. The text is running right up against the right border, without nary a pixel of space. Maybe a template got changed or something? --Jayron32 15:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed [2] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

There is some sort of error which is displayed on my Android smartphone as "Expression error: Unexpected < operator". I do not feel confident trying to solve the problem myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, the ((as of)) template broke when on the Main Page. Given that the statement is on there just for the day, I removed the template. Hopefully that doesn't spawn new problems. :) Maxim_(talk) 00:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is gone. Thank you, Maxim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This may be the wrong place for asking. If so, please advise, but why did the 'Featured content' link disappear from the left sidebar? (visible on all pages the way I'm browsing and using 'em on my desktop). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It was removed in early June per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2020 left sidebar update#Featured content. Stephen 23:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen! ---Sluzzelin talk 07:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Instead of linking the "Complete list of Wikipedias" to this abstract listicle, why not just link to wikipedia.org? It's better in my opinion. GeraldWL 17:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Because that's not a complete list of Wikipedias, and the context is a "Wikipedia languages" section? If someone is looking for a lesser-used language, then your link isn't helpful. SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Main Page is not in any categories, but a redirect to it (Main page) is in Category:Main Page. I think the Main Page itself should be in this category. JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The main page for this language already existent and located at https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8_%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE Kindly add the inter-wiki link to the existing page. Regards. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

These are inserted by Template:Main Page interwikis. Probably best to make your request at that template's talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There is talk of deleting the above "List" which is linked from OTD. I have no opinion on the deletion nomination. It may leave us with a predicament here and we should prepare for the possibility.

I propose we implement the changes I made at ((SelAnnivFooter/sandbox)) in case the page is deleted. You can preview how it looks at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 13. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Why does the main page link to this instead of elsewhere? Does it have a purpose? Dream Focus 13:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Not that I can see. I think the alternative I suggested is better. My suggested page does, however, take a few seconds to load. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I'm not sure that will work as the OTD pages are only prepped for the current year (for moveable anniversaries and article quality) a few days in advance. October, November, December in your view would show the observances for 2019 until they get updated for 2020. Nice idea though. Stephen 03:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a predicament. But thinking about it made me realize we can automate movable anniversaries. Muslim holidays are going to be difficult. But things like "first Monday in June" etc. should be calculable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Some could be automated, but wouldn’t you have to have the script in each possible day, where it only renders if true for the correct day for the current year. And good luck with Easter which bounces around with the ecclesiastical full moon! Maybe Wikidata could be used to drive the dates of an anniversary? Stephen 09:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I learned Template:Calendar date exists. I am discussing its adaption for use at OTD over here. It may be a pipe dream but it seems like it would save us a lot of work. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The AfD has closed in keep.  Nixinova   T   C   22:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Wikipedia languages § Redesign. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ur opinion Ejike success chioma (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say T Debjit singha (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree with you T Debjit singha (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I propose that a change be made to main page, that the main page had a new design, following the examples of the Spanish Wikipedia and the Russian Wikipedia main pages. --Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 00:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Rodney Araujo Good luck to you, but this is a common proposal, and has never gained consensus, as while there is probably consensus that the main page should be changed, the disagreement is what to change it to. Everyone has their own idea about that. If you really want to pursue this, you should start a much broader discussion or formal request for comment, probably at the village pump. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The projects aren't visible to immediate first sight, when page opens on screen. It would be useful if basic links (without the one-line description) are provided at top of the page (or even as a dropdown menu). --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Why? Most users accessing the Main Page are looking for something on Wikipedia, not one of the sister projects. Modest Genius ^talk 11:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Keeping in concern of the people, who dont know about Wikimedia-Foundation's sister projects, but has just opened wikipedia to search info, isnt it a feed to thier encyclopaediac interest, introducing them to the sister projects, as soon as page opens?
Aren't media repository, species-related, news-related etc. websites worthwhile being featured to the people who dont about them? For example, if a person opens wikipedia page in search of a dictionary word, could navigate to Wikitionary, if he/she finds it at top of page.
I agree google is commerical, but they have their projects listed at top of the page helping easy navigation, irrelevant of the fact, whether the page-visitor is aware of projects or not.
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 17:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Does anyone know about the reasoning for the wording of Wikidata as a "free knowledge base"? That seems somewhat detached from the reality of Wikidata, that it's a data-based and computer-readable repository. It seems to represent Wikidata as almost a Q&A sort of platform. Has there been any significant discussion on why it's described as a "free knowledge base" and not something like a "computer-readable data source" or a "data information repository", or something of the sorts? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. Suggesting: ′Wikiinfo′ . --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• The Knowledge base article says that it is "a technology used to store complex structured and unstructured information used by a computer system". Wouldn't the gist of that be another way to say "computer-readable data source" or "data information repository"? Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That article isn't linked in the description (and I wouldn't want it to be), but the description offered in the article (per the sources) appears to confuse "knowledge-based systems" such as AI or ML, and "knowledge bases" which commonly refers to libraries of unstructured content ([3], [4]. [5], [6]). Even if it was the common message, there then shouldn't be an issue with replacing a technical term with it's semantic meaning? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There is more to the world than simply the "Belarus protests", there is currently ongoing the George Floyd Protests (I know it was here for a long time, but the Belorussian protests have been here for longer), protests throughout Chile, pandemics throughout the world, protests throughout Portland, fighting in Karabakh etc... Yet all that is present is apparently simply the "Belarus protests". It's criminal that articles that are so well written and informative, are being overlooked. So why are they being overlooked? That question is beyond me sadly. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Like the other Main Page sections, this is all determined by discussion and consensus. Specifically the items on the ongoing list are discussed on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. IMO, the primary reason that certain topics are often overlooked is systemic bias among Wikipedia editors. There are not enough editors that care about certain topics to improve those articles on those subjects, and then help nominate and support them to get them posted on the Main Page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

More specifically, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is currently the third item in ITN; it will most likely be moved into the Ongoing section when it is displaced by a new item being added to the top of the list. The George Floyd protests article was there until July, when it was removed after consensus at the candidates page (probably because of diminishing news importance). COVID-19 and related articles has been prominently featured as a banner at the very top of the section for months now. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 You are welcome to continue your prior participation at ITNC to give your views on any nomination or to make nominations. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: If you wish to see the Belarus Protests article removed from the ITN section because you believe the information in the article is no longer being updated regularly with new information, please use WP:ITNC to request that it is removed. --Jayron32 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: There is no specific topic I was bringing up, this was simply listing a personal problem with the ongoing section. I have no issue with the Belorussian protests being listed as ongoing, however I feel as though the ongoing is seriously being neglected. That's all, thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The List of historical anniversaries link in the OTD footer has been moved to List of days of the year – please amend the link at ((SelAnnivFooter)) to avoid the resultant redirect. Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I have relinked, but given that is now a list of days in a year, do we need it? Stephen 02:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

When I saw the words "Nominate an article" I assumed that it might refer to nominating one for featured articles, and I was wondering what that's doing in the news section. So I would like to suggest:

1. Instead of "Nominate an article" it should say "Nominate a news item".
2. At the bottom of the featured article section it should say "Nominate an article" linking to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. -- -- -- 22:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding suggestion 1, I think the wording "an article" is important because ITN is there to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest (taken from WP:ITN). News items themselves are not what is nominated, but instead the article is nominated. I'm unsure of whether a change is needed (as the link is in the "in the news" section and is directly below the current articles in ITN), but I'm not against changing the wording necessarily. I also think "news item" could be improved to a better wording (I would say something which says that you are nominating an article not a news event).

Regarding suggestion 2, I don't have any objection to adding a link, but perhaps its best that it goes to WP:TFA/R instead of WP:FAC as FAC isn't where featured articles are nominated to be a TFA. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

'Nominate a Featured Article' then. If it's necessary and desirable. Not certain it is. The people experienced enough to find an eligible featured article and nominate it at TFA/R probably don't need the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems better than linking to TFA/R. Agree with your suggestion if a link is desired and necessary. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I found the title of main page is wrongly displayed before log in, the hyphen appearing at the beginning of title, just like this: "- Wikipedia", is there anyway to remove the hyphen? --Great Brightstar (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I assume this is talking about the page title (what is displayed on the tab in a browser) on the mobile view: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (to see how this looks when not logged in, follow the link in an Incognito or Private window). I notice that the French and German mobile sites also do this, so it's possible it's a MediaWiki issue and not something we can directly control here... No doubt someone more in the know will enlighten us further though!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the problem on Firefox for Android. --Great Brightstar (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I too see this issue when logged out, but not when logged in. Happens in Firefox and Safari. WP:VPT might have a better idea of what's causing it. Modest Genius ^talk 12:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, there are probably a few things to look at here -- for one, do we really need "Welcome, %CURRENTUSERNAME%!" injected up there, only on mobile view? Because that is what is ending up on the "tab name" for logged in users as well - I'd think have the tab name just be "Wikipedia" would be more useful, especially with crowded tabs. Before delving in to the technical settings we should be clear about what the actual desired output should be so we don't waste development time. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Related, do we really need to inject that "Welcome username" banner in to the page at all on mobile view, it just pushes actual content further down the page. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that banner's not needed: what's its purpose? And you're correct about its effect: why is it in such a large font? Bazza (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think this may be related to phab:T255682. @OVasileva (WMF) and Jon (WMF): who might be able to clear this up quickly?
  • Two issues: (a) Can this banner be disabled locally, hopefully without a css hack? (b) Is work being done that is causing bad header data to flow up on the page, which then gets consumed by browsers to title their tabs? Neither "Welcome..." or "-..." are really useful tab titles. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This is phab:T265892 Jon (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone change the link to the arts portal from Arts to The Arts? The title of this article has recently been changed and the links should be updated. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Changed to The arts. Stephen 11:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe change the order so that it comes after Technology in alphabetical order. Interstellarity (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The portal's page displays "The Arts", but here it's "The arts" which looks odd. Title Case would be better. (And I would not include articles ("the") in the sort order. Bazza (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is best to develop a consensus regarding the placement of the arts on the Main Page and whether it should be title case or sentence case. Please see my proposals below. Since the main page is one of the most sensitive pages on Wikipedia, most changes to it would require a consensus. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've now WP:BOLDly changed the portal page to read "The arts portal" in sentence case, as is de rigueur across Wikipedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: Except on Portal:Biography, Portal:Geography, Portal:History, Portal:Mathematics, Portal:Society, and Portal:Technology. As we seem to be addressing this (rightly) through concensus, I suggest that you undo that change until there's a decision for all portals as to their headers being in Title Case or Sentence case. Bazza (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I have respectfully undone this change. Stephen 02:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1: The article the should be regarded in the placement of the words in alphabetical order.

1. Support as proposer. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Support things starting with "The" are normally sorted "X, The". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

   Yes indeed per below I meant oppose, I wasn't sure what the proposal was (and made my best guess) but yes it should be kept as is which is what I meant to say. Per WP:SORTKEY "Leading articles—a, an, and the—are among the most common reasons for using sort keys, which are used to transfer the leading article to the end of the key, as in ((DEFAULTSORT:Lady, The))". The benefit of this is that readers don't have to guess if "The" is part of the name or not and what most other reference works etc do, the disadvantage though is that people who know "The" is part of the name will not find it under "The" but given that the "the" has been disputed in the other discussions (the article and category rename proposals) its best to follow the standard practice anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Heading unclear, but Crouch, Swale is correct that, assuming the "the" is kept, it should be sorted under A, not T. I'm guessing that this is articulated somewhere in the MOS and not something open to changing based on local consensus. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

   To be clear, this change is what I'm proposing for the Main Page. Interstellarity (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

4. There are many different style guides out there, but I have never seen one that supports alphabetizing "The X" under "The". It's always under "X". It is fairly clear here that User:Crouch, Swale meant "oppose", and got thrown off by the somewhat unclear wording of the proposal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Sort by "A", not "T" per WP:SORTKEY. Armadillopteryx 23:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
6. Sort by "A", not "T" per WP:SORTKEY. Bazza (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2: The link should be in title case rather than sentence case.

1. Support as proposer. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose. The entire rest of the main page is in sentence case, not title case. This includes everything from the All portals link to In the news. If a proposal was brought forward to change the entire main page to title case, I'd consider it, but there's no way we should just change this one link, per WP:CONSISTENCY. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above and consistent with MOS:CAPS which outside our logo we generally don't capitalize generic terms as per the standard English capitalization rules even though some styles capitalize titles etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose per MOS:SENTENCECASE and MOS:LISTBULLET (and per the link target, which is Portal:The arts, not Portal:The Arts in accordance with the MOS). Armadillopteryx 23:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

How about proposal 3? Change the portal back to just "arts" and leave this link as is.--Khajidha (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Main Page history has stopped being archived. It is usually created by Amalthea (bot) (which has not edited in 5 days). The bot's owner Amalthea is not very active these days. This is about the fifth time that the bot has gone down in the past year.

ProcrastinatingReader has a bot replacement ready. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 3. @Xaosflux: we can email Amalthea again and try to get their attention. However, I think we should just activate ProcBot 3 instead. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Since SPI does not need the bot (see below). We should temporarily block Amalthea (bot) and active ProcBot 3. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I still have the code for task 3, and am happy to run it, if it is needed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: If you tell me when you're ready to begin I will block Amalthea (bot) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That bot isn't editing, so why would it require a block? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess the concern was that if the bot restarted then they might conflict with each other. ProcrastinatingReader suggests that won't be a problem, however. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

MSGJ, I can begin whenever. My task is set to createonly, so if that bot comes back up, my bot just errors on create and should skip (vice versa if I set my creation time to before that bot's), so they shouldn't necessarily collide. I think that bot is down until the operator restarts it, though. I'd appreciate clarification from a BAG member (xaosflux perhaps?) if the old trial from task 3 is valid and if I should begin it, before I start. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Task now running. See eg Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 October 23b. Someone who knows how may want to update ((2020 Main Page history)) with the b pages. Let me know if any issues arise! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: hmm. Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 October 23 and Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 October 23b are the same. And looking at [7] it seems like it's only updated once per day? Am I missing something? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, remember, I said to make it conditional on whether User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates is equal to 86400 or 43200.

However, I think I like that it saves twice a day everyday. It catches changes at ITN and other error changes. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I forgot about that, but if it's better then I guess I'll just leave it. For the record, Xaosflux has kindly approved ProcBot task 3 so it will keep this up for the foreseeable future. DYK is now on 12h schedules anyway, but if people want a change to this behaviour feel free to drop me a note. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

SPI overview

Amalthea (bot) also maintains Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview which has not been updated in 5 days. This was last discussed at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_81#Amalthea_(bot) where Majavah said that DeltaQuadBot can do the same task. Courtesy ping AmandaNP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

My bot is always live, and it's already been switched over several days ago. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

CCI overview

Per above, Amalthea (bot) was also in charge of updating the CCI overview here but it hasnt updated since October 13th. Is there another bot that could take over this task or does a bot need to be requested? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)