Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 → Archive 100

Re: MainPage Error Reports

Instead of barking at every user who posts a message in the wrong place (just look at everybody who gets "yelled" at for posting something which doesn't belong here, or the bold black message at the top, or the GIGANTIC RED MESSAGE above it), you should think about reducing the huge number of places where people can post. There are literally hundreds of places to post messages, one for each little thing. How can people possibly know where to post if there are so many? Plus, the naming of each of these places, full of initials and silly puns, makes everything even more complicated. Think about it. Think about what new users are thinking. You're scaring everyone! And don't even dare to tell me that I've posted this in the wrong place, or I'll tell you where this message REALLY belongs! --Matei Tache 15:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, this is a valid point, I think. Maybe its nothing intentional, but I think there might be a bit of biting going on occasionally. The only problem is, I'm not really sure how this page could provide guidance any better. Maybe a message at the top specifically directing error reports, something above the sectional bits?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, Matei Tache. If an issue affects the Main Page, this should be the right page to report it. That way, issues can be consolidated, rather than spread through the dark corners of Wikipedia. --Nélson Ricardo 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole project has suffered from an organic form of rule creep in general. The problem with the main page is is made up of several little sections, and each of those sub-projects has their own systems that have developed. I agree it is VERY daunting for someone who hasn't worked it all out yet. Possibly this talk page shouldn't exist at all - just be a locked page pointing to the five sub projects, the pump and then a smaller link to technical discussions about the main page in general. This page sees a lot of posts on topics from all over Wikipedia, people even come here to complain about articles that have nothing to do with the main page. --Monotonehell 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I doubt many will agree with you. ffm yes? 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with having just one page for everything is, of course, that it would be completely impossible to keep up with. Heck, half a dozen of the 'specific topic' pages are each too much to keep up with currently. Combining them all into one would be a nightmare. The most logical course is, instead of saying 'this does not belong here!', to move the questions/comments to the proper page and leave behind a note saying that you did so and linking to the location on the new page. --CBD 10:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
CBD's solution seems very reasonable. Instead of "screaming" at users, just doing something about it. To all others, sorry for my first post which seems a little angry. I tend to get like that, only to have it proven that Wiki users are nice and don't lose their tempers even though I lost mine. You all deserve the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, but, alas, I'm too lazy to award it. Keep up the good work, Wikipedians! Matei Tache 13:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The instructions at the top aren't very concise. They mix up what to do to make a comment with all sorts of other things. Maybe they should be categorised differently? At the moment, they're organised round the different parts of the page (as mentioned above). Perhaps looking at things from a different angle might help - starting with a simple list along the lines of:
etc. (Couldn't work out all the links but my intention should be clearish.) Bazza 16:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could abandon the WP:ERRORS page, and use Talk:Main page for talking about the main page, instead of redirecting people to WP:ERRORS several times a day. Zocky | picture popups 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for simplifying and streamlining the processes involved in the main page for new users. I remember when I first came here trying to work it all out it was very daunting. That's why I developed the take page header here. But we'd have to streamline each sub-project's processes as well as each has grown organically into rule creep hell. --Monotonehell 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree with getting rid of WP:ERRORS. This page is checked far more often than WP:ERRORS, and this page is the natural place for users to report errors on the main page. --- RockMFR 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Zocky's idea makes sense to me. What legitimate purpose does this page serve that couldn't be served better by a merge with WP:ERRORS? General discussion of the Main Page as a concept (as opposed to specific discussion of what happens to be on it at the moment could go to a subpage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is almost never used for discussing the concept of the main page - don't we have a separate page for discussing changes to the layout anyway? What's left besides discussing errors? Whining about bias in the ITN section and what article gets featured? Koweja 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've been bold and proposed that WP:ERRORS be merged into this page, per the suggestions above. Please discuss. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the merge
Survey - in opposition to the merge
The whole idea isn't to just merge WP:ERRORS back to here, but to leave this natural place for anyone to post errors and have another subpage for the more "in crowd" to discuss the other issues. --Monotonehell 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep: essentially, WP:ERRORS would move here, and discussions about the format, &c. of the Main Page would go somewhere else, like Wikipedia:Main Page/Formatting or Wikipedia:Main Page/Meta or something. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's really necessary. Most meta discussions about the main page are short, and they're better visible here. Really big discussions like major redesigns can go to subpages. Zocky | picture popups 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think making another subpage would be the best idea: may well just need to just as much biting, just on different matters.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Alternately, if we keep the existing format of WP:ERRORS "meta" comments could be placed in the section WP:ERRORS#Any other problems, or that could be renamed "Any other issues" or something. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The points above are that, errors reported on WP:ERRORS are going unnoticed, while errors here are fixed quickly, most errors are being posted here anyway as it's not natural to have a separate page on an article for errors, a central place would still exist - it would be here and easier to find, WP:BITE is being violated a lot not intentionally but perceptually as people report errors here and are told to report them somewhere else, corrected errors could still be removed instead of archived. The thing is WP:ERRORS isn't working well and that's why the above discussion has lead to this. The suggestion isn't to move all discussion other than errors off this page, only to have a sub page for the more technical and informed discussions that have been held here in the past that have been disrupted by a lot of drive-by !votes. --Monotonehell 12:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the assessment that ERRORS is not working well. Most straight-forward error reports are quickly fixed and removed; admittedly, some longer, not-so-straightforward questions do linger there a few days, due to the discussion ongoing, but overall the page is extremely efficient. I still fail to see what moving ERRORS back here would accomplish: errors can already be reported here and should be responded to with the same courtesy used elsewhere, and shifting more technical discussion elsewhere gets us back to square one - having multiple discussion pages for one page that would confuse people, especially newcomers, even more. For instance, if a newcomer posted a question about the format of the page, where would it go? Would it be shifted to the technical discussion page, where it would be unlikely that s/he would be able to find again, or would it be mixed on this page with all of the other error reports? What about a person asking a question about Wikipedia? Having a separate page for errors (that is, the ERRORS page) makes the process a lot more streamlined, also allowing us to watchlist that page and reply to error reports a lot quicker than if the page had more than just error reports. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Your arguments against the merge are pretty much the argument for the merge. It's too confusing for new people to find the right place. Therefore this page should be that place. All the "newb" questions you mentioned above would still legitimately be posted here, and responded to here as they currently are. There's a constant stream of error reports being posted here, and despite our best efforts at redirecting that stream - why fight it? Merge the errors back to here and deal with them here. It's an endless job due to the constant stream of new people, more work and a violation of WP:BITE to constantly be redirecting people. I'm only suggesting moving the highly technical discussions off this page. Any "newb" questions regarding layout can still be dealt with here and need not be redirected. --Monotonehell 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems I was outnumbered. :-) However, I hope for the best for an improvement - if not, we can always revisit this issue later and see which version is more effective. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I think it's obvious that the straw poll shows a consensus for a change. I'd like to hammer out consensus for the details of the move. As far as I see there's the following options; --Monotonehell 03:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Just merge - Merge WP:ERRORS back into this page with none of the current WP:ERRORS layout. Make this page a free for all discussion again. Remove the current header, or perhaps just replace it with a simpler version with only the redirects to WP:Questions and the pump.

(comments?)
Causes WikiProjects to get upset about seeing other WP's things on the same page as their WP. People like to have things sorted. ffm yes? 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Separate and swap - Swap the complete WP:ERRORS format to this location. Move the highly technical & informed discussions and general consensus building discussions to a sub page where fly-by !votes won't be an issue. Leaving this page for general help, suggestions and errors.

(comments?)

3. another option, to move WP:ERRORS, with more or less its current format, to this page, and have a section at the bottom of that page reserved for other topics that don't fit that format: this would include the "highly technical and informed" discussions, as well as (inevitably) innocent questions by clueless newbies (whom we will all, of course, endeavor to treat with respect and kindness). I'm not sure which of these three options is best, but I'm leaning towards #2 or #3. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea. This way, there shouldn't be any issues with just removing error reports, even if they are here. It would also make it easier to deal with things in the wrong place: just drop it into a different section of the page.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What about discussions that are completely off topic, like about errors in other articles, or vandalism reports posted by newbies? ffm on 2007-02-19 16:40
I'd say the best way would just be moving the comment wherever it belongs and politely directing the poster there. Preferably via a user talk page, allowing the note to be removed here, although in the case of dynamic IPs leaving a link to the moved location may be required.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, it happens often enough that a politely worded template would be useful, with parameters for the original location and the location the comment has been moved to. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Which we will of course subst, right? ffm on 2007-02-19 19:26
Oh, of course. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Transclusion Is it a good idea to transclude WP:ERRORS on Talk:Main Page ? Perhaps onto the header ? I am not around the wiki that much these days. But when I am around, I usually check my watchlist to see if anyone has posted anything, which often includes things that require an immediate admin response, on WP:ERRORS. Merging WP:ERRORS here means admins who monitors MainPage will lose this convenient tool, as Talk:Main Page gets too much other postings. Transcluding may avoid this problem, and yet keep the error report in a more visible / easily found location. But then again, I am not around that much these days. If no admins are using WP:ERRORS anymore, never mind. Perhaps a link to WP:AN may be useful on WP:ERRORS for the time being. Hope this helps. --PFHLai 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I just posted this suggestion, and it's already done ! Amazing. --PFHLai 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute. That isn't a transclusion..... But it's okay. I won't be able to check my watchlist the next few days, anyway.... --PFHLai 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Transclusion? you intrigue me - please explain what you mean? --Monotonehell 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Transclusion. Sorry, I gotta go. I'm using a borrowed computer. Take care. --PFHLai 08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah okay - that's what I understood by trans. I didn't do it that way as it wouldn't allow people to edit the sections, also this way an editor can just highlight the entire section and replace it with the subst code to clear the errors at the end of each wiki-day. --Monotonehell 08:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Not taking any position on whether the content should be substituted or transcluded, but you should be aware that section editing does still work on transcluded matter - see Redirects for discussion for an example of a page that does this. Gavia immer 17:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if it doesn't, it's not that hard to include a link to WP:ERRORS for posting errors reports there. Making WP:ERRORS highly visible on Talk:MainPage and keeping WP:ERRORS on admins' watchlist seems useful. --PFHLai 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not true Monotone; making Errors a sub-page would not remove the ability to edit individual sections. And with the transclusion idea, one would have the ability to replace an entire page with the template instead of having to be careful so they only highlight the appropriate section on this page. See also: #Making "Errors" a transcluded page (although PFHLai appears to have summarized this well). -- tariqabjotu 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Experimental implementation

I've been bold and implemented the suggestion, since discussion has slowed to a still and the few objections have been mostly rebutted. Can we all live with this for a while and see how it goes? The header is intended to be substed from Template:Talk Main Page errors header each day to clear the old errors. But they can still be removed as fixed if we prefer. I'm sure there was one more thing I had to do... but I can't remember it now X( --Monotonehell 08:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the fact that the main page toolbox which is include on this page, redirects error reports to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors which of course redirects to here? Nil Einne 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Another double redirect Talk:Main Page/errors but it wasn't protected so I fixed it Nil Einne 10:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh and WP:ERRORS. Did you check for double redirects at all? Nil Einne 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
And Talk:Main Page/Errors as well. I could probably fix some more doubles but I can't be bothered. I've never been strongly supportive of this move anyway. If it was the move to Portal:Main Page I might be willing but I don't really care about this move and and infact I think I'm even be slightly opposed to it so someone else would have to do the legwork. Just use the what links here and try to find things which are unnecessary double redirects (obviously when someone links to WP:ERRORS in a discussion it's not a problem) Nil Einne 10:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
SEE? I knew I forgot something! Thanks people. --Monotonehell 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So rather than checking for error reports on a short page, like WP:ERRORS, I have to wade through the comments here? Great. :( -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, just read the first few sections at the top, that is where WP:ERRORS has moved to. ffm yes? 16:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Pls see proposal 4, which keeps WP:ERRORS on admins' watchlist. --PFHLai 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Seems to work, I'll fix the dbl-rdrs now. --Quiddity 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Making "Errors" a transcluded page

How about making the "Errors" section a subpage that is merely transcluded here? For those who want to keep "Errors" on their watchlist, they could just use the subpage (e.g. Talk:Main Page/Errors). For those wanting to post comments, they would come to the Main Page talk page and click on the appropriate [edit] link at the top (just like it is now, with no difference in appearance). And to be honest, that could be done with a couple other pages (like WP:ITN/C, which many do not know exists) making sure to put <noinclude> tags around parts that don't need to be visible on Talk:Main Page. Not to further complicate the situation... -- tariqabjotu 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea. Might make it more complex for newcomers though, if they don't use the [ edit ] button next to the section heading, they can't find the right space to put it in. ffm yes? 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The idea makes some sense, but I wonder if that wounldn't defy the point of moving it here: somebody still has to go to a different page to report the errors. It would increase the visibility of the errors page, though, which may help get things where they belong.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is now Proposal #4 in the "Re: Main Page Error Reports" section above. --PFHLai 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and did it. And was bold and merged this thread! --Quiddity 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A much better idea. Well done. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Guess it can't hurt to try. If it doesn't fix the problems from before, we can always move it back here.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The minor problems with transclusion; are that if a user clicks on the edit section button, adds their report and presses save - they are then sent to WP:ERRORS instead of remaining on talk main page; and if they hit edit this page all they see is a "Please add error reports above this line" message, if they do then there will be misplaced error reports that someone has to move to the right place. I substed the error report section to make it simpler for new editors. --Monotonehell 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a brilliant idea, and I fully support the implementation of this. Kudos for thinking of it! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Article

Hi! i think the main article should be something... well... way more interesting! the main article should be something that catches someone's eye... and i dont think thats happening! im not so sure what would catch someones eye but.. if you have any ideas, please reply back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juicy FUN1 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The Featured Article is taken from our list of featured articles, the best articles produced by Wikipedia. These articles are obviously all of great interest to someone, as someone took the time to make each article exquisite. (Articles are nominated to become featured at featured article candidates, though passing FAC does not guarantee a spot on the Main Page. (More than 28-31 articles, currently around 50, are generally promoted per month.) The purpose of the featured article is not to show off the most interesting topics Wikipedia has to offer but the highest quality articles. —Cuiviénen 02:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

but who cares if theyre high quality, they need interest for everyone, not just one person, i mean not many of them caught my eye!

Different things interest different people. For example, I'm very interested in yesterday's (I helped write it, actually) but today's doesn't really interest me. I'm sure there are others that would say just the opposite. Like was said, that's just not the factor. The point of TFA is for Wikipedia to show off its best written articles, and it does that well.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Juicy FUN1, have you considered that maybe a good number of people think TFA is interesting, and you are one of the few who don't think it is interesting? Nah, I'm just kidding. TFA showcases Wikipedia's best articles, while DYK (below TFA) showcases unique and interesting details from articles recently created. Nishkid64 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
On tangent, I suggest we create a new section on the main page, not for featured articles but interesting articles.Tourskin 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Who would decide whats interesting? Like I said before, different people are interested in different things. I don't really see how you could do anything with such a subjective criteria.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! i totally agree! --Juicy girl 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the people who raised the featured article to its excellent standard found it interesting enough to invest their time in doing so. The best way for the OP to get interesting articles on the main page is to raise articles s/he finds interesting to FA status. --TotoBaggins 01:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: How can I know how many times the 'featured article' has been accessed while it was featured? Maybe that way we can tell if it is interesting to people in general or not? I know that interest is not the main point, and being well-written is the main point, but it would still be interesting to have this statistic.

You can't. Hit counters are disabled for performance reasons. Titoxd(?!?) 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...that I'm not the only one whos raised this issue?

I realise that someone has already raised this issue, but the Did you know section is there simply for the sake of it. Well ofcourse there were Greek settlements in Bulgaria dating the 7th cnetury BC. Considering the Minoan dynasty was destroyed by Greek Dorians from Bulgaria before the 7th century BC it would be very reasonable to simply assume that they had settlements to live in. Try to post things not just new to Wikipedia but new to the academic world. And if that means theres nothing new, then theres nothing to write about! If you got nothing new to write about, don't write it! Tourskin 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only for the two Wyeth articles in today's DYK, some academicians completely forgot or never noticed the connection. Does that work for new? -Susanlesch 16:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be impossible, as Wikipedia cannot include original research, and anything published here must be backed up by an external reliable source. Majorly (o rly?) 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the appropriate phrase here is 'pwned by one's own petard'. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The did you know section would be far more interesting if it were to be selected in a similar manner to how Featured articles are selected. So only interesting facts, rather than new facts be posted. So perhaps that would be an improvement. Tourskin 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We have limited sources to choose from. The DYK facts come from new articles created by Wikipedia editors. We try the best we can. Wikipedia is not some news service, so don't expect sudden academic breakthroughs to be suddenly written about on Wikipedia, when there is not enough references and such. The DYK section also serves as a way the community can help polish up new articles. It encourages community involvement in article cleanup, expansion, etc. Nishkid64 18:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, you seem to have a somewhat confused idea as to how FA works. FA don't in fact have to interest anyone per se. It's not one of the criteria AFAIK. The criteria is a very well written article. If you would read above you, you would see there is someone who doesn't think the FA is interesting. The reality is, there's always going to be some people interested by DYK, FA etc. And some people not interested. Our primary interest is making high quality items. We should also aim to achieve a good balance (in terms of geography and also in terms of area of interest). You appear to have a good understanding of European history. That's good. Perhaps you have a good understanding of history in general. However there are bound to be a lot of people who didn't in fact know that there are "Greek settlements in Bulgaria dating the 7th cnetury BC" or that the "Minoan dynasty was destroyed by Greek Dorians from Bulgaria before the 7th". Nil Einne 13:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Tourskin, you seem to have a confused idea of how DYK works. There's no way DYK can be updated with facts "new to the academic world" because, as it was explained, we're not a news service, we're not including original research in Wikipedia, and DYK is intended for new articles, as a former of reward (Main Page exposure) for active editors. This is a general interest encyclopedia, and I'm pretty sure many if not most people would be surprised by just how old Greek presence in Bulgaria is. Not everyone is an expert in ancient history of the Southeastern Europe, you know.
Also, as the author of that article I got a bit offended by that "If you got nothing new to write about, don't write it!" If we stuck to that "principle" and to our guidelines, then the number of articles in Wikipedia wouldn't be 6,801,551, but 0. Todor→Bozhinov 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, we'd have articles. And DYK would be filled with, "'[insert dumb pop song here] reached number seventy-eight on the Billboard Latin Tropical Airplay! oMg!!!!" ShadowHalo 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is surely that "Did you know" isn't particularly the best title for the section, and considering that facts which aren't obscure frequently appear in it, it is a title presumptive of a certain level of ignorance on the part of the reader. 89.234.99.161 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't see it that way. I mean, the answer to "Did you know" could well be yes. I mean, somebody wrote the article, so someone has to know it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The academic world works in the exact way that I stated. If there is nothing new to write then they don't write it. Scientists don't write papers on theories universally accepted as if they were new. I see that DYK is not like that and that it is not feasible to make it a news service. Instead, we could insert random interesting facts. Like did you know that a few thousand Greeks held of 100,000+ Persians for three days? Did you know that the drug used to combat malaria, widely believed to be found in only a few places is a weed easily found in the US? And so on.Tourskin 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the DYK section is just fine, just because the information has been known for some time doesn't mean it has been known by everyone for any amount of time. With such a large number of people reading Wikipedia there is always something new to somebody in DYK. David PJ Webster 19:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't get what your arguing for now. Isn't what your suggesting what DYK already is? Random, interesting facts (from our most recent articles). Yes I appreciate that you didn't find the Greek thing very interesting but as I argued above, I'm sure some people did. Nil Einne 12:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my argument. I know think that rather than select random info from the newest articles, select the most interesting facts. Never mind if its recent. As Dadewebster pointed out, so many people visit wikipedia that everything is new to someone. No, I did not know that a wheel is used in Australia to measure irrigation water.Tourskin 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
DYK entries are in fact not randomly selected, but chosen as "interesting" by editors over at Template talk:Did you know. You should add some entries! --TotoBaggins 01:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I should indeed! But one must question how they define interesting - and no, I did not know that a wheel is used to irrigate water in Australian farms. Thats interesting?Tourskin 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot

How have you stopped WerdnaBot from archiving the ERRORS section? Simply south 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Under each section header is the hidden comment &lt !--werdnabot-noarchive-- >. -- tariqabjotu 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I found it on werdnabot's wiki and added it under every section on errors. ffm yes? 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Can we have the number of featured article constantly displayed along with total articles? --Nirajrm talk ||| sign plz! 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe this function screwed up some days ago? --Howard the Duck 08:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The FA counter bot died in a hard drive crash. Still waiting for an estimated time of resurrection. - BanyanTree 14:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean as in the server the bot was running on is dead or as in someone forgot to keep a backup of the bot's code? Nil Einne 15:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
More the latter I guess, though there is some ambiguity. See User talk:Jmax-bot#Death. - BanyanTree 16:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh how times change ;) 84.71.158.191 12:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about Redirect

Is there a way for a non-administrator to redirect a page which has been prevented from recreation to another relevant aticle? Randomfrenchie 00:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you should instead ask an admin to change the page into a redirect. That way, vandals and others will not be able to convert the redirect back into the previously deleted article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

New proposal for the main page

I think on the Main Page there should be a featured question. What do you think? Ahadland 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

About, just anything? Like, "Hilights from the WP:REFDESK"? ffm yes? 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

omg! i totally agree! its sooooo boring, no offense! a question would be good maybe someone would have another good idea too!

--Juicy FUN1 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah i just had another idea about the main page......... more and BETTER pictures should be there to catch peoples eye. the picture of the day today is cool (scroll down) because it is just cool. see you can have cool pictures if there is a cool topic! yeah man! --Juicy FUN1 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this might be more appropriate at the Wikipedia:Community portal, perhaps as a semi-weekly bulletin board notice? --Quiddity 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not the front page, it would help promote the reference desk, and encourage people to use the site? Ahadland 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, because we're an encyclopedia, not a reference desk. We have limited space on the main page, and this does not advance our mission in any way. Raul654 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ye well we're not a newspaper either but we have a whats in the news section Ahadland 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Er no we don't. We have ITN which some people feel is badly named but whatever, it concentrates on recent events with significantly updated articles that are considered notable. It's not meant to highlight what's in the news per se and for a variety of reasons we often miss out on items which are in the news or only mention them after they are no longer really ITN Nil Einne 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So, tell me what the difference in encyclopedic value is of having a news section and a featured question section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Please see the grey box at Template:In the news for an explanation of how that works.
The Main page exists primarily to highlight our encyclopedic content, not to highlight the community-oriented part of Wikipedia. --Quiddity 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is one of the reasons why it shouldn't be under Main Page. But anyway the issue here is that the Main Page is a community area intended to promote our articles. It's not intended to promote community areas even if those community areas sometimes mention our articles Nil Einne 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We already have a featured question, they're even 8 sometimes... --Howard the Duck 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

82.36 - Well as I said "it's intended to promote our articles". "It's not intended to promote community areas even if those community areas sometimes mention our articles". The reference desk is a community area which sometimes mentions our articles. It's not an article. Ergo, if we promote the reference desk, we are pomoting a community area which sometimes mentions our articles. There are many other community areas which link to our articles (games for example). The question is, is there any reason why we should promote any of them? So far, I haven't really seen any good reason mentioned why we should Nil Einne 11:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
How about because people are interested in it?82.36.182.217 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured picture

What with it being an image of citrus fruits and all, the caption really should mention vitamin C - Jack · talk · 01:54, Monday, 26 February 2007

I don't see why a mention of lemons has to include Vitamin C. If you want to know about Vitamin C in lemons, you should probably read the article instead. ShadowHalo 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i hate lemons they taste sour lol! is it lemon day today? User:LerdthenerdLerdthenerd 11:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes... um I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to say "lol" on wikipedia. Unless it's in an article about internet slang. And also, please contribute to the discussion in some way. I agree with ShadowHalo by the way. ||Dark Jirachi 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)||

James Cameron's Jesus claims?

Should they be incorporated into the news section of this Main Page? If not, why not? [1]-- Sarcha 45 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"In the news" is actually short for "recently changed articles that are currently in the news", so if the Jesus or James Cameron articles have been changed to reflect the item you link to, then you might like to nominate them over at WP:ITN/Candidates. --TotoBaggins 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Talpiot Tomb was proposed at WP:ITN/C, but was rejected. --76.64.76.106 06:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you know... 3.28% (or 1 in 30) of Today's Featured Articles are about AUSTRALIA?

The original author of this discussion wishes to advize that he is satisfied with the response/answers to this issue and considers it resolved.
You are however, still welcome to leave any comments. Rfwoolf 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well.. having seen Today's Featured Article on the main page, expounding on the "fascinating" subject of a species of tree native to Australia, it struck me how often Australian articles are listed as the Today's Featured Article.
So I've gone back and counted the number of articles about Australian things that have featured on the Main Page.

Note: this is not a count of all articles that simply mention 'Australia', these are articles about Australian things, that have this mentioned in the opening of the article:

In 2007:
1 so far in February '07 (Banksia integrifolia - a species of tree)
1 in January '07 (Yarralumla - a suburb in Canberra)
2007 monthly average: 1 per month

In 2006:
2 in December '06 (Banksia brownii - a species of shrub, Green and Golden Bell Frog)
0 in November '06
1 in October '06 (Al-Kateb v Godwin - courtcase)
1 in September '06 (Emu)
2 in August '06 (The O-Bahn Busway, Cynna Kydd - an Australian basketball player)
0 in July '06
0 in June '06
2 in May '06 (including the Flag of Australia, short-beaked Echidna)
0 in April '06
1 in March '06 (Canberra)
2 in February '06 (Sydney Riot of 1879, Yagan)
1 in January '06 (White's Tree Frog)
2006 Total: 12
2006 monthly average: 1 per month

Other listings excluded from this list that mention Australia but aren't Australian include: Rugby World Cup, Antarctica, and Cane Toad

Results:
This results in a total of 3.28% of Today's Featured Articles being Australian articles - or the equivalent of 1 a month or 1 in 30.

Compare this with other countries? How many articles about New Zealand, for example? Or Russia? Or the UK?
There are approximately 245 countries in the world - perhaps we need to see a bit more of them being featured?
Rfwoolf 05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See also: WP:CSB. --76.64.76.106 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can put up the template Template:Globalize/Australia on the Main Page ;) Rfwoolf 06:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Australia's population is roughly 21 million. The population of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia (where I assume most editors of the english Wikipedia come from) is 415 million. 21/415 = 5.06%. Considering that other countries also contribute to Wikipedia, it's close to the number of featured articles. Just a case of systematic bias; Australian editors are more likely to write about Australian subjects. --Tntnnbltn 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A large number of FAs (and I assume TFAs) are also related to India. I don't have the stats to back it up but it was discussed awhile ago here I think... GizzaChat © 09:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Populations table by User:Rfwoolf
Country/Region Date of Statistics Population (millions) Percentage of Total

USA

2007 Estimate

301.233

71.8 %

U.K.

2006 Estimate

60.6

14.45 %

Canada

2007 Estimate

32.8

7.82 %

Australia

2006 Estimate

20.555

4.90 %

New Zealand

2006 Census

4.143

0.98 %

Total:

.

419.331

100 %

Interesting. However, the TFAs' (Today's Featured Article) is chosen by the user User:Raul654 from the list of featured articles. This means that he has chosen an "Australian" article for -- as I've shown -- 1 in every 30 cases. The only way a systemic bias comes into this is if 1 in 30 featured articles were "Australian". Maybe that's the case/problem. Nonetheless it would be interesting to go over the TFAs of the past 12 months and see how other nations have been shown. :P Rfwoolf 09:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


  • I'm tempted to remove the formatting from both of these. While you certainly have a point, responding in the very manner you criticize can only be considered a joke or terribly ironic. --Philosophus T 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The alleged order to "shut up" is, on closer scrutiny, a request. Whilst a "please" might have been nice, its absence does not suggest incivility, although the capitalised text could have been written more quietly. In return, a simple "yes" or "no" reply would have sufficed. I agree with the sentiment expressed though: as long as the articles are well written and varied, over time, in subject if not locality I don't see the frequent accusations of bias as very helpful. Bazza 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:CSB, the population of English Wikipedians does not reflect the world population. Wikipedians tend to write what they know or what affects them, thus the body of articles is substantially skewed, notably in that they write about things in the countries in which they live. As for if this a result of the percentage of Australian articles in total FAs or some pro-Australian craziness from Raul, go to WP:FA and look at the markup. A bot marks each item once it has been Main Paged, so you can actually see the limited options he has when scheduling. If you're going to run an analysis of populations to FA presence, please add the PRC, Nigeria, Indonesia and Brazil, as ignoring the non-English speaking world would be blatantly biased. Some numbers on how favored English-speaking countries are would be interesting and should be added to WP:CSB.

Seriously, I'm not even sure that there is a dead horse to beat anymore. The high point for me was when someone accused the Main Page of favoring Sierra Leone over Bahrain (or some other countries in those regions). It's since gone way past the point of being repetitive. Perhaps a FAQ post would cut down on these or at least could be referred to instead of starting yet another full-blown discussion. - BanyanTree 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you to all those who have commented. While I do think that systemic bias actually is a bit of an issue, I didn't know about the WP:CSB when I initiated this node. Nor was I aware that it is only 1 user that gets to choose the TFA (Today's Featured Article) -- which I actually think is a good thing, provided he/she is aware of WP:CSB and some minor sensetivity about the representation of nations in the TFA. Given all this I can now see why this issue is somewhat of a dead horse.
I suppose we'll just have to hope that more Other/International articles become featured articles to give User:Raul654 some further options.
I also agree that perhaps a FAQ on this matter or a subpage of WP:CSB would be helpful.
Rfwoolf 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
When an article gets promoted to FA its up to the editors to write a summary and place it on this page Raul then selects the article for TFA from here and endeavours to provide as much variation between each as possible based on subject matter. Gnangarra 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I smell another cabal. First promoting the secret gay agenda, now trying to hide Australia from the world. We've got a real cabal problem on our hands here. Seriously, it's possible that there is a systemic bias, but whining here won't change very much, especially implying that Raul654 is behind it. Bringing it up at WP:CSB sounds fine, but there's no reason why Australia is any more special than any other systemic bias here and needs its own FAQ/subpage. ShadowHalo 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Raul654 can (and does) select main page FAs that have not been requested on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. This is quite a good thing, because the requests there lean very heavily toward pop-culture topics and very recently featured articles. — Brian (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Main_Page#Wikipedia languages

A new section should be added in the Template:Wikipedialang:

--Wittkowsky 14:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to create a category for only one language. —Cuiviénen 15:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed many time before BTW, check the archives Nil Einne 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Locking Featured Article

I think the featured article needs to be locked while it is featured on the Main Page. The article Banksia integrifolia has been vandalized several times today. This should probably be a standard policy. Squad51 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this has been discussed many times before. See WP:SEMI and WP:PROTECT. Many new editor's first edit is the featured article, and the Featured artice is almost never locked, even though it is one of the most often vandalized. ffm yes? 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It only attracted about 180 edits during the 24hours on main page so assuming all were vandalism/revert thats only 90 or just over 3 per hour making it a fairly quiet TFA well within the capabilities of editors to keep on top of. Gnangarra 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Really. Today's is about a hetaera; there'll no doubt be more vandalism. And it'll be much funnier, if not misogynist. ShadowHalo 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

the main being constantly edit protected..

..doesn't go in line with linked articles on it being less edit protected than more hidden articles. double standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.72.129 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Well the main page isn't actually an article... There isn't actually much to improve in the main page either. On the other hand link articles (including FA) can an usually are improved including by anons. Yes there's a lot of unfortunate vandalism but also a fair amount of improvement some of which we should probably miss with protection. (And we would probably also be less successful at attracting new regular editors) Nil Einne 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the Main Page itself, or the day's featured article? I think it's fairly obvious why the Main Page is protected; it gets millions of hits a day, and we simply can't allow anyone to post anything on there if we want it to be usable. As for the featured article of the day, it usually isn't protected; it gets semi-protected when there is a lot of vandalism because, again, that's the only way to keep it usable for readers. Perhaps if a significant proportion of anonymous edits to popular articles were actually constructive, the administrators might reconsider, but the overwhelming majority simply aren't – Qxz 11:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Plus, if someone vandalizes an article, it's a shame. If someone blanks the main page, it causes problems and people can't navigate around the site. ShadowHalo 14:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What if an average user like me wants to improve the Main Page? --– Emperor Walter Humala · ( shout! · sign? ) 16:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about the actual content, or improving the overall look and layout of the Main Page? Only a periodic community effort such as here and here is necessary to completely revamp the overall layout of the main page. For small changes to the layout, a normal discussion on this talk page is necessary to gain some sort of consensus. For minor errors currently on the main page, you have to post a report above at the top of this page. See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ for more information concerning this and other similar questions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
In short, if you want to improve the design or layout of the Main Page, make your suggestion here, and if enough people agree with it an administrator will make the change for you. If you want to suggest items for Did you Know, In the News or Selected Anniversaries, there are pages specifically for such suggestions; see the links at the top of the page. If you want a particular article to be Today's Featured Article, first improve it to featured status, and then just wait; it'll come round eventually – Qxz 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want a particular article that has already achieved featured status, you can always make a request here (assuming that it has not been displayed on the main page before). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Why is "Delete file" not in the toolbox ?

Tsi43318 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:HELPDESK. ffm yes? 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
More