Talk:Main Page/Archive 208

Archive 205

Archive 206

Archive 207

Archive 208

Archive 209

Add number of editors in the topmost banner

I suggest this addition for the following reasons:

• It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
• It is a interesting fact about the scale of Wikipedia
• It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Wikipedia
• It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".

I suggest formatting it like this:

112,025 active editors · 7,010,420 articles in English

Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I strongly support this addition. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• "100 or so admins edit Wikipedia" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Wikipedia. Sockpuppets Georg, who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.
  But yes, this seems like a great idea! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Wikipedia in numbers". Schwede66 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work:
  1,291,421,815 total edits · 112,025 active editors · 7,010,420 articles in English
  '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Good idea; I like the model that CanonNi proposes above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —Kusma (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. Schwede66 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe just a comma to separate them. Stephen 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  It’s a list of two counts Stephen 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The wikilink to Special:Statistics already provides an explanation. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The number of articles link also goes to Special:Statistics, though. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

How about linking the number of active editors to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, where it is explained? Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• This appears to be WP:BIKESHED problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose you could say something like, "6,925,100 articles in English written by <number of users that have made >0 undeleted mainspace edits> editors" to be maximally precise. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is that the 49,291,411 {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} is certainly way more than the 112,025 {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}, and that the 7,010,420 {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  "by over" maybe.... — xaosflux ^Talk 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Wikipedia). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Wikipedia's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Wikipedia began, although not a priority in my opinion. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jmchutchinson Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see the point in this, or the relevance of this number to readers. It might make sense on a page intended to be viewed only by editors, but the Main Page is for readers. None of the bullet points are convincing e.g. I've never heard anyone suggest that there are only 100 editors. It's a only minor bit of clutter but would serve no useful purpose. Besides, it's not clear what constitutes an 'active' editor - the very different numbers quoted above suggest this could be seriously misleading. Modest Genius ^talk 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Statistics, where the number comes from, defines it as "any editor that has performed an action in last 30 days", which appears to include IP editors as well. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is labeled Active registered users - of which IP editors are not. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction; when the language is set to Spanish, it just reads "active editors". I wonder if it is possible to get a count of all editors, including IP editors. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that was a problem I imagined; though I do not want to discredit the work of IP editors, they are hard to keep track. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR[1], so yes I would support it. Some1 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Next steps

I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Informal RfC

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.

---

Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.

Which figures should be added to the current text?

1. Active editors (original proposal)
2. Active editors and total edit count
3. Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
4. Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)

• Support 4 if possible, support 1 as a lower-effort but still effective alternative. Oppose 2 and 3 per the concerns raised above that it would create confusion among new editors/readers who would not realise that the count cannot update immediately. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Prefer 1, then 3; dislike total edit count and all-time editors as too large numbers, with no sense of what is happening now. JMCHutchinson (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Which symbol should be used as the separator?

1. Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
2. Use comma

• Support 1, neutral on 2. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins?

1. Use line break
2. Use comma

• Support 1, neutral on 2. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

How should it be ordered?

1. Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
2. Bigger number(s) first

• Support 1 or 2. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks?

1. Wikilink all of the numbers to Special:Statistics (original proposal)
2. Wikilink only the first number to Special:Statistics
3. Wikilink "active editor" to Special:Statistics

Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support 1, neutral on 2 and 3. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support 1, unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. JMCHutchinson (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ca Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?

If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question Should this be added at all?; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. [Personally, I think it's a great idea. But all changes to Wikipedia face incredible opposition, so a stronger consensus would be helpful in overcoming that.] ypn^2 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? ypn^2 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Good idea Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as xaosflux suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "... created by 49,291,411 editors"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added it, but using {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging participants: @Cremastra @Tamzin @Schwede66 @CanonNi @Jmchutchinson @J947 @Stephen @UndercoverClassicist @Kusma @Lee Vilenski @User:Joe Roe @User:Xaosflux @User:ApteryxRainWing @User:Modest Genius @User:Some1 @User:Ypn^2 Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of WP:BIKESHED here! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. – Joe (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think that would be wise: consensus can be tacit, after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. Cremastra (u — c) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (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.

Edit request

Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following

<div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div>

with

<div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div>

The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle ( Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css ), which I am not how it'd be implemented. ChatGPT gave me a potential solution of using a ID'd span tag on the interpunct and hiding it on smaller screens, but I have limited CSS knowledge and can't verify if it would work properly. I know this is a technical request so I will be grateful if a technically-oriented admin can help out. Thanks! Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes atWikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(editable) and Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/styles.css (based on the code at {{hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a local consensus is sufficient to change the main page. Sohom (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. Sohom (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems good to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. Schwede66 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Cremastra (u — c) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to English language. But that's a separate discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I just saw this editor count on the main page and wanted to come by and say I love it. Not just an interesting statistic but a reminder to all visitors that this is a volunteer project not just a faceless and hegemonic Establishment entity. Nicely done everyone!! Proud to be one of the 116,430! jengod (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: delink "English"

Propose to remove the link from "English" to English language. This is an everyday word and per WP:OVERLINK, we should avoid linking everyday words. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We WP:SEAOFBLUE "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. CMD (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Wikipedia that doesn't know what English is. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. CMD (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, English language, which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside encyclopedia and Wikipedia. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  English Wikipedia might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal, per Amakuru's excellent points. It's a good link to have, and there are probably quite a few people who make their first edit as a result of clicking through it. Stephen 22:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our English article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to English language is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. Modest Genius ^talk 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Usability and discoverability

I would expect the main page of the encyclopedia to prominently feature both a table of contents and a search feature. This page has a lot of trivia, which is a nice secondary function, but no longer seems to serve its primary functions very well. It does have a search feature, but it's a small icon up at the top in a bar of icons, rather than being front and center and already open with a box to type in words (in the style of a search engine, like [2]).

It's a bit weird we visibly link to Wikipedia:Contents/Portals, but the only link to Wikipedia:Contents (which is important enough it's linked to from every page on the site) is hidden behind the pancake menu icon in the upper left. We do have templates like Wikipedia:Contents/TOC navbar that could be used directly on this page as a better gateway to actual articles, for those that are curious but don't have any particular query in mind or are looking for inspiration. Beland (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree about the trivia, but remember opinions here come from the trivia writers. Last time I looked at portal usage statistics, it looks like a few people click to see what they are, and most of them don't click anything further. Art LaPella (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be an objection to the WP:SKIN, not the contents of Main Page itself. The default skins on desktop and mobile both have a large search box or icon right at the top of every page. The desktop skin also has a link to Wikipedia:Contents in the menu shown on every single page. If you don't like the way that requires opening the menu before that link is visible, I suggest you bring it up on an appropriate talk page for the skin (perhaps Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022) or at the village pump. Modest Genius ^talk 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm objecting to the fact that the primary functions of the main page are hidden in a menu and in an icon rather than being directly on - if not the most prominent things on - the page.

Wouldn't changing the skin change all pages? That seems like the wrong answer, since it wouldn't make sense to put the Contents listing on every page, nor would it make sense to have an open search bar on every page. Unlike the main page, I would expect the primary means of navigation to be clicking on links to related articles, as opposed to browsing through topics. (Search is sort of intermediate on those pages, so an icon seems like a good compromise.) -- Beland (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't have in the top box "Welcome to Wikipedia" a visually predominant search bar. Doesn't touch the skin. Masem (t) 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have whipped up a search box at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox. How does that look? -- Beland (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I like your idea but your design makes the page header (including the recently added editor count) take up 30% of content height on my display, with about 50% of that header wasted grey emptiness. Some smarter (responsive) design will be needed. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

How about moving the "Other areas of Wikipedia" into that box to fill some of that space?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Is that list considered more or less important than the featured content and news sections? -- Beland (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What is the size of your display? Desktop or mobile? -- Beland (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beland: large tablet, laptop and phone; it's the first which was problematic, but that's not the point. Good design will accommodate varying display sizes and orientation so as to maximise usage of space and readability. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm familiar with responsive design; I just wasn't seeing what you were describing and needed to know how to replicate it. I do see what you are saying when I view the site in landscape orientation; my desktop monitor and phone are both portrait. I will try a flex container layout which will make better use of the space. -- Beland (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have finished with the flex upgrade; the contents of the welcome banner should now adjust to screen size. The text input box will overflow its container at higher zoom levels, but I think this is a problem in the skin CSS or the implementation of the extension, which could affect other pages. (If so, it would be worth fixing site-wide rather than just for this page.) How does that look to y'all? -- Beland (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you describe what you would expect in a table of contents for the site? I'm struggling to see how it would work. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Above, I suggested using Wikipedia:Contents/TOC navbar. -- Beland (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably similar to the old layout that had the list of major portals at the top? That's kind of a table of contents. I think as close as you could get, anyway. ApLundell (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question: the old layout links to portals like Portal:Mathematics, but the modern navbar links to contents pages like Wikipedia:Contents/Mathematics and logic. I'm assuming the contents pages are more appropriate than the portal pages? IIRC there was an attempt to drop portals from the project entirely (partly because they weren't being maintained?), and perhaps they were removed from the main page for some reason related to that? -- Beland (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised this functionality hasn't already been implemented. Before I started editing, I never used the main page for exactly this reason. Now I check it every day because of the trivia. I feel like a sort of MSN-style layout would be the best of both worlds (and I recognize this is exactly what is proposed, just wanted to say I support it wholeheartedly). /home/gracen/ (they/them) 22:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added a list of topics and link to Wikipedia:Contents under the prominent search bar. I decided to go with only a single line, because having two lines word-wrap makes things a bit confusing. I did discover "text-wrap: balance;" can actually make wrapped lines the same length, which looks nicer, so if people are missing the links to outlines, portals, etc. I can put that in, too. How does it look now to everyone? -- Beland (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• The OP makes a good point. See Britannica to compare. What I notice is:

• Top left is an Explore button which leads to a menu of topics
• There's a big search bar top and centre
• There's then an Ask the Chatbot option followed by
• A series of portal headings: Games & Quizzes; History & Society; Science & Tech; Biographies; Animals & Nature; Geography & Travel; Arts & Culture; ...

It then gets into specific sample topics which have a respectable OTD tone -- Martin Luther King and past Presidential inaugurations.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beland Looks good, and brings back some useful features which I recall being removed in the past. Don't assume you have only one line: narrowing the window produces two (or more). They align themselves fine, but the initial Contents: jars; dump the colon. Also, for accessibility, the list (including Contents) should be a proper list (custom-styled if need be), not a set of words separated by interpuncts. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear; by "two lines" I really meant two lists - the "Overviews, Outlines..." list and the "Reference, Culture..." list - which are one line each (only) when the screen is wide. I dropped the former because having both of those line-wrapping into multiple lines seemed weird. I made the line-wrapping for "Reference, Culture..." look nice by adding "text-wrap: balance;" to the CSS.

I initially didn't use {{hlist}} because I wanted the colon in "Contents:", because it's not a member of that list; it's essentially a title for that list. Or at least that's the logic I see in it. But I've dropped the colon and converted to an hlist with custom styling as you suggested anyway. How does that look now? Do you miss the "Overviews, Outlines..." list? -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beland: This is good stuff. I try (not always successfully) and consider stuff from a naïve reader's point of view. If I know what I want to read about, then I can use the search box(es); if I'm not too sure but know roughly what discipline is involved I can use the headline topics; if I've no real idea or just want to have a browse I can click Contents. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beland: I forgot to answer your question: no, I don't miss Outlines etc. Too mechanical for the main page, and is just a click away anyway. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The contents menu looks good. The search bar looks ok by itself but it might look odd in the final display as you'd have two similar search bars quite close to each other at the top of the page -- the one that you've added and the standard one in the header which always appears. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what problem the proposed changes here are addressing... when I load the main page I see a prominent search bar right at the top, this is what I usually use to find topics and seems adequate for the purpose... unless I've adjusted my skin somewhere and this isn't the default view? As for "Contents", absolutely not. We've spent years painstakingly eliminating the clutter of having "Portals" on the main page, which nobody ever clicks, and now we want to bring back something similar just rebranded as "Contents"? As Art LaPella says above, nobody uses that feature anyway and it's sort of reminiscent of the long-gone days of Yahoo Directory when people navigated the web by looking things up in an index. Those days are long long gone, and the vast majority of navigation to our pages takes places through search (mostly Google and some internal searching) and possibly direct wikilinks these days.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Turns out most people don't see the skin's search bar at the top, but you do see it if you are on a desktop device with a wide screen. Having a narrower screen (like my desktop, and any mobile device, which is the majority of readers) causes it to hide behind an icon. You can see this happen if you narrow your browser window.

  I don't think any of the trivia below the welcome bar actually helps anyone find something they were looking for, either; it's there for people who aren't looking for anything in particular, or distracts them if they were in fact looking for something specific. If the only thing the vast majority of people actually need is a search bar, that leaves plenty of other real estate we might as well fill with things only a small minority use? I don't think of the Contents pages as actually being a comprehensive directory that will get you somewhere, but more as a sampling to show what sort of stuff Wikipedia knows about, for people who aren't yet familiar with the site. -- Beland (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Birthday

Since it is Wikipedia's birthday, shouldn't we add that to the "On this day" page? SuperJames888 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit late to suggest that, don't you think? It's now the 16th of January in some countries. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 15 lists Wikipedia's anniversary as ineligible (in the collapsed staging area) because the Wikipedia article is outdated and its inclusion would be navel-gazing. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree but it's too late for this year. Let's set it up for next year. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If we don't celebrate Wikipedia's 25th birthday in a different way on the Main Page next year, a mention in OTD would make sense. —Kusma (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we should reserve Jan. 15 every year for either a Wikipedia-themed Main Page, or some custom message like stats on what we've accomplished in the last $n$ years. The Main Page is not an article, and we're allowed to be self-referential, and I think once a year we've earned that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Put a hat on the globe? CMD (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Love it! Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a banner listing 25 years of accomplishments—next birthday ? The AP (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Main page active editor count accessibility

See also: Talk:Main Page/Archive 208 § Add number of editors in the topmost banner

Moved from User talk:MSGJ

After the second edit, the copied and pasted text is wrongly spaced. Following "More anniversaries", it should be like this:

−

126,324 active editors6,950,204 articles

+

126,324 active editors 6,950,204 articles

I suggest:

−

editors</li><li>[[Special:

+

editors</li> <li>[[Special:

{{flatlist}} may also be useful as it's used by {{SelAnnivFooter}}. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The spacing looks fine for me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The visual rendering is identical in both cases, but the copied text is different. That may cause a problem for screen readers. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's a simple experiment you can try: Double click on "editors" on the main page. It shouldn't select the "6" but it currently does. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: any comment on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

IP, I tried adding the space but it does not change the selecting behavior (I assume because the space gets swallowed up by the MediaWiki parsing void), the correct way to handle this might be to add a zero-width space. However, I'm not sure if that will translate to a better experience from screen-readers Ping @Graham87, who is the only user who I know who might use a screen-reader. Sohom (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

For easy accessiblity Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(editable) contains the Zero-width-space edit that is proposed. Sohom (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The original version on the Main Page works fine in both JAWS and NVDA because they, like most screen readers, put list items on their own line. And we don't add spaces after list items in general and it's never been a problem ... Graham87 (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Why do we even need an unordered list here, are we trying to force a break at very tiny resolutions? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

We are, see Wikipedia:Main_Page/styles.css#L-100 Sohom (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The addition of the space has fixed the selecting behaviour on my browser. If there are no downsides, then this seems like a minor improvement — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: Sorry, I meant on Firefox. I neglected to test Chrome, which not only selects the "6" but the ",951,012", and this current behavior on Chrome is correct and consistent with clicking to the left of "Archive · More featured lists". So a zero-width space should not be used. My edit request works on Firefox, so it's not the "MediaWiki parsing void", which I worked around using "&#32;" at {{burma-shave}}.

@Graham87: {{SelAnnivFooter}} uses newlines to solve this problem, which you can chose to use instead of my solution. The double click and screen readers were just what I thought were better examples. My real use case is that I like to Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V from Wikipedia into Google Translate. Using Firefox, I get "126,690 active editors6,951,041 articles in English" but I want the copied text to be spaced properly like the "Archive By email List of days of the year About" below. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Broken banner

The "Latino Poetry" banner is unusable in dark mode. It renders black text on a dark grey background. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Latino poetry isn't mentioned anywhere on the Main Page, and wasn't yesterday either. I don't know what banner you're referring to, but this is the wrong place to discuss it. Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a banner (I assume from the WMF) stating "Learn to edit Wikipedia while shining a light on Latino poets in this 8-week course. Enroll now!" that only appears on the main page and main page talk as far as I can tell. As something that only appears when visiting the main page, and only affects the main page experience, for those like us who don't know where it's coming from, this is the logical venue, no? Nebman227 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not see any such banner, either logged in or out. Perhaps it's only for users in specific countries? Regardless, if the WMF is overlaying a banner that isn't under the control of English Wikipedia, then there's nothing we can do about it on this talk page. Modest Genius ^talk 13:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I figured this was the right place to ask about the banner since the main page is where the banner is displayed. Even if this wasn't the right place, I figured someone might be kind enough to point me to the right place.

You have proven me wrong. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't like your response. It seems disproportionately harsh. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I worded it as kindly as I could. Did you have a specific suggestion about how I might improve it? (Or: are you just having a run at me for my objection to some rudeness in another thread?) -- mikeblas (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If someone says "I don't know what you're talking about and I don't think it's part of the main page", and they don't tell you where the banner came from or the proper place to discuss it, I would assume (in good faith) that they simply don't know the right place, rather than attributing this lack of information to their not being "kind enough". jlwoodwa (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It's possible to disable banner display in preferences (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners); could that be why some editors can't see it? (Myself included.) Serial (speculates here) 13:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

From meta:CentralNotice/Request, I found meta:CentralNotice/Request/Anthology of Latino Poetry Wiki Scholars Course. The banner edit interface is at meta:Special:CentralNoticeBanners/Edit/AoLPWSC2025_banner. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I left a comment about the dark mode problem on the Meta page: meta:CentralNotice/Request/Anthology of Latino Poetry Wiki Scholars Course#Discussion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for digging into this! Your efforts were helpful and productive. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Alexander McQueen

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.

---

I'm sorry if I'm formatting this incorrectly or putting this in the wrong place -- I'm new to this form of editing. But I have a question: why do we keep on putting Alexander McQueen's work in the featured article section? Are we an encyclopedia, or are we Alexander McQueen's marketing team?

The extent to which Alexander McQueen is featured on the main page makes it seem as if our neutrality is compromised. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if people with links to Alexander McQueen are pulling strings behind the scenes.

Featured articles are supposed to not be reposted. While posting articles on different McQueen exhibits several times a year technically respects this rule, in practice we are giving McQueen a completely disproportionate amount of airtime. Is there a way we could address this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahKidd1478 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@NoahKidd1478: I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Featured articles can be reposted (a five year minimum between turns is current practice, IIRC). More importantly, you have managed to cast aspersions (that editors are shilling for fashion agents) while also assuming a massive amount of bad faith (suggesting the editors responsible for featured articles are some kind of marketing team). Editors write about the things, subject to certain policies and guidelines, that they want to. The guidelines regarding TFA can be found here.

Incidentally. Prepare to blow a gasket in the future; there are, I think around 10 AMQ articles currently with featured status. So far, only five of them have appeared on the main page. Guess we should all go buy AMQ stock. Serial (speculates here) 17:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

TFA's are nominated and selected at Today's_featured_article/requests. The whole process is transparent and I can assure you that nothing shady is going on.

Today's Featured Article pulls from the list of articles with the Featured Article status which has nothing to do with being "featured" on the main page, which might be a point of confusion if you're new. McQueen articles keep showing up on the main page because an editor has put in a massive amount of work in bringing them to FA status then nominating them to show up on the main page. The best way to get more variety in main page FA's would be to bring some to FA status and nominate them, which you can do. Nebman227 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't like your response. It seems disproportionately harsh. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: I don't think Nebman227 response was harsh at all, to be honest. Serial (speculates here) 11:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

OK. I disagree, and think it could've been handled far better. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in Nebman227‘s comment that is even remotely “harsh”, let alone “disproportionately” so. They have briefly explained the process and suggested a path of positive action. I’m really struggling to see what your complaint is. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Schro, I suspect Mikeblas is attributing SN's post to Nebman227. Wikipedia's indenting system sucks, and I've done similar many times. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I did I am/did. Sorry -- my eyesight isn't great, and there are many accessibility problems. Lining up columns is quite difficult. (Assuming "SN" refers to User:Serial_Number_54129.) -- mikeblas (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand how putting an article about a collection from 20 years ago is marketing for McQueen. I think that the TFA bias is instead towards articles on underrepresented topics at TFA that were recently promoted to FA status. According to WP:TFASTATS, in the past six months, 57 articles were promoted 100 days or less before appearing as TFA, which is a little under 1/3 of the articles at TFA in that period. 22 articles are 100-200 days from promotion which is where Nihilism would fall (about 103 days from promotion), 10 articles for 200-300 days, and then the next drop off stabilises to about 3-5 articles per 100 days. There's also a bias with the TFA co-ords to prioritise FAs that haven't appeared on the main page yet. Since WP:FANMP does not have a lot of visual arts articles that haven't appeared on the main page, the coordinators tend to schedule visual arts articles more quickly. Whether these biases should exist or not is a question that only the community can answer. Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

NoahKidd1478, there isn't a problem to address. We struggle to show sufficient variety as it is and have gluts of unused FAs in some areas (milhist and modern music) and a dearth of articles in multiple areas (See here for the large areas of shortfall). Sure, we can ignore new, fresh FAs from an under-represented topic and run more milhist or music, or we can rerun even more older FAs (which carries with it a whole set of other risks and problems), but that's going to lead to many, many more complaints. It would also be unfair on the editors involved in getting these to FA if we deliberately ignore them without a good rationale. If you want us to select different types of FAs, please develop articles and take them through FAC to give us a larger pot of articles to choose from, but these are excellent articles, they've never appeared on the MP before and they will keep being selected. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they are excellent articles (and they are), I have to admit that seven TFAs in the last year about the same person does appear to be pushing it a bit. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It does naturally lead to 'PR rep?, or perhaps, 'someone's, Mother?; At any rate, there is no need to jump on Noah for asking about it, it means they are a reader. Thanks for reading, Noah. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. One or two of the responses above are incredibly rude for what was basically a genuine question about the balance of main-page content.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not just a question about MP content though: it's the aspersions and innuendo that are cast when asking the question. That's not acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe not, but Serial could've been much more tempered in their response. Not quite as bad as your direct contradiction denial, but still counter-productive. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah well, next time I’ll make sure I change my opinion or censor myself so it doesn’t contradict someone who is casting slurs on others. - SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to start cycling in old FAs if there's not enough variety in the unused ones. I think it's more important to be fair to readers than to editors. There's a huge variety of FA that may have only been on TFA once, years ago. Apfelmaische (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Old FAs are already being used (there will be one appearing in two and a half hours, for example), but they come with their own set of problems in terms of where they sit in terms of the current standards. As I have already said, if people could develop articles up to FA standard to give us a wider and deeper pool of articles from which to choose, life would much easier. If not, then our hands are largely tied, given the number of complaints if we start increasing the proportion of milhist or modern music articles to fill the spaces. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't understand the process. The page of unused FAs you linked is super useful. Maybe a new statistics page showing TFAs that have only appeared once (and the order they appeared in) might be similarly useful? I understand that would be a much longer list (thousands?) and not all of them are still up to snuff. Anyway, I think everyone can agree McQueen isn't an underrepresented topic anymore. Apfelmaische (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Apfelmaische: You might be interested in WP:URFA/2020. Z1720 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The regulars know how the Main Page sections work, but it's evidently unclear to the wider public. This question (about Alexander McQueen specifically, or other topic areas such as video games) comes up regularly here and other places such as the r/wikipedia subreddit. Perhaps it would be worth adding some descriptive subheadings to the main page e.g. "Today's featured article - from Wikipedia's highest quality articles", "Did you know - from recently created or improved articles". But oh god, we would need to come up with a summary for In the news that everyone can agree on. the wub "?!" 23:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK used to have a tagline along those lines. I wish it'd return. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not that clear here in the responses here either. There's not a lot of articles on Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page, but it doesn't seem so constrained that it necessitates five articles about the same person in quick succession. Although I suppose nobody here has yet noted how quick the successions has been, so I could be wrong in an assumption. CMD (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis Seven TFAs since February 2024; February 12, March 24, May 22, September 18, October 9, December 13, plus yesterday's. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Less than one a month? Well, my assumption was flawed. This doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic marketing given the number of non-military articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. If it is a problem at that frequency, what would a better spread be? CMD (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The list of those that haven't appeared is just that: they have not appeared. Not all of them are in a fit enough state to put on to the MP without serious work, so it's not as big a pool of available 'fresh' articles as it looks at first glance. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Every time I see a thread about "too much <someone's niche topic> on the Main Page", my thought is like... get over it? I cannot think of any other context in which people criticize Wikipedians for doing literally the thing Wikipedians are most supposed to do: writing good Wikipedia articles. Nor has anyone ever explained to me why there being a series of articles on a topic on the Main Page is for some reason a bad thing. That seems to always be stated as a given, but, why? There is nothing about the Main Page's structure that would give readers the impression we don't have series of articles on topics. The closest thing to the Main Page among traditional media is a newspaper, and newspaper run series on niche topics all the time.

The whole thing—and I don't just mean the OP, who I appreciate is a new user, but I mean as a general phenomenon on Wikipedia—just reads like sour grapes. So you're not interested in something that keeps coming up on the Main Page? Alright. Go read a different article then. There's about 35 featured on the page at any point in time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin Going to have to disagree with you there. If people are complaining about the type of TFAs (i.e. "There are too many music/video game/pop culture/military history TFAs") then yes, that's not an issue, because it is multiple articles about different subjects, even if they share a genre. But here we have seven TFAs in a year about a single person, which does seem to me to be excessive. This is absolutely no reflection on those articles author, incidentally; they're great articles. But there are over 6,600 FAs, and it just seems that it could be balanced out a bit. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a choice of what to balance, I guess. We have enough sports articles that the TFA coords can run regularly sports articles that are not about Gillingham FC, the 1948 Australian cricket team or the World Snooker Championship so people don't notice how many of those we have. On the other hand, if the TFA coords don't feature McQueen, they can't feature fashion at all. Overall I think the coords are generally doing a good job balancing out TFA topics given the material we give them to work with. —Kusma (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

All the responses here set in terms of defending editors against criticism are tone-deaf. Whatever group, by whatever process sincerely followed in good faith, determines what article to place on the main page each day should simply take into account the problem of giving Wikipedia the appearance of a conflict of interest, and should be sensitive, whether a priori in making their selections or afterwards in responding to expressed concerns, to this and try to avoid it at the same time they're applying all the other criteria that they apply. Largoplazo (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, the Main Page TFA showcases our top quality content, which is extremely unevenly distributed among the topics covered by Wikipedia in general. For example, we have 24 FAs related to Taylor Swift and 9 FAs about countries. Sure, we can try to make people not notice how unbalanced we are lest they believe we have a conflict of interest, but it almost seems dishonest to pretend we don't have this massive systemic bias. —Kusma (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Does lend to the "Whiteguypedia" stereotype. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

There are some overly strong comments here on both sides of the debate. I too have been wondering why we've had so many McQueen TFAs and am glad that NoahKidd1478 raised the question. TFAs are selected on quality, and the topical coverage is limited by what quality articles have been written and promoted. They're not advertising and it's good that someone has put the effort in to write these articles. At the same time, the number of TFAs about McQueen has been unreasonably high - seven in a single year is too much. That's about double the rate I consider a sensible maximum. So yes, we should continue running TFAs about McQueen, but they should be spread out more. Three a year would be plenty. Modest Genius ^talk 12:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It takes a long time to produce new featured articles. They're passion projects, and editors write about what they care about. If you think that different articles need to be promoted, then go make those articles better so they qualify. Put up or shut up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I've been working on Margaret Sibella Brown for over six years; anybody who wants to fight the "whiteguypedia" stereotype is welcome to drop by FAC with a review. And Alien is right; the best way to fix our biased selection of articles is to write ones on under-represented topics. RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

There's a number of issues wrapped up together here, but let me concentrate on the re-running of old material. I gather it happens from time to time on TFA, and within the past year or so, DYK passed a new rule allowing it there. I don't get why we want to do that. There's so much new material that deserves greater visibility, it seems silly to me that we're wasting limited main page space to run old stuff again. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons, but the simplest is that the Featured Articles process promotes substantially fewer than 365 articles per year, and has done since 2010. See the deltaFAs column at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics. If TFA didn't run some repeats, they would run out of articles sooner or later. I don't think having previously run something as TFA in (say) 2009 should disqualify it in 2025. Modest Genius ^talk 16:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not that it ran in 2009 that disqualifies such an article. It's that since then it's had 15 plus years of the ebb and flow of Wikipedia editing that possibly hasn't improved it, especially since a lot of the people who were producing TFAs in the 00's are inactive or less active than they were, and likely no one has been watching the article very much. Also, we are limited in running reruns is that there may be no more than two a week. I'm not out to increase that because TFA is for many editors a capstone for their hard work on an article and we want to encourage people to write more FAs by rewarding them in the only way this project can. Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate that the number of repeats is deliberately limited and there need to be checks to ensure the article quality is still up to FA standard. I was over-simplifying to explain why we have any repeats at all. Modest Genius ^talk 13:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a deficit of FAs. That certainly reduces my anxiety about whether any FA I do will be good enough to make TFA :-) But DYK has exactly the opposite problem; we have more material than we can handle, which is why we keep having to switch to running two sets per day. So I'm still mystified why people feel the need for reruns. RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean on TFAs? Because if we don't, we will slowly have less and less variety because we have less and less to choose from. Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we consider expanding the "thing" to "From today's featured or good article", starting to include GA:s as well? That would give us more to choose from. We don't have to change the wording, "featured" here seems to mean "shown on mainpage". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be a bad step. TFA is supposed to showcase our best work and many GAs are not at that standard. Besides, GAs get their chance to appear at DYK once they get promoted. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

In re DYK has exactly the opposite problem; we have more material than we can handle, which is why we keep having to switch to running two sets per day: DYK used to routinely run four sets per day, so that's gone down, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I had no idea our deficit was this bad. OK, challenge accepted, I will try for more than one this year :) —Kusma (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Kusma, The stats are here, but broadly the promotions over the last six years:

2024	282
2023	317
2022	300
2021	325
2020	268
2019	280

As you can see, we're running well short of the 365 we need to keep the level flat - and that's without taking into account WP:FAR which will reduce the overall pot. But for selecting for the front page the problem is exacerbated by the gluts we have in certain areas (milhist, modern music), where we get more complaints if we run too many of those and demands for more variety. People like reading the Culture and society articles, but we're low on those (which is one of the reasons why McQueen has appeared a few times this year) and some broader topics are entirely empty, meaning we're severely constrained when the question of "variety" is considered in what to run each month. I keep challenging people who complain about TFA to write something that can appear there, but I've not seen anything positive come from it: people would rather complain and hope someone else does the actual work of magicking up a solution out of nothing! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding FAR, most articles that appear there have already been TFA, so sometimes those articles are reviewed there in anticipation of a re-run. There are not many FARs on under-represented topics that have not appeared at TFA (because usually, if they are underrepresented they appear at TFA pretty quickly). Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

In March, I believe we are featuring as reruns five articles that recently survived FAR. At least I know someone's looked at them. Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I never thought the deficit was that bad. Perhaps we can try periodically replace the TFA section with another section? One idea I had was to create a Wikipedia tips section that teaches readers about reading page history, raising concerns on the talk page, undoing vandalism, adding sources, etc. etc.(Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 62#New main page section: Wikipedia tips) Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if it would help when doing GA reviews to keep an eye out for FA candidates. There's a wide quality range to GA. Some meet the letter of WP:GACR and not much more, but some are outstanding bits of writing and it might help improve the FA pipeline if GA reviewers would encourage those authors to take the next step. RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That would certainly be a benefit, although I suspect the ones that are both 1. of a sufficient standard and b. have sufficient wide coverage of the relevant literature may not be too big - although I am not familiar enough with what goes through GAN nowadays. They would also have to be reviewed (or at least seen) by someone familiar enough with FA standards to spot a potential nom. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

So ... feature another article every week instead of every day? Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not try to produce new material, say by featuring something at AfI or encouraging readers to contribute more overtly? JayCubby 00:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

People write about what they are interested in. That's the bottom line. And writing a FA is a Lot of Work, the standards are high and exacting, the learning curve is steep, and we have no incentives to offer besides the privilege of seeing one's work or a summary thereof spend 24 hours on the main page. Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Other incentives, some of which are applicable to writing a FA, are: barnstars and other awards to get from peers, userboxes and topicons to display on your userpage yourself. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Andrybak: Successful FAC nominators do get recognition at the moment, see for example (quite self-indulgently!) my talk page. Serial (speculates here) 18:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There are also simpler, less noticeable peer rewards, like thanks for edits. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2025 (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.

User:Yann and POTDs

Hi all

Just bringing wider attention to a dispute that's flared up in the past two days between myself and User:Yann regarding eligibility for certain articles to be linked from POTD entries on the main page. There has been a back-and-forth discussion on this at my talk page.

The guidelines at WP:POTD/G and longstanding practice is that because Wikipedia FPs are different from Commons FPS in that they are designated as high-quality images which also illustrate encyclopedic topics, the blurb at POTD should contain a small introduction to the topic of the linked article, alongside the image. The upshot of that is that if the article is a stub or doesn't contain sufficient cited information to construct a minimal introductory blurb on the topic, we don't list it in the POTD queue and it's added to the page at WP:Picture of the day/Unused.

Note that the POTD standards are already lower than those at TFA / ITN / DYK / OTD, in that the article can be listed with uncited material present (something which isn't ideal but has generally been seen as unavoidable); however, we've always been clear that the content of the blurb itself must be a sufficient brief introduction and that that content used on the main page itself must be fully cited within the article (a basic requirement of the WP:V policy). I have not known anyone to dispute this before.

The particular articles / images which have come under dispute from Yann are:

• Portrait of Adeline Ravoux [image]
• Alicudi [image]
• National Maps of Switzerland [image]

In all these cases, the basic details of the topic are either not present or aren't cited. Myself and Jay8g have been the de facto coordinators of the POTD project for the past 2+ years, scheduling and writing most of the daily entries, and we've always been very clear on making sure WP:POTD/G is followed and listing as "unused" those which don't comply with the guidelines. These images aren't lost forever, the goal would be eventually for us to work on improving those articles and finding relevant sources. I do think that Yann attempting to schedule them before they're ready, and Yann would be welcome to undertake that work themselves if they wish, as Jay8g and I regularly do for other POTDs. They shouldn't be listed as they are now, however.

Any feedback on this welcome. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Well, this is not in the guidelines. The only requirement there is that the file should be a featured picture, and still used. This is the case for all three pictures mentioned above. Yann (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Both WP:POTD/G#Writing the blurb and WP:POTD#Guidelines list the guidelines, the they're pretty clear on this. In particular - "A blurb is liable to be amended or even rejected" if it doesn't meet the criteria, as well as "Not all featured pictures will appear as the picture of the day". This is long-standing practice and, as I said above, is already a much weaker standard than is applied across the rest of the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not what I read. The guidelines say "the article should not be a stub", and none of these articles are tagged as "stub". Alicudi and National Maps of Switzerland are clearly not stubs, so your argument doesn't hold. Yann (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Not being a stub is the baseline, but given the requirement that "All facts mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article, or in the description linked to the image itself (if it's a specific detail not relevant to the article topic)" and "All facts used in the blurb must have a citation to a reliable source", it's self-evident that the article in question must have sufficient cited material within them to construct a verifiable blurb. None of the above cases have that. Jay8g and I work hard day-in and day-out to flesh out the prose and/or locate sources for the often substandard articles linked to FPs, and I'm merely saying that you'll need to do the same if you wish the above entries to be scheduled for the main page. It's my hope that I'll be able to work on more of the entries at WP:Picture of the day/Unused in the future and give them their place in the sun, but this isn't automatic and requires work - sometimes even hunting down offline sources or visiting the library.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

No time or desire to review the specific examples here, but in case it helps to have a 3rd opinion, I can confirm Amakuru's basic description of what we've done historically, and what the POTD guidelines say. I would interpret them the same way Amakuru has. It would maybe help resolve this quicker if Yann could clarify what specifically Amakuru is saying above that they don't think is correct. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure where the confusion lies -- All facts used in the blurb must have a citation to a reliable source, either in the linked article or in the image description page seems pretty clear to me. Both Alicudi and National Maps of Switzerland are ones that I had looked at scheduling a few times, but ended up deciding those articles needed more work than I had the time to put in right then. Anyway, the only reason I've been helping out with POTD is that it has traditionally been the only drama-free part of the main page project -- let's try to keep it that way. Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Yann, in case it helps, what Amakuru says is correct. The bar is a bit higher than where you believe it is. Schwede66 20:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If you say so, but the guidelines must be made clearer. In all three cases, I copied the text from the article, so that meets the requirement that "All facts mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article". Yann (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

And now you just have to comply with that final bullet point: "All facts in the blurb must have a citation to a reliable source." Stephen 00:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Featured article schedule

Just out of curiosity, is there a specific schedule for the "Today's featured article" section? Like, is there a specific set of articles expected to be featured each day? Ilikemycheesedrippybruh120 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The schedule is set by the Today's Featured Article coordinators, who rotate setting a month at a time. This month's queue has been set, as has next month. Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia home page" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia home page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 9 § Wikipedia home page until a consensus is reached. Justjourney (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

"MP:WSP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MP:WSP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 10#MP: redirects (excluding MP:T)|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 10 § MP: redirects (excluding MP:T)]] until a consensus is reached. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Featured article

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.

---

Does today's feature article have a page with an obscene title? What if children click on the main page? An editor from Mars (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I know. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

They'd probably find out about the existence of the word sooner or later, but in any case they probably don't know what it means. I don't see a concern. Cremastra (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2025 (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.

Featured article and ‘did you know?’

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.

---

Is there any particular reason why the items in the ‘did you know?’ section and the featured articles almost invariably relate to American popular culture? Do a few editors make a majority of the suggestions? It’s tiresome drivel. Today’s (1 April) are especially vapid. Keeper of Albion (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Keeper of Albion: DYK displays what gets nominated and is eligible. If there's a bias, then please provide your own nominations to balance things out.

The story with featured articles is somewhat different. There is a limited pool of pages that haven't been shown yet (last time I looked, there were just over 700 articles yet to be featured). The coordinators can only choose from that pool, and every FA will eventually run. Once again, if you detect a bias, simply bring other topics up to FA status and thus, you can do something about it. Schwede66 02:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, nominations from the pool of articles that we have are always welcome at WP:TFA/R. If you write a blurb and nominate an eligible article it is one less blurb we have to write. Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Today's DYK entries include a Spanish anarchist group, a New Zealand horse, an Indonesian politician, an Australian election, and a Neptunian broadcast. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes @Keeper of Albion. I have suggested creating a section with random articles (with some criteria, of course; they should at least be representative of the encyclopedic content we’re aiming for). Because the gap is huge, we will need some years before the encyclopedia can achieve balance in featured and good articles as @Schwede66 explained. This way, we could have a good rotation of articles somehow less baised, in my opinion. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

We already have the random article button. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The button you're referring to is different. It leads to random articles, where the content quality is not checked, and they do not appear on the main page, so no visibility. Riad Salih (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The time and effort you would expend on checking the articles for minimum quality (which would have to be defined and standardized first) is more than the benefit to the readers that your idea would produce compared to them just clicking random article until they find something they are intrigued by. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The OP mentioned April 1 without mentioning recognition of Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2025 (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.

Top News stories

The 'In the news' section on our main page looks more like a sports page than a news forum. Currently there are three spots related stories in this section The story at the top, which has been posted at least two days, "A nightclub roof collapse in Santo Domingo", while interesting, is certainly not world headline news. Rarely do we see the latest breaking events where it concerns e.g. Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, etc as the lead story. The latest Ukraine missile attack in Sumy should be the top story right about now. We should be seeing more top story news, and fewer stories about sports figures that only appeal to fans of the respective sport involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Sports-related items are put into the In the news section of the main page according to the guideline WP:ITNSPORTS. This guideline can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:In the news.

Editors are welcome to participate in the discussions of candidate news story to put on the main page at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Guidelines was not the issue. Lack of top news stories is the issue, with disproportionate sports coverage. Since this is the Talk page to main page, where this situation exists, it seems appropriate that the matter be discussed here.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The 3 sports blurbs in a row is a bit of a fluke. That usually doesn't happen. Rarely, it's 3 national elections. Rarely, it's 3 natural disasters. Usually, it's a mix of those. It's whatever gets approved at WP:ITNC, using ITN guidelines as a ... guide, so yes, guidelines are the issue. ITN is not a news forum, and it is not intended for "top news stories". It is a place to see quality articles that have been substantially updated about subjects that are in the news. ITN has a system. If you want to change that system, WT:ITN is, indeed, the place to discuss it. If you just want to complain, then here is fine. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't appreciate the inference that I'm here 'just' to complain.

It is a place to see quality articles that have been substantially updated about subjects that are in the news.

There are articles for the Ukraine-Russia war and the Israel-Gaza war, and they are routinely updated as significant events occur. I suppose this is more of a case of no one nominating the article in question, or if they have, it didn't get off the ground. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

both of those are in the “ongoing” section of ITN, on the main page right now, and have been for months/years. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no 'top news' or 'news forum' section. The section is called 'in the news' because it highlights high-quality encyclopaedic articles that have been updated (or newly created) to reflect current events, see WP:ITNPURPOSE. These are high-quality Wikipedia articles about topics that are in the news, not news stories that happen to link to some articles. The section is not intended to be a news reporting website or to feature every story that is getting media attention. The primary limitations on what gets posted are a) the quality of the associated article, and b) participation in the nomination process at WP:ITN/C. If you would prefer to see more items on other topics, I encourage you to write/improve those articles, and to participate in the nomination process. The section could always do with more volunteers to help keep it running. Modest Genius ^talk 11:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest going to a news site for news, rather than coming to an encyclopedia and complaining about the poor quality of its news reporting.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Too right, Khajidha. Schwede66 23:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The Jet Set nightclub roof collapse mentioned above had 231 fatalities which is very significant. For context, this is about 7.75% of the fatalities in the 9/11 attack and one of the largest losses of life in the country outside of natural disasters. The "Ongoing" section covers the various conflicts so that individual battles and attacks don't dominate the ITN space. There is a reason why sports and elections tends to dominate: which is they're straight forward and objective, thus they pass through the approval process much more easily. Through happensatance, there tends to be a lot of sports stories now. You and anyone else is free to nominate an article at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The roof collapse story, which is indeed significant, has been posted now close to a week, while other significant events have not. It's understood that articles must be nominated and approved. When people see the title section heading, "In the news", it's very easy to assume that this a news forum and is where new stories appear, which they often have. Of course we don't want to post something on ITN every time a new battle occurs, but this last one brought an abrupt and unexpected end to the cease fire. With Ukraine and Russia firing missiles at each other at the same time, in such alarming proportions, many around the world were concerned that this may have triggered a world war, dragging countries like China, Iran, United Kingdom, USA, etc, into this highly unstable situation. This was not just another battle. And just for the record, I don't come here to get news, or "just to complain", per some of the other complaints, I just happened to notice that the story in question had not appeared.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't here to get news, why are you treating this page like a news ticker? It isn't one. Saying that it doesn't meet the expectations for one is nonsensical. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Portal:Current events is more akin to a news tracker, but they post everything. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates is where news articles are posted to be debated on adding to the ITN bar and in fact most don't make it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers ITN has a dedicated talk page, WT:ITN, so you should raise your concerns there. The war in Ukraine is already posted to Ongoing, so every massive attack Russia makes is unlikely to gain traction to post separately. ITN is not a news ticker or for "breaking news", it's a means to highlight quality articles about topics that happen to be in the news. It's not required that they be top headlines. You are free to participate at WP:ITNC; you are free to oppose posting sports events(though you would need to get consensus to strike them from the recurring events list). 331dot (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  The Pope’s death seems to have resolved the issue. The ITN Section is no longer dominated by sports. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Boston Marathon is probably going to be posted next. Sports events, deaths of major figures, etc are much more straight forward to quantify their importance than others. There was a few ITN candidates for recent court cases in USA and UK, and there was not a determination of their importance, because at this second it isn't. History books may look back in 50 years and say so. So yes, there's a slight bias towards major sporting events. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 April 2025 – Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday

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

<div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div>

to

<div id="articlecount"><ul><li>[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors</li> <li>[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</li></ul></div>

to mirror the changes done to the Main Page in Special:Diff/1225315602/1276485694. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you please also do the same for Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow as per Special:Diff/1286940913?

Side note: unfortunately, when viewing the source of fully-protected Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday and Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow the button "Submit an edit request" leads to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. I've tried to dig into this issue during the HTML layout overhaul in 2022, but never figured it out. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It has to do with the talk page being protected, since the template infrastructure can't tell whether you're autoconfirmed or not. And looks like FFF already did that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't {{if autoconfirmed}} work here? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Active editors

How do you define "active"? The 118,000 figure is wildly exaggerated and seems to be full of newbies and vandals. I doubt there's more than a quarter of those we could truly consider active and productive. It was 124,000 a few days ago. I'd rather see an accurate and useful figure of how many articles of quality we have. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

"Active" is defined as "Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days". It appears it does not include IP editors. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You can actually see the list at Special:ActiveUsers. The exact number is meaningless for a variety of reasons, but the order of magnitude gives people a rough idea that "many" people write Wikipedia. Kind of like the article count, actually, which isn't particularly meaningful either. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What percentage of the 118,000 would you guess are what we would consider truly active/productive contributors, adding meaningful content regularly? Good point on article count too, also wildly inflated, over half are still stubs! Article count, of which xxxxx are Featured or Good Articles would be more honest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Stubs are still article, they may not be the best but they still are. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have more than 5,000-10,000 truly active contributors, but it is hard to find out. 28,000 have at least 5 edits (in 30 days?) —Kusma (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Should Pope Francis be in the recent deaths (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No, because he already has a blurb just above it. When that cycles off the list, then he'll be moved to the Recent Deaths list. Modest Genius ^talk 15:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok thats what i thought (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No, once someone has been blurbed for their death and the item rotates off the page, that’s it. Schwede66 17:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Huh (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It can happen the other way round, though. Sometimes, whether a blurb is justified for a person is contentious, and a name may be posted to the "recent deaths" list while the discussion for a blurb is ongoing. You may be upgraded to a blurb from there. See WP:ITNRD. Schwede66 19:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request to complete RfD nomination

Main Article has been listed at Redirects for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:rfd|content=

to the top of the page and }} to the bottom to complete the nomination. Thank you. Duckmather (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"MAIN ARTICLE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAIN ARTICLE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 29 § MAIN ARTICLE until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

On this Day: Dachau liberation

"and killed German prisoners of war." Would it not be more accurate to say 'and killed German war criminals'? They were guards at Dachau, and since 2011, the court ruling was that "hat working as a guard at a camp whose only purpose was the extermination of its prisoners, was sufficient for a conviction for accessory to murder". Seems like wording it this way is sugar-coating the conduct of these German guards, and denigrating the American soldiers (and camp inmates) who killed them. Not quite Holocaust denial, but similar to it. T bonham (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

POW is neutral, whilst "war criminals" is loaded. What we've got is in line with WP policy. Schwede66 08:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Executing PoWs are also considered a war crime regardless of context. If you wish to introduce war crimes into the blurb, then the entire sentence should be restructured to do justice. GGOTCC 17:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

While there was a gas chamber at Dachau (as anyone who's toured it learns; we have a picture in the article), it wasn't really used IIRC until the end of the war, when prisoners who had survived the death marches from further east ahead of the Red Army were brought there and, as they said, "reselected". Thus for most of its existence Dachau cannot be said to have been a camp whose "only purpose was the extermination of its prisoners", not in the way that Treblinka or Sobibor were. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Accessibility issues

The banner ad on the main page is again showing dark-on-black text in dark mode. It's unreadable. Unfortunately, I've cleared it and have no way to reset it so I can't provide more details. -- mikeblas (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"Main Article" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Main Article has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 29 § Main Article until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

June 20 TFA and PotD: Jaws (film)

On June 20, the 50th anniversary of the release of the film Jaws, both TFA and PotD will mark the occasion. As the TFA scheduling coordinator for June, I picked a different image from the PotD to avoid duplication, but their text is similar to ours. I'm being proactive and asking for ideas as to how best to do this and avoid later criticism of duplication, etc. Potd: here; TFA here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Dream out loud, who scheduled the POTD. Perhaps the POTD could be bumped back to 2026 (or even 2030 or 2035 for a round-number anniversary) to avoid duplication. Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's OK if multiple projects feature the same theme as long as there is different content. I'm not suggesting any changes in the choices autonomous main page projects have made.Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy links: Template:POTD/2025-06-20 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2025. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I like the call out to POTD in the TFA. If there was a similar call out in the POTD to TFA - Jaws is an American thriller film (see today's Featured Article) released June 20, 1975, directed by Steven Spielberg - we'd have fewer complaints, if any. Stephen 04:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I like Stephen's suggestion, and I think the conjunction is fine as is or with that tweak. My preference would be to rework the POTD blurb to focus more on the poster itself. There's interesting and relevant content to adapt in Jaws (film)#Marketing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

And the fact that the poster, one of the most iconic movie posters ever, is in the public domain due to being published without proper copyright notice per here, could be discussed. The publication without notice was the paperback that is illustrated in the TFA, tying things even closer together. Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's try having the two, with references to both, and see what the community thinks. If there is backlash, we know never to do that again. I like the idea of the POTD blurb focusing on the poster and not the actual movie. Z1720 (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a swing at it. If people like it, we have plenty of time to fine-tune it. Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve made a minor wording change to the TFA. I like what we’ve got now; it goes well together. Schwede66 21:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think swapping for a different POTD would be a good idea, and then reusing this one in future years as Jay8g suggests. Next year or 2030 would both be fine. It gives the FA another day on the main page without being pointlessly duplicated, and means we can use a proper summary blurb for both. I know we have very occasionally done custom special occasion days, like the Apollo 11 anniversay in 2019, but these are very much IAR and I don't think apply here.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better to defer the image for a year than to feature the same topic twice on the same day. OTD items are swapped out to avoid duplicating the TFA, so I think POTD should do the same. Modest Genius ^talk 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This is 8 days ago can we delete this nowJguywiki (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure the discussion is completed yet. I'm minded to move the POTD entry, given the agreement by Modest Genius above, I would have done this without further comment if I had spotted it before this discussion begun.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

(Sorry for indentation, editing on a phone sucks.) I’d actually prefer trying this and seeing how it works out. I’d oppose if the content was the same, but I like what people have done with the TFA blurb a POTD caption. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If the PotD is moved, obviously TFA would delete the reference to PotD and probably change the image to the film poster. But I'd like to try it this time. When main page areas have shared a theme (the Elizabeth II funeral comes to mind), there have been complaints of lack of coordination. Here, we are taking pains to coordinate, and I'd be interested in seeing community reaction. Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright

I love architecture as much as the next guy but I swear I’ve been seeing Frank Lloyd Wright designed buildings bimonthly for months now and this week there were 2 in a row. Is there a reason for this besides someone just really liking FLW? —My One Braincell (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I remember there was this thread of "why does wikipedia have so many Alexander McQueen articles as TFA?" The answer was basically that someone was interested writing them, and a lot were promoted to FAs and went to TFA, which likes to have a lot of diverse genres, and without Alexander McQueen we had basically no fashion articles. So basically, yes, someone just really likes FLW. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

There haven't been any FLW TFA's this month, much less two in a row this week. Are we talking about some other section? DYK or OTD maybe? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Most likely DYK, considering we have an FLW hook on there right now. Worgisbor (congregate) 20:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

(ec) We will have seen DYK, where we had almost one each day this week, and it's so much nicer than some other stuff I saw there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

There are some very tallented editors who expand/rewrite pages on Frank Lloyd Wright's work and nominate them for DYK. DYK always has diversity of subjects day-to-day, but there is less emphasis on having new topics every day. You are always welcome to nominate new articles for DYK if you would like to add to the diversity! GGOTCC 00:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Greek Wikipedia appearing under the 50,000+ category

The Greek Wikipedia currently includes 253,138 articles. However, it is still not listed under the 250,000+ category. Could someone move it up?

Thanks! Goombario64 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, but this talk page is only for the English Wikipedia's main page (en.wikipedia.org). The wikipedia.org portal itself is managed by Wikimedia on Meta-Wiki. Requests for changes to the Wikimedia portals need to be done through Wikimedia's Phabricator Leventio (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This was referring to the English Wikipedia Main Page. I have updated it as requested. The portal at https://www.wikipedia.org/ splits the languages differently (by powers of 10) so Greek is in the correct place there already. the wub "?!" 20:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah my mistake! Thanks for the correction. Leventio (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

As we are perhaps hours away from our 7 millionth article...

Are we planning to alter the logo for the 7 millionth, as we have done in the past? JayCubby 15:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this was planned out at Wikipedia talk:Seven million articles. We've been strongly cautioned to not use onwiki hacks to change the logo, so this would need to be requested upstream using the guidance in meta:Logo#Temporary_logo_variants. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

We could however quickly add {{Main Page banner}}, as we did for 6MM. Anyone got a comment on that? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

After Wikipedia:Seven million articles is properly updated of course. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I would have no objections to that. The logo testing tool appears to be broken, though. JayCubby 16:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not a show-stopper. To open a site request, you will need to point to a community consensus discussion though. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like that. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes to Main Page banner. Schwede66 01:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Less than 200 to go. We should hit 7M in five-ish hours. Are we going to wait four weeks for a VPPR discussion to finish? JayCubby 01:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at the WP:VPPR. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no qualms about adding a special logo for one day. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Place your bets on how quickly our 7 millionth article will be sent to AFD. Seriously… milestones are nice and all, but let’s focus on quality over quantity folks. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  We are officially over 7 million articles. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 02:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Main page 7 million banner as currently displayed loads poorly on mobile. -LukeSurl ^t c 17:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Now better LukeSurl ^t c 17:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Wrapping for small screen, and color for darkmode adjusted (see also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Scary_red_main_page_banner_in_dark_mode). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

New phrase and wrong hyperlink

Hi, I think this sentence does not seem reasonable:

117,937 active editors 7,000,660 articles in English

Even though

7,000,660 articles in English

we may seem reasonable, but

117,937 active editors in English

is completely semantically wrong. We don't have editors in a "English language", instead we have editors in "English Wikipedia".

So, after adding the phrase "117,937 active editors", I really propose to modify the hyperlink of "English" word from "English language" to "English Wikipedia". Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh I don't think that's meant to be read as a complete sentence, but rather something like 117,937 active editors; 7,000,660 articles in English, though I do support linking "editors" to Wikipedia community or something similar. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@CanonNi We have "117,937 active editors" in "English Wikipedia community", not "Wikipedia community", and this does not have any article, we only have article for English Wikipedia.

I think because they are in the same line, they may be read as a single sentence and this frequently happens. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a dot between the two stats, it is not a single sentence. CMD (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I think the statistics "117,937 active editors" needs "verb and adverb" or a "reduced only adverb" to be a complete sentence. Do you agree? The reader may ask:

• Where we have "117,937 active editors"?

It implies "English Wikipedia" which is the same as the object on next statistics. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I would agree it is not a complete sentence, but I don't think it is trying to be a complete sentence. I think if balance is the issue, removing "in English" would be an easier solution than adding something to balance, although there has been some support for keeping a link to the language of this encyclopaedia on the main page. This is also done at es:Wikipedia:Portada. de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite does similarly but in a sentence without a wikilink (you may have to view that page logged out). fr:Wikipédia:Accueil principal does more what you are perhaps looking for, placing both stats in the same context. CMD (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I propose to use a complete sentence. That is instead of:

112,025 active editors . 7,010,420 articles in English

we can use this sentence:

112,025 active editors working on 7,010,420 articles in English.

Without changing the hyperlink and with a dot at the end of the sentence.

I think this way (using a full sentence) is more meaningful. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Why does this have to be a complete sentence? It's just a display of two numbers and their units for quick reference. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I think, in the current style, the reference of "in English" is both editors and articles. This way, we should use "English Wikipedia" as hyperlink for "in English" to correct semantic of the line.

But if we want to keep "English language" as hyperlink, we must correct the relationship by a verb. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a sentence that follows semantic guidelines, I don't understand your request for a verb. There's quite a bit of space and a bullet between the two statistics. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)