Misplaced Pages

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:37, 24 December 2015 view sourceVcorani (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users796 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 08:39, 26 December 2024 view source Alexcalamaro (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers11,915 edits →Discussion: Fourth option for total editorsTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile editNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}
<!--
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}}}<!--

Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "'''NEW SECTION'''" tab, or use the '''EDIT''' link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "'''New section'''" tab are important, so please use them. Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "NEW SECTION" tab, or use the "EDIT" link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "New section" tab are important, so please use them.
-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}

{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism}}}}
-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200k |maxarchivesize = 200k
|counter = 186 |counter = 207
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(3d) |algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{MPH alert}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=539296113#Could_we_maybe_turn_off_SineBot_on_this_page.3F -->
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 ] -->
]
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{clear}}


=Main Page error reports= = Main Page error reports =
{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}} {{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}
<!-- ---------------
=General discussion=
Please do not write anything here.
Please go to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors to place an error report.
To discuss the contents of the Main Page, please start a new discussion using the "New section" button above, or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
--------------- -->

= General discussion =
{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}} {{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}
<!-- --------------- <!-- ---------------
Please ''start'' new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT link beside the section heading to add to it. Please *start* a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page (e.g. using the "New section" button above), or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
------------------- --> ---------------- -->


== "]" listed at ] ==
==Question==
]
The 'general discussion' section has been blank for 2-3 days - either the MP has not managed to catch people's attention or the archive bot has been too zealous. Which? ] (]) 14:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Mian Page}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:The bot is supposed to leave a minimum of two threads on this page, but it doesn't appear to be happening (). The main page error report probably counts as one thread (even if empty), but I would still expect to see one thread remaining. Pinging {{ping|Σ}}, the bot's owner, to see if he can explain this. ] (]) 15:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:Why do we need threads here at all? If there is nothing to discuss, why do we need to keep viewing stale discussions? --]] 16:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
::One reason is that it shows newbies where to post questions. When faced with a blank page they may feel they are in the wrong place. ] (]) 16:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Could have added 'or some glitch' to my question.
The nature of the main page is that it generates an intermittent discussion on one component or another - so if there is 'persistent blankness' something is off-kilter. ] (]) 17:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:I don't agree that persistent blankness indicates that something is wrong. Often there is nothing about the main page that needs comment. Many new user postings here are spam (quickly removed), or in the wrong place anyway (there's a big box that tells you where you want to go for most things that is often apparently invisible). Nevertheless I've upped the minimum threads from 2 to 3 on the basis that the "main page error reports" and "general discussion" level-1 headings both probably count as threads for the bot's purpose. ]] 17:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
::Jayron likes to remove threads he personally dislikes. Doesn't seem to care about discussion at all. ] (]) 00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:::That's an interesting accusation. Could you link to a diff of me removing a thread from this page? --]] 12:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::You mean like how you cleared out a thread recently after accusing people of MRAs because it was pointed out that the outrage at only one sex being represented was non-existent?] (]) 06:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::I have no memory of this event. Could you include some diffs of me removing such a thread? --]] 16:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::From Correctron's description, the closest thing I can find is this thread . Problem for Correctron is four fold. <p>One, the thread was closed by Jayron32, but not removed as "cleared out" would seem to imply. <p>Two, such closures ultimately only strongly discourage further discussion. It wasn't even a hatting, so the thread was still perfectly visible. If editors felt after reading the rationale there was still something relevant to discuss on T:MP, or the closure was otherwise unwarranted or improprer, they were free to reverse it, or just continue the discussion, as happened to a minor extent anyway . Such editors may find themselves sanctioned if they keep continuing discussions long past their prime, just as editors who inappropriately close discussions may find themselves, but that's their responsibility for not understanding community norms not the fault of the closure. <p>These lead to 3, namely that the discussion wasn't removed/cleared out until over 5 days later by the bot due to inactivity . Note that the discussion was also significantly longer than many T:MP discussions. <p>Four, and the biggest problem with the complaint here is that while there was some comments there that some people may find offensive, no one accused anyone of being a MRA. <p>] (]) 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


==Add number of editors in the topmost banner==
::Subjectively one accepts that 'the bots' will occasionally 'get ahead of themselves' with the discussions, and that most entries on the MP will excite no particular comment (but are likely to elicit traffic to the various pages in question) - but if the talk page is empty for longer than a day one wonders if there is a glitch or something. ] (]) 10:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest this addition for the following reasons:
:A solution which was used in some printed technical manuals (and may still be for all I know) was to include the self-contradictory phrase "This page intentionally left blank" on pages which would otherwise have nothing on them. Can "There are no discussions at present" or similar be automatically displayed when this section would otherwise contain nothing, thus preventing the impression that Something is Wrong. ] (]) 12:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
* It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
::Why is this even a problem? The error reports sections often have nothing in them, but people seem to be able to figure them out when they are blank. Do people really have more difficulty figuring it out when the General Discussion section is empty? Isn't the purpose of the "edit source" links to show you where to click to add something? I see no reason to leave old discussions up when they are no longer active. If that leaves the section empty, so what? --] (]) 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
* It is a interesting fact about the scale of Misplaced Pages
::For the record, MediaWiki also has an ]: ]. It displays ] so it could really be blanked if wanted. ] (]) 16:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
* It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages
:::The point I was making is that it is 'somewhat unusual' for the MP talk page to be totally blank, especially for more than a day; and there #are# occasional glitches with pages - and there should be some entries which promote discussion (but not necessarily complaints). ] (]) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
* It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".
I suggest formatting it like this:
<br/><div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div><br/>
] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


*I strongly support this addition. '']'' ‹ ] — ] › 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
== Errors in the summary of the language section ==
*''"100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Misplaced Pages. ], who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.''{{pb}}But yes, this seems like a great idea! <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
When I enter the main page of English wikipedia, the Kurdish section(kurdî) seems like it isn't found, please can you solve it or tell me the reason?--] (]) 15:44, 17 December 2015 (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 "Misplaced Pages in numbers". ''']]''' 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:Because, according to , it has c.20,000 articles, and the lists at the foot of the Main Page say that they only list Wikipedias with 50,000 articles+ --] (]) 15:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
*Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: <div id="articlecount">] total edits · ] active editors · ] articles in ]</div> <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 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. ] (]) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. ''']]''' ‡ <sup>]</sup> 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* Good idea; I like the model that {{u|CanonNi}} proposes above. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 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!"). —] (]) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. ''']]''' 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Maybe just a comma to separate them. ]] 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::It’s a list of two counts ]] 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


:Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
==The Funding banner==
... is annoyingly large. ] (]) 16:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC) ::The wikilink to ] already provides an explanation. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:It is indeed. See ]. Create an account. Bear with the WMF until the New Year. Hit the little "X". ] if it really bothers you. <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 17:14, 22 December 2015 (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". '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The number of articles link also goes to ], though. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 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. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::How about linking the number of active editors to ], where it is explained? ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 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. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*This appears to be ] problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 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. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I suppose you could say something like, "] articles in ] written by ] editors" to be maximally precise. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::What I'm saying is that the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> is certainly way more than the {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}</nowiki>, and that the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki> certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — ] <sup>]</sup> 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. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::"by over" maybe.... — ] <sup>]</sup> 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. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 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 Misplaced Pages). — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ] | ] | ] 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Transcluding a TFA page into ERRORS? ==
::Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Misplaced Pages's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Misplaced Pages began, although not a priority in my opinion. ] (]) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ] | ] | ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:], 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. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It is labeled Active <em>registered</em> users - of which IP editors are not. — ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
* I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR, so yes I would support it. ] (]) 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? ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 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 ] | ] 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, there's a chance everyone will think I'm a tool for even asking, but I've exhausted every other option, with zero success. I asked around for help writing a bot to ping me when the TFA section at ERRORS is edited, and I argued the case at ] for watchable sections. I also asked for help at ], where the advice was given to break off the TFA section as a separate page and transclude it to <small>either WT:MAIN or</small> ERRORS, so that it can be watchlisted separately. That's what I'd like to do. I hesitate to ask; I'm concerned that people will misinterpret this as a request to distance TFA from other Main Page goings-on. Not true; I'd like a notice at ERRORS that anyone watchlisting is encouraged to also watchlist the transcluded TFA page. I've learned a lot from ERRORS, and I plan to keep on learning. All I'm saying is that it would be nice not to have to check all the ERRORS lines in my watchlist, all day long. - Dank (]) 22:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


===Informal RfC===
:Why not a separate sub-page for each section? <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 23:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
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?====
:I'm a little concerned about possible negative effects of this change. When I'm active one of the things I try to get around to doing is checking errors, but as I no longer use a watchlist, so I mainly use the transcluded version on main-page talk which I visit frequently; this often, I've found to my peril, lags behind errors itself, sometimes by hours, and so I fear if TfA errors were transcluded into main-page errors (and I assume additionally directly into main-page talk, not via a double transclusion?) the same would happen. ] <small>(])</small> 02:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
# Active editors (original proposal)
:I'll confirm the lag in the transcluded errors section. I don't use it. Instead, I habitually click "Error reports" in the toolbox to see the real errors, not the sometimes-obsolete version of the errors. ] (]) 06:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
# Active editors and total edit count
::To clarify: clicking "Error reports" takes the reader to ] aka ] aka ERRORS. And yes, transclusions take a while to transclude anywhere on WP, so people who want to read the most updated version of transcluded material generally either read the transcluded page directly or perform a purge (a link that will do that, called "Purge the Main Page", is above, or you can just add "?action=purge" to a url). - Dank (]) 14:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
# Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(requires a bot to continuously update the figure)
:::P.S. I didn't mean that anyone was unclear, I meant that some readers might not have understood some of the terms. HTH. - Dank (]) 17:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


====Which symbol should be used as the separator? ====
== non sequitur ==
# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
On the main page for December 23, 2015, there was a blurb about James Battersby believing Hitler was Jesus "despite" Battersby's father having died on the Lusitania. The article on Battersby doesn't connect these two issues at all, correctly showing that the Lusitania went down in 1915. Unless I missed something actually in the article, none of the sources about Battersby quotes him as making any connection. This sort of attention grabbing misquote is what I expect of tabloids and doesn't help promote Misplaced Pages as a reliable source.
# Use comma
] (]) 11:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:While I'd concur with the IP, too late to do anything about it at this point.--] (]) 12:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? =====
== ] ==
# Use line break
# Use comma


====How should it be ordered?====
I know this will get shot down and will generate little to any concurrence with my view, but I find it extremely illogical putting up a note on the main page saying that today (Dec. 23) is Festivus, when next to nobody, I dare imagine (anyone got any hard statistics?), celebrates or observes this day, especially since its source is from an American sitcom that's been off the air for almost two decades. Anyway. Just my two cents. (] (]) 16:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC))
# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
:OTD frequently includes non-serious observances, such as ], ], and yes, even Festivus. However, it should be noted that Festivus poles have been installed in a few state capitols in the US, so it's not completely fictional. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
# Bigger number(s) first
::Not fictional yes, but limited only to select regions of the U.S. in terms of its outreach.--] (]) 17:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I think that's my main "beef" as it were - the extremely limited outreach of this "festival." Who outside of the US and/or Seinfeld viewers would even be cognizant of this event? i.e. Relevance!! ] (]) 02:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:I and most of my friends are aware of today's holiday and we jokingly celebrate it. This morning's radio news mentioned that Festivus is one of several holidays being celebrated by many in the US this week. I believe Festivus is relevant to more people than "next to nobody." ] (]) 21:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


====Wikilinks?====
sometimes i see errors in text, so are these allowed to be highlighted or is that sacraledge.
#Wikilink all of the numbers to ] (original proposal)
#Wikilink only the first number to ]
#Wikilink "active editor" to ]
] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


==new query== ====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. ] (]) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
sometimes i see errors in text, so are these allowed to be highlighted or is that sacraledge.
::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). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:@] 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 {{green|Should this be added at all?}}; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 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. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 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? <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Good idea ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as {{u|xaosflux}} suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "{{green|... created by {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} editors}}"). ] (]) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:39, 26 December 2024

Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion
↓↓Skip header
Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Misplaced Pages's Main Page.
For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below.
To add content to an article, edit that article's page.
Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed.
Click here to report errors on the Main Page.

If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed:


For questions about using and contributing to the English Misplaced Pages: To suggest content for a Main Page section:
Main Page and featured content
Main Page topics
Today's featured article
Featured articles
Did you know...
In the news
Current events portal
Selected anniversaries
Today's featured list
Featured lists
Picture of the day
Featured pictures
Featured topics
Page semi-protectedEditing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled due to vandalism.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Main Page error reports

Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting Shortcuts
National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday
December 27 		Today
December 28, 2024 		Tomorrow
December 29
TFA TFA TFA
SA/OTD SA/OTD SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v. POTD Main Page v. POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v. POTD regular v. POTD regular v.
TFL (Friday)  
In the news
candidates
discussion
admin instructions
Did you know
nominations
discussion
queue
BotErrors
Protected pages
Commons media protection
Associated
  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 00:05 on 28 December 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
  • Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
  • Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Anarchism

... that anarchism without adjectives has been described as an ecumenical or non-denominational form of anarchism?

This supposed fact is not stated clearly in the article anywhere. Ecumenism and non-denominational are religious concepts and linking to those articles is misleading. The terms are used loosely in a few places in the article but it's synthesis to construct this hook from that. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 3)

Monday's FL

(December 30)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

"Mian Page" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mian 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2 § Mian Page until a consensus is reached. Ca 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages
  • It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages
  • It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".

I suggest formatting it like this:


119,004 active editors · 6,930,989 articles in English


Ca 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. Lee Vilenski 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The wikilink to Special:Statistics already provides an explanation. Ca 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 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 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
How about linking the number of active editors to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians, where it is explained? Ca 12:05, 21 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 Misplaced Pages's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Misplaced Pages 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 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 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is labeled Active registered users - of which IP editors are not. — xaosflux 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 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — xaosflux 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 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR, 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 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

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(requires a bot to continuously update the figure)

Which symbol should be used as the separator?

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

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

  1. Use line break
  2. Use comma

How should it be ordered?

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

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 12:27, 21 December 2024 (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 (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. 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 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 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 48,467,530 editors"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: