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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:21, 20 June 2009 view sourceEmmette Hernandez Coleman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,272 edits →Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here see number sign": new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:39, 26 December 2024 view source Alexcalamaro (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers11,912 edits →Discussion: Fourth option for total editorsTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{#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 button beside the section heading to add to it. This "section edit button" 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}}
{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|counter = 133
|maxarchivesize = 200k
|counter = 207
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(3d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
}} }}
{{MPH alert}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
<div style="right:100px;" class="metadata topicon">'''{{Currentdate}}'''</div>
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 ] -->
]
__TOC__
{{clear}}


=Main Page Error Reports= = Main Page error reports =
{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}} {{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}
<!-- ---------------
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 =
<!-- Please leave this stickied at the top of the page, to avoid repeated posts about it
{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}
=How to remove the donation notice=

'''Logged-in users''': Go to 'my preferences', select the 'Gadgets' tab, check the box labelled 'Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice', click 'Save', then bypass your browser cache (Ctrl + F5 on Internet Explorer, Ctrl + Shift + R on Firefox) to see changes.

'''Not logged in''': ] (this takes very little time, all you have to do is pick a username and password), then follow the above instructions. It is beyond the control of the English language Misplaced Pages to remove the donation notice for users not logged in. Alternatively disabling javascript may be used to prevent the article from being displayed, although this may affect other script based browsing.

-->

=General discussion=
{{Shortcut|T:MP}}
__TOC__
<!-- --------------- <!-- ---------------
Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so have the courtesy to use 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.
------------------ --> ---------------- -->

== Bulgaria bus accident ==

: ''Moved to ]''

== When the Iranian Elections are over ==

How are we going ot handle that... I know this shoudl be in at ITN... but it'll spill over here so yah... Just wondering because theres going to be so much surrounding when that guy is announced the winner.--] (]) 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No massive arguments on here so far.....] (]) 11:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say "incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" rather than just "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"? -] (]) 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:Fixed. --] (]) 12:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::We could always say it is not accepted... since thatas what it is--] (]) 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::No need to go into opinions and what who thinks what of what on the main page. It's a single title to announce the main update to the article- in this case, the fact that Ahmadinejad won the election. ] (]) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::So they say.--] (]) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yes the Iranian election commission says that Ahmadinejad won and that is precisely what our tagline says as well - ] (]) 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Those rioters... a number of news outelts and many others disagree with the,--] (]) 20:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Yes they do, but the point that I was trying to make was that we don't simply state that he won but it just says that the election commission says that he won. That way we avoid any possible POV statements, if it later turns out to be electoral fraud then the tagline can be changed (it would be much worse if we insinuated that it was not a legitimate election and it turned out that there was nothing wrong about it) - ] (]) 20:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::We're already being a little suspicious of them. Normally, we would just state who won, not say who said who won. ] (]) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

* Given how hotly contested things appear to be, perhaps it would be more NPOV not to have Misplaced Pages annonce that Ahmadinejad won, but rather simply state that the Islamic Republic News Agency has declared that Ahmadinejad won.
::The current blurb mentions protests and allegations. I would say that is NPOV enough. --] (]) 10:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::: So Misplaced Pages knows that the results announce by Khamenei and the Islamic Republic News Agency are accurate, and the demonstrators are wrong and the allegations of fraud are false? Misplaced Pages has first hand knowledge of this? If not, Misplaced Pages should report that so and so announced such a thing, not that such a thing is the fact. -- ] (]) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::::We don't declare the winners, the electoral commission does. What they say is as good as right until it is proven wrong. ] (]) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::In that case, Misplaced Pages should say that the electoral commission has announced such and such a result. -- ] (]) 22:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== Untastefull ==

I find the choice for today's featured article inappropriate. I personally do not want to read about thermometers in rectums. If I would want, I'd look up a page likely to contain these elements. But I disliked having it pushed into my face by putting it on the main page. ] (]) 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:Are you really comparing ] to a rectal thermometer? <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See ] ] <small>]</small> 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
: What does that have to do with anything? I did not say these words should not be in an article (the subject of ]). I said that this article should perhaps not have been chosen for the main page. ] (]) 18:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit harsh on David Morse that isnt it? Comparing him to a rectal thermometer! He's not my favourite man either but still, steady on!] (]) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

: O, would you all please be serious! :) ] (]) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
: putting him inside someone's rectum to take temperature... *shrugs* that is one disturbing image ] (]) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::I do hate to be pedantic (...nah who am I kidding!), but I think the correct word you were looking for, to describe the article in question, was distasteful --] (]) 19:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::: That's right. That must have been because of those few percents I fell short of the full 100 on my final exams. :) ] (]) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please God tell me this is a joke... ''']''' 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:No, if it was a joke, it would go, "What's wrong with him, nurse?" "He's got a thermometer up his ass, doctor." "Eh, that's rectum, nurse." "Rectum? Damn near killed him."<ref>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rectum%2C%20damn%20near%20killed%20him!</ref> ] (]) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::Hmmm.. I'm going to give that 6/10. I had to deduct marks because is was quite obviously not original work --] (]) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::: And please keep G-d out of any discussion involving thermometers, recta, ''and'' David Morse. :) ] (]) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

6/10! Thats a bit harsh isnt it? OK its not the best joke in the world but come on! A 7 perphaps? It might not seem very different but there is a definite phsycological effect. If you give him a 7 your encouraging him to try again, if you give him a 6 you're letting him down gently!] (]) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::::A doctor is shopping. He's at the check-out, and needs to sign the check. He pulls his pen from his pocket, only to find it's a rectal thermometer. "That's just great" he says, "some asshole's got my pen." ] (]) 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Daviessimo, but on Misplaced Pages we must be consistent. No original research, remember? That goes for jokes too, surely? ;) ] (]) 22:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::Well can you cite a reliable source for that joke? --] (]) 06:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am seriously considering to remove all jokes from this post. ;) You are clouding the subject. ] (]) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:I like the second one. Bravo 82.33.48.96. --<font face="serif">]]]]</font> 01:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the second one is better. I give that an 8 out of 10. I wasnt roaring with laughter but it was funny nevertheless!. Also who put "citation needed" at the end of Michael of Lucan's joke! I mean come on!] (]) 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:He brought the issue to my attention. I'm afraid that per ] it needs to be referenced or I will have to remove it. The key issue here is that he has to prove that this isn't a case of his own first hand experience with rectal thermometers :) --] (]) 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

::As the CEO of Rectum PLC I can confirm that this customer satisfaction story is published on our website. Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)<small>Warning! Previous sentence may be untrue!</small>

My deepest apologies, Daviessimo. Cite is http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rectum%2C%20damn%20near%20killed%20him! ] (]) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:Ah, thats much better --] (]) 11:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::Do I get 7/10 now? ] (]) 11:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes you do --] (]) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I'd give him both 8 and 2. 8 for the actual joke but 2 for the theft. --<font face="serif">]]]]</font> 17:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit harsh on him that isnt it? Im not a fan of people who steal jokes but still! 2 for crying out loud!] (]) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:The content of the joke is a serious matter however. Points must be deducted when the subject matter involves the insertion of long, cold, hard items of various misuse into the rectum. It may be the typical chatter of doctors over their elevenses but many talk page browsers might rather not be reminded. We must remember these when we talk among ourselves - look at them all, cowering in the corner, haunted by... oh, one of them has just fainted... --<font face="serif">]]]]</font> 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am never going to see a doctor again!!!] (]) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:That won't do! If it spreads you'll put them all out of business! I don't want to have to give my precious pennies and cents to homeless street doctors! --<font face="serif">]]]]</font> 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
When you get to be my age, '''' you will realise that jokes are like sex positions - there are no new ones. Only new people who have not yet experienced them ... and in each case a lot of groaning and some laughter. :0 ] (]) 09:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:Is the implication of that statement that doctors have been placing rectal thermometers in unsuspecting patient's 'nether regions' for thousands of years? --] (]) 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:: We of the Illuminati have been doing this for thousands of years. Recently, we have begun to use Illuminati-trained "doctors" and "nurses" to implement our plans. ] (]) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry, from habit I added the usual fnords to my previous message. Can you see it now? ] (]) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It was really tough back when all they had were ]s. ] (]) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
::::OMG I CAN SEE THE FNORDS!! <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
::: And you remember that? --<font face="serif">]]]]</font> 19:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical Galileo, stealing everybody's ideas! That was mine! It should be the Willski thermometer! I remember people would complain quite a lot back in the day but i said to them, "If you think this is bad you should just wait until they get them rectal thermometers." At that point they would normally shudder and stop complaining....] (]) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:I was worried reading up to this point that the Willski thermometer '''was''' used for testing rectal temperature, but thankfully, it does not appear so.] (]) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No no, although i was asked to make a rectal thermometer i declined to be a part of such a horrific creation.] (]) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

;References
{{reflist}}

== Battle of Quatre Bras ==

I think the phrase "strategic victory" is wrong in describing the Battle of Quatre Bras. The battle was a tactical victory for the French forces, but had no strategic significance because it was simply a preparation for the Battle of Waterloo, which they lost. Quatre Bras did not succeed in splitting the British and Prussian forces in a way which would have allowed Napoleon to defeat the separately, since Prussian troops arrived at Waterloo in time to decide the outcome.
] (]) 04:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:This is not an area in which I specialise, but I would question your view. On the face of it, it is correct to call it a strategic victory, not merely a local tactical affair. It had a positive impact on the progress of a wider campaign, as the French had intended. That wider campaign failed to carry through Bonaparte's strategic intent, as ultimately the opposing armies were not separated and destroyed as planned. However, it is reasonable to call Quatre Bras itself a strategic victory, since it achieved its strategic purpose. ] (]) 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::In any case, this is irrelevant for the main page as ] says it's a "French strategic victory". If you dispute this, you should take it to the article since the main page always defers to articles. ] (]) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Oops, I meant to make that point first, before commenting. ] (]) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Don't listen to him - <small>(he steals jokes)</small> Hush! --<font face="serif">]]]]</font> 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::What you mean because I had the 'strategic victory' in this discussion? ] (]) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== Anyone can edit ==

There are two pages that I believe should never be protected. ], and ]. Why? To encourage participation. What fun is it to have the two pages everyone looks at first be protected? How about utilizing the form of protection used on ], where the page can be edited but not the content, and use a bot to clear out all edits? ] (]) 06:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:As the most visible and highly visited page on Misplaced Pages, the Main Page is permanently protected as a result of excessive repeated ]. The other reason is that it keeps our welcome mat clean so it gives new users a decent looking impression &ndash; free from any shock-value word, phrase or image that would offend almost every person in the English-speaking world. Without protection, it would be safe to say it would be vandalised at a high exponentially rate of speed that it would be realistically impossible for any bot to keep up.

:As for the ] article, it is only ] for reasons you should ask the protecting administrator or ask at ] as outlined at ]. ] (]) 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
::There are 86,400 seconds in the day and on the the Misplaced Pages article was viewed 49,600 times, or once every 1.7 seconds. Which means that it is a high profile target for vandals, and although the slogan is "Anyone can edit" that comes with a few caveats, one of which is that if a page is being viewed every 1.7 seconds we would be fools to open that page up to vandals. ] (]) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::It seems like more and more pages are being protected. I'm sure we can all agree on the majority of these protections, but it seems like more pages are being protected than should be. Also it seems like some of these pages were discussed to be protected for a shirt period, yet end up protected for a much longer period.] (]) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::This is not the place for a discussion of Misplaced Pages's protection policy. Try ]. ] 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

== On This Day ==

How could we have left out ''the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972'' — the beginning of the ]?

] (]) 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:Probably because the featured picture is somewhat related, and we love to trick users into asking exactly this question. Today though, it is especially silly. A picture of the president who pardoned the president who covered up watergate is obviously not the original break in. (also before anyone points out US bias or something, i'd like to call into question the bridges of london theme the main page has today)] (]) 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

::The image was clearly connected to Watergate, was almost definitely specifically chosen to appear yesterday for that reason and had ample links to learn more, including specific mention of the date "June 17, 1972". So, no it's not silly to exclude Watergate from SA/OTD for that reason. And this has absolutely nothing to do with any bias but simply common sense. Besides that, your answer actually highlights how silly this discussion is. There are lots of days which have some connection to Watergate. The most important is probably the resignation of Nixon. There is no need to mention every single one on the main page every year. This discussion is even sillier then the previous one regarding D-day because there's no way Watergate is even close in importance to D-day. I don't know what 'bridges of London theme' your referring to yesterday, while I haven't looked into the history of DYK or ITN I only see evidence for one mention of bridges of London specifically in the TFA. If you are saying one mention is a 'theme', well I have nothing more to say ] (]) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Besides, Nixon's resignation will make its appearance on ]. Watergate gets two major placements on the Main Page this year. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I didn't mean for the theme thing to be taken seriously (the second mention was that banker who got hung off the blackfriars bridge). I also agree that since Watergate was the bolded link in the featured picture it should not have been included in OTD, I just meant that it took a couple steps to get from a picture of Ford to the actual break in, so I could see people being confused. Sorry again, ] (]) 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::I know, it was a bit convoluted, but ]'s POTD (the anniversary of the pardon) was already reserved for another anniversary. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:On this day items are not chosen strictly based on their importance. Like Today's Featured Articles they are chosen more for variety. ] (]) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Oh. ] (]) 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== Why can't I edit? ==

Why can't I edit the main page?{{unsigned|Nazareee|17:33, June 17, 2009 (UTC)}}

: The main page is edit-protected to prevent ] of such an important page. Only administrators my edit it. If you want to report an error or request a change that can be done on this page. ] (]) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:: I would think that you would easily be able to revert any vandalism. I'm sure there are thousands of users watchlisting this page (and even more would if the protection was removed). Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a wiki protecting nearly every page? I'm not saying the main page needs to be unprotected necessarily (perhaps semi-protection?), but it seems like a good quarter or so of the pages I view are protected. ] (]) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Editors have better things to do than revert constant vandalism which is exactly what you'd expect on such a page. ]<sub>&nbsp;]·]</sub> 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} No, absolutely not. ] receives, on average, 70 page-views per ''second''. It is unacceptable if even one of those people sees a ], because that's what would be there. A lot. ]]] 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Really, that better? Yeah, I guess that makes sense. But isn't there some kind of thing that could be done to get edits approved perhaps? Some kind of software update could make it possible to make edits but not have them appear until an administrator approves them.] (]) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::See ] which currently has approval for a trial, which is being worked on at the moment. I'm not sure if the main page is likely to be in the trial however. (Actually I'm not that sure what happened to the trial period, the whole situation has been somewhat diverse and looking at the talk pages, it looks ike the issue has been somewhat dead for a while unless there is discussion somewhere else). Bear in mind as well that the main page is compromised of several templates unless you actually have some experience with wikipedia it is unlikely you'd know how to edit it. Also other then for obvious errors, the vast majority of changes to the main page require some discussion or evidence of consensus first. In other words, it's not just vandals we have to worry about. ] (]) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Actually I see it's already been requested and developers will implement it when they get to it ] (]) 07:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
Until Vandalismopedia is created, to which all such idiots can be banished to operate on perpetual iterative loops, and the wiki that is described by Adam Smith's 'war of all against all, where life is nasty, brutish and short' (paraphrase) where there are constant edit wars, some pages will have to be protected at various levels. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
]
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)


==Add number of editors in the topmost banner==
== Euclidean algorithm on todays main page ==
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:
<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)
I saw POV in the first line "is an efficient way" that shouldnt be on the main page surely? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*''"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)
: Why not, it is an efficient way, this is something people have been learning for ages. No POV here. --''']''' 11:55, 18 June 2009 (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)
*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)


::The efficiency of an algorithm is demonstrable, not a matter of opinion. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::The wikilink to ] already provides an explanation. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 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". '''] <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)
== HELP ME ==
::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)
AND NONE OF YOU DELETE THIS
I'M SICK OF WAITING
SOMEONE TELL ME WHY WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE
I DEMAND AN EXPLANAITION
PLEASE HELP IN OTHER WORDS
THERE IS A STALKER ON WIKIPEDIA


===Informal RfC===
] (]) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.
:You should probably raise this at ] (deals with incivility) or ] (deals with serious incidents). Wherever you raise it, you should provide examples - I took a quick look at your talk page, and the revision history of some recent articles you've edited, and I couldn't see anything obvious so you should, where possible, explain exactly what's happening and ideally provide ]. Good luck! Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


====Which figures should be added to the current text?====
SHOUTING doesn't help, it's just rude. And rudeness is also quite rude. And I'm removing the name from your post. --] (]) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
# Active editors (original proposal)
# Active editors and total edit count
# 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? ====
== Did You Know... ==
# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
# Use comma


====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? =====
... that there is no mention in the ] article of the current lead regarding "Charlotte of Belgium (pictured) reigned as Empress of Mexico starting in 1864"? ] (]) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
# Use line break
:<strike>That sounds like an issue for ] --] (]) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</strike><small>Ah, no it doesn't</small>
# Use comma
:{{ec}} So what? It mentions ]; why should it mention his wife? ] 15:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::The bolded article is ], not ]. --] (]) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If that had been an error, it would have been an issue for ]. --] (]) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


====How should it be ordered?====
== Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here see ]" ==
# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
# Bigger number(s) first


====Wikilinks?====
Mabey we should add {{dablink|For technical reasons, # redirects here. For the article on # see ]}}
#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)


====Discussion====
Adding that would let people who search for # get to the correct article. On the other hand we may want to keep the main page "clean". It '''will''' result in vandalism to "number sign" article, and likely ]. But by the seem token, '''probably will''' result in major improvements to ], and thus, '''arguably''', more then make up for vandalism/protection.--] (]) 09:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
: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)
::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)

Latest 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 25 		Today
December 26, 2024 		Tomorrow
December 27
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 14:59 on 26 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

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

(December 27, tomorrow)
Pls swap link from
] :to:
] ie (The Indigo Disk)
(I think that's right.) And season's greetings to our wonderful main page admins! JennyOz (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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 · 6,930,133 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 48,460,926 editors"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: