Talk:Main Page/Archive 168

Stubs
We should have a list of small articles for people to edit and make bigger. --Dennydoo4 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Such a list would be too large to be workable but there are hundreds of stub categories you can use to find something small within a field of your interests; try a search for "stub" and refine it to include only category titles and you should find something. GRAPPLE   X  01:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types may be helpful. Albacore (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of sliver locks
We need to list the use of silver locks in our pages, so that users will know why it is semi-protected.174.19.131.156 (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone tries to edit the page, he or she should see a page notice that includes the reason for the protection. --  tariq abjotu  04:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Call for participation in PhD research
Appologies for posting this on this talk page, but I am looking for ITN, current events, or any other interested editors, to participate in a doctoral research in sociology. Your participation would include answering around 10 simple questions via e-mail. I am interested in your editing experiences with all topics connected to current and ongoing events.

All those interested can contact me via e-mail or through my talk page. Your participation would be much appreciated.

Max Weber83 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lugo
The Paraguayan senate is going to vote to whether or not to impeach Fernando Lugo in less than 2 hours. I demand Lugo on the main page! Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been on the Wiki too long because the first thing that I thought about when I heard Lugo was "that guy whose the icon of being on ITN too long". <.<;; hbdragon88 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, same guy. Raul654 (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support iff the infamous ITN picture is used. Yeah, that one.--WaltCip (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[[Image:Fernando Lugo - ITN.jpg|100px|right|They like me! They really like me!]]
 * Support I've got a fever, and the only prescription, is more Lugo! --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just so glad he's back! The world feels right once again... but since he's apparently been impeached this will presumably be the last time. I demand a permanent main page Lugo monument! CMcQueeny (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So sad that he'll probably never be on the Main Page again, unless someone makes his article a TFA. Can we get OTD to use his picture every June 22? —Strange Passerby (t × c) 03:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can just see it ... no Lugo blurb, just the photo. There will be some other blurb, and it will say "(Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo pictured)" and people will come on to the talk page and ask why his picture is there, and we'll just have to answer, "Because he's awesome." — howcheng  {chat} 06:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, and yes. LUGO!!!! 66.183.104.162 (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * LUGO! LUGO! LUGO! He's my hero.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are we using a different photo? Go back to the traditional one! Modest Genius talk 11:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's use the old picture and keep it there for weeks :P I'm just joking about the keeping it there for weeks part, but I'm serious about using the old pic. Can someone boldly change the pic now? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go back to the old pic? Why? I think I prefer the new one because a) it is more recently taken b) I don't think this Lugo meme thing is funny. Can we be more serious about what we are doing? --BorgQueen (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to write the same thing. It isn't appropriate to modify the main page for the sake of an inside joke.  However, given the event's nature, it might be reasonable to switch to a photograph in which Lugo isn't smiling.  —David Levy 12:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture isn't substantially more recent, and I think a case can be made that while the newer one is better for Fernando Lugo's infobox, the slightly older one is a better picture for the Main Page. As David said, his giddy smile doesn't match the nature of the story (and just looks strange to begin with), he's looking toward the margin, and it makes it more difficult to get a good close-up. The only negative is that mic in the way, but, aside from meeting the meme, I genuinely think the picture is better for this purpose. --  tariq abjotu  13:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment. If the current image were much more recent (and therefore served as a significantly more accurate depiction of Lugo's current appearance), that would outweigh the above concerns.  But the difference is only about 13 months, so it isn't a major factor.
 * I wouldn't support the other photograph's use for the sake of a meme, but we shouldn't avoid using it for that reason either. —David Levy 15:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The general tenor here (to me) is that the other (not smiling) Lugo pic is better, so I've switched them. Raul654 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice work!  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

God bless Lugo. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Now he's gone again, and forever this time D': 66.183.104.162 (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not if he gets locked into a power struggle for ALL the Wikipedias. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Featured article.
I don't believe that a defunct US television show from twenty years ago deserves to be plastered on the front page of this international website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is new. Usually we get the most complaints about video game FAs. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, almost any article that someone took the time to elevate to FA status is eligible to be featured on the main page, and deservedly so. It might not interest everyone, but it will surely interest someone. The only exceptions that I'm aware of are one or two porn actresses; other articles might be excluded if they are deemed too "offensive" to be on the main page (for example, if Penis ever becomes a featured article, I doubt it would appear on the main page). --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * en.wikipedia is NOT international. The "en" tells you it's the "English Language" version. The United States has English as one of its primary languages. Ergo - no problem doktorb wordsdeeds 22:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree - the language may be English, but enwiki is still an international encyclopedia. Thankfully, there is no requirement that every main page FA must have broad international relevance. I'll be just as happy to read about the Georgian bank robbery as I was about the American high school or the Australian cricketer. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that those who are upset about the over representation of American topics seem to think the solution is to remove American subjects instead of adding subjects from other parts of the world. --Khajidha (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase MQS; is it easier to fix the damn pipe or to complain about wet feet? --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When will people learn it is not about the subject matter? --Τασουλα (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably never. It would be quite useful to have a template in response to the "why is this on the main page, it is not important enough" question that comes up.  Similar to the way they have standard responses at the help desk (my personal favourite is astray). --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We already do. Modest Genius talk 10:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to add to what I said last night. I take your point, Bongwarriror, that en.wikipedia is probably the most 'internationalist' of all the Wikipedia domains, and as such we are more world wise than the others. If anyone here has followed my comments on ITN/C and ITN/R, you'll know that I put enormous weight on nominations being notably globally, and together with like minded people, have defeated some nominations which were clearly 'regional' within the USA, not even national. To expect en.Wikipedia to be blinkered to the whole world is naive and fairly disingenuous. That said, I would much rather that our Colonial cousins would realise that the volume with which their news is broadcast does not mean it's heard across the world. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Noteworthy for news?
You posted as news: In basketball, the Miami Heat defeat the Oklahoma City Thunder to win the NBA championship. Is this really appropriate for noteworthy international news? Putting in country specific sporting trivia like this devalues the news section and may undermine Wikipedia's reputation as a truly open, international non-UScentric information source. Most of the rest of the world wouldn't even know what the NBA championships are, and care even less. It's not as if there is nothing significant happening in the world right now. I think this was an error of judgement, either that or I want the Rugby League results in there. E x nihil (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where were you when the Gaelic football and hurling items went up before? For the record, The NRL is in WP:ITNR, just like the NBA Finals, but no one is nominating it. – H T  D  03:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the archives. We get a comment like this at least once a week, that it's either too US-centric or EU-centric or whatever. I believe the good people at ITN try to make sure we get a wide coverage of events from all over the world - and sometimes that means seeing something that one portion of the world won't care very much about, etc. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 03:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Basketball has influence all around the world. It's a bit harsh to call what is almost certainly the number one league (in terms of popularity and fame) "UScentric" [sic] when it is followed by a great number of people around the world. If it were NCAA, then I'd probably agree with you. But it's not. — foxj 03:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i'm convinced there's just as much of a bias to try to be so non-US centric that American events have a more difficult time getting a fair shake. Two recent school shootings in the U.S (one where three people died in the Midwest, seven died in a private university in Oakland) didn't make ITN, while the 2011 Rio de Janeiro school shooting breezed on there, no trouble.  And The Penn State sex abuse scandal generated 7K worth of heat on ITNC when it was posted last November. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If we only included items that "most of the world" knows about, ITN would be perpetually empty. At any rate, your wish was granted some time ago, sporting events that most Americans have barely heard of and certainly don't care about get posted on a regular basis.  Besides, Wikipedia doesn't exist to parrot "everybody knows" information, or to act as some kind of gauge or arbiter of importance on the world stage, but to present information that you may not have known before.  So if you didn't know the NBA finals are one of the biggest sporting events in the US before, why come to gripe about it here when clearly you've been enriched with knowledge by its inclusion ITN? -OldManNeptune ⚓ 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I am shamefully bias as a basketball fan by saying this, but really? This is the NBA finals. It doesn't get much bigger than this in the world of basketball. But then I agree that the NCAA-tournaments and other "junior" level US-sporting events should never be posted, they have no international sporting significance whatsoever. And to the post directly above, those school shootings were not of any international impact, nor will they be long remembered in the countries that they occurred in. All of them. I guess the Brazil shooting may of garnered more support because some ignorantly think school-shootings are "routine" in the US whilst in Brazil they are not. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder why basketball always gets a hard time in these parts, considering it's the most global of American sports; you can even argue it's as or even more global as the British sports of rugby (any code) or cricket. In those two sports it's the same teams that always qualify for their respective world cups, while in basketball there's always some variety in participation. I get that it's not popular at all in the UK but it has to be as popular as rugby in the Continent.
 * On the flip side, no one gives a shit when any of the GAA events went up. I bet most people have a different idea of what GAA even means. lol. – H T  D  12:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I enjoy watching Gaelic football moreso than I do baseball. Don't knock it ;) Also RE: the shootings - note that the Brazil item was nominated over a year ago and ITN/C feeling has shifted massively since then on most issues. — foxj 13:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dream of the day when there is discussion about inclusion of a sporting event and HTD has the discretion and maturity to choose not to moan again about the inclusion of Gaelic Games at ITN/C. You did not agree with the consensus: we get it.  Kevin McE (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dream of the day when Kevin stops pushing for BrE in Main Page blurbs. – H T  D  14:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, guys. Lighten up. — foxj 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. – H T  D  14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants a longer discussion on this, click the letter "T" on my sig. – H T  D  14:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I retract my previous statement that Kevin has not pushed for BrE in blurbs, and apologize for any inconveniences that this has caused him. I repeat: I HAVE NO IDEA IF KEVIN EVER PUSHED FOR THE USE OF BRITISH ENGLISH IN MAIN PAGE BLURBS. – H T  D  15:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just as an FYI for the OP, the NRL premiers have been posted the last two years (and possibly before that, I wasn't here then) and will continue to be posted annually as long as someone updates the page, though why anyone would watch rugby over real football is beyond me :) Also, I live in Australia as well, and I know plenty of people who follow the NBA and were interested in which team won the finals. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the Finals were somewhat international. They featured French, Canadian, Congolese-Spanish, Swiss-South African players, as well as a coach of Filipino descent.  In addition, the finals were broadcast in 215 countries and territories.  Spencer T♦ C 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On channels nobody watches, at midnight, for the benefit of insomniacs. Can't get to sleep? Watch a sport where everyone scores, all the time. --86.168.161.42 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not fair as not every player is Wilt Chamberlain. :P And the game was nicely in the middle of the day for easy watching. --LauraHale (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Healthcare law in the United States in the news?
Just My Opinion: the Healthcare law in the US has been upheld by the US Supreme Court...shouldn't that be listed in the news section? Hires an editor (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the news/Candidates would be the place to propose that, assuming the relevant articles have been updated. the wub "?!"  15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Pope Agatho didn't convene the Third Council of Constantinople
Contrary to what the main page text of today says, the early Christian councils were convened by the Emperors. The linked article on Agatho says as much. -- 92.226.2.246 (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. He didn't convene the Third Council. Study more! El Otro (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely correct. But should he stay there with different information? (blahblahblah, a Saint in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, blahblah sent legates to the Third Council of Constantinople?) or perhaps replace him with someone else?75.73.114.111 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We should try going to report this at the Main Page Error Report page, I have made a post there notifying of the error. Others are welcome to help!75.73.114.111 (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out, guys. In future, you will probably get a faster response if you report things like this at WP:ERRORS. Anyway, I've now changed it to "Saint Agatho (pictured), a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, began his reign as Pope." Is that acceptable? Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me75.73.114.111 (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages update
Wikipedia languages section on the main page needs to be updated. 'Complete list' and 'this list' does not match. 86.36.66.12 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they don't, and that's intentional. We don't include Wikipedias in that list if the quality of the articles is not considered sufficient. See the FAQ. Hut 8.5 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Rwanda pic
hello,

as already explained on TFAR, why not replace the current boring picture with something more interesting? Traditional dances for example... Thanks.-- GoP T C N 07:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A beautiful photograph of stunning African scenery is boring? That's me learned something today then... — foxj 08:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I also thought the photo was rather striking. The way the valley, the lake, and the mountain all line up somehow caught my attention. (I guess you could argue that Wikipedia is awash with beautiful vistas, but it doesn't exactly have a shortage of people dancing in folk costumes.) APL (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not really representative. It could be anywhere, actually... How about something about its culture?-- GoP T C N 10:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK
".. that the creator of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies—Rudolf Ising—served in the First Motion Picture Unit, which made films like Camouflage (pictured) during World War II?"

"—Rudolf Ising—" should be commas, not dashes. Who talks or writes like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosprings (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? When I talk to people dash in real life dash I talk like that. In seriousness, though, I agree: WP:ERRORS might be the way to go. 109.149.78.250 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Two Canadian flags on the Main Page at the same time???
Dear God. It's the Canuckapocalypse. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 16:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just removed one from DYK. Another image can be used for any of the templates instead. --Tone 16:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Change to the original red ensign flag, for one of the items, would be good? (see discussion above) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed both of the images. --  tariq abjotu  16:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks better. No image for "flaccid trunk paralysis", alas. :( Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yesterdays factoid about the 2009 Honduran coup d'état
The factoid yesterday (June 28) about the coup against Zelaya was clearly biased. It called the event an "ouster", not a "coup", unlike the article title; and it stated as fact the anti-Zelaya allegation that his principal intention in beginning a process to modify the constitution was to serve more than one term as president. The former is perhaps excusable, as "ouster" is spin but not inaccurate; but the latter is completely beyond the pail, as there is no direct evidence that he even had that intention at all. I guess it's too late to fix things, but certainly the process broke down in this case; on both counts, the article itself mentions the positions, but very clearly states they are held by a minority. Homunq (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, a factoid is something accepted as fact, although it is not true, so, by my reckoning, with your logic, it was spot on. However, I didn't see the item you mention, but if it was in Did you know... I'd suggest you bring it up there, because inaccuracy claims against them seem to be rife. 109.149.78.250 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the article talk page, I think it was on OTD. You're welcome to get involved in the OTD process, they've even editable by non admins two days before they are due to appear. Since OTD items can easily appear more then one year in a row and in any case are usually simply hidden and so can be reincluded at any time in future years, you probably want to take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 28 or simply fix it yourself after tomorrow. (Personally while the referendum thing may very well be problematic, ousted by military forces automatically means coup to me.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, that's how it was described on the June 28 article, which is where I copied it from. — howcheng  {chat} 16:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't seem like the OP is coming back, I changed the wording to use the word coup. Personally I still don't feel it's a big deal but considering the article title and other articles like the Zelaya article and also reading the article, it appears to be sufficiently accepted that it can be said to be a coup without qualification despite some opposition to the term. If the term is really contentious enough that people object, I suggest they take it up with the other articles. Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"In the News" UEFA Euro 2012 Spain victory
In this section of "In the News" discussing Spain's victory over Italy, "defeats" should be changed to plural "defeat," since football teams are plural in English. Also "UEFA European Football Championship" should be changed to "2012 UEFA European Football Championship" to specify the time. Dar5995 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Teams are treated as plural in some English varieties and singular in others. That's why we usually sidestep the issue via neutral wording (to which we switched after you wrote the above message).
 * We routinely omit a championship's year (due to its obviousness), and we now refer to "a second consecutive European Football Championship". —David Levy 01:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As the margin is a tournament record, the 4-0 score should be included? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is too much information for the blurb. --  tariq abjotu  01:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely the blurb can include (4-0)? It actually is very helpful information. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what the score was (or even if it was via penalty kicks) as long as a team (ESP in this case) won. We'd want the readers to click the link, after all. – H T  D  06:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We normally don't include scores, and this one's historical significance wouldn't be apparent to non-aficionados unless we were to explicitly mention the fact that the margin is a tournament record. As Tariq noted, that's too much information for the blurb. —David Levy 06:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's normal policy, then fair enough. But quite regardless of historical significance, I am surprised that the added value that "4-0" gives is considered not worth those three extra characters. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The blurb is already lengthened with the addition of the more important fact that it was Spain's 2nd consecutive title; in fact, it was the 1st successful title defense in the Euros. That's the (most important IMO) stat ITN chose to highlight. – H T  D  01:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I was pleasantly surprised to find this tied in with today's featured list when I clicked on it. Kudos on the timing and coordination. Well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.196.224.170 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Shouldn't "the final" be linked to UEFA Euro 2012 final and not the featured list. The featured list is all of the UEFA Euro finals and not the 2012 final. Therefore, I think someone should change the link to make it go to the specific final. Dar5995 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The specific final is mentioned in the TFL section, including a link to its article. Our longstanding practice is to avoid covering the same event in more than one main page section simultaneously, so the TFL pointer is an alternative to removing the ITN item until the end of the day.  At 00:00 (UTC), a bit more than two hours from now, the link will automatically begin leading directly to the article.
 * This prevents a glaring omission, avoids encouraging readers interested in the topic to click away from the main page without ever seeing the featured list, and actively promotes the relatively new TFL section. —David Levy 21:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Moravista
Kolego, píšu to sem, protože nechcu prudit tam, kde si to může přečíst hafo lidí. Napříště prosím bez urážek v cizích diskusích. Já to pominu, ale mrzí mě takový přístup u inteligentního člověka. Zkus se napříště zamyslet, jak by se přistupovalo ke Slovákům, kdyby se tato encyklopedie psala v roce 1912 nebo dříve.--109.80.234.129 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the English language version of Wikipedia. Please either make your post in English, or take it to the version of Wikipedia in your language. See http://www.wikipedia.org/ HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Česky Wikipedia Art LaPella (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Numbered list item

State of Palestine
I know it's pointless protesting about anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia, but there's no such place as the "State of Palestine." Even if the PA claims to be the government of such a state (and I don't think it does), such a state has no de facto existence, since all of Mandate Palestine is under direct or indirect Israeli control. Bethlehem is located in the West Bank or in the Palestinian Territories, take your pick. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly what article(s) are you concerned about? And what's it got to do with a claimed anti-Israel bias? That reads like trolling. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "UNESCO lists the Church of the Nativity (pictured) in Bethlehem as the first World Heritage Site in the State of Palestine." To say that a place is in the State of Palestine implies that such a state exists, and that it has identifiable borders. Where are the borders of the State of Palestine? Do they include Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa? The Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher are both World Heritage Sites. Are they not in the State of Palestine? There are a number of World Heritage sites in Israel. Are they in the State of Palestine? Who decides these things? Presumably a government, but where and who is the government of the State of Palestine? Does Wikipedia now have the power to create states where none actually exist? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It has the power to summarise news reports without doctoring their intent; press coverage has focussed on the fact that UNESCO has treated Palestine as a state and not a territory through this listing. If you're shocked and appalled by sympathy towards a people seeking self-determination, take it to UNESCO and ask them why they, not en.wiki, made that decision. GRAPPLE   X  05:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it not factually accurate that UNESCO has listed the Church of the Nativity as the first World Heritage Site in the State of Palestine?
 * We're referring to a decision on UNESCO's part, not making the determination ourselves. —David Levy 05:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * UNESCO listed it as being a site in the state of Palestine.
 * To change it because you don't think Palestine is a state would be putting word's into UNESCO's mouth.
 * (Who decides these things? UNESCO does, of course. Who else would decide things about UNESCO's lists?) APL (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The UNESCO site at the link provided does not use the term "State of Palestine." It says "Palestine." It's true that Bethlehem is in the geographical territory called Palestine, and in a political area administered by the Palestinian Authority. Wikipedia should therefore follow that usage. Nor does the UNESCO page say that it is the first listing of a site in Palestine, and clearly it isn't because the Dome of the Rock is most definitely claimed by the Palestinians to be within Palestine. So what is the authority for Wikipedia asserting that UNESCO has described this is "the first World Heritage Site in the State of Palestine"? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The UNESCO site lists Palestine as a "state party" and uses the Palestinian flag, that would seem to indicate that UNESCO means the "State of Palestine" when they list "Palestine". --Khajidha (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. The fact is that they only use the word "Palestine." The flag is used by the PA and numerous non-state parties, so that's not relevant. The assertion that Bethlehem is "in the State of Palestine" is not made by UNESCO at that website, it is an opinion of a Wikipedia editor. If I say "Paris is in the French Republic", that is a verifiable fact, because the French Republic has defined borders. But even if the State of Palestine exists, it has no defined borders, so no factual statement can be made about any locality being part of it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Forget the flag. UNESCO lists Palestine as a "State Party" to the convention so they do consider Palestine to be a state. Hut 8.5</b> 14:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * These are basically the objections I foresaw in my remark at WP:ERRORS above. The issue about the State of Palestine and Palestine is off the mark, because it's obvious that the concept discussed at the State of Palestine (rather than the region of Palestine) is what was admitted to UNESCO -- just as the State of Israel, rather than the Land of Israel, and the People's Republic of China, rather than Greater China, are members.
 * The issues about in the State of Palestine. Yeah, I see no evidence that Intelligent Mr Toad is incorrect. A lot of people have pointed to the UNESCO site as proof that they said UNESCO said the site is in Palestine. But it doesn't actually say that. Nowhere do they actually say it's in Palestine. Note, for comparison, that Israel is listed at the proposal to extend the bounds of the World Heritage Site in Jerusalem, which is currently restricted only to the Old City of Jerusalem (which has no country mentioned). If the state at the top of each Site's listing is to be understood as being the state UNESCO believes the site is in, we'd have to believe that, according to UNESCO, the Old City of Jerusalem is in no country, Jerusalem (including the Old City) is in Israel, and Bethlehem is in Palestine. This doesn't make any sense, both from a logical standpoint, and with a greater understanding of the geopolitical situation, which sees Palestine as a state with no land it can truly claim as its own. News sites don't clarify the issue either. Aside from The Jerusalem Post which put 'in "Palestine"' (with scare quotes around 'Palestine'), my cursory glance at sources tend to just say it's the first Palestinian site or the first since Palestine was admitted to UNESCO. I don't see sources saying it's in Palestine, and our article doesn't say that either (except in a category).
 * The best solution is simply to attribute the World Heritage Site to (the State of) Palestine, rather than placing it in the State of Palestine. "For the State of Palestine" was rejected, even though I thought that was better and more accurate than "in the State of Palestine". We could also go with "listed under the State of Palestine". Nevertheless, I went with just saying "...the State of Palestine's first World Heritage Site". I hope that will put the issue to rest. --  tariq abjotu  15:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The news article accompanying the listing on the UNESCO site here mentions "Bethlehem, Palestine" and "Bethlehem (Palestine)". This is a somewhat standard English way of representing a 'contains' relationship between locations. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  04:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But I still think this formulation is the best of options since it can be interpreted in the same way and doesn't force us to answer the question, "Isn't the Old City of Jerusalem in Palestine as well?" I'm kind of curious how UNESCO actually answers that. I mean, they kind of don't, and I think the point here is that they have actually said a place is in, yes actually in, Palestine. But I don't think that emphasis and angle can be adequately expressed in a blurb. It's better to go with a wording that means the same thing but avoids confusion. --  tariq abjotu  05:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that Palestine has been admitted to UNESCO as a state party. But that was a political act, taken in the full knowledge that no state of Palestine actually exists on the ground. It is a state without borders, without a capital and without a government, and in an area which is under the control of another state. So the issue is not the same as with China or any other state. To say that "Bethlehem is in the State of Palestine" is to make a political statement, not simply to assert an uncontroversial fact. Now, if UNESCO had said "Bethlehem is the first World Heritage Site in the State of Palestine" then that assertion by UNESCO could be reported at Wikipedia, but so far as I can see UNESCO has not said that. And one can see why they would not, because if Bethlehem is the first World Heritage Site in the State of Palestine, then it must follow that the Dome of the Rock is not in the State of Palestine, which the Palestinians would certainly not want to concede. So (to come back to the point), the statement on the main page is the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, not a verifiable fact, and it should be removed, if it's still there. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have a profound misunderstanding of how news outlets work. They (ideally) just report what other people say. In our little corner of the Main Page where we report news items (and link to updated articles, etc, etc), we are simply reporting what UNESCO has said. If you think stating or suggesting Bethlehem is in a state called Palestine is making a political statement, take it up with UNESCO. --  tariq abjotu  05:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You show me where UNESCO has said: "the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is the first World Heritage Site in the State of Palestine", or words to that effect using the expression "State of Palestine", and I'll shut up. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, for the love of God. The State of Palestine is a member of UNESCO, so obviously when they talk about "Palestine" they're referring to that state and not the entire region. Seriously. What's so difficult? --  tariq abjotu  05:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So, you can't show me where UNESCO says: "the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is the first World Heritage Site in the State of Palestine." I thought not. That's because they didn't do so. That means that the statement on the Main Page is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. QED. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And now that I look, I see the UNESCO page on Palestine (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/arab-states/Palestine/) doesn't use the term "State of Palestine" either. It just says "Palestine." Under "head of state" it says "President of the Palestinian Authority: H.E. Mr Mahmoud ABBAS." NOT "President of the State of Palestine." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're ignoring repeated explanations of why it's clear that UNESCO is referring to the State of Palestine, clinging to the irrelevant technicality that this precise term isn't used.
 * What, in your view, does UNESCO mean? How should we word the blurb?  Or are you demanding that the entire thing be removed?  —David Levy 06:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If we are reporting on what UNESCO decided, when we know that is a politically highly controversial subject, in which questions of terminology matter a great deal to all parties, then the exact wording that UNESCO used is not "an irrelevant technicality," it is the core of the issue. Wikipedia cannot assert that UNESCO said that "the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is the first World Heritage Site in the State of Palestine" without a source showing that UNESCO in fact said that. In the absence of such a source, this is just an opinion. So far we don't have one. Therefore, all we can say is that World Heritage Site status has been granted to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which is in Palestine, or the West Bank, or the Palestinian Territories, or even Judaea. All of these geographical designations can be sourced and refer to known entities. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The wording "in the State of Palestine" was removed yesterday (as discussed in great detail above), so I don't know why you're still quoting it.
 * We currently indicate that UNESCO has listed the church as the State of Palestine's first World Heritage Site. This lacks a basis for even pedantic criticism.  UNESCO formally recognizes the State of Palestine and has assigned one World Heritage Site thereto.  This is factual and verifiable.
 * Indeed, whether the church is in the State of Palestine is highly controversial. But we aren't declaring that it is.  UNESCO explicitly lists it under "Palestine", its 195th member state.  There is no ambiguity in this decision.  —David Levy 08:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you actually looked at the In the News section in the last twenty hours? --  tariq abjotu  10:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly see the relevence of the lack of 'state of Palestine' in the page, as UNESCO almost never bother's to call something a 'state of' in the page. What they do do is if a country is an associate member they mention this like in      . The Palestinian authority thing appears to be because that's what they consider the formal name of the most similar authority. UNESCO seems a bit random there anyway, they don't list any head of state for Australia, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica or New Zealand     but do for Canada . They call it a head of state for Malaysia  but Sultan for Brunei  and King of Thailand . And while they often use English they sometimes use the other UNESCO working language i.e. French even if the country themselves don't have any real formal usage of French e.g. Mongolia . Really you're reading way way too much in to some random page that has probably been updated at different times by different people and even in a sensitive case like Palestine potentially has not receive the careful consideration of usage as you think. What seem clear but from the UNESCO themselves and more importantly from reliable secondary sources is that Palestine is a state party and that UNESCO recognised Bethleham as in Palestine, even sources like JTA  and Jpost recognise this . To suggest that even though UNESCO recognises Palestine as a state, when they say Bethleham is in Palestine they don't mean the Palestine they formally recognise as a state (and who's flag they use for the site) is nonsense and even Jpost or JTA don't suggest this. Personally I don't think it's a big deal whether we use Palestine or state of Palestine provided we link to the right page i.e. the state of Palestine article but some people dislike such so called 'easter egg' links. P.S. As  shows, UNESCO is generally clear when they are prescribing something as edit:not being in any particular state party. Old City (Jerusalem) also mentions this. Compare that to  which APL linked above. If anything, it seem to me we're practicing anti-Israeli bias if we ignore what UNESCO actually did (I would note the listing as being in Palestine doesn't seem to be the most controversial thing about this listing but rather the emergency process followed and implication that the site was in eminent danger). P.P.S. See also . Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And also this, as I mentioned earlier, which seems to complicate their boundaries of Israel and Palestine. But regardless, the point is there is only one World Heritage Site on this list, and that's the Church of the Nativity.
 * By the way, Nil, I don't think you should read into the JTA and Jerusalem Post mentioning "in Palestine". They have an interest in stating that UNESCO has placed Bethlehem in a state called Palestine, as they can then proceed to mock them for doing so. --  tariq abjotu  17:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very political, and as with all things surrounding Israel, many commentators, including several here, simply cannot stop politics affecting their comments. Please just stick with what the sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's part of my point though. Few other then the OP seem to deny what actually happened. From the POV of Jpost and JTA, it may reflect how irrelevent UNESCO is like the rest of the UN (or whatever) while from the POV of those who support a Palestinian state, it's one small step in their quest for legitimacy (or whatever) but no one questions what actually happened since in this case, that's missing the point. (Okay, there are some cases when both opponents and supporters will say 'this happened' agreeing on what happened even if taking quite different views of it whereas those more neutral may question it, but I don't see any way you can make the claim here. Definitely it doesn't sound like the OP is making the claim that's the case here given their comments.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.P.P.S. (I wrote this before seeing any of the replies above.) Unless I'm missing something despite repeated claims above, neither Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher are themselves WHS. Rather they are monuments (or whatever) in WHS. The status of the WHS they are in has been explained by me and others. The case of Jerusalem linked by TA above is an interesting one but it seems clear particularly from the disclaimer below that all UNESCO is really saying is that Israel has submitted Jerusalem a place in their territory for consideration but given the the political issues, it isn't going to be considered until some sort of agreement on the status of the city is reached.
 * This isn't surprising since from what I can tell, the conventions are that a (state) member nominates something in their territory  so it's just listed as in the territory of whoever submitted it since that's the process per the conventions. The problems begin when someone submits something but not everyone agrees it's in their territory and so far, it appears UNESCO has generally shyed away from proceeding with such cases (well at least when the people discenting have sufficient support in UNESCO) although still have to list the submissions. (These things can of course get highly political .) The only exception I can find is the one we've already discussed that required a submission by a sufficiently 'neutral' party with the apparent acceptance of the contesting parties and UNESCO going to great pains to say we don't know where this is and I guess required a special exception to the conventions. There is this new case, but as stated, the real controversy here is whether Palestine is actually a state (in other words, it's not so much that Israel generally claims the site as being in their territory as opposed to Israel saying in the absence of an agreement between both sides there is no Palestinian state to have any territory) as well as the process followed and the listing of it being in danger and whether it was listed for the right reasons. Note you can have a site in multiple countries but it requires all the parties to come up with some sort of joint agreement. See for example, which was part of an original wider submission   . Even in these cases, by looking at the history   it seems clear each country makes their own submission and they are only merged when the submissions are listed as WHS.
 * Note that this means we aren't practicing anti Palestinian bias either, we have not said that the 'Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls' isn't in Palestine, simply recognised the fact UNESCO didn't say it was in Palestine (or anywhere else). The same as us saying UNESCO currently lists 7 WHS in Israel (meaning the state of Israel which UNESCO recognises not some other entity random people may call Israel) is accurate and not anti Israeli bias. Not surprisingly, Palestine now has their own Jerusalem submission which they apparently intend to be part of a submission for the entirety of Palestine (if I understood the submission correctly) which I guess means they want to try to define their borders via UNESCO.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Where, praytell, is the State of Palestine? Wikipedia is inappropriately inserting itself into international politics by indicating the "State of Palestine" when in fact no such state exists. You can either say the West Bank of the Palestinian Authority, but neither of those is the State of Palestine. Please fix this. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it up with UNESCO, it was their decision. GRAPPLE   X  21:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This entire section is a shambles. UNESCO says "State of Palestine", so Wikipedia says "State of Palestine". Can we move on now? doktorb wordsdeeds 12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

MORE U OF M BS
Who is the Wiki-Idiot who insists on putting University of Michigan sports trivia in Did You Know every week? Not only do I not know, I do not care. This person is abusing his position and should be fired (even if he does work for free). Michaelcarraher (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * DYK is chosen from recently created articles. It's pretty common to get a "cluster" of DYKs on a certain topic after some enthusiastic individual makes a bunch of articles on that topic.
 * These clusters are usually not considered a problem. APL (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Must be from Ohio State :) --MuZemike 03:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Goblu and Beatosu? Chris857 (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Michaelcarraher, you're to blame for the Justin Bieber on Twitter stuff as it was specifically written in response to your request that people write stuff other than what personally interests them. And the University of Michigan stuff is ALSO your fault because you're not writing things you want to see. I don't see anyone needing to be "fired" from English Wikipedia over this, but you're free to start an WP:RFC on the user over the issue if that floats your boat.  First you have to try to resolve your dispute with the user elsewhere though. --LauraHale (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer is to start developing articles 'across the board' so that there will be a greater mix reaching DYN status. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Garret Hobart?
Was this supposed to tie in for Independence day? If it was, it really isn't that fitting. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears (at least to me) that the articles have nothing in common other than both being about something American. I do not think it is a tie in.   Shirudo   talk  23:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's more a case of why not Hobart; nothing else on the list of FAs not main-page featured yet doesn't seem to have anything leaping out as an obvious choice so something with a loose fit was better than nothing, I guess. GRAPPLE   X  23:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mexico not newsworthy?
Mexico held presidential and legislative elections three days ago (July 1), but the results of these elections have yet to appear in the "In the News" section. Am I missing something? 72.78.51.26 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's under discussion at ITNC at the moment. Please join in there if you can help. BencherliteTalk 23:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The posting of any election story to ITN is often painfully slow. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are your advertising the BBC on your home page?
Why not also have File:ITV logo.svg and File:Sky News.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.125 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 July 2012‎
 * Because it's germane to an actual item on the front page; those aren't. Simple. GRAPPLE   X  00:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because none of those three have any connection to the date July 5, where as the Beeb does (plus they paid me $5,000,000). — howcheng  {chat} 00:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On a related note, the BBC logo is a "possibly non-free" image which I thought are barred from the Main page? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the image is free in the USA, but possibly not the UK, due to the US rule of "not being original enough". I'd personally rather see completely free images on the main page. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> Worm TT( talk ) 14:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd personally rather see the most useful and relevant images on the Main Page, including any image which can be used on Wikipedia (provided a suitable rationale is given for e.g. fair-use images). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Shard image
I can't find the original of File:Shard London Bridge May 2012 cropped.jpg. The link on the main page is to File:Shard London Bridge May 2012.jpg but that doesn't exist, and File:Shard London Bridge May 2012 cropped.jpg has no Commons equivalent even though c-uploaded is being used. Where did this image come from? --Openmouth (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Commons image has an all-uppercase ".JPG" extension. The link was corrected between when you noticed the issue and posted the above message.  —David Levy 02:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, well, it took me about 10 minutes to post on this awful connection. --Openmouth (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw your edit summary after the message came through twice. :)  I know your pain.  —David Levy 02:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * More importantly, I didn't know that buildings were opened to the public before they finished building the interiors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.71.115 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty common actually. Not just skyscrapers, either. Malls and shopping centers will often open for business before every last store is complete. Buildings that have both store-fronts and office space will sometimes finish either all the stores, or all the offices first, so that they can start making money while they finish the other half.
 * I don't know, but I assume this building has a similar situation. APL (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

4,000,000th article
What method is used to establish which article will be the 4,000,000th article? / Alexander ---77.219.210.133 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suspect that whatever database query they use to keep the real-time article total will also tell them which article is the magic number. Resolute 23:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No 7/7?
I know this site is US Centric, and that most US Americans don't realise that there is a world outside of their borders, or that there are even people living in other countries who are not American, so that is why when 9/11 comes round the entire front page is dedicated to that event, so it saddens me that when 7/7 comes around, wikipedia does not feel the need to honor the day with a mention in the "On this day" section, or in any section it would seem.

What an insult to my country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.1.216 (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Take it easy. I assure you there's probably no bias here - I don't know the process of selecting OTD entries here but it's unlikely 7/7 was nominated for it (if nominations even take place, I'm pretty sure it's randomly chosen) - the anniversary has been largely ignored by the UK media so it's hardly surprising it isn't in OTD. And more Brits died in 9/11 than they did in 7/7...and 9/11 had far more causalities and for more drastic consequences as we all know. I'm not saying 7/7 wasn't tragic and important - but try and put things more into context :P --Τασουλα (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So you say 9/11 is more important than 7/7. Thank you for confirming the bias that exists on this website. Your use of an emoticon at the end of your reply further trivialised this most painful day for us. Makes me sick to my stomach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.1.216 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh I'm sorry, my emocation wasn't about that at all - I always do them and it wasn't intended as some sort of mockery. I didn't say 9/11 was more important, I was trying to put things into context, nothing more. The long-lasting effects of 9/11 are more felt than that of 7/7, and you cannot deny this, no one can, tragedies effect different people in different ways and I was not in anyway trying to trivialise your feelings on this day at all. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are ways you could have nominated it for the OTD process yourself. Why didn't you? doktorb wordsdeeds 12:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Should one really have to "nominate" a day of slaughter to be mentioned on the anniversary? If so then this is a more stupid website than I first imagined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.1.216 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest you find a successful alternative. I believe knol is doing well. If you come here full of bile expecting things to have been laid out nice and neatly for you, at least have the decency to realise that every other editor is as voluntarily involved here as you are, and they don't have to do fuckamaboo they're told to. You've been told how to request the event's addition to the daily section, and instead expended more effort pissing and complaining. GRAPPLE   X  13:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You've constructed your post in such a way that's near perfect for maximizing not obtaining constructive discussion of 7/7. The rancor, broad brush accusations, assumption of bias, outrage – it's all distracting noise that wraps your post in, to be dismissed and ignored, or to focus the discussion on your attitude or to dispel your prejudices and not on the ostensible issue you're here about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As noted at Selected anniversaries, "because of the limited amount of space, and due to the fact that any given day of the year can have a great many moderate to great historically significant events, relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors in what gets posted on the 'On this day' section on the Main Page. It is NOT solely based on what are 'the most important or significant' anniversaries on this day."
 * The 7 July 2005 London bombings were included in 2006, 2008, 2009 (pulled at 16:39 UTC, due to an article issue) 2010 (with an image) and 2011 (with a different image). —David Levy 13:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea for you knobends putting me down, this September the 11th, don't make one mention of it. Nothing. Nada. Then see just how many people get angry. But you won't do that, because you are American, and Americans only know and care about America and Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.1.216 (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Please see No personal attacks.
 * 2. Τασουλα and Doktorbuk are British. Grapple X is Irish.  —David Levy 14:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm OK, think what you want and insult us all you like. But I'd like to point out that: Me = Not American. Doktorb = Not American (We are both from the UK -.-') David Levy = No comment on his nationality, Fuhghettaboutit = Likes Charles Darwin and Monty Python and again no comment on nationality. (And yeah Grapple is Irish, missed that ^_^) And two admins as well! Edit: What ever happened to edit conflicts? Anyway, I'm Israeli too, maybe that makes me even less-bias haha. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That some of you are British and do not think it is wrong that 7/7 was missed just makes me even more angry. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves, especially those who you claim to be Admins. What a disgraceful lack of respect you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.1.216 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have an actual point to make, please do so. If you're just here to throw insults around then please find something else to do with your time. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 14:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read our comments you would of realised no one has shown any disrespect. But think what you will, and I wont loose any sleep over it. ^_^ --Τασουλα (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read the description of how the On this day section operates, including the explanation that we have a limited amount of space and cannot list every significant event every year? Do you understand that we included the 7 July 2005 London bombings on five out of seven anniversaries, with an accompanying image (making the item more prominent than any other) for the past two?  —David Levy 15:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this anon has made any effort to try and understand the situation (or, lack of) at all. /: maybe a wee archive could be in order now. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this discussion is quite the deceased parrot. No matter how much he's unwilling to come off it, the fact that almost everyone here is non-American (other than me) drives home by implication the wonkishness of the OP's premises. No, there won't be any internalizing of the points made. Move along, nothing to see here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but to drive the point home, 9/11 was not included in OTD the last two years. And yes, people did raise a stink about it. — howcheng  {chat} 04:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this the same troll that's been posting anti-american crankery here for the past few weeks? 66.183.104.162 (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Kampar River nom
Kinda bare looking. Maybe it could of been "That due to a Tidal bore, people can surf in the Kampar River?" ^__^ --Τασουλα (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, scrap that thought - it's more interesting if people click on the article to see what causes this to be. Never-mind! --Τασουλα (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Russia floods
Please add link to article 2012 Russia floods in link flash flood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.199.9.40 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Try WP:ITN/C. --69.158.118.187 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, you can post here and there, but it is preferred to post it here as more activity. Not sure why you always write the same phrase, "Try [page]". Regards.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 07:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Preferred? No. More activity =/= appropriate place. --69.158.118.187 (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, ITN/C is the only place to post proposals for new ITN items. Posting here serves little purpose, if you're lucky someone will post there based on a comment here, but more likely even if you reach consensus here to post an item, nothing will happen. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking more carefully, the IP was asking for a change to an existing item not for a new item. In this case the best place to post is the errors section which is transcluded above. While posting here is okay, you'll often get a faster response in the error section (more activity doesnt guarantee a faster response as the more I important thing is how quickly someone notice who can and does take action). There's usually no point posting about an already posted item to ITNC unless it's to call for its removal or very occasionally if there was an ongoing discussion about the wording it may be best to continue it there. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms
File:Coat of arms of Kaunas (Lithuania).png should be replaced with File:Kaunas city CoA.svg --Openmouth (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are significant differences between the two. I don't know how accurate the PNG version is, but given the fact that the SVG is "based on" it, it seems unlikely to be more authentic.  —David Levy 05:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of authenticity, but a preferred file format. --Openmouth (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my wording was unclear. I mean that the SVG version might be less accurate (because it's "based on" the PNG version but differs significantly).  This is why I'm reluctant to make the switch.  —David Levy 06:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.kaunas.lt/index.php?1611752833 --Openmouth (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The emblem appearing on the front page of that site (which I assume is official) closely resembles our PNG version. The SVG version differs substantially.  —David Levy 08:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's also being used on the Lithuanian article about the town with seemingly no objections. --Openmouth (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The indiscriminate replacement of PNG files with their SVG counterparts is common and rarely challenged (due to the assumption that SVG versions are superior and lack of obviousness when they aren't, in part because a direct comparison requires special effort). —David Levy 08:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Having once lived in Lithuania, my first question was: Whose coat of arms is that? I suggest it be identified in the text as that of Kaunas. Sca (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The image title is "Coat of arms of Kaunas city municipality". We could state "Kaunas coat of arms pictured" instead of "example pictured", but that seems like overemphasis on a municipality whose emblem is merely intended to serve as an example.  —David Levy 17:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems like an unidentified coat of arms, and a rather odd-looking one at that. Sca (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The image is identified via its HTML title attribute. In the blurb's context, it's intended to serve as an "example" of the sixty emblems adopted by the Lithuanian municipalities, not to bring to mind one municipality in particular.  —David Levy 21:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. Sca (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kneejerk removal?
Since when has it been the case that reliably-cited negative facts about a living person are haraam for the main page? The article itself seems to derive notability from the removed claim, so to call it WP:UNDUE is simply ridiculous—finding any other hook from the article would be the undue thing. I highly doubt a main-page appearance of an article like Charles Manson or Roman Polanski would omit reference to their crimes, and they're notable for a range of other things in addition, while Yoshitaka Fujii is notable simply for the fraud yanked from T:DYK. Can we stop doing this, please? GRAPPLE  X  02:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Grapple here, and I've already posted on the admin's talk page. Haven't reverted as I fear falling afoul of WHEEL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, this is over reaction. It's not a case of WP:FART at all, ok. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. As stated above, Yoshitaka Fujii is notable primarily because of this controversy, so the claim that a DYK item about it constitutes undue weight is quite perplexing (and tantamount to a declaration that we mustn't mention Fujii on the main page at all).  —David Levy 02:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Undone, per the consensus here and the fact that the admin has not replied on his talk page in an hour (seems to be offline). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Crisco. As the user who created both the article and the hook, I was very annoyed by its removal from the main page. The last I looked, WP:BLP did not say "Wikipedia can only say nice things about living people." Ironically, I suspect that the fact that this guy managed to publish 172 fraudulent papers before he got caught is probably due in part to people's reluctance to believe bad things about other people. --Orlady (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. And yes, shocking indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The DYK was removed citing BLP and undue concerns and Crisco 1492 restored it after after barely 30 minutes and three comments (one by the editor who rubber stamped the hook's inclusion). For what it's worth, I also agree that adding such a contentious hook on the main page without a serious review is a major concern. This cursory review does not seem adequate for a main page spectacle. I'm concerned about the apparent false urgency in putting this DYK back on the main page without a thorough review. I will be raising the matter at WP:BLPN for additional input. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  03:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the diff? The admin cited UNDUE, although he implied BLP. Undue does not apply in this situation, as the subject is notable for exactly that thing. If we not allowed to report negative things, most biographies of criminals (an unrelated example) would not be allowed near the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would have waited for DragonflySixtyseven's response and a bit more discussion (with the hook added to an upcoming queue if consensus dictated). That notwithstanding, I see absolutely no basis in policy for the removal.  My best guess is that DragonflySixtyseven didn't realize the extent to which Fujii's notability stems from the controversy.  —David Levy 03:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea; I was mainly worried about the 8 hour circulation problem, and had not considered just moving it to a prep or queue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Having (properly-cited) articles about criminals or people who're accused of doing horrible things -- sure, I've even written some myself. But putting them in DYK and thus the main page like this, when they're still alive and subject to BLP protection... no. DS (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And why would ITN be exempt? Compare with an ITN from March 2011: "Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, is charged with "a criminal sexual act" in New York City." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How, in your view, does WP:BLP justify such a restriction, and what's the relevance of WP:UNDUE?
 * By this standard, we mustn't mention John Hinckley, Jr. on the main page (except, perhaps, to state that "he played football and basketball, learned to play the piano, and was elected class president twice"). I've informed Howcheng of this discussion so he can bring Selected anniversaries/March 30 and the other relevant OTD sets into accordance with the policy that you've apparently enacted.  —David Levy 19:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Crime is a staple of OTD, so to say that we shouldn't have blurbs about people who engage in criminal activity, especially when that crime is of historic importance, is silly. In a similar incident, User:Sandstein just removed a blurb from today's OTD set, citing BLP. Now I'm not going to wheel-war with him/her, but I don't think that removal is justified, either. — howcheng  {chat} 19:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also responded on my talk page, but I'm of the view that neither the article I removed (Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident) nor this Yoshitaka Fujii case are of any apparent lasting historical significance. They are contemporary news stories; and such topics would need to demonstrate (in their articles) why they are of an importance similar to the outbreak of wars, epochal scientific breakthroughs etc. Also, per WP:BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist"; this, in my view precludes highlighting negative aspects of BLPs on the main page just for the fun of it. We should run such "headlines" only for topics that are of truly great importance.  Sandstein   20:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As noted in the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident article, "the crime sparked a public debate over the U.S. military presence in Japan, the privileges of extraterritoriality, as well as the fair trial practices of Japanese legal system and the Japanese police." How, in your view, is that not historically significant?
 * I would argue that Fujii's record-setting research misconduct is historically significant, but that's more relevant to the determination of whether our Yoshitaka Fujii article should exist; I don't see how it's directly relevant to BLP concerns stemming from the main page appearance. In the past week, the controversy has received coverage (of far greater prominence than a DYK hook) in major publications, so it isn't as though we injured Fujii's reputation by plucking him from obscurity or resurrecting a long-forgotten scandal.
 * Firstly, on what policy or guideline do you base this assertion?
 * Secondly, DragonflySixtyseven hasn't even made such an allowance; he/she has declared that if "criminals or people who're accused of doing horrible things" are "still alive and subject to BLP protection", we mustn't highlight their articles on the main page in DYK. [edited 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC) due to a clarification by DragonflySixtyseven; see note below]
 * I agree with that statement and disagree with the implication that such a thing occurred in either instance discussed above. —David Levy 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondly, DragonflySixtyseven hasn't even made such an allowance; he/she has declared that if "criminals or people who're accused of doing horrible things" are "still alive and subject to BLP protection", we mustn't highlight their articles on the main page in DYK. [edited 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC) due to a clarification by DragonflySixtyseven; see note below]
 * I agree with that statement and disagree with the implication that such a thing occurred in either instance discussed above. —David Levy 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that statement and disagree with the implication that such a thing occurred in either instance discussed above. —David Levy 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of degree. Certainly the Brown case has some historical significance, at least for Japan, but it does not have the same degree of importance as (to take other examples from the same day) a Shuttle mission or the death of the North Korean ruler. Its relatively minor importance (in terms of world history) does not justify, at any rate, putting the same BLP name - in association with his crime - on our main page each and every year on the same day. We are an encyclopedia, not a pillory.  Sandstein   22:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, you're entitled to your opinion.
 * Your earlier statement that "such topics would need to demonstrate (in their articles) why they are of an importance similar to the outbreak of wars, epochal scientific breakthroughs etc." came across (to me) as an interpretation of policy. Is it actually a criterion that you propose?  —David Levy 23:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

←Before I comment I will note that DragonflySixtyseven asked that I comment here. I'll start by saying that I acknowledge that Yoshitaka Fujii is notable primarily because of this controversy, thus I will contend that the undue weight argument does not really hold any water. That said, I feel that the BLP argument does. While I certainly would not argue for the article to be deleted, I do not feel that it is appropriate that we further publicly humiliate Mr. Fujii by placing this hook on the main page. In all reality, Mr. Fujii did not commit a crime and was never arrested or officially charged. I just don't see this as good grounds for a DYK hook. Tiptoety talk 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify, are you merely expressing your personal opinion, or do you believe that the item violated the BLP policy? —David Levy 05:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So will the verdict on Ratko Mladic be published on DYN/ITN?

'Politician X got a parking ticket' generating a 'so what?' reaction is not relevant: 'the Minister for Transport has collected 100 parking tickets' is.

'Category of topics which only justify a single DYN/ITN appearance.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.45.17 (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: DragonflySixtyseven has clarified that he/she was referring strictly to DYK (not the main page in general). I've invited him/her to resume participation in this discussion, which has included other sections as well. —David Levy 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

'A'-centrism
I'd just like to complain about the 'A'-centrism in the top article blurb on ITN. Out of 72 characters, 16 - that's a whopping 22.2%, almost a quarter - are the letter 'A'. Down with this sort of thing! 81.158.24.0 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you take out the names and places, there is only one A out of 19 letters- a measly 5.3%!  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful now. GRAPPLE   X  17:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * careful indeed195.59.114.70 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * steady now -- The Anome (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You...calculated how many A's there were in ITN?.. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's hear it for Zs!! Emboldened! In a banner!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we please make sure all letters get represented on ITN in the future? I suggest The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. Lampman (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember a game I invented for my kids when they got bored on long car trips. In turn, they had to come up with country names, each one starting with the last letter of the previous one. It was quickly discovered that a huge proportion of country names end in "a". Wasn't a very useful game. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither As nor Zs in Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

And what is the best way to avoid fortcoming complaints about 'excess of sports'? (Anyone wish to develop 'obscure sports' articles sufficiently to feature on the main page?) Jackiespeel (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a futsal article on the main page the other day? Ryan Vesey Review me!  21:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * .. and where's Edith Clampton when one really needs her. mutter Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding more language links to the left column on main page
Main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page which is arguably the most visited page of Wikipedia lists a number of languages. I don't know what criterion is used to list the ones that are there (is it number of Wikipedia articles, is it the number of speakers, other criterion???). But I detact languages that are not national languages but are there, like Català, Euskara (Basque), Galego (Galician), Diné bizaad... yet no national languages like Armenian, Georgian, Azerbaijani, or a multinational language like Kiswahili. I am requesting that these 4 languages that are excluded at present are included in addition to other important world languages that are national and have developed Wikipedia pages to be included on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page werldwayd (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See Template:Main Page interwikis. It can be discussed at Template talk:Main Page interwikis. All languages and stats are at meta:List of Wikipedias. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedias listed in the sidebar match those listed at the bottom of the page, which meet quantitative and qualitative criteria (a minimum of 50,000 articles, with certain Wikipedias omitted because they consist primarily of stubs and placeholders). —David Levy 20:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I double checked some languages from list here that are still absent. Azerbaijani has 88,383 articles, Georgian has 58,334. Yet no language listing on left werldwayd (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You appear to have overlooked the above notation regarding the omission of Wikipedias consisting primarily of stubs and placeholders. —David Levy 21:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the interest of a better inclusive Wikipedia, and in order not to just repeat the list on the left, we can at least add at the bottom of the main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page the 20,000+ languages under section "Wikipedia languages" for better access. This way many more world languages would be reflected on main page of Wikipedia including a significant number of national languages now absent. Presently we just have 50,000+ languages... By the way, I still want to question the inclusion of Diné bizaad on the left column of languages that leads to this http://nv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Diyis%C3%AD%C3%AD_Naaltsoos Somehow it doesn't seem to me at least, a significant page to include with the languages on left.... werldwayd (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that! Someone recently added the Diné bizaad link (in the wrong order) without discussion or explanation.  I've removed it.  —David Levy 21:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I am still thrilled and fascinated by this language "Diné bizaad" and with http://nv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Diyis%C3%AD%C3%AD_Naaltsoos Just exactly what language and Wikipedia is this? werldwayd (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I discover it is Navajo language from the code "nv." werldwayd (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No need for "Welcome to Wikipedia" where "Wikipedia" suffices ... and that matter of "anyone can edit"
A big anomaly of Wikipedia is that it welcomes you when you browse it. This is unique in any main website you browse. Other websites splash their name in shining colours. We just waste our main headline by bidding welcome to browsing public... What the hell did designers think when they created "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." and in all languages. You see this useless "welcome" word in all the other language Wikipedias. It is so fake and unnecessary... What next.... When you are exiting Wikipedia, a page pops up to tell you "Thanks for visiting Wikipedia" just like when you enter a town or leave a town. How about "If you were happy, please visit us again..." Just stop this useless welcoming to start an encyclopedia by. Of course one is visiting to get information, welcome or not. He CHOSE to come in. The first thing we need to redesign is to remove the "Welcome" note and start having pride in the prominent brand name we have. We should clearly say: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." No welcomes. What makes our behaviour even more atrocious is that "Welcome to" has the exact same font and size as our name Wikipedia. How can we get more humbug or "holier-than-thou" more than this. Remove "Welcome to" and just keep "Wikipeda" and splash it IN BIGGER LETTERS and in all the attractive COLOURS of the universe. Stop being apologetic and oh so submissive about it. Announce you are WIKIPEDIA and be proud werldwayd (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All the colours? Even hooloovoo? — foxj 01:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL.... Funny... We do need that spirit ... werldwayd (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have a big reservation regarding "anyone can edit" when we are saying "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Of course it's true. Anyone CAN edit. For example I can open a page anonymously, no signing is needed anyway, and I say to my 2-year-old kid: "Look my dear: Type a dot here..." and he hits the dot on the keyboard. Then I show him the "save" button and say: "hit this button here dear" and he hits, and lo and behold, my kid "the anyone can edit Wikipedia guy", my 2-year-old hero has edited Wikipedia!! But is THIS what we want to promote? Saying "anyone can edit" is a big blow to our credibility and just makes our product suspicious that "anyone" has edited it. We can leave editing for all, but we don't need to use that terminology in our headline. I suggest amending it to the more neutral "the free publicly-edited encyclopedia" which brings the same message that everybody can edit but is immensely better than to say "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". werldwayd (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see Village pump (proposals)/Archive 89. —David Levy 01:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. But look what came out of THAT one... It seems to me we just talk talk talk and barely nothing is done... There are so many strange things about Wikipedia and why it is what it is.... So "anybody can edit" will stick despite being so awkward and despite what we have to say werldwayd (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Others disagree that the wording is awkward. You're entitled to your opinion, but our failure to act on it doesn't mean that "barely nothing is done".  —David Levy 01:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"In the News" section
This section is a prominent section of Wikipedia, and hugely visible( top right), yet it is sadly not updated often. We have some news items at times that are outdated and insignificant... The priority of those responsible of that section of what to include on Main and what not to include is very questionable indeed... Another very annoying thing is the picture included is almost always not related to the top news item. So it is misleading when right now you have a Syria news item, yet logo of Tonga which is a news item far below... It just sounds so inaccurate even though "Royal Standard of Tonga pictured" is mentioned below. This section needs to be updated more frequently and photo should match the main news item there. If you want to keep the Tonga logo for some reason, why not move it further down to make it coincide with the news item it is directly related to? werldwayd (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well you could try nominating stuff at In the news/Candidates. However the very nature of of the wikipedia project means we will pay attention to stories for slightly longer than news organizations and we do try and take a globalist perspective which can result in stories that don't seem that important to someone who doesn't know the background.©Geni 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the second news item right now is about the Okogbe road tanker explosion that occurred on 12 July 2012 when a road tanker in Okobie, Nigeria fell into a ditch, spilled fuel, and then exploded. Of course we are saddened by loss of life anywhere, and I don't want to belittle loss of life... But a road accident is hardly an international news item. Road accidents happen all the time. This is a very questionable item as far as newsworthiness goes. By the way, today is July 14 and a lot of time has passed from that accident on July 12. But still its there... Just another solid proof that "In the News" section is not updated often, as far as news items go werldwayd (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is that you complain ITN is not updated often and, at the same time, you point out that it features insignificant items. If we are to update ITN more frequently we have to lower our standard, which will result in displaying even more trivial items. Or, if you think ITN has omitted some "significant" items, you are welcome to give some specific examples. What did we miss, exactly? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the Federer and Williams item is from July 8 when the tennis finals were held. So what is it still doing on July 14 on the page most visited in Wikipedia? And in answer to you, the news should be updated more often, PLUS they should be significant. It's not either significant or current, but both significant and current at the same time. We do surely have very significant news items that are recent at the same time. All one has to do is to pay more attention and interest to updates with a news-savvy judgement put in place. Now, it seems, we are not very significant in our choices of news items, nor are we sadly current enough. werldwayd (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are just repeating what you have already said. You say "We do surely have very significant news items that are recent at the same time". Ok, fine. Please give specific examples. What did we miss? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 99 dead in one road accident is an international news item. That kind of death toll is unusual. You might see it in some tunnel fires but thats about it.©Geni 21:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But it was TWO DAYS AGO and still we have it on TODAY's page! That's the point. werldwayd (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Err yes? You want a constantly updated news ticker go to a news website. ITN has the luxury of allowing things to go at a slower pace.©Geni 22:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with constantly updated system for a website that is in Top 10 of all world sites and a greatly-sought site of reference at that. Yes, people do browse us for updated news and we have it on TOP of our main page as well for a reason. In any case, the whole exercise on a talk page is to keep stirring for some good issues nobody is questionning sincerely, pinpointing some possible shortcomings that we actually have (it is a subjective matter of opinion I do agree), and try to create a momentum for a more strategic thinking of what Wikipedia should be, in this case our News Section. werldwayd (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To colleague User:BorgQueen. You ask for suggestions for very recent AND significant news at the same time... For example the devastating Japan floods, news about Afghan MP Ahmad Khan Samangani killed with 20 others in a bomb , Visa and Mastercard settling 7.25b fees dispute I found these in a research of three minutes All these are more significant and more current than Federer winning the title on July 8 while we are now on July 14...werldwayd (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't have articles on any of them though. Historicaly not all dead politicians have made it to the main page Mario Fernando Hernández didn't for example.©Geni 22:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am just getting into this discussion, so apologies for being late. My stance is - ITN/C is fine. It's got a few niggles here and there, but essentially, it's working perfectly well. Since joining ITN/C on a more full-time basis, if I can put it that way, I've seen the criteria for entry wax and wane from soft to hard, seen the Occupy movement (rightly) rejected, seen a number of high-profile deaths rejected (both rightly and very wrongly) and successfully removed some items from ITN/R.

There's a lot of work still to be done, though your approach seems to ignore two very important facts.

Firstly, News doesn't happen in the way you'd like. The big bad world out there doesn't have events happening at convenient times. If there's nothing being nominated, there's nothing happening (possibly). The more important second point - Wikipedia is NOT news. It's certainly not news.me, diggit, or the Times of India. There's numerous aggregater sites out there designed to be more 'rapid' and 'responsive'. Wiki is NOT, and should NOT, be one of them. ITN/C should be regarded as a filter. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd generally like to see the notability criteria of ITN soften a bit. However ITN is a service for linking to articles, so we need to maintain that any story we discuss has been reflected in a substantial update to the encyclopaedia. There's a subtle difference between the "news" you'd see on the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera etc., and events that have resulted in significant changes to Wikipedia's content. It's this second category that is the domain of ITN. LukeSurlt c 10:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly! But it seems many people simply fail to see that, or find it a hard concept to grasp, and insist on seeing ITN as a news ticker or a headlines service, rather than something to encourage editing of articles that cover topics that are currently in the news. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So, our famous 4,000,000th article IS.... (drums please...)
So what is our famed 4,000,000th article? I have read so many speculations but no definitive confirmation to celebrate for. We want to celebrate before we go to our beds tonight werldwayd (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Izbat Al Burj was the 4 millionth article.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And curiously which article missed it by just one... What was the 3,999,999th article and the 4,000,001th article. Were they more worth our while? werldwayd (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See this Wikimedia blog post. Dr. Blofeld created a few thousand Turkish villages leading up to the mark and Idaho State Highway 48, Siersza Power Station, Albert C. Baker, and Intelsat 605 also came close.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to bite the bullet: there's too much text and we use images poorly
It's really surprising that the gigantic RfA last year that exposed community opinion on many parts of the MP led to almost no change, even though there was clear consensus that some links/buttons are redundant or simply unnecessary. Why weren't they dropped immediately? It shows how sclerotic our MP governance has become.

Part of a redesign—indeed a good starting-point—is to revisit which bits can easily be dropped; that would prepare the way for harder questions of how to reduce the amount of clutter on the first-level MP (i.e. the immediate display). One obvious thing to dois to display less of the FAC lead, linking to "more" a bit earlier in each piece. The existing page would be much cleaner tomorrow if we dropped them, but let's wait and make this an initial part of the cleaned-up new design process.

What a dramatic photo of the eruption we have today: but its treatment on our page removes all of the drama: it's small and relegated almost to the bottom. One has to display the best stuff at the front of the shop, not down in the cellar. And I really think FAs without a suitable picture should have to try a bit harder to reach the top of the queue. Today's is a good example. Tony  (talk)  03:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See my suggestion to trim the space given to "featured article". This conveniently answers to your concern about too much text. I suggested moving the featured photo to the space saved from long quotes from "featured article" immediately making the page more attractive much higher up in the page. werldwayd (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't disagree with that. No-brainer, in my view. Tony   (talk)  04:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with both of you. Featured Article is the right balance - it reminds casual editors/visitors that we're an encyclopedia, not a news aggregater or social media site. We are not Tumblr nor Twitter - we're not here to provide snippets of information with bright pictures. We're here to educate, not entertain.doktorb wordsdeeds 06:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

God, how disheartening. 'Too much text' on an encyclopaedia main page. Tony seems hell bent on getting a redesign, saying anyone who is against this is one of David Levy's cronies. I've got news for you Tony. I don't know David, in fact I know no-one on Wikipedia. I have used it for eight years. I like the way it looks: simple and functional, with lots of text. The recent BBC website redesign was a complete disaster in my view because, for some unfathomable reason, they decided to put much less text on, used a bigger font and add acres of white space, with the consequence that you have to scroll/click a lot more to see what information it holds, and it now looks like a website for children. If it ain't broke, why fix it? You think it is, I disagree. It conveys knowledge. It doesn't need to be all singing and all dancing. It doesn't need to appeal to those with short attention spans. It just needs to show us what is in the encyclopaedia - and that's mainly words. 86.133.208.73 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This. This! THIS! Infinite times THIS! I couldn't agree more. --Khajidha (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Today's featured article" occupies too much space on main page
Although it is interesting to follow on a daily basis, I think "Today's featured article" just gives too much space to a big chunk of the article, thus wasting valuable space for other important matters that can occupy the space. The whole aim of a "featured article" is to entice you to check further the article. To do this, all you need is one brief well-written summarized paragraph (let's say 10 lines), an attractive photo and a link that is conveniently found on the subject anyway. Save space cut from lengthy excerpts of the article and move for example "Today's featured picture", always a fascinating shot higher on left column. This will save you from the general accusation that there is just too much text put in the main page. werldwayd (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I ask why you have now asked six separate questions on the topic of the Main Page within the space of a few hours? — foxj 04:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good observation. Actually dear Foxj, it is just because I am in a great celebratory mood for our 4,000,000th article... Thus it helps to be self-deprecating and make some cheeky observations and pick on some given and well-established conventions of ours. It's part of being a bit too tipsy today and just testing my own limits of how far we can go on making fun of ourselves. I was not here yesterday (never ever posted a single note on this page) and I will not be here tomorrow (never ever will most probably). This is the ONLY day I am participating on talk page here, then I'm gone to things I do much better. Meanwhile it is good exercise to burst some balloons since we are so jovial today. But note that although done for celebration, they do pose important issues and should be addressed inviting good responses and hopefully needed improvements werldwayd (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than celebrating base 10, I'd rather fix things that are crying out for improvement. Tony   (talk)  06:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tony, but they cannot be done by brief discussions in talk pages. In a couple of days, this page will be archived and soon bygones will be bygones... Welcome to a new talk page, "Welcome to Wikipedia" as it says on the main page... We can do only this much, with symbolic few in-between changes, with the obvious "resistance to change" we have, and frankly, sometimes this resistance is quite justified actually... Why change something that works quite well for so many who are accustomed to things this way. When Obama chose "Change" as his slogan, I knew we would have four more years of the "same", only worse. Sadly, Wikipedia, despite its lip service commitment to change, does not want to change and will not change at the fast pace we are hoping for... unless there is healthy competition to it with strong financial backing. As long as their is hegemony by one site, Wikipedia, with no viable alternative, things will remain as they are. When a huge competition does emerge though, we will see quicker changes emerging. Meanwhile let's celebrate our 4 millionth article and have some fun... I'm done actually and have to sleep very content of this specific achievement of 4,000,000. I will not return here though.... Perhaps I will, but with the 5,000,000th Wikipedia article... and still plead albeit hopelessly for a change for one more time and then disappear again to come back and celebrate the 6,000,000th... Many happy returns. werldwayd (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

4,000,000th article
So the 4 million article mark is quickly approaching. How will the main page be recognizing this momentous round number? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadly, it's only a C class article, but I'd like to see History of Wikipedia mentioned somewhere. I've only looked at a small amount of it, but it is an interesting read.  I'd assume something needs to be mentioned.  Maybe a banner of some sort could appear, like when we are asking for donations, letting everybody know.  It wouldn't require anything different to be done on the main page. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Big numbers like this don't come around often. I think we should do something BIG that people will instantly notice like changing the main page color scheme to gold or something. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe make a mention at Village pump Miscellaneous to see if anyone cares to weigh in? I think it would be good to insert a countdown while we are getting there.  One exists at User:Jimbo Wales. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  20:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite doubt there will be a countdown or any special colour. The article and milestone will probably be mentioned on the main page, as it always is. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How about a giant banner that reads "We value quantity above quality! Please create as many new articles as possible instead of improving existing ones!"?  That's what we want to convey, right?  —David Levy 07:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Improving is as important as creating new ones as many articles are in very poor state around.  — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 07:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's my point. When was the last time we put up a main page banner touting article improvements?
 * I realize that people get excited about round numbers, but the celebration has gotten old. People know that Wikipedia is big.  Can we please stop bragging about the size, thereby implying that it's our top concern?  —David Levy 07:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with David. Far, far, too much importance is given to how big WP is, and far, far too little importance to how good it is.  We shouldn't over-emphasise the size aspect (having the embarrassment of DYK constantly on the main page is bad enough) - we should come to decisions on how WP is going to change, so that it is able to become better.  It would be wonderful if we could use the excuse of the 4 millionth article as a basis for saying, right, that's enough to be getting on with, this is how we are going to make both article content, and reader and contributor interfaces, better in the future.  Rant over.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. Cynically I also find it difficult to believe that No 4 million would not be carefully manipluated to make sure it was duly worthy - rather embarrassing if it turned out to be a rubbishy fanblog tagged for rapid AfD? or even a disambiguation page (are such "articles" included in that impressive total?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the norm is to exclude any article that is deleted although I guess that would require a rapidfire AFD as well as any disambigation page in choosing number 4 million (or whatever). In reality, neither are particularly likely nowadays since the 4 million mark tends to get a lot of somewhat experienced editors submitting articles they'v pre-prepared. I don't think you can say the selection process is 'manipulated' per se although it's not simple since the number is in a constant state of flux. (It's possible although again because of the large number of ready submissions probably unlikely it will be passed more then once.) Article quality doesn't tend to be a problem because of the massive attention the 4 millionth article gets. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What will be considered the 4,000,000th article anyways? There is a decent chance that there will be 2 or 3 of them due to deletions.  I disagree with the idea that we value quantity over quality.  We have a featured article on the main page every day, is it that bad to mention that we've hit 4 million?  I wouldn't mind seeing new GA's mentioned on the main page, but the process is too iffy. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  14:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I remarked, I don't think it's actually that likely the milestone will be passed more then once because of the large number of creations that tends to happen around the time. As I hinted at but perhaps didn't really explain, the constant flux of numbers (and definition issue) does mean there's no constant 4th million article, however the changes will be way, way more then 2 or 3. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So the question is simply which article will be the first to cross the 4G-line and not be subject for speedy deletion? /Michel  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.132.206 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes although as noted by me and others, actually determing which article that is isn't an easy process. I don't believe it's quite as handwavy as MZMcBride suggests though in the sense that a certain process is followed without human involvement in selectiion, it's just hard or impossible to do independently because of database lag etc (I think a bot readout of the wikimedia feed is used). In the past, I believe it's true that an article created around the time of the milestone was chosen based on it being the most suitable but I don't think this happens anymore (I think they changed around 2 million or so). Of course calling it the 4th million article is somewhat arbitary (even more so if people attempting to do it independently will get different results) but then as others have noted 4 million is also an arbitary milestone arising out of out use of the base 10 number system. As a quick note, I realised one thing that I failed to consider above is that while the large number of articles created around the time make it less likely for it to be passed twice, it's still possible because all that's needed is for an article to be deleted (or turned in to a redirect) between the milestone being passed and the next article being created. I was primarily thinking of it from a mass deletion POV where you'd likely need something exceptional. I believe the results did bear out what I was saying about a large number of articles being created. As the IP noted, only speedy deletions vetoed an article being the '4 million', so technically the 4 millionth article could have been deleted I'm not particularly sure what plans were made if this was a likely outcome, as I mentioned last time I suspect it was an unlikely possibility. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Typically Template:Main Page banner is updated to make note of the accomplishment. I see no reason to not do that this time (for maybe 24 hours).
 * Regarding which article is chosen for a milestone, it's always been a complete fabrication. The article count isn't even accurate, as there's no clear definition of what constitutes an article (disambiguation pages, stubs, etc.). Some article will be crowned based on it being created near the time when the counter reaches 4,000,000. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, there's a part of me that would prefer an article that has cleanup tags, rather than finding a good one created near the time. Readers will understand that a random article isn't going to be excellent, and when that many people see a problem, some of them will feel compelled to fix it. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what the three millionth article looked like when it was created. Decent, but certainly no masterpiece. If the four millionth does have a cleanup tag, I'm sure there will be plenty of editors who will work to fix it quickly. Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does this counter live? is it visible to all? presumably, if articles are deleted or merged, the counter is adjusted accordingly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just use . E.g . Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Special:Statistics too, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "(Bar) Stewards" and "Trans wikitrainspotters" seem to be a bit thin on the ground, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully once we pass the number with many zeros which seem to fascinate so many, we could start focusing more on substance. Fully agree with David Levy and Ghmyrtle on this. Has anybody noticed that while there are more and more articles, readers read less and less? Time spent on Wikipedia has been constantly decreasing (check out the "time on site" tab), now falling below a dismal average of 4 minutes per user. Therefore I suggest celebrating the 4,000,000th article by removing the counter from the top of the main page, and instead start paying attention to quality. -- ELEKHHT 08:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bravo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.54.104 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think we have our "killjoy of the year"-winner right here. So anyone excited about rounding four million articles by definition doesn't give a damn about article quality? Article quality is improving; more than 700 new GAs have been promoted only since the beginning of June. As for the correlation between article quality and time spent on page, I don't see it. This is rather a result of changing patterns of usage in the general population.
 * Marking a milestone like this is a good opportunity for Wikipedia to get notice in the press, which will in turn increase traffic and hopefully also attract new contributers. It's a false dichotomy to say we need to chose between quantity and quality; we can actually focus on both. Lampman (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Ryan Vesey Review me!  13:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is the 4,000,000th article?

 * Which article was the 4,000,000th? Was it Mushtum? I compared the Statistics page with the New pages page  twice and got that article. But, if there is a delay on either page, I might be wrong...  77.219.165.210 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did the same and got St Columb Major Rural District, so I'm not sure how reliable that method is. Actually, it pages are deleted, then it won't be accurate. -- W.  D.   Graham  14:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Idaho State Highway 50, I think. I got this article, using the same method, which 77.219.165.210 used. But I'm not sure too, because some atricles may be deleted, during 20-30 minutes. -- Brateevsky ( talk to me ) 14:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "OMG" - so it's already happened? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, so where's the banner? Ryan Vesey Review me!  14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah crap. I missed my chance to have something that is not Anglo-centric to be the 4 millionth. Though while I can understand the excitement for the 1 millionth, the 4 millionth was more of a meh for me, not for the reasons stated above; I like a rounder number than 4 million, like 10 million, or 5 million.
 * As for quality over quantity, I'd figure a majority of the 4 million articles aren't that shitty. A great majority of the DYKs, despite their bad rep over here, are actually well written. Not all non-FC/GA articles are bad; some just don't submit their pet articles either, for some reason or another. Personally, it's not worth it: a day on the Main Page is not worth a month of criticism, sometimes those which can not be acted upon, at WP:FAC. I'd rather push for an article at ITN as it's much, much, much easier (arguably easier than DYKs, especially if you're not writing from scratch), and it stays there for about a week, tops. You'd just have to find a suitable topic though: for example, if you're into rugby union, you can cough up an update at the Heineken Cup final article for it to be posted; now if you're into college basketball, American or otherwise, your best chance at Main Page glory is at FA or DYK. – H  T  D  14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Izbat Al Borg is what someone updated Million milestones to say. Ryan Vesey Review me!  14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The template was updated by user who created Izbat Al Borg. Isn't it a bit early to do that? I'm not necessarily saying it was Mushtum... :) Abdullais4u (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that. I'm sure WMF will pick one soon enough. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  14:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When did we get to the 4,000,000th article and how did the hard work go for it to get to our 4,000,000th article created? I am so proud and confused about this 4,000,000th article creation. We have more than 4,000,000 articles?!?!?!?!?!?!𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟 𝕁𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕟 𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣♩♪♫♬ 15:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanKyser22 (talk • contribs)

Five-million pool should be reopened should it not?♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality vs. quantity: "Why so serious?"
I can't see why this harmless celebration needs to be dampened. Providing quantity does not detract from quality -- and there's no evidence that it does -- quantity is something to be celebrated.

I think it's actually a virtuous cycle: the bigger the encyclopedia, the more important it becomes that its quality should be improved, and the better its quality, the more incentive there is to add new entries to it as the key public knowledge-base. There's not a single undifferentiated pool of biddable contributors out there, to be directed either to quality or quantity: instead, some people are quantity-focused, and others quality-focused. There's no conflict between these goals, and no reason to belittle the efforts of either.

To that end, I propose that we make the banner read as follows:

The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating more than  4,000,000  articles

Perhaps we should also make the background flash rainbow colours and have the large bold digits dance up and down using javascript.

-- The Anome (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately we have an obligation to both. Yes, quality should be more important, but our basic duty as an encyclopedia is to try to provide information about notable topics. If you solely try to focus on existing article quality you would be neglecting the many millions of notable articles which are missing. I would argue that yes, we should be focusing more on expanding existing articles on important topics abd should be aiming for at least 100,000 good articles. Like does the average reader care about a tiny mountain village of Morocco for instance if the article on Marrakesh is that bad? Would they not rather a very good article on that big city? I've always tried to split my editing time between quality writing and stubbing. Our eventual goal of course is something like 50 million featured quality articles. I think notable subjects will always be notable subjects and they must be routed out and started. But there is an argument that if the stubs contain no information as such that they are rendered useless in the meantime and greaten the task needed to improve the overall quality of wikipedia by adding to the workload. All I can say is that we are all volunteers here and whilst wikipedia is seriously under achieving in relation to potential we should still at least be proud of what we've accomplished to date. Try thinking of 4 million articles off the top of your head! The articles which I find the most enjoyable are those where I see other editors working with me and providing their own expertise and foreign language knowledge to improve them and collaboration to produce something quite impressive.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Wikipedia is a perfect example of the parable of the stone soup. Mass-generation of stubs (for example) might temporarily lower average quality, but it actually increases the total quality of the encyclopedia, both directly, because there is now something where before there was nothing, and indirectly, in that it encourages others to improve those stubs. We have seen this time and again, in many different topics. Armies of systematizers, copyeditors, data checkers, adders of images, and so on, each add their own tiny bit to stubs until eventually the article becomes sufficiently inviting to warrant serious attention, and a quality article comes into being. And once there are a few quality articles among the stubs, this invites complaints that not all the articles are quite as good, which in turn provokes quality improvement drives, and the virtuous cycle continues. Complaining about the people bringing the stone, or others bringing the wrong kind of vegetable, does not actually increase overall quality of the encyclopedia. -- The Anome (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a great achievement, fullstop. Ironic that the main detractor, David Levy has done no real mainspace expansion since complaining about quantity over quality. Easier to bitch about it, I guess!  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that I don't invest a great deal of time and effort in Wikipedia's betterment? Does the fact that I focus primarily on other namespaces make my contributions less valid?
 * I don't appreciate your characterization of my input as "bitching". I've expressed my honest opinion in good faith.  You're entitled to disagree, but there's no reason for belittlement.  —David Levy 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think that I'm "complaining" about the creation of stubs (or suggesting that it should stop), you're mistaken.
 * My belief, which I've expressed many times in the past, is that these banners are no longer necessary (because the public is aware of Wikipedia's large size) and imply that our goal is simply to accumulate as many articles as possible, without regard for their quality.
 * I'm not suggesting that the creation of new articles (including stubs) is a bad thing. I'm saying that the banner makes it seem as though it's the only thing that matters to us.
 * Why not compromise on wording along the lines of "The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles, which we invite you to improve."? That brings some balance to the message.  —David Levy 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmm do I detect an ounce of sarcasm in this?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to insult anybody either, but I happen to agree with David, as I similarly commented not too long ago at the Village pump. Am I going to benefit more from reading an article that has reasonable amount of encyclopedic material in it or from an article that merely states what the person, place, or thing is, accompanied by a pretty infobox, navbox, and some categories? I would most certainly say the former. --MuZemike 23:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal: bold, large digits for 36 hours
OK. I'm not going to make this change without at least some informal consensus here, so here goes: I propose to make the main page banner read as follows:


 * The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating more than  4,000,000  articles. Congratulations!

and suggest that we should keep it this way for 48 hours after the 4,000,000th article was created: which is I think now about another 36 hours. Any comments, for or against, welcomed. -- The Anome (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support this can only be good.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support Do you think we should link to Wikimedia UK's blog post?
 * Strong support. And is it possible to add a more noticeable background color to the banner so it sticks out more? It kind of blends into the background right now and isn't very noticeable. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming we use the exact version here, it will probably be visible. Ryan Vesey Review me!  19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Even displaying the entire sentence in bold would be preferable. Bolding just the quantity makes it seem as though we're shouting that part, thereby conveying that we care more about a big, round number than we do about thanking contributors for Wikipedia's improvement. (Well, the banner already does that, but this greatly amplifies the sentiment.) I also see no need for "congratulations" on top of the "thanks". Given the mixed opinions on the banner's very existence, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that we not make it (or the number) more prominent. —David Levy 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the bold/large-typeface quantity. I've resigned myself to the banner's presence, but can we at least not specially highlight the number?
 * Boy you're a real stick in the mud. I'm guessing you don't like New Years, birthday parties, or wedding anniversary celebrations either do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How, in your view, is the above personal attack called for (or constructive)? Is my suggestion that we simply retain the banner's current version really so objectionable to you?  —David Levy 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on dude, lighten up. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, it was more tongue in cheek. If you don't want to change the banner, fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying the intended tone. I'm sorry that I didn't detect the jocularity, which sometimes fails to come across in text.  —David Levy 23:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral, and only because I don't want to spoil everyone else's fun. Personally, I think we crossed the point where pure number of articles mattered about 3 million articles ago.  If we're going to do banners like this, I'd rather they focus on quality milestones.  5000FAs, 20,000 GA+FA and the like. Resolute 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion of the wording "The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles, which we invite you to improve."? —David Levy 23:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, keeping the more informal tone, "The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles: let's make them better!" -- with a link to the Article development page for "let's make them better!"... that would work for me. If it's OK with you too, let's go for it. -- The Anome (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles that you can help improve!"? —David Levy 00:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it. The invitation seems genuine rather than generic and it shows that the encyclopedia, as large as it is, can still be improved. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  00:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've updated the banner. —David Levy 00:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I was late to the "consensus", but from here it looks like you changed the banner from a statement of celebration for reaching the milestone, into an informational statement about how 4 million articles need to be improved. Wasn't the banner congratulating the contributors before? Is that suddenly pointless to do? Kreachure (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted for the moment. David, that kind of change would need more discussion. It fundamentally alters the emphasis in the banner from the milestone, which is the only reason for enabling the main page banner in the first place. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to display the banner in the first place. (It was discussed above, with very mixed opinions on whether it was a good idea.)  This was a compromise.  —David Levy 03:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Formal proposal". This is a "formal proposal"? Ooookkk... --  tariq abjotu  01:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal as posted, and support any of the three versions suggested by David above ("The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles: let's make them better!"). Since there hasn't been consensus for the former, maybe it would be fair to display the alternative for the same lenght of time. -- ELEKHHT 08:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Integrating all sides of the discussion
I've now attempted to integrate all sides of the discussion above, and have posted a banner which combines the following elements: Hopefully this will please everyone. Please feel free to improve this, as opposed to simply reverting it. -- The Anome (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations
 * Encouragement to write more
 * Encouragement to improve the articles we already have


 * Based on the way it is presented, I'd remove congratulations. It appears like it is directed towards the reader and not towards the editors and if I saw it as a reader I'd be confused by the congrats. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was a bit off. I've replaced it with the original "thanks" and tweaked the call to action.  —David Levy 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Anome: I want to thank you for your efforts to address everyone's concerns. It would have been easier for you simply sit back and go with the flow, but you instead decided to pursue real consensus.  I sincerely appreciate it.  —David Levy 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question now is how long it stays up for? Does anyone want to look up how long the banner was up last time it was used for this? And a 'call to action' to improve 4 million articles is a bit useless if only put up for a few days. If this can be leveraged into widespread and long-term improvement drives, good, but such improvement drives should be advertised more widely and for longer than just these milestones. Carcharoth (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Roughly a day and a half.
 * Agreed. In this instance, the goal is to avoid implying that we value quantity above all else.  —David Levy 19:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvement. -- ELEKHHT 20:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The banner now conveys all the things that people here wanted to convey, without diluting the main idea, the 4 million articles. --Kreachure (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvement. -- ELEKHHT 20:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The banner now conveys all the things that people here wanted to convey, without diluting the main idea, the 4 million articles. --Kreachure (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Harold Macmillan of where?
Harold Macmillan and his Cabinet is not identified.

It should read "...Harold Macmillan (pictured) dismissed seven members of his UK Cabinet..." tahc chat 21:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the identification of the country isn't really necessary for a DYK listing, but even if it were necessary your phrasing is horrible. --Khajidha (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * May be Harold Macmillan had a non UK cabinet as well? Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Placement of photos on Main page
It seems the placement of photos is almost always a problem on main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page I mentioned that "In the News" the main item right now is Syria, but the photo next to it is the logo of Tonga related to an article much further down. It is misleading. Either match the photo to the news item, or move the photo placement down to coincide with the item concerned (Tonga to be placed near the Crown prince's marriage news item... The same comment goes for present "On this day..." section. The main item is Sedition Act with photo of Valerie Plame. These are totally unrelated. I suggest either providing a Sedition Act-related photo, or if you want to keep Ms. Plame's photo for some reason, why not moving the photo to its related section? Just adding "pictured" in italics doesn't do. We need the page to appear balanced with photo matching the item near which it stands. werldwayd (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FAQ/Main Page —David Levy 22:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for pointing out the page where it clarifies the reason why the picture is not aligned with the news items. Now we know it has to do with other News pages we are keeping on alternative pages and moving the photo to coincide with the news item on Main will mess things up. Point taken. But why to link a front page Wikipedia to all these pages automatically and thus put us in the risk of formatting and creating problems for many other pages. In simpler terms, why can't the front page be designed independently from all the other pages it is linked to... Isn't there a possible program to avert this problem? To my mind, Main (a very visible page) should be designed independently as is, and giving us the freedom to design it properly and to remain appealing and as factual as possible and not create confusion like I feel it is doing now. Other news pages may be edited separately though remaining in sinc with priority of news we have chosen to feature on Main. If we have been able to reach people to the moon and back countless times, we can fix a simple technical programming glitch for sure of adjoining pages. Our front Main page should stay clear and not misleading as far as photos go. werldwayd (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "to the moon and back countless times". Well, I can count to six. Perhaps other people just don't see this image position issue as very important. The text always mentions the picture so it is lead misleading if you read all the news items. 67.149.234.194 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That few attempts to the moon huh? I thought they were in hundreds by now and a matter of daily tourism LOL. Well we have reached Mars and beyond... Any life on Mars though? LOL... Back to the issue. A small programming may do the trick here. It is infinitely an easier problem than putting men on the moon. For example, we keep records of a comma you placed in Wikipedia say on 3 August 2006 with the time stamp on and the edited page before you inserted the comma and the page after you inserted it. So we can get back to that useless minute detail after years. So, we can certainly find a plausible way of putting a photo near its news item. Simple right? I know "pictured" is mentioned way down. But people do not read everything. A top story has an attraction of its own and merits its own photo. If a photo cannot be provided for some reason, so be it. I'd rather see the section remain photoless rather than see a photo unrelated to the main item. We CAN survive a photoless section, but not a misleading photo. The first impression for the ordinary reader is this -- You read the first news item. But what does it have to do with the picture you are seeing stuck to it? Nothing!!! The next question, why is it there then? People do not read further down. Trust me on this. This is how people browse. When they don't get the relation between the news item and the photo, they are disenchanted just like I was... Am I being too picky? I don't know, I thought it was a valid fact to mention, since in the entire talk page now, check all the items above (so I do read then... LOL) we are talking about redesigning the Main Wikipedia page. Since we are talking about redesigning I thought it was the most opportune time to point out this idiosyncratic Wikipedia fact of not matching a news item with its relevant photo for whatever reason. werldwayd (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While this is not noted in the FAQ, I will note AFAIK, so far no one has even demonstrated that aligning the photo works properly (i.e. works on every significant browser and at a variety of resolutions without causing unwanted issues like either unalignment or whitespace). Also I don't think you understand how transclusion works, or what an alternative to the main page is. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Official Wikipedia app display
In short, you might be curious to know, the new version of the "official" Wikipedia app for iOS devices (iPod, iPhone, iPad) only displays TFA and ITN. The other sections are deliberately omitted. (I assume the same is true on Android.) If you have any comments for the developers of the mobile app, they can be directed to the feedback mailing list at mailto:mobile-feedback-l@lists.wikimedia.org.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to post this to WT:DYK and WT:OTD as well. I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd note though that since the official mobile site does the same, it shouldn't be that surprising especially since AFAIK, the same team is involved. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wimbledon
It is long past time to remove Wimbledon from the front page. It is sports, and it is more than a week over. DavidSteinle (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When a new item is added to the section the oldest item is removed. As Wimbledon is the bottom item it will be removed at the next update. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 16:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "It's sports" is not a valid reason to remove. And as above, it will be once a new item is put up there. doktorb words[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk 17:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the length of Tomorrow's Featured Article, it'll probably stay up a little longer than that. --  tariq abjotu  18:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the only reason Wimbledon is still on the main page is because of who won the singles titles. If that is the case, then that's a bad reason to keep it up there. And I'm not saying sports items can't be on the main page, but this one has lingered a little too long in my opinion. DavidSteinle (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the reason. The reason is that we are having a slow ITN week. If you don't like that, come to WP:ITN/C and nominate new articles, and update them, so we can feature them. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wording
Do you know what syntax is?

"... that Michael R. Perry was inspired to write Millennium's "The Mikado" by the "dark side" of the internet, Jennifer Ringley's JenniCam website and the Zodiac Killer?"

This sentence implies that the "dark side" of the internet *IS* "Jennifer Ringley's JenniCam website and the Zodiac Killer", not what is meant, that he was inspired by 3 separate things. Why is that on this site, on which bias and objectivity so important, people can't copy edit something read by millions in one day?

Cosprings (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understood the sentence as it was written. Did you have a suggestion on how to word it better? — howcheng  {chat} 17:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence clearly is a list of three things. 1: the "dark side" of the internet, 2: JenniCam, 3: Zodiac. If it were implying that the "dark side" was the last two items it would use a colon or em-dash to imply direct following on, not a comma which shows separation. GRAPPLE   X  18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Making "the 'dark side' of the Internet" the third item in the list rather than the first would remove the ambiguity (I also understood this the way Cosprings did). It's still pretty unclear what "the dark side" is even referring to (Goatse? Child porn? 4chan?), but I guess that's ok in such a short blurb. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the point is moot, as the DYK item has already been taken off the Main Page. — howcheng  {chat} 19:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For future reference, it would be best to avoid situations where this is interpretation is likely. I think it shouldn't have taken much to discern that the most likely interpretation is that those are three separate things (I gather the OP understood that as well), but, as Elmer said, given that what constitutes the "'dark side' of the Internet" is unclear, it is totally understandable, on first and second reading, to expect that what comes after the comma would be an explanation of that. I'm sure it doesn't help either that some people are not accustomed to the omission of the serial comma and would have difficulty coming to the correct interpretation. (For the record, I personally find the omission of serial commas irritating, although not -- of course -- to the point where I will arbitrarily add them.)


 * For Grapple, it is not clearly a list of things. Our serial comma article goes in great detail about the ambiguity presented by commas in lists such as these. While a colon (maybe) or en-dash might do better to convey what the OP initially thought, a comma is just as appropriate. For example, in the sentence "I went to the theater with my parents, Stephanie and Craig", one cannot definitively say whether my parents are Stephanie and Craig or whether I went with four people&mdash;my parents and two additional people (Stephanie and Craig). --  tariq abjotu  19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a serial comma would have helped a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The serial comma doesn't solve the last problem you mentioned though, Tariq. Removing the plural, in the sentence "I went to the theatre with my mother, Stephanie, and Craig" is this serial comma use or parenthetical comma use? Is Stephanie the parenthetical explanation of 'my mother' or is it a separate person? The biggest problem with the serial comma, aside from it conflicting with parenthetical commas (which were around first), is that it only reduces ambiguity if the reader already knows the serial comma is employed in the text they're reading. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  03:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In all these cases, rearranging the order fixes the 'problem'. "I went to the theatre with Stephanie, Craig, and my mother" and "I went to the theatre with Stephanie, Craig, and my parents" are both fine. Are there examples where the sentence is ambiguous no matter what order you put the items in? Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm capable of reading the entire article. I didn't say that serial commas always remove ambiguity. I didn't even say a serial comma would have removed ambiguity in the aforementioned DYK&mdash;as it wouldn't have. I was simply responding to Grapple's claim that the meaning was clearly a list of three things. I was pointing out, with a more basic example, that the meanings of lists with commas can be unclear. And that's what I said ("the ambiguity presented by commas in lists such as these"). I also heavily implied that we shouldn't arbitrary apply or remove serial commas, just as we shouldn't arbitrarily change between American and British English, so that clearly was not my suggestion for rectifying the issue. --  tariq abjotu  16:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On this day 16 July
In this famous story the Emperor Joseph's comment to Mozart (in translation) was: "Too beautiful for our ears, my dear Mozart, and an enormous number of notes". Not quite as reported on the page;  Mozart's reply, allegedly, was "Only as many as are needed, Your Majesty". Brianboulton (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, the emperor didn't say "too" many, it shouldn't be termed "complain", just "comment", if mentioned at all, - at least it shows that the emperor attended the performance, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We went through this discussion last year, but the gist of it is that the story as told in English uses the phrase "too many notes" (see Die Entführung aus dem Serail). Thus the blurb says "anecdotally" to indicate that that's how the story goes. — howcheng  {chat} 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Too many" is not the same as "very many" or "enormous number of". The first has a clear negative connotation. I would interpret the Emperor's remark "... gewaltig viele Noten ..." more as a kind of compliment or an expression of his respect. "Very many" is clearly the better translation and an anecdote should also be translated properly. --Furfur (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not the ones responsible for the translation (that would be original research). As the article states, the story was described as such in Bartlett's Book of Anecdotes. In the film Amadeus the story is also in this manner (I can't say about the play as I haven't seen it). And you're right in that it has a negative connotation. Again, as the article states, "the anecdote, which is often repeated, may have unfairly given the Emperor a bad reputation". — howcheng  {chat} 17:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Knowing that, is it really reasonable for Wikipedia to keep reinforcing that "unfair" misrepresentation of the Emperor's remark? Wouldn't it be possible top have a blurb that educates the reader about what was actually said instead? Since the text isn't in the July 16 article, I'm not sure where it would be changed to be better next year, though. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lesson is that "On this day" should confine itself to recording events that actually happened, and should not include non-historical anecdotes about what might have happened or been said, when the truth can never be established. Stick to the facts, and forget the trimmings. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OTD's job is to get you to the article using interesting and factually correct blurbs. And it is a fact that there is anecdote about the emperor making such a statement. — howcheng  {chat} 19:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, just because an incorrect piece of information is commonly repeated, it can now be on the main page of Wikipedia wihtout clear indication of being false? I think not! If the anecdote is mentioned, it must clearly say that it was incorrect, mistranslated or some other such wording. Lies on the main page are fortunately only allowed once every year, and it isn't õn July 16./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a ridiculous overstatement. The anecdote is not "incorrect" or "lies", it is merely unverifiable. Its presence in "On this day" gives it an undeserved aura of fact, and I'd prefer it not to be there, but I don't doubt the good faith of the editors who think otherwise. Enough said, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it was a bit of an overstatement. I didn't actually intend to call the "too many notes" thing a lie, that was only supposed to apply to the April 1 nonsense that we do have once a year. I don't doubt any good faith either, and I understand that the "too many notes" remark is the claim to fame of the whole thing. Without that, it's just a piece of music not worth mentioning in OTD. So, I accept that editors want the "too many notes" wording there. I'm just trying to argue that according to policy, we can't have it there without a modifier that highligts its (possible) incorrectness. But, I guess I failed./Coffeeshivers (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even say it's 'unverifiable'. A lot of history arguably is but it's a complicated issue and not one we have to qualify (from our POV it's what RS say that largely matter). The more important point here is probably that it isn't accepted by all scholars, possibly not even widely accepted. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela's birthday today - 18 July
isn't this worth a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.158.48 (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merely having a birthday? No, not really. If we listed famous living people's birthdays there would be a huge list every day. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 94th (pretty impressive) and you think he's just a 'famous' person? Please show some respect and don't just label him a 'famous' person. Don't you know your history? Kind of indicates to me that he should be listed to remind people, if nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.158.48 (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is he more, um, superfamous than Obama? His birthday isn't listed either. I don't think any birthday is listed. Art LaPella (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point in the lives of both men, I would definitely rank Mandela ahead of Obama, but neither should have their birthday mentioned here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To remind people of what? The fact that he was born?  Doesn't it make more sense to mention his 27-year political imprisonment, as we did on 11 February (the anniversary of his release)?
 * We also have potential Mandela items for 12 June (the anniversary of his conviction) and 27 April (the anniversary of his presidential election), which currently are ineligible due to article tags. (If the underlying issues are resolved, it's likely that one of the three items will appear each year.)  —David Levy 20:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Births and deaths are only listed on centennials. — howcheng  {chat} 02:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Media attention: main page still "ugly"
Well, we tried a while ago, but the "keep it ugly" forces won out. Sue Gardner's comments don't help, either. Tony  (talk)  03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd take exception to the "'keep it ugly' forces" remark, but Sue's comments don't make it easy.
 * While she could have worded some of her statements better, her point is valid. Reddit is a good example of a website that's thrived in spite of (in part, because of) its "ugly", bare-bones interface.  Meanwhile, competitor Digg, which was much slicker to begin with, self-destructed despite becoming fancier and more high-tech.  (That isn't the main reason why its popularity plummeted, but it did nothing to help.)
 * Here's a relevant article from Forbes.
 * I'm not saying that we shouldn't pursue a main page redesign, but we need to be careful about the direction we take. The current design, while long in the tooth, does have a certain charm.  —David Levy 03:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't; Tony is quite right. The "keep it ugly" forces did win. Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And what, in your view, motivated these editors? Malice?  Spite?
 * As noted above, I agree that we should pursue a main page redesign. But we need to work together, acknowledging and respecting each other's concerns.  An adversarial approach won't lead to consensus.  —David Levy 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What motivated them was an unwillingness to accept change, an all too pervasive attitude here. No significant change will ever occur here if it must first gain a consensus among those who oppose all change. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the adversarial approach to which I referred.
 * Has it occurred to you that editors claiming to like the current design (or elements thereof) might be telling the truth (not indiscriminately opposing all change)? I realize that you find it ugly, but is it possible that others might honestly disagree?  —David Levy 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The adversarial approach has served the English legal system very well for rather a long time now. As it has the American legal system, although not for anything like as long. Others may honestly disagree about whatever they like, but when they're wrong they're wrong, and consensus-building efforts in the face of intransigent wrong-headedness are simply a frustrating waste of time. But go ahead and try to prove me wrong, if you can. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't even begin to reason with someone declaring that others' aesthetic opinions are "wrong". —David Levy 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What you can or can't do is no concern of mine. The design of the main page ought to be handed over to a competent third-party, not endlessly debated by a load of incompetent reactionaries who will inevitably vote to keep it just as it is. Have you even bothered to look at the last time a redesign was considered, two or three years ago now I think? Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw the most recent main page redesign attempt (organized as a "competition" instead of a collaboration) collapse. In the beginning, I warned others that the approach was likely to fail (as it did during the last successful redesign process, which almost was derailed due to similar mistakes), but others disagreed.  —David Levy 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But it has to be a competition, not a collaboration. "A camel is a horse designed by a committee". Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to suggest that we should avoid competition in all forms. Ideas should compete against each other, with the best ones prevailing (as opposed to everything being thrown together in an attempt to appease everyone).  But editors must collaborate to ensure that this occurs.
 * The most recent main page redesign attempt failed because it was organized as a winner-take-all competition (with contestants creating complete designs, which were then voted on).
 * Such an approach cannot succeed. —David Levy 05:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Such an approach cannot succeed. —David Levy 05:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Such an approach cannot succeed. —David Levy 05:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The only parts that can really be changed is the "top banner" and the "other parts of Wikipedia". The five main sections (I think it was four many years back) are editor-generated content and have their own respective "departments"; there is a huge backlog of content that editors want on the front page but are constrained by space and time. I don't see how it is possible to get each "department" to cut down without getting a revolt from its respective editors. It's as simple as we can get. I think this "ugliness" is because Wikipedia looks like a wall of text when compared against other websites which has many graphics and whistles. For a start would you like each link on the navigation bar on the left to become big graphical buttons, which of course is definitely more attractive looking? - Mailer Diablo 04:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole damn thing can be changed, and needs to be changed. IIRC Tony offered a graphical option during the last round of pointless discussions on the main page design. Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, be careful not to sound as though you've come here to re-work the argument having not won your way. The Main Page is fairly established as the front door to Wikipedia, and whilst old fashioned is no more useful for it. I sympathise with your view that editors of a certain bent don't always welcome change, as I've ventured into that cul-de-sac myself. Howeverthat doesn't mean change is impossible. That said, and taking Mailer Diablo's point, Wiki is a text based project. We deal in and with words. If we go down the graphics, HTML5, Flash animations and/or images route, where do we stand in relation to the project as a whole? doktorb wordsdeeds 05:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't recall even having taken part in that "argument", so for you to accuse me of having not won my way is a bit rich. Malleus Fatuorum 05:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to induce people to defend the current design to their last breath, I can't think of a better way to do it than to accuse people who honestly like it of being part of some sort of "Keep it ugly" faction that is intentionally making Wikipedia ugly out of spite.
 * The approach you're taking here will swing consensus stronger against you than if you'd actually started paying people hard cash to disagree with you. 71.235.141.252 (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. The hard cash line was a nice touch. -U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 09:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone taken a look at TheAtlantic.com's home page? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! 71.235.141.252 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Who cares ... we're here to compete against the best, not the worst on the net. Is anyone happy with the "just-rolled-out-of-bed" look, to quote the media report? Tony   (talk)  06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, some of us like the current design. It isn't particularly modern or fancy, but it's clean, simple and functional.
 * What's your opinion of the Reddit front page? —David Levy 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * David, are you seriously suggesting the Reddit front page is "clean, simple and functional"? I know reasonable people can disagree, and often do on stylistic issues such as this, but that Reddit page is woeful and, as someone who has never really visited the site, very confusing for newcomers. Perhaps the users of Reddit like it, I don't know, but it is definitely not something that Wikipedia should emulate considering we are trying to appear as a professional encyclopedia that is easily accessible. The only website that really springs to mind as "clean, simple and functional" is Google. Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good heavens, no. That was my description of our main page.  My Reddit question relates to the separate (but related) matter of how aesthetics can impact a website's success.
 * In my opinion, Reddit's default interface is ghastly. I run a script that replaces it with a different one.
 * And yet, Reddit has prospered, overtaking its once-dominant competitor Digg (which employed cutting-edge design elements, many of which now appear to have been scaled back).
 * As users began to perceive Digg as a corporate sellout, they embraced Reddit, in part because its crude, unpolished design conveyed a contrary sensibility that they found appealing. (In actuality, Reddit is corporate-owned.)
 * Reddit is a different type of website, and I don't advocate that anyone emulate its appearance. But there is validity to Sue Gardner's comments regarding the charm of a website whose less-than-slick design reassures visitors that it isn't trying to sell them something.  —David Levy 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reddit is a different type of website, and I don't advocate that anyone emulate its appearance. But there is validity to Sue Gardner's comments regarding the charm of a website whose less-than-slick design reassures visitors that it isn't trying to sell them something.  —David Levy 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reddit is a different type of website, and I don't advocate that anyone emulate its appearance. But there is validity to Sue Gardner's comments regarding the charm of a website whose less-than-slick design reassures visitors that it isn't trying to sell them something.  —David Levy 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tony, what kinds of thing do you want on the front page? Animations? Scrolling text? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That article specifically mentions Facebook and twitter, both of those sites (And many other commercial sites) are specifically designed to be distracting. Why-ever the user came to the site, the site design wants to distract you. Both to draw you into the sponsored content, and outright ads, but also to engage you with content that does well in social media, like photo galleries and such.
 * Those goals aren't really Wikipedia's goals. To ape those commercial sites would be stupid and counter-productive.
 * (That's not to say the main-page couldn't be streamlined a little or even redesigned, but a straightforward functional look is absolutely not something to be ashamed of.) APL (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Who's suggesting the aping of that appalling Reddit page? And when you say "some of us like the current page", David, what you really mean is "I and a few of my supporters like it". Tony   (talk)  08:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have supporters? —David Levy 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is curious, the article has hit slashdot, and at last check, had 263 comments, most of which are in favor of leaving things alone. As for my opinion, the Main Page could use a fresh coat of paint, but we don't quite need to tear down the walls or move plumbing fixtures. In other words, we could freshen things up a bit, but we don't nee to radically overhaul it.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just don't see a reason for it to change, it is not complicated75.73.114.111 (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note despite some suggestions above about a 'keep it ugly' (more accurately I expect a 'don't fix if it ain't broken faction'), I'm not actually convinced there is majority let alone consensus to those who want to keep the main page as is. The issue isn't the strength of numbers or argument or will on the part of those who don't want it to change, but rather that a large number of people, while not opposed to changing the main page, as also opposed to change for the sake of change or change which doesn't make things better (in their opinions) and do believe making substanial changes to the main page should not be something done willy nilly. In other words, one of the key problems is that while people may want change, they've not been convinced by anything they've seen. I agree somewhat with David Levy that the process previously attempted didn't help. It may be possible there is a technical stalemate, e.g. some people want change in one direction, some in the opposite direction and neither will accept change if they don't get the way but I'm far from convinced even this is a problem. As with others, I do agree comments like MF's are more likely to alienate then anything else although I'd like to believe most wikipedians are mature enough that it they will only let it affect their opinion of MF and perhaps engage with him/her when not absolutely necessary rather then their support for any putative redesign. with all this in mind, I do agree with what's been noted below, any redesign will need someone who's looked in the history and learnt from the mistakes, who's also patient and knows how to work constructively with a variety of temperaments who is willing to work on it for the long period of time the redesign is likely to take and is fully aware and accepting of the fact it's always possible it will be for naught. The fact that it's likely to be a very ardous process is likely one of the reasons we've never got anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would wholly be in support of significant changes, but after being around during the last such proposal, Parkinson's Law of Triviality comes into mind; just replace "bike shed" with "Main Page". --MuZemike 23:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Redesign competition
We should run a competition where high profile web design companies can submit designs for English Wikipedia front page, obviously requiring that these designs be licensed CC-BY-SA, and let the readers vote on which one they like the most (and include the current design as an option). John Vandenberg (chat) 08:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A/B testing would be a good approach. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A/B testing: yes, please! :) This is actually not about "ugly" versus "pretty" (totally subjective terms, obviously) but "useful" and "not useful." If we collect some high-level data on this page (even for just a day or two) and see that, for example, readers are clicking on the article of the day and a couple other prominent links, but no one is touching anything else with a ten-foot pole, we'd be able to have a productive, data-driven conversation about what needs to be added, removed, or made more/less prominent. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "bland" is a rather more suitable word. The problem is that the diversity of opinion on what would constitute a more attractive main page is an excuse to keep it as it is. I have proposed that a graphics package is introduced where you can also design your own skin as most of them are also really bland. The writer of that article is very right though that useability and aesthetics are extremely important in attracting people, and a change has been long overdue. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 3 points to make:
 * This (I'm assuming) is a spin-off of a conversation that I started on Jimbo's talk page, so it would be useful for everyone here to take into account what people have been saying there.
 * I totally agree with us getting web design companies to design things for us to actually see and judge. I just don't get why people think the current format is ugly at all. On the contrary, I think it is very slick and aesthetically beautiful. I am very intrigued to what people think this "better" version of Wikipedia would look like. What is actually *so* bad about the currect version and what would be so much better about the new version?
 * Just found this: it could be useful to this discussion.--Coin945 (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd keep it ugly but functional. It might be instructive to take a look at the saga of Digg vs. Reddit: Digg went through numerous professional and stylish redesigns, but slowly alienated their userbase in doing so; Reddit stayed ugly but functional, kept its users' loyalty, and prevailed -- and how! -- The Anome (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I've just read my way proplerly through the material above, and discovered (a) these points have already been discussed above, and (b) I'm largely in agreement with Sue. If it works, don't fix it. -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Digg, they redesigned the entire site, and it was buggy. The vector skin was our 'site redesign'; there was no mass exodus, as it was minimal and mostly without bugs.  The biggest problem with the Vector skin was the design flaw to hide interwiki links and, after the community got out pitchforks, the Vector team removed this 'feature'. OTOH, we build the front page for the readers.  We jam it full of content, and our readers love it enough to keep coming back day after day, and clicking on the links we place on the front page.  Anyone attempting to redesign our front page needs to have a very good appreciation of what the readers want from the front page.  It wouldn't surprise me if our readers preferred the current main page design over new designs.  However web designers and our readers would really enjoy the opportunity to participate in designing and rating front page redesigns.  We can make it fun, and it will give us good data on what the readers think of our current front page. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ms Gardner is quoted at Coin's linked news report as saying that: Wikipedia has always been kind of a homely, awkward, handcrafted looking site. It’s not a pretty site. I don’t think you’d use the word flashy. It’s clearly not at all designed by marketing people. I think that kind of homeliness at the visual layer for readers is part of its awkward charm. It is clearly not trying to sell you something… It’s not employing mad patterns to encourage people to stick around for financial reasons because we’re monetizing their eyeballs. So there’s an element of that I think readers find charming.

What I find embarrassing is her assumption of simple opposites: you're either homely, awkward handcrafted-looking, and unpretty, or you're "flashy", "trying to sell ... something", or "employing mad patterns for financial reasons". And people above saying "keep it ugly but functional". Does anyone buy this conception of extreme opposites with nothing more nuanced in the middle ... that you can't be cool and authoritative at the same time? Why can't Wikipedia market itself not for financial reasons but for all of its mission goals? Why can't the front door look attractive and classy to make people want to hang around to get access to the world's classiest, most neutral, non-commerical, high-quality information site ... the one you can trust—rather than to "monetize their eyeballs"? At the moment Ms Gardner's awkward, homely look is a nerdy turn-off to much of our demographic target (i.e., everyone).

This design is tired by now; it was slapped together as the result of a whole lot of compromises some six years ago. The net has moved on since. A good-looking front page would reflect the professional standards of the project, and beckon visitors into the tree of knowledge behind the page. And I was thinking of epithets other than "flashy", actually. It's just basic that you don't squash so much text into a net page, and that you use images and white space more strategically. I like John V's idea of talking to design professionals, who would give their eye-teeth to boast they'd won our main-page design competition (pro bono).

So the surprising thing about Wikipedia is that it can use modern techniques of attractive design without being commercial: this is what non-commercial state broadcasters such as the BBC, the ABC, and NHK usen't to do, but now do, not to mention many non-commercial websites. Tony  (talk)  15:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with holding a design contest, but I wouldn't limit it to design professionals. And I'd definitely suggest that we should remember the lessons of Reddit vs. Digg, and also the 2011 Gawker redesign: I'd invite incremental improvement, as opposed to a total redesign. Take a look at the new Wikidata logo for what can be achieved by open competition. And we should still feed the winning entry through the mincer of our community process. Sorry, design professionals, but what works, works. -- The Anome (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's only one truly relevant part of that story about how supposedly ugly Wikipedia is. The story veers off to a discussion on the UI that is used for editing. It is clunky and cumbersome. It is indisputable. So if any effort is to be spent, it should be on the backend UI mostly.
 * If you have an iPhone or iPad (works on Windows also), you will see that Safari has a 'reader' mode that lets you see a simplified version of a page. I find this to be very elegant and attractive. So the idea that achieving an attractive site means we need to overhaul a lot of Wikipedia is silly. The writer of the 'ugly' article seems torn between focusing on attractive pages versus what the UI for editing is like. If a browser can remove information and create a more attractive page, then it seems as if maybe Wikipedia is actually trying too hard. Let the user's browser define an interface and keep Wikipedia clean and simple. But for the editing side of things, the point is a reasonable one -- not a great point however. In the 'ugly' article, she decries that non-geeks can't edit Wikipedia easily, but while I think the editing interface sucks, I don't think it is bad to have a threshold of competence. The idea that anyone can edit Wikipedia is egalitarian, but while anyone can edit, the question still remains whether *anyone* can edit it well.
 * Work on the backend. Make the front end simpler. There's nothing wrong with a gridded layout. This is an encyclopedia, not a art house magazine. Her quote "The disregard for mind-calming images!" is practically nonsense. People come to Wikipedia to look up something about beetles or aluminum or the history of bow ties, not to be mind-calmed or de-gridded. My impression of the writer at the Atlantic, which incidentally has a very gridded and blog-esque look to its website, is that she doesn't quite know whether she's complaining about how people edit from a technical standpoint or whether she's complaining it is just a simple design. She offers no alternatives to the basic article style of Header, Summary, ToC, and Body (sprinkled with images). The Atlantic website uses a serif font for the body unlike Wikipedia with its san-serif default. Is that the key? Add a few serifs and Wikipedia is a whole new beast? Anyway, much ado about very little, in my opinion.
 * Work on the backend. Like this discussion page. It is difficult to separate and follow discussions. Work on the backend. The edit interface doesn't need a zillion choices for most users. Entering text, bolding, italicizing, that's enough for most edits. Adding an image is far more difficult than it ought to be. -- Avanu (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Design competitions are a bad idea (see http://www.no-spec.com/about/ for the designers take). Design is a process not a one shot activity. That isn't exactly conductive to trying to design things via contests.©Geni 19:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what is being proposed is (or should be) a hybrid of design process and testing. With a widespread community vote at the end of the process based on a shortlist produced during the design process. That is sort of what happened in 2006. And I agree, it is well past time something was done to freshen things up - though I would probably oppose too slick a design as some seem to be pushing for. Does anyone want to flesh out a more detailed proposal, and should it be at the old design process pages, or a new set of pages started afresh? If new pages are started, do include links to the two previous design processes (both the one that succeeded and the one that crashed and burned). Carcharoth (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started a draft at 2012_main_page_redesign_proposal. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 03:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica design looks quite classy. That kind of rendering in midnight blue, grey and gold and white. It doesn't have to be vibrant or the slickest main page design ever, just something which looks more professional and "encyclopedic" appropriate.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

CSS and templates only?
Perhaps we should run a design competition where designers are only allowed to change the contents of CSS and templates, with everything else unchanged. That would leave the "soul" of the currrent design unchanged, while giving them free rein to change margins, fonts, colour schemes etc. to their hearts' delight. -- The Anome (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is the only way forward in the short term. How else could you significantly change the aesthetics without altering the balance of content? History shows that you have to do that to a large extent, otherwise the resulting opposition will almost certainly sink the proposal. —WFC— 16:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think redesigns should be required to include all of the content elements that are part of the current front page. To do good A/B testing on the design, the content on the page should be identical.  Also, none of our front page content selection process should be interrupted or complicated during the competition.  However the designs should be given the ability to change the structure of the front page (e.g. let them do something really dumb like place the featured article on the right instead of the left).  Dumb designs will be voted down quickly, and we should disable a proposed design that is performing very badly. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hindustan Times article about the needed makeover here. Somehow Sue is under the belief that the more amateurish looking the website, the more trustworthy it looks. Strange outlook. Andsurely a glossy slick looking wikipedia can exist without it being commercial LOL. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it is not a Hindustan Times article but rather an AFP news item and makes valid points. It's nice to see AFP is interested this way in Wikipedia! Of course small subtle changes rather than drastic ones is the way to go so that the changes are introduced without much fuss and opposition. Of course a big redesign will make headlines, but will created great opposition as well. werldwayd (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one to notice that the AFP article doesn't actually have much to do with the primary focus of this discussion? Unless I missed something in the long discussion, it primarily concerns changing the main page. The AFP article doesn't discuss the main page at all, while it discussed design and look, it primarily relates to the user interface and ability of people to collaborate and contribute. As noted above, the last major change here was with the Vector skin as part of the foundation's usability initiative (coming from a targeted donation I believe). (While I never really agreed with the criticism, the vector skin and process followed was somewhat more controversial then JV suggested above IMO.) I believe the usability initiative also did some some work on image uploading. There are of course frequent discussions about the other things discussed in the AFP article, editor retention, friendliness of the environment etc. In any case, my main point is that it's unclear that the main page was really much, if any, consideration in what the AFP is discussing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Some history
According to FAQ/Main Page:"There are periodic attempts to revamp the look of the Main Page. A community effort in December 2004 to redesign the Main Page and key pages linked from it may be found here. The current design was implemented in March 2006 after several months of discussion and input from the community organized by the Usability WikiProject. The last major attempt to redesign the Main Page began in July 2008 and can be found here. A number of proposals were submitted, but after several months neither one of them attained consensus within the Wikipedia community, and so the March 2006 design remains.  The last major discussion about the future layout of the Main Page occurred in mid-2011 and can be found here. There was some agreement by the Wikipedia community that the Main Page needs to be modified at least to some degree, but the community still has not attained consensus on the specific changes. For a look at the Main Page on 28 February 2001, see the Internet Wayback Machine archive. For a range of choices, ranging from those past formats to designs created by users, see Main Page alternatives." The discussion in 2006 was mainly here (and in the associated archives). Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How about getting some data first?
Before we jump into speculating on what is and isn't working in the current main page design, why not get some concrete numbers on current clicks and impressions from readers and editors? We have the technology(tm) :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dropping this here because I don't see a better place to put it, and because Maryana asked me to share this comment here after I made it to her on IRC. Feel free to shift this if it fits better somewhere else: As far as a wishlist for the Main Page, I'd love to see the "Help Out" content from the currently almost-entirely-ignored Community Portal page worked into the Main Page if it's redesigned. "Here's how you can help and here are some specific tasks that need doing!" is more welcoming in my mind than "Here's our best/most noteworthy content, which, by the way, probably neither needs nor wants your help, and we might beat you up if you do the wrong thing to it!" to people who are readers and may want to become editors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! Introducing the community should be an item in the main page. Chico Venancio (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We also have the Community portal that's nominally supposed to do that (and gets 10,000 pageviews a day!), but isn't doing that effectively right now. I'm interested in seeing both of these pages cleaned up and streamlined, but I'd like to know what audience/purpose they're intended to serve, and I think data from current reader usage would help clarify that a lot. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Could it be incorporated or done in parallel with 2012 main page redesign proposal? Maybe mention this at the talk page there? Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)