This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | → | Archive 200 |
Just a pointer. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Entertainment twaddle on the Main Page. Sca ( talk) 13:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Sca: Since you reverted my close, I suggest you clarify what your question or suggestion is. As it is, this discussion is useless. I would also point you to the more appropriate venues for commenting on TFA or reporting errors on the main page, but I suspect you already know about them. Isa ( talk) 15:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, the Great Stan Lee recently passed away, yet is not featured in the recently deceased category.
American comic book creator Stan Lee dies at the age of 95.; we're not disrespecting him by not including him in Recent Deaths, we're considering him so important that his death warrants the honor of being included in the main In The News section above the fold. ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The picture of ARA San Juan says it was taken in 2017 but it was actually took in 2007.-- BugWarp ( talk) 00:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the content of the main page cut off at ITN (i.e. DYK, OTD and anything else below does not display) using a phone's native browser? Is this intentional? I run the latest Firefox on mobile and iOS on iPhone. MER-C 19:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please remove poor photo from header. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Someone might want to remove Goatse, I think a Sysop's account got hacked^^ Seelentau ( talk) 19:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
REMOVE THE ANAL PHOTO FROM WIKIPEDIA MAIN IMMEDIATELY....IT'S ATROCIOUS.
It's curious that the edit was made by an admin. Hakken ( talk) 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
is this a technical issue, a mistake, or vandalism? 🌸 WeegaweeK ^ 🌸 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Did you know...that the French submarine Amazone was named after a mythological tribe of women warriors?
...Amazon? Ya think?
Goatse there was a positive edit, compared to this. Qwirkle ( talk) 03:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, heck, dyk there was a whole bunch of stuff named after those mystical ladies, including a bunch of other boats! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 19:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Grrr ... everyone else has already cracked all the good jokes I thought of. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to make a donation to your site by cash in stead of using all the cards.
Also the detail of the donation to your site should be published and visible somewhere in your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 ( talk) 02:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your information about donation. I live in Australia and I couldn't find the bank detail for me to transfer money to your site from the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 ( talk) 01:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No consensus. See no agreement below to move this out of templatespace, and there is some apprehension about possible technical issues. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may find rebuttals to those apprehensions and come back in a few weeks to try to garner consensus for the rename. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
– Not a subtemplate of {{ Main Page}} (a redirect to {{ Main Page toolbox}}), but instead of the actual main page. Main-page-related cruft tends to get put in Wikipedia namespace, so the CSS page should go there too. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 01:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★ Chat -- 14:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I have already contributed money to Wikipedia, several days ago. Can you please take off the solicitation message that's plastered on my Wikipedia front page every day? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4400:C2A9:1D1C:51E9:CFBB:F5AC ( talk) 17:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that needs clarification. AFAIK if you donate via the online donation page, a cookie is supposed to be set which will suppress the banner for I think 1 week, the same as if you click on the close/x to dismiss the banner. Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 December 15#Do the annoying pop-ups to donate go away if I make a donation? Visiting this page whether or not you donated should I think have the same effect https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thank_You although as said you can also simply click the close/x to dismiss the banner.
In any case it definitely should be possible for the WMF to design the donation process to set such a cookie, and also to allow people to set such a cookie via some button when the banner is displayed. 1 week is also a fairly arbitrary time frame, I'm pretty sure there is nothing stopping a longer cookie being uses other than the WMF's internal policies and any interact with any local law the WMF is trying to comply with. (And I'm doubtful that local law will prevent a 3 month cookie being used provided there is adequately disclosure.) And it is of course possible for the WMF to do things different depending on whether the cookie is coming from the close button or after a possible donation so even if they want to make the close only 1 week, they don't have to make the 'donated' cookie only last 1 week.
However this is not the right place to discuss if you disagree with the length. Your best bet is probably simply to contact the WMF directly. While it's doubtful that a single message will make a difference, it's possible if enough people say it should be extended they will change their mind. You could also try a RFC somewhere suitable although I'm not sure if that will necessarily work better than individual contacts.
Now if you are seeing the banner every day and have donated or closed it then I think there's something wrong. If you've cleared your cookies or are using a browser which doesn't store them upon restarts or regular clears them or you keep using different browsers (whether on the same computer or different computers/devices) then that explain the problem, cookies need to be used to store such settings as with the rest of the web. However it will be no different with logins. You will need to login each time your cookies are cleared or you change browser and logging in will actually probably be more difficult than suppressing the banner. (Albeit potentially lasting up to 365 days instead of only 1 week if you don't lose your cookies.) If you're using the same browser (on the same device of course) and you're sure you haven't cleared your cookies and your browser isn't doing it for you and you're still regularly seeing them more than once a week after either donating or clicking the close, then I think the foundation may be interested in hearing from you to work out what is going wrong.
BTW, from what I can tell the big donation banner on mobile is only supposed to show once possibly for the whole campaign regardless of what you do. See Meta:Talk:Fundraising/2018-19 Fundraising ideas#Design. That is somewhat outdated so it's possible the precise timeframe has changed but definitely if you're seeing that banner very regularly and again assuming you aren't clearing your cookies or using a different browser, the WMF may want to hear from you.
I have been on Wikipedia for 14 years now, and I have always accepted the yearly fundraiser as part of what keeps the lights on. But at this point, I must say that Wikimedia seems to have become dominated by rent-seeking. I had to look for the financial report [1] in order to verify the claim that "CHF 4 is all it takes to keep Wikimedia thriving". Is this correct? It turns out that Wikimedia's assets have increased from USD 120M to USD 145M in the year 2017/8. So clearly the fundraising is going well. It has never been the project's purpose to keep nine figure stashes of cash around. Expenses are of the order of 81M per year, so Wikipedia could keep going for the next two years without raising another dollar. Out of 81M expenses, only 2.3M go towards hosting. The hosting and bandwidth cost used to be the main concern of the project in the early years. Today, this is just a financial detail, of the order of 3% of total expenses. 38 million dollars are wages and salaries. 9.7 million go towards fund-raising (i.e. 11% of the funds raised is consumed by the fund-raising itself). Fair enough.
But 61 million go towards "programs". Wikimedia lists three categories of these:
People imagine they contribute to (1), when an unknown fraction of their donation goes to (2) and (3). (2) and (3) is what I mean by rent-seeking, this is about activists spending the foundation's money in order to turn Wikipedia into what they think it should become rather than paying for the bill it accrues by being that it is.
The "activism" part of the foundation urgently needs to become operationally divided from the the technological part, or I will not be able in good conscience to recommend to anyone that they contribute money to the fundation. This also goes for "earmarked" contributions, as obviously such contributions will just lead to a different distribution of such funds as are not earmarked. I am a bit appalled to see what has become of the idealistic project I joined back in 2004. Looking at the USD 140M Wikimedia has on the side, I actually think it would be good for the project if money became so scarce that we run into the occasional server overload, as used to be the case i the early years, so that the money spent on activism will have to be seriously weighed against the necessity of spending money on the project of running an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. -- dab (𒁳) 14:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
How to insert quetions in order to get answers right away. Edwin Rhyms ( talk) 05:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have heard and read a lot of publishings on wikipedia and now decided to sign up and dive into this act of article writing and publishing but I felt like I am in the deepest strange environment where I can not even figure put my current position in on this whole thing. So I decided to write this and draw people's attendtion to my aid so that I can actually learn more on where and how to start making my time here more fruitful.🙂 Mistar Onpoint ( talk) 17:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
As I have written in my User Page, there is a genuine requirement for a Sister Project
WikiDerivations on
Ab Initio Derivations on Pure Sciences, particularly, physics. From the
First principles.
Using
Ockham's Razor as a strict guideline. Then, layer by layer, generalising and advancing further.
But simplest at the very beginning. Nothing more than what is absolutely necessary.
A sub-site, Wikipedia Derivations, or as an aside with an appropriate link, and then an ever-growing list of derivations contributed by community members. Posters themselves. Anyone competent to contribute. Edited. Simplified further. With minimum descriptive words on that particular derivation's page. To be used as an Online Learning Aid.
To effectively end the monopoly of organised educational institutions on the greatest achievements of the Human Minds. Let the society enjoy the beauty of the interweaving of logic, analysis and experimental data, without the threats of memorisation and faithful reproduction in exams. Freedom from the need to buy generally expensive textbooks.
I waited for a long time, hoping that eventually, Wikipedia would stumble on to this simple idea. 10 years have passed by, but Wikipedia did not. So the time is ripe for me to post this idea.
Subject to approval, I could begin posting derivations.
Bkpsusmitaa (
talk)
02:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The picture has been there for 'a few days' - is there anything it could be changed to? Jackiespeel ( talk) 00:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please stop protecting pages indefinitely. The wiki must be kept clean from protection. Anthony E. Lahmann ( talk) 03:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why does the summary of the Apollo 8 article use that awkward and jarring word 'crewed', when the article itself currently uses 'manned'? Could this be changed to accurately reflect the article? Thanks./ 86.156.221.64 ( talk) 15:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Have to say for the first time I love the main page pictures, which is not one but three pics of birds. [Tfd, Dyk, Tfp]. and like Peter Griffin once said *A well a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word* --
–
HonorTheKing (
talk)
07:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we can swap out the current ITN image with the newer File:Ultima thule color.png? Eman 235/ talk 20:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
As I've said before my personal preference would be to abolish the main page in its current form, but assuming that's not going to happen this side of the year 2525.... When is the last time such a proposal was made? I think it would be much wiser to refer people to useful things like the "definitive" RS/N list of reliable sources (of the moment), the disclaimers, how to guides, etc. rather than to the newest blind amphibian that someone clever has decided to name after a president, or to the latest in the continuing saga of John Oliver's promotion of his jockstrap meme [2]. I would love to read what has been written about the subject of modernizing the mainpage. (I'm going to take this page off my watchlist soon though because it buries everything else, so if you do have some links to previous proposals if you would ping me I'd very much appreciate it. ) Cheers, & happy new year to all the spiel-checkers out there. SashiRolls t · c 13:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Question: Has anyone noticed how the daily Featured Article attracts a storm of editors who determine to add even more information to an already bulky and adequate article? Obviously, this is because the daily Featured Article attracts a lot of attention due to it's front-page setting. It seems almost paradoxical that a Featured Article (which by definition is already a terrific and comprehensive article) would be displayed in such a way as to attract the unnecessary attention of editors who then further meddle in an already top rate article. This process contributes to the discrepancy where a small number of comprehensive articles get all the attention whilst the stubs stagnate.
Solution: A daily stub article on the front page alongside (or perhaps replacing) the Featured Article. C. J. T. T. Wilson ( talk) 19:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The front page design is fine. It is along with the logo the most iconic part of Wikipedia and should never be redesigned unless WMF requests it Abote2 ( talk) 13:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with technical changes as long as it looks the same or very similar or at least a option existed to use the old one it would be fine Abote2 ( talk) 15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Any "redesign" of the Main Page needs to start from the very beginning. Forget everything you know about what is or has been on the Main Page. Ask what the purpose of the Main Page should be. Once that is decided, determine what to put on it to meet that purpose. EVERYTHING on it should be expressly decided on. NOTHING should be assumed to be part of this new design. -- Khajidha ( talk) 17:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Pres. Rodrigo Duterte signed a decleration to celebrate the sesquicentennial birth anniversary of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo. It will celebrating on March 22, 2019. Aguinaldo is the First President of the Republic of the Philippines. He founded the Armed Forces, declared the Independence of the Philippines, and formally declared the First Independent Republic of Asia. He was born on March 22, 1869 at Kawit, Cavite, Captaincy General of the Philippines. Goy30 ( talk) 10:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The Armenian Wikipedia ( Հայերեն) now has over 250 000 articles; should we not list it as such? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia is widely read in India and is therefore becoming a battleground for the upcoming elections of May 2019. Just read the article “Amethi” (Rahul Gandhi’s constituency). It has North Korean style superlatives about Rahul and his family. Just like the Kim’s they make it sound much better than reality and paint a picture that the public should be grateful to them. Blackdog1304 ( talk) 03:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I cropped this image shortly before its appearance on the main page. Another editor objected, so I've self-reverted and inserted the talk page exchange below to solicit additional comments (potentially applicable to other animal photographs in the future). Pinging its participants, Yoninah and EEng. — David Levy 02:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in photography class I learned that it's okay to show part of a human body (like a head-and-shoulders shot), but you always have to show the whole body of an animal, because otherwise it looks weird. Sorry to say, but this crop looks weird. Yoninah ( talk) 00:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
We Afghan citizen need Afghanistan national language in Wikipedia maximum 70 million people speak Pushto in Afghanistan and inside Pakistan KhalidStanikzaii ( talk) 00:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that all Youtubera with like 100K onwards should have their own Wikipedia pages. We could get many people to work on it. Adrian Malhiers ( talk) 18:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The design, layout and general style don't look modern. Seems like it stopped in time. I don't mean to brag, but we at the portuguese wikipedia have a much better looking main page. Do you think we should work on this idea? Bageense ( talk) 17:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
(reset) My impression is - there are far more 'please resolve this glitch/divergence between MP listing and article'/'why is X not on ITN' comments and similar than indications for a general desire for change: and most of the changes suggested appear to be little more than personal taste (I myself would prefer slightly stronger borders around the different sections) - and do not link to a wiki elsewhere in the wikiverse that use the said layout.
If there were a significant redesign of the MP 'within a matter of days' there would be new revisions suggested - and/or "several archives pages' worth" of 'why have you ruined WP' complaints.
The main issue is: the MP was 'cutting edge' and is now seen as 'dowdy/(negative) old fashioned' - and at some point in the future will become 'why do these (people) wish to wreck our well-loved, long-established MP?' Jackiespeel ( talk) 12:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this is probably the oddest of the features of the current main page: Our mobile version leaves out significant parts of the content. Since mobile versions aren't just used on mobile (they're the default for tablets, for example) this seems, at best, weird, and, at worst, like a problem that's going to get far worse over time. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 12:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This may be just a problem of today's version, but I cannot help noticing that the Main Page is very grim. All In the news blurbs are about death: terrorist attacks and an accident. The featured article is war-related. 3 out of 8 hooks in DYK are about violence: the Holocaust, a war, and a drug cartel standoff. All On this day blurbs are about violence: an assassination, warfare, a serial killer, and a terrorist attack. And just when I was about to catch a breath looking at Today's featured picture, I read in the text next to it that this guy too was murdered. Surely violence is not all that has ever happened and not all that is happening now, right? Surtsicna ( talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say something about this if no one else had, but I do think that we may, for the first time ever (or at least to my recollection) have an ITN that consists solely of mass-fatality events. The death toll for four items totals 210, for an average of 52.5 per entry, and several entries say that is likely to rise.
Couldn't we at least have found some dictator's sham re-election to break them up?
Maybe it's just the mid-Northern Hemisphere winter blahs manifesting themselves, though.
Daniel Case (
talk)
23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
A week later and the main page (the news section at least) is still jammed full of death and disaster. Apophenia what? 107.77.237.181 ( talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
off the main page -- Jayron 32 13:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
whether or not this the right section for general comments: shocked in a way, subject for Main Page - why publicity for a pathetic terrorist - & here not in passing, part of a historical item, but details of his life - frankly who cares, the less said the better, such people should be forgotten, erased from public consciousness; this article just adds to his notoriety. Thank you; God Bless America; JS Quebec Jasheco ( talk) 13:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not a debate about censoring, neither did anyone suggest there be no article of this man. Indeed, it is good that there exists a good, solid, neutral article on this and any other contentious, political and moral topic. This should be a debate about if this person needs to be featured on the front page of one of the world's top websites. Nobody is saying that is promotion. Merely, it may be misconstrued as a promotion, and, very easily, to be featured on the front page of Wikipedia may for some individual be seen as a goal in itself. Such policy is thus hazardous. Not submitting an article to the front page is really not censorship. Eykeklos Omnia ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Encyclopedias for Deletion: the European Union has proposed legislation which would interfere with the ability of Wikipedia to continue on the internet. Please act today:
https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/ Thank you. |
Regarding [4] please display https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/ prominently as a noticebox warning as above for readers in Europe. Thank you. EllenCT ( talk) 04:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please direct further discussion to the WP:VPR thread. EllenCT ( talk) 05:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed the same news article for about 3 days now with no changes. Is there a glitch? https://imgur.com/a/KklqWg4 -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please I want to know how to add a news story and article on Wikipedia news blog Edyreuben ( talk) 08:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we use the non animated image on the Main Page rather then the animated one shown on the article? I am not complaining just interested in why it is not animated on the Main Page. Abote2 ( talk) 16:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether {{ *mp}}, a now-deprecated template that used to be used in ITN/DYK/OTD and which was deleted once and then undeleted (by me), should be deleted again. Your input at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Template:*mp is requested. — howcheng { chat} 01:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is about to be the main page article next month. There is a huge internet controversy regarding her and Rotten Tomatoes happing now which is not covered in the article. So, it shouldn't but put up as is. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes I know they have been there forever but I propose we remove the 8+1 Portal links from the top corner. A failed experiment automated creation and updating has gone quite off the rails. Simply put the quality if Portals which use content oulled automatically from elsewhere is not giving a very high quality of experience.
Currently 2 of the 8 Master portals are broken ( Portal:History and Portal:Geography, returning Red Error messages. Some awesome editors put sserious effort into hunting and fixing even the slightest error on articles linked from the mainpage but here the most prominate link spots are to busted automated portals. We have no way of knowing when or if these errors will crop up and evidently no one is watching them. I only stumbled on them when I noticed Portal:English language was busted and User:Moxy suggested we check the top 8 portals. Legacypac ( talk) 03:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
How close in time will be 'the end of everything' and 'everybody being completely satisfied with the Wikipedia Main Page'? Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't the Amina Gerba DYK seem overtly promotional? "that Amina Gerba's (pictured) beauty-care companies hire and give a portion of profits to the 2,000 women of the Songtaaba Cooperative in Burkina Faso?" It's literally saying "this woman's company donates profits to charity." I... don't see how it teaches people any useful and just seems to give her free PR. Isn't promoting (or at least giving high visibility) to a for-profit company's charitable efforts essentially promoting the for-profit aspect of the company? WP is based upon neutrality and not promoting business. I really do not like this, honestly. Does anyone else see what I'm seeing? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the main font color on the main page is black, whereas the standard article text color is #222 (very dark gray). For consistency and ease of reading (eye strain, contrast, etc) we should change the main font color to #222 as well. Thoughts? Enterprisey ( talk!) 22:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday and
Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is really a bit of a trifle, but the OTD section headers in both of the above pages contain ellipses that should be removed, to match a similar edit on the actual Main Page. Also, the Yesterday page's OTD header could be changed to "On the previous day", to better correspond with the Tomorrow page's header. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Any reason why the Annunciation isn't mentioned alongside Bengali Genocide Remembrance Day? The Annunciation is an important date in the Catholic calendar that's been celebrated for centuries and occurs on 25 March. Just askin'. Bermicourt ( talk) 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
many car's down in flood Mamad-Baloch97 ( talk) 15:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Look! A giant banner with a ridiculously disgusting punctuation error!
Screenshot. "Hi reader in Ukraine," - the vocative case is only marked with one comma!
If I understand it correctly, Wikipedia can't do anything about this banner, but it still exists right at the top of the Main Page! This shame should be corrected asap. Because this is worse than any ad.--
Adûnâi (
talk)
17:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Four gloomy entries - I know it is in the nature of ITN, but ... Jackiespeel ( talk) 20:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Alas, much of the world in which we live is often a grim place, and unpleasant events tend to be newsworthy. We're not here to whitewash reality. – Sca ( talk) 20:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have an idea of how often the Main Page fails to display the results of a component change if the admin fails to purge, or why it would fail? (Is it perhaps related to the job queue?) I don't too often modify components and have never thought to look at the Main Page to see the results of making an edit without purging, except after purging. Nyttend ( talk) 11:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like I could edit the TFA, POTD, and FL entries (blurbs) at the moment. Shouldn't these be protected? Jmar67 ( talk) 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This page is transcluded in multiple cascade-protected pages, therefore only administrators can edit it.warning at the top, and the third correctly brings up the edit window with the editnotice and the eleven-way cascade protection correctly shown. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
How do I PERMANENTLY disable your extremely annoying pop-up page preview? I am sick and tired of blocking it. Why cant there be a simple way to PERMANENTLY remove this annoying "feature"? 90.29.109.229 ( talk) 19:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday and
Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I brought up something else related to these pages some time ago, but I've also realised that their layout and syntax differ quite significantly from the Main Page: for example, they make much use of tables, whereas the Main Page uses HTML code to achieve the same outcome. Perhaps they haven't been updated to match occasional changes to the Main Page. I have created test pages in my own userspace here (yesterday) and here (tomorrow), which are based on the current Main Page's syntax and can be copied over to the respective pages in project space above by a willing admin. Thanks. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
{{#if:{{:Main Page}}||}}
to the bottom of
Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday. While I don't think this caused breaking changes, someone could remove it and restore the interwiki strapline to the original version if need be. Thanks.
RAVENPVFF |
talk ~
03:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That blurb of today's FL is so dull. In first sentence it talks about how 12 people got it; Tagore was first, Teresa was only woman. Then in 2 long sentences it talking about generic what Nobel Prize is. Then 2 more sentences on who did not win the prize. Does this not seem like the subject "Indian laureates" is sidelined? I don't really blame the admins who selected it for display today; but more who promoted it as the original article is equally drifting away and not talking of the subject. But in such case it should have simply been skipped and not displayed on Main Page. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Why i can't found urdu language on one of the worlds most famous site? Asim 5026 ( talk) 07:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Creating games Orji liberty ( talk) 11:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Why is there no Wikipedia in a. Indian language like Tamil Bengali or Hindi and how to get wiki in the India language
I see no reason for there to be an "unbalanced" tag on this article, and there seems to have been no suggestions for content to "fix" this on this talk page from those who supported it. Furthermore, as an outsider reading it, I see little evidence of bias one way or the other. From reading the talk page, the issue of the tag has been raging for over 2 months. I propose a vote, and possible topic bans for those who keep attempting to add the tag for political purposes, to dissuade the average user from the contents of the page. If that is not their intention, then it is certainly the result. Therefore, I Strong Support removal of the tag. 103.78.141.27 ( talk) 19:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Futsches Reich stamp we have up on the Main Page is a work of genius. Wikipedia can't match that, but we tried our best ... the file documentation at File:FutschesReich-Vergleich.png bears prominent templates saying that it is and is not and is in the public domain and can't be hosted on Commons where it is hosted.
Hint: apparently there was a deletion proposal in 2013 that was rejected, so I think the PD rules the day. Still, I have to wonder how we have a template about stuff being copyrighted and no way to notice when the stuff is also labeled public domain and/or displayed on the Main Page. (The obvious fix is to do away with the peculiar institution of copyright permanently; everything else is just a kludge) Wnt ( talk) 12:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It talks of New Year festivals in Asia highlighting in particular the Vaisakhi and Tamil New Year but not Pohela Boishakh ( Bengali New Year). This does not make sense, especially since there are 261 million Bengalis in the world, making it the third largest ethnic group in the world after Han Chinese and Arabs. Compare this to the mere populations of Punjabis (120 million) and Tamils (76 million), it can easily be inferred that Bengali New Year is the most significant and worthy of being in the Main Page. Punjabi and Tamil New Years are only official holidays in one country, while Bengali New Year is official in more than one. UserNumber ( talk) 17:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone is claiming at WP:THQ#Language name misspelled that the native spelling of Pali on the main page is incorrect. Could someone take a look at this and fix the error if there's one? Thanks. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
{{#language:pi}}
produces पालि, the first version you suggested.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
09:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main apge. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Goveganfortheanimals ( talk) 03:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Wikipedia, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States.
"it is the responsibility of contributors to determine that content they wish to contribute is free of copyright constraints in the United States and to supply as much copyright information as possible so that users can judge for themselves whether they can reuse our material outside the United States. It is the responsibility of reusers to ensure that their use of Wikipedia material is legal in the country in which they use it.
(reset) Have there been any cases where this 'multiple copyright expiration dates' has proved an actual issue (rather than 'this is slightly early in the context' and an alternative is found)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Why isn't my wiki profile and bio not appearing online when I do a name search? Byron J. Walker ( talk) 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how to the page, kindly share the how to page Shivasubramaniyan ( talk) 07:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a limited knowledge on the subject studied in school several decades ago. Today as aLawyer I would like make some contribution to Law of the sea on our relations with outside world and international law. This is important to use of the sea by a ll cencerned for development and trade and peace in the region andthe world at large . Titus Padmasiri ( talk) 18:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
How exactly do I RfA? ThePRoGaMErGD ( talk) 19:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zelensky pic is now more than a week in the news section [Fernando Lugo ITN take 2], time to frash it with something new. even with a pic of a recent dead person. --
–
HonorTheKing (
talk)
02:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
On my iPhone 8 (iOS, Safari) in the desktop view, the first column of the MP (with TFA and DYK) has a larger font than the second column (with ITN and OTD) and is also wider. This often results in an imbalance between the two columns. I am told that a PC user sees the same font size in both columns. Why do the sizes differ in my case? Jmar67 ( talk) 16:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Why did you put Esperanto for one of the Privacy languages? It's a dead language, and it never became official. ThePRoGaMErGD ( talk) 18:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Why does the page get completely griefed so often? I thought only Admins can edit the page. ARZ100 ( talk) 22:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I am rather surprised that this day is not mentioned among the celebrations on May 1, while a Gaelic celebration in the Isles and one in India both are. Is there any particular reason for that?-- R8R ( talk) 13:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Finding nothing comparable to WP:ERRORS over at Commons, I've proposed that one be created. If you're familiar with the workings of ERRORS (in particular, anything technical that's not immediately obvious), please visit C:Talk:Main Page#COM:ERRORS. Thank you. Nyttend ( talk) 04:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
No comment on Commons culture problems. But the last sentence seems questionable. According to these stats, Commons:Main Page receives about 98k page views a day [7]. How many unique visitors this means I don't know, but I find it extremely hard to believe even 10% of these page views represents Commons "insiders". If it is, the commons community is a heck of a lot larger than I realised or are doing something weird to trigger so many page views, or a definition of "insiders" is being used that I find weird.
Interesting these page views puts Commons just above the Portuguese 93k [8] Wikipedia and just below the Polish 106k [9] and well below the Chinese 192k [10]. In order, next are Japanese 408k [11], Spanish 438k [12], Russian 478k [13] French 526k [14] and Italian 544k [15]. And topping out the list, German over an order of magnitude more than Commons at 1213k [16] and of course our own English with well over 2 orders of magnitude more than Commons at 15493k [17].
I didn't filter this data or analyse for any weirdness and of course the page view stats aren't perfect, still I didn't see anything untoward. If anything some of the wikipedias have some weird peaks e.g. the Polish which may be affecting results. I can't of course rule out some supporter of Commons automating page views because they predicted this question would happen a year ago (or something) but still, I'm not convinced of the last sentence.
And for clarity, I took this list of wikipedias from www.wikipedia.org since I assume they're still using page views for the wikipedia to determine what the top ten are Meta:Top Ten Wikipedias although I didn't check the Phabricator or gerrit. (Page views for the wikipedia may not be entirely reflective on their Main Page, still it seems unlikely it's that extremely different so at most maybe some other wikipedias belong somewhere at the low end.)
Nil Einne ( talk) 13:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The specific comment was "errors on the main pages of the large Wikipedias are a problem because they're de facto portals to the internet for the general public, but nobody except insiders ever looks at Commons". But I see no real evidence this is the case. Nor for that matter what you said "Commons is only accessed by dedicated wiki-editors, while the English Main Page is accessed by many people who will never edit, only read" (well with the reasonable replacement of read with view considering the focus of commons). I should have avoided the word Commons when I said insiders but the fact remains there is zero evidence even 10% of these views is coming from insiders whether or not you want to call people from other WMF wikis (really only the English wikipedia matters, we can see from these stats the other wikipedias probably don't even double the community size, and the other projects are even less used).
Remember these are only main page views nothing else. By comparison Commons:Special:Upload Wizard gets about 12k views [18] and Commons:Upload gets about and Commons 580 (no k) [19]. How many of these need to come from the main page? (Remembering links from other wikipedias, bookmarks, multiple uploads without revisiting the Main Page etc.) I tried to find uploads per day stats, the closest I found was WLM stats [20] and these seem to be nearly 10k even before the peak and are I think only WLM stats. But in any case, there's the obvious question of how likely it is that uploads coming via other means will need to visit the main page to get there. We can see from the early stats that the WLM peak doesn't seem to have affected the Main Page view count.
Insiders may also come to do other stuff like discuss deletions, look for other contributors, try to find files for their articles etc, but how many of these are going to be coming to the main page to do so as opposed to e.g. following links to files pages and from file pages? Probably the main one that I can think of would be finding images, does anyone know if there are any stats of how many files are added to English wikipedia articles per day? (Including "changes" of existing files.) Per my earlier reasoning, I don't think what's going on outside en matters that much if it's claimed that most of these views are from "insiders" only we're getting to the border line.
Even if we give that maybe it's above 10% page views from "insiders" how high do we go? I mean maybe we push it below Portuguese but even if we drop the number by 50% this still suggests quite a substantial number of people coming for some reason other than being an "insider", about half of our 10th largest wikipedia.
P.S. Just confirmed [21] the above stats exclude redirect views. So if there's some page that gets a lot of redirected views for some reason it will be skewed. You can see the redirects for the upload wizard [22] and [23] and the Portuguese Main Page [24]. It pushes Commons:Upload up to 644 but otherwise not much.
Nil Einne ( talk) 14:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. A few probably final additional points. I screwed up and missed Special:Upload earlier [25], this adds about 3k page views.
Also I'm not saying many of those page views are actually viewing the Commons Main Page. This gets into the complexity of the above discussion namely how many are there to do something else. But the point remains, if these people are visiting to find stuff for their non WMF project I find it questionable if they can be called insiders. Or at least if they really are all "insiders", at least they aren't really visiting for "insider" reasons. Note also the en.wikipedia itself only gets under 160k edits a day if I understand these stats correctly [26].
I admit, the number of edits for all projects was way higher than I expected compared to en [27], although page views does tally with my expectation (a bit over double en). There are a lot of wikidata edits [28] as you may expect, and I presume many of these don't end up at commons (the reason I excluded it before), still this doesn't doesn't completely explain the number of edits, you still have way more than double en. I presume this is in part because some others are perhaps developing more rapidly, maybe some other wikis are also conducive for more edits. I wonder if bots also play a part, since we know from our decision to use depth and then whoops that didn't work so well, that some smaller wikipedias seem to be playing with edit counts or at least were.
The Commons unique devices stats are interesting, I'm assuming but I'm not certain, these require a click through at least to the Media Viewer to register and don't just common from images on articles [29].
The number of views for Special:CreateAccount is very high [30] both compared to the Main Page and compared to wikipedias or at least English, Portuguese, Chinese and German. This is the first data I've seen suggesting that it could be true such a substantial proportion of the traffic to the Main Page is from insiders that non insiders are basically irrelevant although I'm not completely convinced. While looking into that data, it occurred to me that login was missing. Outside en, login seems to show up Especial:Entrar, Special:用户登录, Spezial:Anmelden and is is higher than create account Especial:Criar_conta, Special:创建账户, Spezial:Benutzerkonto_anlegen which I would sort of expect although not sure if the difference is what I would expect. Looking here at page views [31] [32] and RedirectViews [33] [34] seems to confirm it's not being recorded barring some weirdness with en. It is with the others for RedirectViews [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. I did wonder but neglected to mention before whether these special pages were having their page views properly recorded. It still looks like it might be for the others but not UserLogin. Not sure why but wonder if it's purposely excluded for privacy reasons or something to do with the way it's processed but mistakes or differences means this doesn't happen with the others.
Anyway although these show far lower CreateAccount compared to their Main Page, I'm still surprised by the number of views, I mean as said, we only get 160k edits a day yet nearly that many hits to the create account page and we get a similar number of new registered editors a month. Are people clicking on CreateAccount by accident or considering it, seeing it and then abandoning it? Is there some problem with the data? Or there a massive amplification of page hits by people creating accounts e.g. invalid password, invalid username? Incidentally, how does unified login affect the stats?
When it comes to commons, seems to me the questions are even stronger. In particular, if people are already insiders, why are they visiting the create account page and making so many hits? Even if every new unified account that hasn't been created results in 3 page hits, I'm not sure if the new user numbers add up noting that it's only about 370k a month for all wikis per earlier stats. Is it because a whole lot of people are visiting Commons without being logged in elsewhere and are trying to either login in and getting confused or probably more likely are unaware of unified login so trying to create an account perhaps with the same user name and having errors and trying multiple times? (If they are logged in at their home or some other wiki, they should be automatically be logged in so the link won't be visible on the Commons UI so it seems less likely to come from those.) Are people aware of unified login but not wishing to use the same account for whatever reason creating new accounts and hitting the same problems on other wikipedias which result in the massive hit rate?
Remembering back to my earlier point, even if these people have decided to contribute to commons, if they aren't already contributors elsewhere it's questionable if they are insiders at the time of the account creation. After they've created them sure. So we then get to the question of how many of these are there and did they visit the Main Page before account creation? Some many disagree on the insider point, but I consider it at a minimum imprecise language which I'm never a fan of. And we also have no way of knowing if they visited Commons Main Page with the intention of signing up and contributing, or for some other reason if they weren't already "insiders" which gets to the heart of the suggestion the Main Page doesn't matter. (Although as mentioned earlier in this PS, even insiders may also visit for reasons other than contributing so for me may still matter in terms of considering whether the Main Page matters.)
If someone could convince the WMF to release data on the source of page views for the Commons Main Page, this would probably be a key data point. Barring that, info on visits to pages on the Commons Main Page would also be of interest. I had a quick look, and these didn't look very high, and also seems to affirm that images coming from the page won't count as page views without at least some click. But I've also read stats that outside certain articles like the TFA, a lot of view counts aren't very high even on our main page. I.E. We have no way to know for sure how much people get out of these, is the stuff they see interesting but enough, or just something they don't care about or do they not see it at all (which again relates to the above thread)? Also I wonder if there is data on non unified account creations in commons or that originate in commons these may help analysis of the other data. And I'm sure a whole lot of other things I can't think of either at the moment or without more research or at all. I really need to sleep and have spend way too much time on this already so will end with this data.
But IMO while I think it's easy to accept the Commons Main Page gets a lot less people viewing it than at least ~7 wikipedias and maybe even the top 10 or more, whether it's true no reasonable number of people in the general public rely on it as a portal to see content is far less clear especially if we aren't also going to say the Main Pages of the those wikipedias outside the top 10-15 are pointless except to insiders. This doesn't mean anyone here has to care about it, I mean I myself have basically no real involvement in commons and rarely see their main page. But we shouldn't denigrate it as only of interest to insiders without IMO far harder data than I've seen presented thus far. As with IMO a lot of things, like our main page, we actually have only limited data on why people visit, what if anything they get out of it, etc. (Incidentally, I also still haven't found file creation stats for commons.)
BTW the search numbers may seem high but they don't look that different from the main page for some of the other wikipedias even if not so much en, and as I pointed out, we don't know from this whether these are insiders looking for something for WMF projects or to contribute to commons, or people looking for stuff for other reasons. (Note Especial:Pesquisar, Special:搜索 and Spezial:Suche are the equivalent of search although interesting the German wikipedia also has a fair few from Special:Search. Portuguese and Chinese has that too, but to a lesser extent.) Nil Einne ( talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Why isn't Tim Conway on the Recent Death List??-- XTMontana ( talk) 17:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess I understand, although he is such a big name. -- XTMontana ( talk) 14:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean 311dot -- XTMontana ( talk) 14:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I'm very sorry I hope you are not mad at me I am so dumb I am sorry forgive me please-- XTMontana ( talk) 14:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you think you could Invite me to the thing you were talking about?— Preceding unsigned comment added by XTMontana ( talk • contribs)
It would be better if Wikipedia added a feature on which you can change the background feature or like the background color, and if anyone wants to get specific background wallpaper, they can pay a small price to do just that. Chunkyfungus123 ( talk) 00:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Main Page/ has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the RfD template to this page, ensuing that the date is 23 May, as I have already completed the nomination, located at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 23. Thanks! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 17:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
To my view he was notable enough that his death should be listed in the Main Page, 'Recent Deaths' or even get a post in the 'In the news' section. Why not?
Go-in ( talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Main Page/1,
Wikipedia:Main Page/2,
Wikipedia:Main Page/3,
Wikipedia:Main Page/4 and
Wikipedia:Main Page/5 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The five copies of the Main Page above seem to use old syntax and should be synced with the current source of the Main Page. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Prem Tinsulanonda, Regent of Thailand died on May 26. Can't you add him on the recently dead list? Raisul-wiki ( talk) 03:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on the discussion at WT:TFA about the Main Page for 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeandcrumbs ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | → | Archive 200 |
Just a pointer. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Entertainment twaddle on the Main Page. Sca ( talk) 13:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Sca: Since you reverted my close, I suggest you clarify what your question or suggestion is. As it is, this discussion is useless. I would also point you to the more appropriate venues for commenting on TFA or reporting errors on the main page, but I suspect you already know about them. Isa ( talk) 15:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, the Great Stan Lee recently passed away, yet is not featured in the recently deceased category.
American comic book creator Stan Lee dies at the age of 95.; we're not disrespecting him by not including him in Recent Deaths, we're considering him so important that his death warrants the honor of being included in the main In The News section above the fold. ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The picture of ARA San Juan says it was taken in 2017 but it was actually took in 2007.-- BugWarp ( talk) 00:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the content of the main page cut off at ITN (i.e. DYK, OTD and anything else below does not display) using a phone's native browser? Is this intentional? I run the latest Firefox on mobile and iOS on iPhone. MER-C 19:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please remove poor photo from header. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Someone might want to remove Goatse, I think a Sysop's account got hacked^^ Seelentau ( talk) 19:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
REMOVE THE ANAL PHOTO FROM WIKIPEDIA MAIN IMMEDIATELY....IT'S ATROCIOUS.
It's curious that the edit was made by an admin. Hakken ( talk) 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
is this a technical issue, a mistake, or vandalism? 🌸 WeegaweeK ^ 🌸 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Did you know...that the French submarine Amazone was named after a mythological tribe of women warriors?
...Amazon? Ya think?
Goatse there was a positive edit, compared to this. Qwirkle ( talk) 03:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, heck, dyk there was a whole bunch of stuff named after those mystical ladies, including a bunch of other boats! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 19:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Grrr ... everyone else has already cracked all the good jokes I thought of. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to make a donation to your site by cash in stead of using all the cards.
Also the detail of the donation to your site should be published and visible somewhere in your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 ( talk) 02:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your information about donation. I live in Australia and I couldn't find the bank detail for me to transfer money to your site from the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 ( talk) 01:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No consensus. See no agreement below to move this out of templatespace, and there is some apprehension about possible technical issues. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may find rebuttals to those apprehensions and come back in a few weeks to try to garner consensus for the rename. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
– Not a subtemplate of {{ Main Page}} (a redirect to {{ Main Page toolbox}}), but instead of the actual main page. Main-page-related cruft tends to get put in Wikipedia namespace, so the CSS page should go there too. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 01:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★ Chat -- 14:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I have already contributed money to Wikipedia, several days ago. Can you please take off the solicitation message that's plastered on my Wikipedia front page every day? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4400:C2A9:1D1C:51E9:CFBB:F5AC ( talk) 17:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that needs clarification. AFAIK if you donate via the online donation page, a cookie is supposed to be set which will suppress the banner for I think 1 week, the same as if you click on the close/x to dismiss the banner. Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 December 15#Do the annoying pop-ups to donate go away if I make a donation? Visiting this page whether or not you donated should I think have the same effect https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thank_You although as said you can also simply click the close/x to dismiss the banner.
In any case it definitely should be possible for the WMF to design the donation process to set such a cookie, and also to allow people to set such a cookie via some button when the banner is displayed. 1 week is also a fairly arbitrary time frame, I'm pretty sure there is nothing stopping a longer cookie being uses other than the WMF's internal policies and any interact with any local law the WMF is trying to comply with. (And I'm doubtful that local law will prevent a 3 month cookie being used provided there is adequately disclosure.) And it is of course possible for the WMF to do things different depending on whether the cookie is coming from the close button or after a possible donation so even if they want to make the close only 1 week, they don't have to make the 'donated' cookie only last 1 week.
However this is not the right place to discuss if you disagree with the length. Your best bet is probably simply to contact the WMF directly. While it's doubtful that a single message will make a difference, it's possible if enough people say it should be extended they will change their mind. You could also try a RFC somewhere suitable although I'm not sure if that will necessarily work better than individual contacts.
Now if you are seeing the banner every day and have donated or closed it then I think there's something wrong. If you've cleared your cookies or are using a browser which doesn't store them upon restarts or regular clears them or you keep using different browsers (whether on the same computer or different computers/devices) then that explain the problem, cookies need to be used to store such settings as with the rest of the web. However it will be no different with logins. You will need to login each time your cookies are cleared or you change browser and logging in will actually probably be more difficult than suppressing the banner. (Albeit potentially lasting up to 365 days instead of only 1 week if you don't lose your cookies.) If you're using the same browser (on the same device of course) and you're sure you haven't cleared your cookies and your browser isn't doing it for you and you're still regularly seeing them more than once a week after either donating or clicking the close, then I think the foundation may be interested in hearing from you to work out what is going wrong.
BTW, from what I can tell the big donation banner on mobile is only supposed to show once possibly for the whole campaign regardless of what you do. See Meta:Talk:Fundraising/2018-19 Fundraising ideas#Design. That is somewhat outdated so it's possible the precise timeframe has changed but definitely if you're seeing that banner very regularly and again assuming you aren't clearing your cookies or using a different browser, the WMF may want to hear from you.
I have been on Wikipedia for 14 years now, and I have always accepted the yearly fundraiser as part of what keeps the lights on. But at this point, I must say that Wikimedia seems to have become dominated by rent-seeking. I had to look for the financial report [1] in order to verify the claim that "CHF 4 is all it takes to keep Wikimedia thriving". Is this correct? It turns out that Wikimedia's assets have increased from USD 120M to USD 145M in the year 2017/8. So clearly the fundraising is going well. It has never been the project's purpose to keep nine figure stashes of cash around. Expenses are of the order of 81M per year, so Wikipedia could keep going for the next two years without raising another dollar. Out of 81M expenses, only 2.3M go towards hosting. The hosting and bandwidth cost used to be the main concern of the project in the early years. Today, this is just a financial detail, of the order of 3% of total expenses. 38 million dollars are wages and salaries. 9.7 million go towards fund-raising (i.e. 11% of the funds raised is consumed by the fund-raising itself). Fair enough.
But 61 million go towards "programs". Wikimedia lists three categories of these:
People imagine they contribute to (1), when an unknown fraction of their donation goes to (2) and (3). (2) and (3) is what I mean by rent-seeking, this is about activists spending the foundation's money in order to turn Wikipedia into what they think it should become rather than paying for the bill it accrues by being that it is.
The "activism" part of the foundation urgently needs to become operationally divided from the the technological part, or I will not be able in good conscience to recommend to anyone that they contribute money to the fundation. This also goes for "earmarked" contributions, as obviously such contributions will just lead to a different distribution of such funds as are not earmarked. I am a bit appalled to see what has become of the idealistic project I joined back in 2004. Looking at the USD 140M Wikimedia has on the side, I actually think it would be good for the project if money became so scarce that we run into the occasional server overload, as used to be the case i the early years, so that the money spent on activism will have to be seriously weighed against the necessity of spending money on the project of running an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. -- dab (𒁳) 14:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
How to insert quetions in order to get answers right away. Edwin Rhyms ( talk) 05:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have heard and read a lot of publishings on wikipedia and now decided to sign up and dive into this act of article writing and publishing but I felt like I am in the deepest strange environment where I can not even figure put my current position in on this whole thing. So I decided to write this and draw people's attendtion to my aid so that I can actually learn more on where and how to start making my time here more fruitful.🙂 Mistar Onpoint ( talk) 17:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
As I have written in my User Page, there is a genuine requirement for a Sister Project
WikiDerivations on
Ab Initio Derivations on Pure Sciences, particularly, physics. From the
First principles.
Using
Ockham's Razor as a strict guideline. Then, layer by layer, generalising and advancing further.
But simplest at the very beginning. Nothing more than what is absolutely necessary.
A sub-site, Wikipedia Derivations, or as an aside with an appropriate link, and then an ever-growing list of derivations contributed by community members. Posters themselves. Anyone competent to contribute. Edited. Simplified further. With minimum descriptive words on that particular derivation's page. To be used as an Online Learning Aid.
To effectively end the monopoly of organised educational institutions on the greatest achievements of the Human Minds. Let the society enjoy the beauty of the interweaving of logic, analysis and experimental data, without the threats of memorisation and faithful reproduction in exams. Freedom from the need to buy generally expensive textbooks.
I waited for a long time, hoping that eventually, Wikipedia would stumble on to this simple idea. 10 years have passed by, but Wikipedia did not. So the time is ripe for me to post this idea.
Subject to approval, I could begin posting derivations.
Bkpsusmitaa (
talk)
02:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The picture has been there for 'a few days' - is there anything it could be changed to? Jackiespeel ( talk) 00:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please stop protecting pages indefinitely. The wiki must be kept clean from protection. Anthony E. Lahmann ( talk) 03:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why does the summary of the Apollo 8 article use that awkward and jarring word 'crewed', when the article itself currently uses 'manned'? Could this be changed to accurately reflect the article? Thanks./ 86.156.221.64 ( talk) 15:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Have to say for the first time I love the main page pictures, which is not one but three pics of birds. [Tfd, Dyk, Tfp]. and like Peter Griffin once said *A well a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word* --
–
HonorTheKing (
talk)
07:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we can swap out the current ITN image with the newer File:Ultima thule color.png? Eman 235/ talk 20:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
As I've said before my personal preference would be to abolish the main page in its current form, but assuming that's not going to happen this side of the year 2525.... When is the last time such a proposal was made? I think it would be much wiser to refer people to useful things like the "definitive" RS/N list of reliable sources (of the moment), the disclaimers, how to guides, etc. rather than to the newest blind amphibian that someone clever has decided to name after a president, or to the latest in the continuing saga of John Oliver's promotion of his jockstrap meme [2]. I would love to read what has been written about the subject of modernizing the mainpage. (I'm going to take this page off my watchlist soon though because it buries everything else, so if you do have some links to previous proposals if you would ping me I'd very much appreciate it. ) Cheers, & happy new year to all the spiel-checkers out there. SashiRolls t · c 13:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Question: Has anyone noticed how the daily Featured Article attracts a storm of editors who determine to add even more information to an already bulky and adequate article? Obviously, this is because the daily Featured Article attracts a lot of attention due to it's front-page setting. It seems almost paradoxical that a Featured Article (which by definition is already a terrific and comprehensive article) would be displayed in such a way as to attract the unnecessary attention of editors who then further meddle in an already top rate article. This process contributes to the discrepancy where a small number of comprehensive articles get all the attention whilst the stubs stagnate.
Solution: A daily stub article on the front page alongside (or perhaps replacing) the Featured Article. C. J. T. T. Wilson ( talk) 19:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The front page design is fine. It is along with the logo the most iconic part of Wikipedia and should never be redesigned unless WMF requests it Abote2 ( talk) 13:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with technical changes as long as it looks the same or very similar or at least a option existed to use the old one it would be fine Abote2 ( talk) 15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Any "redesign" of the Main Page needs to start from the very beginning. Forget everything you know about what is or has been on the Main Page. Ask what the purpose of the Main Page should be. Once that is decided, determine what to put on it to meet that purpose. EVERYTHING on it should be expressly decided on. NOTHING should be assumed to be part of this new design. -- Khajidha ( talk) 17:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Pres. Rodrigo Duterte signed a decleration to celebrate the sesquicentennial birth anniversary of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo. It will celebrating on March 22, 2019. Aguinaldo is the First President of the Republic of the Philippines. He founded the Armed Forces, declared the Independence of the Philippines, and formally declared the First Independent Republic of Asia. He was born on March 22, 1869 at Kawit, Cavite, Captaincy General of the Philippines. Goy30 ( talk) 10:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The Armenian Wikipedia ( Հայերեն) now has over 250 000 articles; should we not list it as such? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia is widely read in India and is therefore becoming a battleground for the upcoming elections of May 2019. Just read the article “Amethi” (Rahul Gandhi’s constituency). It has North Korean style superlatives about Rahul and his family. Just like the Kim’s they make it sound much better than reality and paint a picture that the public should be grateful to them. Blackdog1304 ( talk) 03:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I cropped this image shortly before its appearance on the main page. Another editor objected, so I've self-reverted and inserted the talk page exchange below to solicit additional comments (potentially applicable to other animal photographs in the future). Pinging its participants, Yoninah and EEng. — David Levy 02:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in photography class I learned that it's okay to show part of a human body (like a head-and-shoulders shot), but you always have to show the whole body of an animal, because otherwise it looks weird. Sorry to say, but this crop looks weird. Yoninah ( talk) 00:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
We Afghan citizen need Afghanistan national language in Wikipedia maximum 70 million people speak Pushto in Afghanistan and inside Pakistan KhalidStanikzaii ( talk) 00:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that all Youtubera with like 100K onwards should have their own Wikipedia pages. We could get many people to work on it. Adrian Malhiers ( talk) 18:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The design, layout and general style don't look modern. Seems like it stopped in time. I don't mean to brag, but we at the portuguese wikipedia have a much better looking main page. Do you think we should work on this idea? Bageense ( talk) 17:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
(reset) My impression is - there are far more 'please resolve this glitch/divergence between MP listing and article'/'why is X not on ITN' comments and similar than indications for a general desire for change: and most of the changes suggested appear to be little more than personal taste (I myself would prefer slightly stronger borders around the different sections) - and do not link to a wiki elsewhere in the wikiverse that use the said layout.
If there were a significant redesign of the MP 'within a matter of days' there would be new revisions suggested - and/or "several archives pages' worth" of 'why have you ruined WP' complaints.
The main issue is: the MP was 'cutting edge' and is now seen as 'dowdy/(negative) old fashioned' - and at some point in the future will become 'why do these (people) wish to wreck our well-loved, long-established MP?' Jackiespeel ( talk) 12:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this is probably the oddest of the features of the current main page: Our mobile version leaves out significant parts of the content. Since mobile versions aren't just used on mobile (they're the default for tablets, for example) this seems, at best, weird, and, at worst, like a problem that's going to get far worse over time. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 12:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This may be just a problem of today's version, but I cannot help noticing that the Main Page is very grim. All In the news blurbs are about death: terrorist attacks and an accident. The featured article is war-related. 3 out of 8 hooks in DYK are about violence: the Holocaust, a war, and a drug cartel standoff. All On this day blurbs are about violence: an assassination, warfare, a serial killer, and a terrorist attack. And just when I was about to catch a breath looking at Today's featured picture, I read in the text next to it that this guy too was murdered. Surely violence is not all that has ever happened and not all that is happening now, right? Surtsicna ( talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say something about this if no one else had, but I do think that we may, for the first time ever (or at least to my recollection) have an ITN that consists solely of mass-fatality events. The death toll for four items totals 210, for an average of 52.5 per entry, and several entries say that is likely to rise.
Couldn't we at least have found some dictator's sham re-election to break them up?
Maybe it's just the mid-Northern Hemisphere winter blahs manifesting themselves, though.
Daniel Case (
talk)
23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
A week later and the main page (the news section at least) is still jammed full of death and disaster. Apophenia what? 107.77.237.181 ( talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
off the main page -- Jayron 32 13:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
whether or not this the right section for general comments: shocked in a way, subject for Main Page - why publicity for a pathetic terrorist - & here not in passing, part of a historical item, but details of his life - frankly who cares, the less said the better, such people should be forgotten, erased from public consciousness; this article just adds to his notoriety. Thank you; God Bless America; JS Quebec Jasheco ( talk) 13:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not a debate about censoring, neither did anyone suggest there be no article of this man. Indeed, it is good that there exists a good, solid, neutral article on this and any other contentious, political and moral topic. This should be a debate about if this person needs to be featured on the front page of one of the world's top websites. Nobody is saying that is promotion. Merely, it may be misconstrued as a promotion, and, very easily, to be featured on the front page of Wikipedia may for some individual be seen as a goal in itself. Such policy is thus hazardous. Not submitting an article to the front page is really not censorship. Eykeklos Omnia ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Encyclopedias for Deletion: the European Union has proposed legislation which would interfere with the ability of Wikipedia to continue on the internet. Please act today:
https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/ Thank you. |
Regarding [4] please display https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/ prominently as a noticebox warning as above for readers in Europe. Thank you. EllenCT ( talk) 04:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please direct further discussion to the WP:VPR thread. EllenCT ( talk) 05:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed the same news article for about 3 days now with no changes. Is there a glitch? https://imgur.com/a/KklqWg4 -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please I want to know how to add a news story and article on Wikipedia news blog Edyreuben ( talk) 08:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we use the non animated image on the Main Page rather then the animated one shown on the article? I am not complaining just interested in why it is not animated on the Main Page. Abote2 ( talk) 16:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether {{ *mp}}, a now-deprecated template that used to be used in ITN/DYK/OTD and which was deleted once and then undeleted (by me), should be deleted again. Your input at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Template:*mp is requested. — howcheng { chat} 01:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is about to be the main page article next month. There is a huge internet controversy regarding her and Rotten Tomatoes happing now which is not covered in the article. So, it shouldn't but put up as is. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes I know they have been there forever but I propose we remove the 8+1 Portal links from the top corner. A failed experiment automated creation and updating has gone quite off the rails. Simply put the quality if Portals which use content oulled automatically from elsewhere is not giving a very high quality of experience.
Currently 2 of the 8 Master portals are broken ( Portal:History and Portal:Geography, returning Red Error messages. Some awesome editors put sserious effort into hunting and fixing even the slightest error on articles linked from the mainpage but here the most prominate link spots are to busted automated portals. We have no way of knowing when or if these errors will crop up and evidently no one is watching them. I only stumbled on them when I noticed Portal:English language was busted and User:Moxy suggested we check the top 8 portals. Legacypac ( talk) 03:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
How close in time will be 'the end of everything' and 'everybody being completely satisfied with the Wikipedia Main Page'? Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't the Amina Gerba DYK seem overtly promotional? "that Amina Gerba's (pictured) beauty-care companies hire and give a portion of profits to the 2,000 women of the Songtaaba Cooperative in Burkina Faso?" It's literally saying "this woman's company donates profits to charity." I... don't see how it teaches people any useful and just seems to give her free PR. Isn't promoting (or at least giving high visibility) to a for-profit company's charitable efforts essentially promoting the for-profit aspect of the company? WP is based upon neutrality and not promoting business. I really do not like this, honestly. Does anyone else see what I'm seeing? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the main font color on the main page is black, whereas the standard article text color is #222 (very dark gray). For consistency and ease of reading (eye strain, contrast, etc) we should change the main font color to #222 as well. Thoughts? Enterprisey ( talk!) 22:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday and
Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is really a bit of a trifle, but the OTD section headers in both of the above pages contain ellipses that should be removed, to match a similar edit on the actual Main Page. Also, the Yesterday page's OTD header could be changed to "On the previous day", to better correspond with the Tomorrow page's header. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Any reason why the Annunciation isn't mentioned alongside Bengali Genocide Remembrance Day? The Annunciation is an important date in the Catholic calendar that's been celebrated for centuries and occurs on 25 March. Just askin'. Bermicourt ( talk) 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
many car's down in flood Mamad-Baloch97 ( talk) 15:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Look! A giant banner with a ridiculously disgusting punctuation error!
Screenshot. "Hi reader in Ukraine," - the vocative case is only marked with one comma!
If I understand it correctly, Wikipedia can't do anything about this banner, but it still exists right at the top of the Main Page! This shame should be corrected asap. Because this is worse than any ad.--
Adûnâi (
talk)
17:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Four gloomy entries - I know it is in the nature of ITN, but ... Jackiespeel ( talk) 20:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Alas, much of the world in which we live is often a grim place, and unpleasant events tend to be newsworthy. We're not here to whitewash reality. – Sca ( talk) 20:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have an idea of how often the Main Page fails to display the results of a component change if the admin fails to purge, or why it would fail? (Is it perhaps related to the job queue?) I don't too often modify components and have never thought to look at the Main Page to see the results of making an edit without purging, except after purging. Nyttend ( talk) 11:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like I could edit the TFA, POTD, and FL entries (blurbs) at the moment. Shouldn't these be protected? Jmar67 ( talk) 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This page is transcluded in multiple cascade-protected pages, therefore only administrators can edit it.warning at the top, and the third correctly brings up the edit window with the editnotice and the eleven-way cascade protection correctly shown. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
How do I PERMANENTLY disable your extremely annoying pop-up page preview? I am sick and tired of blocking it. Why cant there be a simple way to PERMANENTLY remove this annoying "feature"? 90.29.109.229 ( talk) 19:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday and
Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I brought up something else related to these pages some time ago, but I've also realised that their layout and syntax differ quite significantly from the Main Page: for example, they make much use of tables, whereas the Main Page uses HTML code to achieve the same outcome. Perhaps they haven't been updated to match occasional changes to the Main Page. I have created test pages in my own userspace here (yesterday) and here (tomorrow), which are based on the current Main Page's syntax and can be copied over to the respective pages in project space above by a willing admin. Thanks. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
{{#if:{{:Main Page}}||}}
to the bottom of
Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday. While I don't think this caused breaking changes, someone could remove it and restore the interwiki strapline to the original version if need be. Thanks.
RAVENPVFF |
talk ~
03:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That blurb of today's FL is so dull. In first sentence it talks about how 12 people got it; Tagore was first, Teresa was only woman. Then in 2 long sentences it talking about generic what Nobel Prize is. Then 2 more sentences on who did not win the prize. Does this not seem like the subject "Indian laureates" is sidelined? I don't really blame the admins who selected it for display today; but more who promoted it as the original article is equally drifting away and not talking of the subject. But in such case it should have simply been skipped and not displayed on Main Page. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Why i can't found urdu language on one of the worlds most famous site? Asim 5026 ( talk) 07:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Creating games Orji liberty ( talk) 11:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Why is there no Wikipedia in a. Indian language like Tamil Bengali or Hindi and how to get wiki in the India language
I see no reason for there to be an "unbalanced" tag on this article, and there seems to have been no suggestions for content to "fix" this on this talk page from those who supported it. Furthermore, as an outsider reading it, I see little evidence of bias one way or the other. From reading the talk page, the issue of the tag has been raging for over 2 months. I propose a vote, and possible topic bans for those who keep attempting to add the tag for political purposes, to dissuade the average user from the contents of the page. If that is not their intention, then it is certainly the result. Therefore, I Strong Support removal of the tag. 103.78.141.27 ( talk) 19:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Futsches Reich stamp we have up on the Main Page is a work of genius. Wikipedia can't match that, but we tried our best ... the file documentation at File:FutschesReich-Vergleich.png bears prominent templates saying that it is and is not and is in the public domain and can't be hosted on Commons where it is hosted.
Hint: apparently there was a deletion proposal in 2013 that was rejected, so I think the PD rules the day. Still, I have to wonder how we have a template about stuff being copyrighted and no way to notice when the stuff is also labeled public domain and/or displayed on the Main Page. (The obvious fix is to do away with the peculiar institution of copyright permanently; everything else is just a kludge) Wnt ( talk) 12:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It talks of New Year festivals in Asia highlighting in particular the Vaisakhi and Tamil New Year but not Pohela Boishakh ( Bengali New Year). This does not make sense, especially since there are 261 million Bengalis in the world, making it the third largest ethnic group in the world after Han Chinese and Arabs. Compare this to the mere populations of Punjabis (120 million) and Tamils (76 million), it can easily be inferred that Bengali New Year is the most significant and worthy of being in the Main Page. Punjabi and Tamil New Years are only official holidays in one country, while Bengali New Year is official in more than one. UserNumber ( talk) 17:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone is claiming at WP:THQ#Language name misspelled that the native spelling of Pali on the main page is incorrect. Could someone take a look at this and fix the error if there's one? Thanks. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
{{#language:pi}}
produces पालि, the first version you suggested.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
09:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main apge. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Goveganfortheanimals ( talk) 03:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Wikipedia, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States.
"it is the responsibility of contributors to determine that content they wish to contribute is free of copyright constraints in the United States and to supply as much copyright information as possible so that users can judge for themselves whether they can reuse our material outside the United States. It is the responsibility of reusers to ensure that their use of Wikipedia material is legal in the country in which they use it.
(reset) Have there been any cases where this 'multiple copyright expiration dates' has proved an actual issue (rather than 'this is slightly early in the context' and an alternative is found)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Why isn't my wiki profile and bio not appearing online when I do a name search? Byron J. Walker ( talk) 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how to the page, kindly share the how to page Shivasubramaniyan ( talk) 07:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a limited knowledge on the subject studied in school several decades ago. Today as aLawyer I would like make some contribution to Law of the sea on our relations with outside world and international law. This is important to use of the sea by a ll cencerned for development and trade and peace in the region andthe world at large . Titus Padmasiri ( talk) 18:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
How exactly do I RfA? ThePRoGaMErGD ( talk) 19:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zelensky pic is now more than a week in the news section [Fernando Lugo ITN take 2], time to frash it with something new. even with a pic of a recent dead person. --
–
HonorTheKing (
talk)
02:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
On my iPhone 8 (iOS, Safari) in the desktop view, the first column of the MP (with TFA and DYK) has a larger font than the second column (with ITN and OTD) and is also wider. This often results in an imbalance between the two columns. I am told that a PC user sees the same font size in both columns. Why do the sizes differ in my case? Jmar67 ( talk) 16:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Why did you put Esperanto for one of the Privacy languages? It's a dead language, and it never became official. ThePRoGaMErGD ( talk) 18:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Why does the page get completely griefed so often? I thought only Admins can edit the page. ARZ100 ( talk) 22:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I am rather surprised that this day is not mentioned among the celebrations on May 1, while a Gaelic celebration in the Isles and one in India both are. Is there any particular reason for that?-- R8R ( talk) 13:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Finding nothing comparable to WP:ERRORS over at Commons, I've proposed that one be created. If you're familiar with the workings of ERRORS (in particular, anything technical that's not immediately obvious), please visit C:Talk:Main Page#COM:ERRORS. Thank you. Nyttend ( talk) 04:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
No comment on Commons culture problems. But the last sentence seems questionable. According to these stats, Commons:Main Page receives about 98k page views a day [7]. How many unique visitors this means I don't know, but I find it extremely hard to believe even 10% of these page views represents Commons "insiders". If it is, the commons community is a heck of a lot larger than I realised or are doing something weird to trigger so many page views, or a definition of "insiders" is being used that I find weird.
Interesting these page views puts Commons just above the Portuguese 93k [8] Wikipedia and just below the Polish 106k [9] and well below the Chinese 192k [10]. In order, next are Japanese 408k [11], Spanish 438k [12], Russian 478k [13] French 526k [14] and Italian 544k [15]. And topping out the list, German over an order of magnitude more than Commons at 1213k [16] and of course our own English with well over 2 orders of magnitude more than Commons at 15493k [17].
I didn't filter this data or analyse for any weirdness and of course the page view stats aren't perfect, still I didn't see anything untoward. If anything some of the wikipedias have some weird peaks e.g. the Polish which may be affecting results. I can't of course rule out some supporter of Commons automating page views because they predicted this question would happen a year ago (or something) but still, I'm not convinced of the last sentence.
And for clarity, I took this list of wikipedias from www.wikipedia.org since I assume they're still using page views for the wikipedia to determine what the top ten are Meta:Top Ten Wikipedias although I didn't check the Phabricator or gerrit. (Page views for the wikipedia may not be entirely reflective on their Main Page, still it seems unlikely it's that extremely different so at most maybe some other wikipedias belong somewhere at the low end.)
Nil Einne ( talk) 13:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The specific comment was "errors on the main pages of the large Wikipedias are a problem because they're de facto portals to the internet for the general public, but nobody except insiders ever looks at Commons". But I see no real evidence this is the case. Nor for that matter what you said "Commons is only accessed by dedicated wiki-editors, while the English Main Page is accessed by many people who will never edit, only read" (well with the reasonable replacement of read with view considering the focus of commons). I should have avoided the word Commons when I said insiders but the fact remains there is zero evidence even 10% of these views is coming from insiders whether or not you want to call people from other WMF wikis (really only the English wikipedia matters, we can see from these stats the other wikipedias probably don't even double the community size, and the other projects are even less used).
Remember these are only main page views nothing else. By comparison Commons:Special:Upload Wizard gets about 12k views [18] and Commons:Upload gets about and Commons 580 (no k) [19]. How many of these need to come from the main page? (Remembering links from other wikipedias, bookmarks, multiple uploads without revisiting the Main Page etc.) I tried to find uploads per day stats, the closest I found was WLM stats [20] and these seem to be nearly 10k even before the peak and are I think only WLM stats. But in any case, there's the obvious question of how likely it is that uploads coming via other means will need to visit the main page to get there. We can see from the early stats that the WLM peak doesn't seem to have affected the Main Page view count.
Insiders may also come to do other stuff like discuss deletions, look for other contributors, try to find files for their articles etc, but how many of these are going to be coming to the main page to do so as opposed to e.g. following links to files pages and from file pages? Probably the main one that I can think of would be finding images, does anyone know if there are any stats of how many files are added to English wikipedia articles per day? (Including "changes" of existing files.) Per my earlier reasoning, I don't think what's going on outside en matters that much if it's claimed that most of these views are from "insiders" only we're getting to the border line.
Even if we give that maybe it's above 10% page views from "insiders" how high do we go? I mean maybe we push it below Portuguese but even if we drop the number by 50% this still suggests quite a substantial number of people coming for some reason other than being an "insider", about half of our 10th largest wikipedia.
P.S. Just confirmed [21] the above stats exclude redirect views. So if there's some page that gets a lot of redirected views for some reason it will be skewed. You can see the redirects for the upload wizard [22] and [23] and the Portuguese Main Page [24]. It pushes Commons:Upload up to 644 but otherwise not much.
Nil Einne ( talk) 14:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. A few probably final additional points. I screwed up and missed Special:Upload earlier [25], this adds about 3k page views.
Also I'm not saying many of those page views are actually viewing the Commons Main Page. This gets into the complexity of the above discussion namely how many are there to do something else. But the point remains, if these people are visiting to find stuff for their non WMF project I find it questionable if they can be called insiders. Or at least if they really are all "insiders", at least they aren't really visiting for "insider" reasons. Note also the en.wikipedia itself only gets under 160k edits a day if I understand these stats correctly [26].
I admit, the number of edits for all projects was way higher than I expected compared to en [27], although page views does tally with my expectation (a bit over double en). There are a lot of wikidata edits [28] as you may expect, and I presume many of these don't end up at commons (the reason I excluded it before), still this doesn't doesn't completely explain the number of edits, you still have way more than double en. I presume this is in part because some others are perhaps developing more rapidly, maybe some other wikis are also conducive for more edits. I wonder if bots also play a part, since we know from our decision to use depth and then whoops that didn't work so well, that some smaller wikipedias seem to be playing with edit counts or at least were.
The Commons unique devices stats are interesting, I'm assuming but I'm not certain, these require a click through at least to the Media Viewer to register and don't just common from images on articles [29].
The number of views for Special:CreateAccount is very high [30] both compared to the Main Page and compared to wikipedias or at least English, Portuguese, Chinese and German. This is the first data I've seen suggesting that it could be true such a substantial proportion of the traffic to the Main Page is from insiders that non insiders are basically irrelevant although I'm not completely convinced. While looking into that data, it occurred to me that login was missing. Outside en, login seems to show up Especial:Entrar, Special:用户登录, Spezial:Anmelden and is is higher than create account Especial:Criar_conta, Special:创建账户, Spezial:Benutzerkonto_anlegen which I would sort of expect although not sure if the difference is what I would expect. Looking here at page views [31] [32] and RedirectViews [33] [34] seems to confirm it's not being recorded barring some weirdness with en. It is with the others for RedirectViews [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. I did wonder but neglected to mention before whether these special pages were having their page views properly recorded. It still looks like it might be for the others but not UserLogin. Not sure why but wonder if it's purposely excluded for privacy reasons or something to do with the way it's processed but mistakes or differences means this doesn't happen with the others.
Anyway although these show far lower CreateAccount compared to their Main Page, I'm still surprised by the number of views, I mean as said, we only get 160k edits a day yet nearly that many hits to the create account page and we get a similar number of new registered editors a month. Are people clicking on CreateAccount by accident or considering it, seeing it and then abandoning it? Is there some problem with the data? Or there a massive amplification of page hits by people creating accounts e.g. invalid password, invalid username? Incidentally, how does unified login affect the stats?
When it comes to commons, seems to me the questions are even stronger. In particular, if people are already insiders, why are they visiting the create account page and making so many hits? Even if every new unified account that hasn't been created results in 3 page hits, I'm not sure if the new user numbers add up noting that it's only about 370k a month for all wikis per earlier stats. Is it because a whole lot of people are visiting Commons without being logged in elsewhere and are trying to either login in and getting confused or probably more likely are unaware of unified login so trying to create an account perhaps with the same user name and having errors and trying multiple times? (If they are logged in at their home or some other wiki, they should be automatically be logged in so the link won't be visible on the Commons UI so it seems less likely to come from those.) Are people aware of unified login but not wishing to use the same account for whatever reason creating new accounts and hitting the same problems on other wikipedias which result in the massive hit rate?
Remembering back to my earlier point, even if these people have decided to contribute to commons, if they aren't already contributors elsewhere it's questionable if they are insiders at the time of the account creation. After they've created them sure. So we then get to the question of how many of these are there and did they visit the Main Page before account creation? Some many disagree on the insider point, but I consider it at a minimum imprecise language which I'm never a fan of. And we also have no way of knowing if they visited Commons Main Page with the intention of signing up and contributing, or for some other reason if they weren't already "insiders" which gets to the heart of the suggestion the Main Page doesn't matter. (Although as mentioned earlier in this PS, even insiders may also visit for reasons other than contributing so for me may still matter in terms of considering whether the Main Page matters.)
If someone could convince the WMF to release data on the source of page views for the Commons Main Page, this would probably be a key data point. Barring that, info on visits to pages on the Commons Main Page would also be of interest. I had a quick look, and these didn't look very high, and also seems to affirm that images coming from the page won't count as page views without at least some click. But I've also read stats that outside certain articles like the TFA, a lot of view counts aren't very high even on our main page. I.E. We have no way to know for sure how much people get out of these, is the stuff they see interesting but enough, or just something they don't care about or do they not see it at all (which again relates to the above thread)? Also I wonder if there is data on non unified account creations in commons or that originate in commons these may help analysis of the other data. And I'm sure a whole lot of other things I can't think of either at the moment or without more research or at all. I really need to sleep and have spend way too much time on this already so will end with this data.
But IMO while I think it's easy to accept the Commons Main Page gets a lot less people viewing it than at least ~7 wikipedias and maybe even the top 10 or more, whether it's true no reasonable number of people in the general public rely on it as a portal to see content is far less clear especially if we aren't also going to say the Main Pages of the those wikipedias outside the top 10-15 are pointless except to insiders. This doesn't mean anyone here has to care about it, I mean I myself have basically no real involvement in commons and rarely see their main page. But we shouldn't denigrate it as only of interest to insiders without IMO far harder data than I've seen presented thus far. As with IMO a lot of things, like our main page, we actually have only limited data on why people visit, what if anything they get out of it, etc. (Incidentally, I also still haven't found file creation stats for commons.)
BTW the search numbers may seem high but they don't look that different from the main page for some of the other wikipedias even if not so much en, and as I pointed out, we don't know from this whether these are insiders looking for something for WMF projects or to contribute to commons, or people looking for stuff for other reasons. (Note Especial:Pesquisar, Special:搜索 and Spezial:Suche are the equivalent of search although interesting the German wikipedia also has a fair few from Special:Search. Portuguese and Chinese has that too, but to a lesser extent.) Nil Einne ( talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Why isn't Tim Conway on the Recent Death List??-- XTMontana ( talk) 17:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess I understand, although he is such a big name. -- XTMontana ( talk) 14:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean 311dot -- XTMontana ( talk) 14:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I'm very sorry I hope you are not mad at me I am so dumb I am sorry forgive me please-- XTMontana ( talk) 14:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you think you could Invite me to the thing you were talking about?— Preceding unsigned comment added by XTMontana ( talk • contribs)
It would be better if Wikipedia added a feature on which you can change the background feature or like the background color, and if anyone wants to get specific background wallpaper, they can pay a small price to do just that. Chunkyfungus123 ( talk) 00:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Main Page/ has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the RfD template to this page, ensuing that the date is 23 May, as I have already completed the nomination, located at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 23. Thanks! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 17:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
To my view he was notable enough that his death should be listed in the Main Page, 'Recent Deaths' or even get a post in the 'In the news' section. Why not?
Go-in ( talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Main Page/1,
Wikipedia:Main Page/2,
Wikipedia:Main Page/3,
Wikipedia:Main Page/4 and
Wikipedia:Main Page/5 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The five copies of the Main Page above seem to use old syntax and should be synced with the current source of the Main Page. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Prem Tinsulanonda, Regent of Thailand died on May 26. Can't you add him on the recently dead list? Raisul-wiki ( talk) 03:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on the discussion at WT:TFA about the Main Page for 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeandcrumbs ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)