Talk:Main Page/Archive 184

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 180 ← Archive 182 Archive 183 Archive 184 Archive 185 Archive 186 → Archive 190

thats not bart simpson

The article's been off the main page for a while now, and this discussion is getting highly off topic.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2015 (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.

hope u guys know thats not bart simpsons in the pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.50 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 April 2015‎

Did you read the text? It says "Bart Simpson is a character voiced by Nancy Cartwright (pictured) . . ." The picture is of Nancy Cartwright. -- GB fan 00:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Seeing the voice actor pictured instead of the cartoon character is a little weird, admittedly. Equilibrium007 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It is weird. We wouldn't use this or this to depict Darth Vader. I understand why there is no eligible image of the character and there is no doubt that Cartwright's talents are important but the article is not about Cartwright. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
No, we would use those images. We regularly feature pictures of the actors who portray characters. --Jayron32 02:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason why I chose the example I did is because the actors who portray Darth Vader and Bart Simpson are never seen in character, so their images are not associated with the topic of the article. It's a lot more out of context than, say, showing a random picture of David Duchovny to represent Fox Mulder (as has been done for at least one TFA). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Another option is to not have an image there at all. The normal practice is not to post any copyrighted or fair use images on the Main page (only public domain or free content images). A picture of Bart Simpson is considered a copyrighted image. See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why is a Main Page section missing an illustrative image? Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but it is Bart Simpson to a great degree ... I think it's brilliant to have her pic there! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It does seem somewhat jarring. With respect to User:Jayron32, we often do have pictures of actors that play a particular character, but then again the actor in question usually resembles the character. Cartwright looks nothing like Bart Simpson. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC).
He's drawn. What are you gonna do? She does sound a lot like him, though... --Jayron32 03:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, the vocal resemblance is uncanny ;-). I think this is one featured article that doesn't need a picture on the front page, to be honest. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC).
  • I agree that one would expect to see a picture of Bart rather than the person who voices him when his article is featured. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • - Comment No. That a woman was behind an iconic "brat" male is much more interesting than yet another pic of Bart. HullIntegrity\ talk / 14:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That would make sense if the article about the woman was featured, and not that of Bart. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. People tend to be more interesting than characters or objects. But using that metric to choose the feature image of a featured article, tomorrow's featured article--Rhodotus--the picture would be one of Jean Baptiste François Pierre Bulliard. The day's after--Seated Liberty dollar--would have a image of Christian Gobrecht, and so on. That's a moot though, as the image wasn't picked because Cartwright is a person, but because of the no-fair-use policy for the main page. --5.66.33.143 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would then submit that it would be more helpful to not have an image at all if we are unable to have one of Bart. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We could have had some primroses (it being Primrose Day). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This was my call btw ... User:Crisco 1492 has made all the others calls on images in the Today's Featured Article column since January ... and he knows what he's doing, so don't hold it against him :) For me, this was a simple calculation: the Main Page gets around 10M hits daily, and most of those people aren't clicking specifically to read our TFA column. But our column comes up at the top (including on mobile view) ... so no matter why they came here, they might give us a glance ... but only if that first glance shows them something they find interesting. This is why writers of similar columns generally make an effort to find acceptable images ... we don't have to succeed, but it's my position we should make the effort. There is no Bart Simpson in reality, just Nancy Cartwright, since 1987 ... and this is Wikipedia, so we're telling people counterintuitive stuff they didn't know all the time ... that's our job. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And if #everybody# was happy with the MP #all the time# there would be something seriously wrong with it. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"No. That a woman was behind an iconic "brat" male is much more interesting than yet another pic of Bart."
What exactly do you have against men as a gender? Isn't wikipedia supposed to be neutral and not favour one group of people over another?Equivocasmannus (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
?????? How do you get any anti-male sentiment out of that? Bart is male, Bart is a brat, therefor Bart is a brat male. This says NOTHING about any other men. --Khajidha (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Asocciating all men with "brats" is anti-male stererotyping. Saying someone shouldn't get a picture on the front-page because they're represented as a guy is anti-male. But let me guess it's not stereotyping if the group you stereotype is not a minority group, right?Equivocasmannus (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No one is associating ALL men with brats. Nor is anyone saying that a male shouldn't get pictured because he's a male. The comment is saying that Bart Simpson is SPECIFICALLY (as an individual and not as a representative of a class) a brat. And that a picture of his voice actor is more interesting than a picture of Bart, whose picture is visible all over the internet, on Tshirts, bumper stickers, comic books, etc, etc, etc. I am really struggling to see how you could twist the meaning of the quoted text to your reading. You are the only one speaking of stereotyping here. --Khajidha (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How wide is agility?

1.85 metres according to the Sisu KB-124 DYK currently on the main page. Something may have been lost in translation from Finnish I suspect, or possibly just a careless bit of copy-editing. Trucks can certainly be agile, and the width of a truck (or rather the lack of it) may make for agility, but I can't for the life of me see how the width itself can be agile. Perhaps someone could de-mangle the DYK, before we inflict it on too many more readers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You might be better served to remove this from here, and to repost it at WP:ERRORS, as described at the instructions at the top of this page. --Jayron32 00:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading moto!!!

Not related to the Main Page, as admitted by the original poster, so this is the wrong venue. Take to the the village pump instead. Modest Genius talk 12:34, 22 April 2015 (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.

Given the experience with editing articles so far, it would be more truthful to change the motto to: The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk)

A reasonable observation, but one that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Main Page, which is the topic of this talk page. I suggest you instead discuss this at the village pump. Modest Genius talk 12:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Not true. Anyone CAN edit, but that doesn't mean that all edits will be allowed to stand. --Khajidha (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
So, in essence, it's like western-style "democracy" - you have the right to vote, but nobody guarantees you, that you'll have good options to vote for, or that your vote would be acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Having your edit undone does acknowledge it. It acknowledges that it wasn't worth keeping. Again, as the person wanting to add something it is up to you to convince the community that it is worth keeping if it is challenged or removed. The motto isn't "the encyclopedia anyone can edit in any way and those edits cannot be changed by anyone for any reason." Many people with no concept of the norms of Wikipedia edit everyday and many of their edits become valuable parts of the encyclopedia. I don't know what has got you so riled up, but if there is some edit of yours that was reverted perhaps you should examine it to see if it really was an improvement to the encyclopedia. Just because you worked hard on something doesn't mean it belongs here. --Khajidha (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
More importantly "Anyone can edit" doesn't actually apply to the Main Page. I guess you meant motto not moto? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I meant motto. And I was speaking of the motto itself, not the Main Page - in this wording, it holds a promise, which isn't actually fulfilled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How about "Anyone can edit * terms and conditions may apply. Others may repeatedly undo your hard work and refuse to explain why causing you to become one of the legion of fair minded people that will no longer contribute"? Lemlinspire (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, just because you can edit doesn't mean that your edits will remain. At no point is anyone promised that their edits will be maintained. And just because something is hard work doesn't mean it is valuable. If a person's contribution is manifestly not encyclopedic it can and should be removed and explanations are not required. If you are upset about being reverted ASK for reasons. Don't expect them out of the blue. It is the person adding material's responsibility to prove that it belongs if challenged. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively - create your own wiki (there are 'a number' of wiki farms) and have your rules. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For technical reasons, "#" redirects here.

For technical reasons, "#" redirects here. For the number sign, see Number sign.

This warning should be displayed on the main page. People will be confused otherwise. — Supuhstar * — 22:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see little merit in adding such a note - it will add clutter, and I find it hard to believe that readers regularly search for '#'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is unlikely "#" is used as a search term enough to warrant a permanent spot on the Main Page of Wikipedia, seen by millions who likely aren't searching for "#". 331dot (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree it isn't worth a hatnote. We shouldn't have one for Home page or William Main Page either. If somebody should make a hit song/album/book/film called Main Page then we can discuss what to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps if there was a note on the bottom of the page, it might be worth it. That's a big "might" though. Eman235/talk 03:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Baltimore Riots

Nothing on the main page about the riots? --dashiellx (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed at WP:ITNC and the discussion was closed with no consensus. If you feel that there have been enough new developments you could make a new nomination but I would suggest reviewing the discussions first- and keep in mind that even the Ferguson protests which had a nationwide element were not posted. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This is what we get here on Wikipedia when the editors on here are not diverse. Which is still a major issue here on Wikipedia. Some of the reasons behind the opposing views are also just appalling.
I opposed the original nomination because at the time the protests were fairly run of the mill. However the situation has undoubtedly changed dramatically. I think I would support a renomination based on recent developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I too would support a rerun given that it has escalated from a shooting to riots. And it's still "In the news" and it's not leaving it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Technical question

Putting this here because I can't find a more specific place … My computer is an iMac (browser Safari), which normally takes me back to where I was in an article if I detour somewhere else by following a link, then return. On most sites that continues to be the case, and used to be the case on WP, but recently (the last couple or few months) what happens on WP is that I'm returned to the beginning of the article instead of where I was. Very annoying, especially in the case of a long article or an interminable talk page. Is there a good reason? Or can we go back? Or is there a setting I need to change? Help, techie colleagues. Thanks, Awien (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better at WP:RD/C, WP:VP/T or WP:HD? Eman235/talk 00:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Now you mention it … probably! (But those aren't easy to find when you don't know). Thanks, Awien (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
And the minute I mentioned it, the problem went away . . . Awien (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't problems always go away the minute you ask for help? Eman235/talk 01:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a bit like always finding something in the last place you look? (Not really, but couldn't resist). Awien (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there an entire section of Murphy's Laws covering computers?

'Mutually miscomprehending computers' (while we humans can 'recognise the alternatives - including the several spelling/usage conventions of English) are the reason why they will never quite take over the world. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Milano Expo 2015

Expo 2015 is the current Universal Exposition being hosted by Milan, Italy. The opening took place on 1 May 2015 and the expo will close on 31 October 2015. I think this majour international event certainly needs to be highlighted in our "In the news" section werldwayd (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Werldwayd: If you do, please joing the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, which is where such decisions are made. Please also read the comments others have made there as well, there are significant problems with the article that need fixing before it is posted, so perhaps you could pitch in and improve the article too? But seriously, posting this request here does no good at all, you need to make your voice heard at ITN/C if you want to be counted. --Jayron32 23:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
What Jayron said. The main problem is the current poor quality of the article. If that is fixed, it could be posted. As is, not so much. "In The News" is more interesting in posting quality articles that happen to be in the news than things that are in the news and happen to have an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be an unusual item for ITN? The opening already happened and it's running until Oct., so it's going to be consistently "in the news" until then. Do we just leave it up until October, telling people, hey, this is still going on. The opening would have been really the only appropriate time to post it. The Venice Biennale is also starting soon. Do we usually mention that? Ongoing events aren't in the news strictly speaking unless something out of the ordinary happens. freshacconci talk to me 17:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well yes, now (a week later) it is too late. At the time of the question, however, it was not too late to post the opening. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we just start a sports news column already?

Is it really necessary to include so many sports events in the recent events column alongside news events? Why isn't this like every newspaper in the world where there's a separate section for sports?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: If you are dissatisfied with stores that are in the ITN box, I invite you to participate in nomination discussions(or make your own nominations) at the ITN candidates page. If you are formally proposing a separate sports box on the Main Page (a major layout change) it might be better for you to make a proposal at the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Or nominate items you don't believe to be worthwhile posting, but which are posted every year, at WT:ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. I've started a discussion for adding a purely sports section at the Village Pump (idea lab). Please join in if you have any ideas but I think this proposal is pretty strait forward.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

More of the issue is that there are certain times of the year when there are many notable sporting events; for instance around this time of the year most of the major non-summer sports leagues (i.e. the European football leagues) come to a close and Cup competition finals are held, so there are more sports stories than normal. Over the summer, that tends to decrease. Black Kite (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Timing is certainly part of it, as many more sports finish in the spring than other times of the year. The other part is insufficient support for (some) non-sports items on WP:ITN/C. If people really wish to have a lower density of sports on ITN, I suggest becoming involved with the project and supporting stories they want to see posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Text of today's featured article

As I write this, the text in the box is: "The Sinking of the Lusitania is a silent animated short film by American cartoonist and animator Winsor McCay that depicts the 1915 disaster in which a German submarine killed 1,198 people ...". I find this text odd. The sinking of the Lusitania may have been a disaster for the USA, but it was a tactical victory for the Germans. How can it be called a 'disaster' then? It may have been a retrospective disaster for the Germans as well since it brought the US into the war, but in the same way the attack on Pearl Harbour is not called a disaster, so too should this event not be called a disaster. Notably, the Sinking of the RMS Lusitania page refers to the sinking as an 'incident', although the The Sinking of the Lusitania page has it categorized under the disasters portal. Odd.

I looked at the page on the silent film and didn't see the exact text that showed up in the today's featured article box, so I'm posting this here. Banedon (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Just now saw this. Thanks for your input. Several replies come to mind: 1. When I type "Lusitania d" in my Google search bar, the first thing that comes up is "Lusitania disaster". There are lots of Google hits on the term, too. 2. Many style guides recommend avoiding redundancy and repetition by picking a more general word for something the second time you mention it ... so for instance, "Lusitania ... the ship", and "the sinking ... the disaster". 3. Dictionaries are better than they used to be, particularly the ones with usage notes. I rarely get in trouble when I accept their definitions at face value. See M-W and AHD. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Language capitalisation?

Under the Wikipedia languages section, not all languages begin with Upper case. Why so? (While in the left hand side, all of the languages begin with Upper case.
117.217.117.31 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume that the Wikipedia languages section uses the native style; e.g. the Spanish word for the Spanish language is "español", not "Español". But I have no idea why the side bar capitalizes everything. 75.44.37.151 (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There should be a uniformity.
117.217.117.38 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There is. They all start with a capital. Can't get much more uniform than that. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Everything in the sidebar starts with a capital: "Main", "Contents", "Featured", "Current", "Random", "Donate", etc. The "Wikipedia languages" section at the bottom of the main page is treated as lists of words on the same line. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Even in that section there is no uniformity. Some languages are capitalised (Deutsch, Nederlands, Turkce), while most aren't (espanol, italiano, polski, portugues). 117.192.163.228 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned before, the "Wikipedia languages" section uses the capitalization rules of each language for the name of that language. --Khajidha (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never understood why we insist on following disparate capitalization rules rather than capitalizing for uniformity. It's no different than any navbox, in which all of the article titles are capitalized. Even in languages where language names are lower-case, language names are capitalized at the beginning of sentences, in bulleted lists, etc. Note that the Spanish and Italian Wikipedias (both large languages in which language names are lower-cased) both capitalize all of the languages in their language lists. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Victory Day - surely worth including today?

I'm amazed but, unless I've missed it, Victory Day (9 May) doesn't seem to have made it into the Main Page. It's a massive observation in Russia and across Eastern Europe. As the 70th anniversary of 1945, this year's observance will be particularly important. Not having it would seem a big misfortune... 192.76.8.37 (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The Victory in Europe Day and German Instrument of Surrender articles were posted on the Main page yesterday to observe the 70th anniversary, as it is usually done on May 8 in the U.S. and other English speaking countries (this is, of course, the English Wikipedia). Then there is also the issue that the Victory Day (9 May) article has sourcing and verification issues (this section in particular), which makes it less likely to appear on the main page per rule 8 of the "On this day" guidelines. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning a holiday that commemorates the founding of Europe while omitting a major Russian observation looks very, very suspicious and creates potential WP:NPOV questions. Today's Victory Day has a lot of political baggage, and "boycotting" today's Victory Day observation raises a lot of questions about whether Wikipedia is taking sides in a real world dispute. Then again, observing it is also political. Mentioning Schuman Day as the sole holiday certainly suggests a partisan agenda. Not an easy question to answer, but something that was handled carelessly. 221.212.126.212 (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
If you are somehow referring to the systemic bias here on Wikipedia, then yes. I think it is no surprise that more English speakers and editors here would be more familiar with Schuman Day and the observance of Victory Day on 8 May, rather than the Victory Day observance on 9 May. In fact, I do not think many people would even have the slightest clue that a time zone difference would affect the observance of a public holiday from one side of a continent to the other. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Turn on the news. Today's Victory Day observation is front-page news for most news organizations (CNN, BBC, etc...) - this isn't just another routine holiday, it's a political event. While mentioning it in an "in the news" bullet would require some writing, it's probably best to not look like Wikipedia forgot to notice a major bit of political theater. Recognizing a pro-EU event (that isn't a major holiday) while snubbing a Russian event in the midst of hostilities in the Ukraine makes this easy to interpret in ways that make Wikipedia look decidedly non-neutral. 221.212.126.212 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning this in the In the news box would require consensus at the nominations page with a proper nomination. I'm not sure mere "political theater" warrants mentioning, but the discussion should be there. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
According to Talk:Victory Day (9 May) it was in "On this day..." every year from 2005 to 2013. In 2014 it was moved to the "Ineligible" section of the staging area [1] with the reason "refimprove section". Victory Day (9 May)#Countries with a 9 May Celebration still displays {{refimprove section|date=May 2013}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
(undent) It's been noted that the article is imperfect, but the absence of a major observation with substantial headlines is conspicuous. WP:IAR can be applied if appropriate. Mostly what looks really bad is that the holiday that is mentioned gives the impression of a pro-EU and anti-Russian partisan bias. Might be nice to include something else so that there isn't an undue focus on a fairly obscure holiday. I've never heard of it in the U.S., and some quick web searches show very little English language coverage. I wish I could confirm with Der Spiegel of Le Monde if they consider the holiday worth mentioning, but I'm in the PRC right now and I have limited internet. 221.212.126.212 (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple really. - just delete the two year old refimprove tag and any uncited text and it's not a problem anymore. If no-one has improved the refs in two years then they're not likely to now and the tag isn't serving a purpose. I really wish people would improve the article rather than use these lazy tags. I've added some citations - they're not hard to find using google. Perhaps those who think it should be on the main page could add some more - it's quite easy if you use the cite templates on the editing toolbar but it's a lot of work for one person to find them all. Richerman (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course that's what you wish for. But in many articles, some knowledge of the subject matter is required to make an adequate judgement on what is and what is not a suitable reference. Tags are designed to be fixed by people who perhaps have a clue. It would be better to fix the tags than bitch about the people that add the tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
If you came here to complain that an article isn't on the main page, then got told the reason why is because the article has quality issues, and you came back to complain a second time without fixing the article, then there's no one to blame except yourself that it wasn't on the main page. --Jayron32 20:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Dude, calm down. I'd have fixed it myself, but trying to edit from a smartphone on poor wifi from a country where half the usual references are blocked by government censorship isn't exactly easy. Doesn't matter now anyway. 221.212.126.212 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Except you didn't ask for help fixing it up. You demanded that a substandard article be put on the main page. That isn't going to get you anywhere. The purpose of OTD is to highlight quality Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 00:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The individual article listings, sure. The holiday observance listing appears to be just that - not a spotlight, just a statement of fact. No one disputes that several countries celebrate that holiday. If the holiday listing is intended to be a list curated for quality and intentionally incomplete, it should be a little more transparent that it is cherry-picked. The concern here is that the omission may potentially misinform or confuse our readers. This isn't the featured article, it's a one-line snippet. Why are we including holidays on the front page? I believed that it was because we were trying to present an honest list. From that perspective, it was more important that the list be complete than the articles meet high standards. 221.212.126.212 (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Honesty has nothing to do with it. We link quality items from the main page. If that means we don't publish something that's below par, that's how it works. Effort is better expending fixing these low quality articles rather than complaining about why they didn't get posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Mindless obedience of rules, no consideration for the expectations of users or utility as a reference... Does that seem right to you? 221.212.126.212 (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not "mindless" to want quality articles on the main page of a website visited by millions of people. Utility as a reference is not helped by posting low quality pages to the main page, and people expect websites to be of decent quality. Don't really see the issue here. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
(Undent) It is "mindless" when the quality of the main page itself is meaningfully damaged by omitted information. Failing to include what was, for this year, a notable holiday meant that that section of the page was noticeably incomplete. What I'm arguing is that the quality of the main page matters more than the quality of the articles linked. 221.212.126.212 (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The main page is the articles that are linked there. It is meant to steer people to articles and it does us no favors if they are steered towards poor articles. If someone feels there is an omission on the main page due to quality issues, the best thing to do is to work to address those issues. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The main page is more than a collection of links. If it is deficient, especially when that deficiency deals with one of the project's core values (WP:NPOV), I'd think we'd want to fix it. It's the most visible page on the project, so fixing it matters quite a lot. 221.212.126.212 (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Every line of text you contributed to this discussion could have been a line of text to the deficient article. Every minute spent crafting an argument here could have been spent researching improvements to the article you want to see on the main page. You can keep whining until you're blue in the face, and no one here is going to do what you want, merely because you're willing to repeat the same point over and over again. You could, like, actually fix the article. Then we'd have already posted it. --Jayron32 14:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could be improved for the 71st anniversary? Non-round-figure anniversaries (decades, 25, 75 etc years on) are likely to be 'in the news/appear on the newspapers' "On this day" columns etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It was really only relevant for this year, since it was treated as a major anniversary, and the opportunity has been missed. The likelihood that it will be significant again next year is marginal. The point, though, is not about the specific article. Quality deficiencies (i.e. obvious omissions) of the main page itself are apparently tolerated, but links to less than perfect articles are strictly forbidden. I disagree, but it appears that the consensus is that the quality of links is the only factor considered. 221.212.126.212 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No one has said an article needs to be 100% perfect, but there are certain standards that are expected. As has been said, if you want to see something posted, you need to do the work to see it get there. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The Main Page wasn't deficient, the article you wanted to link to was. The Main Page is a collection of things that are in proper shape to be shared, things that aren't fit to be shared do not leave holes on the Main Page. They simply do not appear. --Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

UK elections

Is it time yet for the results to appear on ITN? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Especially as Cameron has now been to the Palace and returned. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Well we normally have to agree that an update to the linked article is sufficient and that the blurb is correctly written. If you'd like to help with the process, WP:ITNC is the venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
If it had been the American election, the result would have been posted within a matter of minutes. hi my name is paul
Difference is, the way UK elections work the result wasn't totally clear until this afternoon. — foxj 16:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
If it had been the American election, a thousand editors would have already updated everything and ensured there were no maintenance tags to allow posting in minutes. Resolute 20:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
If it had been up to the BBC news, they'd have posted the results before the polls closed. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There were no maintenance tags, and many people were updating it, the official results didn't come through until after midday, the article was posted swiftly afterwards, once it had been correctly updated. This looks like a lot of fuss over absolutely nothing to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The 2014 US elections was posted after 12 hours, albeit controversially because there were arguments that "it was of little interest elsewhere"(!!!). It wasn't "posted within a matter of minutes". FWIW, this election was posted after 14 hours, so the vulgar Americans were still ahead by a couple of hours... –HTD 09:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Fourteen hours after what? The official result? I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. Fourteen (and twelve for the U.S.) hours after they were suggested. In the UK case, looking at the ITN/C discussion, it was apparent that it was a Conservative majority after 9 hours. –HTD 10:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
But the item was posted how long after they crossed the winning line? That's the important measure, not what a bunch of speculation says. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
For the UK, Dweller on 11:37 11:35 said that the Conservatives could form a majority with 325 seats. It was posted at 12:52, so that's more than an hour.
For the US, Medeis on 4:47 said that the Republicans had the majority, and it was posted at 6:49, so that's two hours. The UK wins by like ~30 minutes. –HTD 11:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
ACtually for a mathematical absolute majority, it's 326 seats required. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
They got the 326th seat a minute later at 11:36. At either case, both elections weren't "posted within a matter of minutes". If we're going by your measure, the UK was posted faster, albeit very marginally. –HTD 11:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you're an hour out I'm afraid. It was just after 12:30 that the 326th seat was declared. Cameron was already on his way to the palace. (link) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You're both right. 11:36 is the new 12:36. See below. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't me. I pushed for us to post when the Conservatives had 325, which is an effective majority. It was User:Martinevans123 (see this) who posted the 326th seat win. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I used the time stamps after every statement. All of them are in UTC. –HTD 17:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok! Bye. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't me, of course, just my CIA Doppelgänger. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Guys, check the date stamps on the diff I posted above. The signatures say an hour earlier than the GB time at which they were actually posted. Martin was posting at 12:36 BST. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No surprise there, of course. Datestamps are all in UTC. The election was conducted in BST. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Should not the logo on the main page have the link disabled. Because clicking on it will load the page aGain? (which is aGasist the rules for articles/ better say discouraged)
117.198.184.5 (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this, but I think it would be too difficult to change it for a reason as small as this. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Something like a link to Talk:Main Page not working on this page? Probably. Eman235/talk 22:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever it may be, the link must not be to the main page itself.
117.198.184.5 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The logo should consistently link to the same page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page from everywhere, including main page redirects, alternative url's like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page, mirrors copying the whole page including html, readers saving the main page locally, and so on. All unrelated websites I examined also have a working logo link on the page the logo links to. The text link "Main page" below the logo might have been unlinked and bold like self-links in wikitext (I don't actually support that idea), but don't mess with the logo. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried to veiw the source code but nothing helpful. The elft content is generated from somewhere else. But why not that left table separately designed for MP?
117.198.184.5 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
That part of the sidebar is determined by MediaWiki:Sidebar (the "Main Page" name is set by MediaWiki:Mainpage), but I don't think it can be individualized for the main page without changes to the MediaWiki software. It's a minor issue I wouldn't request a MediaWiki change for. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I don't know how it is programmed over there: but you could ask to make a change by using if then else. Like If (page=Main page) then (link=) [[link= meaning disabling the link]] else link= Main Page.
117.217.116.43 (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It is actually a counterbalance to the 'you have now reached the end of the internet' pages (eg [2]). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Having the logo link to the mainpage even on the mainpage itself is a pretty standard web-design feature. CNN does it. BBC does it. NYTimes does it. etc. Etc. It's almost hard to find a major site that doesn't.
It's even occasionally useful, because clicking it reloads the page. 74.113.53.42 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's still a pretty stupid thing to do. I mean, it basically is saying "Click here to go....here". It's pointless. And why would I need that link to reload when I already have a reload icon in my browser? Not to mention the F5 key. --Khajidha (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It feels even stupider to write additional code to go out of our way to remove this common, completely innocuous feature. 74.113.53.42 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well if that is stupid then linking the MP to itself isn't? If you talk about other famous websites, why make their mistake over here. Moreover look for the top website in web ranking: Google's home page. The logo won't land you on google aGain.
And that cuts your own statement @74.113.53.42.
117.222.91.108 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No purpose in changing it. It follows the standard system of modern webpages and provides a easy button to refresh the page. Also can't be changed without changing the link on every page which is not desired. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have mentioned the If Then Else option. And Google doesn't do it. Refresh can be done by F5 of the refresh button above. By the way that will not bypass the cache. Better if the clicking purges the page by clearing cache.
117.222.91.108 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The question is - how often are 'most people' going to click on the logo while on the main page; and how often this will be either accidental or seeing if the page has been updated (eg with the UK election results last Friday)? Is it actually 'considered an issue' or 'merely a quirk of the system (and so to be ignored)? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, our main page has an unusual multipart url so new readers may try to click the logo to find what they think will be the real front page. The selflink tells them they are already there. There are many reasons to keep the logo link and only one unimportant reason to remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the question we should ask ourselves is: does this worsen readers' experience in any way? to which I would say no. I see no reason to remove this interesting, harmless little quirk. What other websites do should not be considered unless one wants to argue that they do it better (or worse, or equally well) for some concrete reason, and I don't see that argument being made. Some of the other reasoning above would be fine if the link weren't there and we were discussing whether to add one, but the current situation calls for something stronger -- "it's stupid/unnecessary/whatever" doesn't mean it's harmful. ekips39 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not harmful but better if it clears cache and purges the page. That would be great.
117.212.216.137 (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
In common with 'probably many regular WP-users' I check the MP talk page regularly: and of 'the points and arguments which regularly surface here' (are we due for 'one of the usual suspects'?) the point that can be colloquially defined as 'the logo is part of its own set' does not seem to have been raised until now. (What is 'the actual definition' of what I am referring to?) Jackiespeel (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I just told that it is not necessary to link the MP.
BUT Now I have a better idea. As Wikipedia, Wikiquote, wikinews and other sister project page have their logo, but no link to MP. It should be linked. Isn't it? But you all will say for which language? There is a dropdown list. It should link to that language, which user selects! As simple as that!
117.198.190.32 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Formatting/Layout of "Did you know..."

I feel that the line "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" should be moved below the bulleted list. Here is a screenshot to better explain: http://i.imgur.com/AUb9G2e.png I feel very strongly about this for some reason. Fractal618 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't really say that I agree. Looking at the picture, I'm not sure how that would be better. Perhaps you could elaborate further? Eman235/talk 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Where it is now interrupts the flow of the phrasing. "Did you know..." is a lead in clause to each of the items listed. It should be read as "Did you know...that at least one species of the goblin spider Unicorn (male pedipalp pictured) practices genital mutilation?" Moving the "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" to the end allows this to be more evident. I would suggest changing it to "All of the above are from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content." to improve the grammar. Alternatively, one could simply switch the "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" and "Did you know...". It's like those "Caution Automatic Door" signs that, going on actual word order, really read "Automatic Caution Door". --Khajidha (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Better idea: move the "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" to the end and rephrase as "...that all of the above are from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content?" --Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
And when the equipment starts answering back the word 'caution' could become a verb. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all. The Caution Automatic Door signs is a great analogy. At least I know now that the flow of phrasing doesn't bother just me.Fractal618 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if it's to be moved to the bottom it needs rephrasing. That flow always has bothered me; but at the bottom, the colon looks weird. On the subject of automatic caution doors: [3] Eman235/talk 22:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Or we could change the name of the section to "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content", and put "Did you know…" inside the box just above the items. A much more logical sequence. Awien (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any bold admins around? Eman235/talk 01:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Awien: that was my other suggestion, I just like putting the "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" last because it can then be worked in as a final item in the list. Eman235: You'll notice that my last suggestion changed the colon to a question mark to make it fit into the pattern. --Khajidha (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Khajidha, didn't mean to steal your idea. In any case, either suggestion is better than the present fractured grammar, but as for finding a bold admin ... lots of luck! Awien (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone else think there should be an RfC about this? Eman235/talk 21:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody disagrees that a fix is in order. I'm fine with moving "The above are drawn from Wikipedia's new or improved content" (or similar) to the bottom, so nobody who has expressed an opinion has any problem with that. RfC seems kind of a big deal when what's really needed is a bold admin, but if that's what it would take ... Awien (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Use {{admin help}}? Ask Jimbo? Look through Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active and ask ALL of them? Eman235/talk 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No objection, but no action … sigh. Awien (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(Adds) Just to recapitulate, what we have now is this:
Did you know...From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:…that the globehead parrotfish etc.
In other words, fractured syntax.
Seriously, isn't there ONE admin who cares? Awien (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
"Did you know . . ." is already deliberately fractured to be completed by multiple statements, '. . . that'. The explanatory phrase in italics acts as a parenthetical, it's the ". . .", that break the syntax, not the explanatory phrase -- so that's probably why you don't get people getting all that up in arms about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You have a point, and I can see how the proposed re-wordings would be clearer. I think your problem finding a bold admin is the location of this discussion. I'm going to link to it from Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Thank you, ONUnicorn(?). Fingers crossed. Awien (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Leave it alone -- it's perfectly fine as it is. As Alanscottwalker has explained, the syntax isn't fractured because the typography makes it easy to see that there's an interruption (or suspension, if you will) between the ellipses ... ellipsises ... ellipseses ... whatever. EEng (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Pretty imperious for just a fellow editor, EEng. Also not much of a grammarian. Awien (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I hide the true extent of my knowledge so as not to overawe you. But in any event this isn't a question of grammar. EEng (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so moved by the argument about "fractured syntax" as about the idea of improving the flow. Fractal618's screenshot makes a direct connection from "Did you know..." to "... that the globehead parrotfish..." That catches the reader's eye. At the end, we could make the line into a sentence: "See more new and recently improved content here." Yoninah (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Or alternately -- rename the section "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content", then put "Did you know..." where that text used to be. Eman235/talk 04:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker and EEng, the two sets of suspension marks don't alter the fact that "Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram etc. etc. " is a grammatically correct sentence, or as some people prefer to phrase it, one that flows. "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:" is a sentence fragment that can't be inserted into it because it's a completely separate idea and therefore needs a sentence of its own. An example of a real parenthesis in the DYK sentence could be something like "Did you know (that's a rhetorical question, because we know you don't) that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram etc. etc. " The suspension marks simply serve as a visual link between the question in the heading and the various items completing it.
As for getting up in arms about it, bitter experience teaches us that getting anything on the Main Page changed is a bit like trying to push the Naha Stone up a mountain. But we did succeed in getting "Today's Featured Article" changed to "From today's featured article", and "More" to "Full article…" and the sky didn't fall. Hear that, admins? Six in favour, only two against, with either solution acceptable to the six. Awien (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You're preoccupied with sentence structure, but not everything is or needs to be a sentence. EEng (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"Did you know . . ." is a section title, and the sub title is not a separate idea, it is another way to complete the idea. It says where Did you know comes from. Did you know our new content. And it's not here where this would be decided, it is an RfC on the Did you know project page. (And no, several different ideas of 'do something else', don't make a consensus)Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well...if no-one objects to an RfC at WT:DYK, I'm going to go ahead and start one! Eman235/talk 00:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Eman235, ONUnicorn already mentioned the question at Wikipedia talk:Did you know and linked here, but it might help if you were to add a summary of the discussion so far, along with a clear proposal as to what change(s) we're suggesting. I can't now, it's past my bedtime. Cheers, Awien (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
An RfC would be good. Some previous discussions I found:

U.S. Constitutional convention

Actually, 12 states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention--Rhode Island didn't send any. Foreignshore (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this an error report? If so WP:ERRORS is your venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

ITN proposal: All sports items go to a sports "ticker"

For those interested, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news on a proposal to put all sports items into a sports ticker (presumably like "Recent deaths" and "Ongoing" currently are. Please comment there if you have any input. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Footer formatting

Right now, all section footers use a mdash-separated list for their footer links. For technical reasons, I was asked to make {{In the news}} less error-prone because it is all hand-formatted (including the logic). I fixed that in {{In the news/sandbox}}, and turned the footer into a proper horizontal list (using a subtemplate), which shows bullets instead of mdashes. That change is well received, but in the interest of consistency, we felt the need to ask if this is an issue here? If this inconsitency is too much of a problem, we can do two things:

  1. Don't use bullets for In the news.
  2. Make other sections use horizontral lists/bullet as well.

The first option is, understandibly, very undesirable, as it forces ITN to revert to an unworkable template. The second option is an oppurtunity to make all section footers more accessible by using proper HTML lists, and makes managing the sections a whole lot easier. Note that the languages section already uses horizontal lists. I'll be happy to adapt any relevant templates. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support option 2 and thanks for your work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support option 2. To the best of my knowledge, the current formatting exists because someone happened to create it years ago and we've yet to replace it with something better. Indeed, Edokter, thanks for enabling us to do that. —David Levy 20:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support option 2  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support option 2, thanks Edokter, Stephen 22:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2, and if someone could write a script to generate it based on the previous days' TFAs, even better. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • POTD has this, but not in any reusable way. This will have to be a separate project. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • So does TFL. TFA in fact goes all the way back to February 2004. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Dank means the line with "Recently featured:". TFL (and all ohter, except POTD) still requires those links to be added manually. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, I understand that now. So for future TFA and POTDs that have not been created, I guess for now we can only change the preload templates {{TFA preload}} and {{POTD row}} to display the lines instead of the bullets. And as for TFL, I believe the change should be made on the example code on Template:TFLcontent/doc#Usage. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
          • POTD is good. TFA, TFL will switch June 1st. The main point is that maintaining those recents line will be much easier, as they are now regular wikilists instead of non-semantic, hand-formatted, ndash-separated lines. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't care but for the record, they're ndashes, not mdashes. EEng (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for coming. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Love it Looks very clean and nice, dig what you've done for ITN in the new template, go with option 2 and make this main page standard. The subtemplate idea is long overdue, and will make posting of RD and ongoing much easier. --Jayron32 04:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is excellent! Makes it easier for the admins as well, as mentioned above. --Tone 15:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Very well! I have already prepared all the changes and I will roll them out between now and wednesday, starting with ITN. Not all changes will be immediate; most TFA and TFL pages are already prepared until the end on the month, so their 'Recently featured' lines will still show dashes until then (the actual changes are made in their /preload templates). I will post updates here. Please post bugs when you see them (not that I expect any). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Updates
  • Today's featured article  Done, now visible ('Recently' visible June 1st)
  • Today's featured list  Done, now visible ('Recently' visible June 1st)
  • In the news  Done, now visible
  • On this day  Done, now visible
  • Did you know  Done, now visible
  • Picture of the day  Done, visible from May 20th
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not replace any dashes with middots by hand. It is not proper list markup and creates inconsistencies in the archives. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I edit home page?

Why can't I edit the home page, is there any problem with the wikipedia server? I want to edit it E Plurbis Unum (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Only users with administrator access can edit the main page. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I have the adminsterater access please? Thanks02:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)E Plurbis Unum (talk)

Not without more editing experience and a vote by other Wikipedians in a lengthy process. But if you say what you want to edit on the main page, an admin may help you if it is a needed edit. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Also this may be a relevant reading. --Jayron32 02:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment on the MP

As the archiving bot has virtually swallowed the talk page.

'Four chaps and a chappess' - no 'creatures, plants, things or ideas' - is this a record? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Black Hole Wikipedia strikes again. Eman235/talk 11:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I was pursuing my own suggestion there :)

Is there any correlation between the plughole bot and 'something causing much discussion on the MP talk page' within the next few days? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Does any of this discussion help anything tangible or is this just a place for people to have esoteric carnivals? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Ongoing events

I have noticed that in the Ongoing events we have only the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen; however, i believe that a far more notable ongoing event would have to be the 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis. Why is this article not at least also added?--58.106.241.221 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It has been proposed at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2015_Rohingya_refugee_crisis and is currently being discussed. So far it looks like it will get posted at some point in the near future. CaptRik (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, cool. Thanks for the quick reply.--58.106.241.221 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it's now been posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks once again.58.106.241.221 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Outage?

It looks like wikipedia.org was down for about a half hour today - there was some kind of vague error message in its place. Challenger l (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A widespread outage would have caused lots of discussion afterwards but I have seen no other mention. If there was an outage then it must have affected a limited number of users. If you want to report a problem another time then please give an example link and quote the message you saw there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Challenger l -- this may be what you're looking for. Eman235/talk 15:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a 5-minute period with no edits between https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=664338980 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=664338981. Maybe some users were affected for longer. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
That looks exactly like what was happening, Eman235. The next time I see anything like it, I'll copy the error code and screencap it too. Challenger l (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Beau Biden has died.

Recent death is him, according to his Father VP Joe Biden.

As ever, this and many other stories are available for discussion at WP:ITN/C. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

India heat wave

The death toll is very close to 1,800 now. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have a source to confirm that, we can update... --Jayron32 16:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
USA Today ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Death toll is now 2,000+ according to many sources like Times of India abc.net.au. 117.192.176.60 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Updates can be requested at WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
But just as a quick clue, the references in the article itself should also reflect this, the lead currently is referenced by two citations, neither of which provide evidence for 2,000+ deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

In the News and images part 2

(As the discussion was getting rather long)

The options (ignoring for the discussion 'potential programming complexity'):

  • Have no picture at all (never or rarely suggested)
  • Image and related text 'sticky to top' - likely to cause discussion on this talk page when 'major new story without image' occurs and similar.
  • A separate section 'ITN with featured picture' (which might allow for 2-3 entries)
  • Remove the picture once the story gets to entry 2 or 3 (but keep on actual article)
  • Text against the image
  • Using existing formatting tools (bold, italic, text size etc) to highlight the entry to which the image relates.

Any further options? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, there is no picture right now...see this. Eman235/talk 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Only a proportion of ITN stories will have a suitable picture - and I meant in the sense of 'no picture at all as the default.' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Jackiespeel, is Image and related text 'sticky to top' the same as David's proposal to leave the item related to the image at the top of the section until a new image is used – ?? (That's my preference.) Sca (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes - I was summarising the various options so far.

How difficult programming-wise are the various options? (The last one can be done 'by anyone who knows which characters to use') Jackiespeel (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC regarding DYK

There is currently a discussion at RFC DYK process improvement 2015. This is a solicitation for suggestions to streamline the DYK process in order that fewer errors appear on the main page. — Maile (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I/45??

the Japanese invasion of French Indochina in mid-1940.+itsUSno'AMERICA220.136.230.208 (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It is quote common to use 'American' when referring to US troops. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

View counter

Hello, I'm not sure where I should post this, so I figured I should post it here in the case that someone can help. The view counter appears to be stuck on May 24th, and I was wondering if someone with technical know how at Wikipedia could try to repair it.
Here is the view counter, for this particular page, and you will see it is stuck: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Talk:Main_Page
It's like this on every article's view counter page. Please see if someone can repair it. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a thread at WP:VPT indicating stats.grok.se has been down for a while. Stephen 09:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Add a hatnote to tell the reader about the home page article?

Perennial proposal and all that, but I don't see why we shouldn't just add an unobstructive hat note or see also text telling the user about the "home page" article, in order to clear up confusion. Could someone tell me why this hasn't been implemented? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chess: Mostly because it's widely considered too fussy (...or cluttering, or whatever) to put a hatnote there. Here's a similar discussion; see especially the note about cascading protection. Eman235/talk 23:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion to have a note at the bottom makes sense, though. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Except, I'm not sure if anyone would think to look down. Eman235/talk 00:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does "Grace Kelly" redirect to "Grace Kelly filmography?"

It seems weird that someone decided that when someone clicks the name "Grace Kelly," they should instead be redirected to "Grace Kelly Filmography." When I click Grace Kelly, I want the woman, not a list of her films! I wager most people would want the same thing. Thanks114.164.168.195 (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

EEng can explain as the person who promoted the DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Grace Kelly does indeed go to Grace Kelly. The text "retired from acting" goes to her filmography. You've lost your wager. Now pay up. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
That's because I changed it post-this-note Nutlugs... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
In answer to the original post, it's because some people at DYK aren't doing a good job of checking and/or promoting blurbs. It's obvious that this was poorly thought out, the good news is that there's another such blurb forthcoming which I've tried to correct to avoid such an issue. Next time, please feel free to add your comments at WP:ERRORS so it receives more attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

Much the same arguments apply to 'On this day' pictures as for 'In the news' - the image at present relates to the last entry. (Not complaining - just highlighting the point). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this was already noted above "Of course, any solution to this "problem" should be applied across all of the main page, this isn't an ITN-exclusive issue"... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This happened to be a particularly notable example (there being several entries above it).

Is it 'a problem' or 'a feature that needs reconsidering.' If the solution is 'simple and works' (or is 'so logical it is not actually noticed') it is a good one; if it requires much work and creates much discussion it is not. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My local newspaper runs a feature very similar to our On this day section. Yesterday's paper started with "Today in History" above a rule line to separate it from the headline "TS Eliot's poem published 100 years ago this date". After the Associated Press byline and the statistics ( "Today is Monday, June 1, the 152nd day of 2015...") They have "Today's Highlight in History", the featured item about TS Eliot and then "On this date:" followed by the rest of that day's historical events in chronological order. They separate out two event from the list to feature at the end. Yesterday it was something from ten and five years ago, even though the last item in the regular list was from 2009.
We could move the item with the photo up top followed by a transition line like, "and in other events on this day..." to transition into the others in chronological order. If we did that, moving the one event with the photo and followed it with just such a transition line to the other events, that would resolved the perception issue where the photo doesn't match up with the event. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Given 'the number of times the disconnection between the image on ITN/DYK and the entry to which it relates is discussed on this talk page' there is a strong case for something to be done.
The disconnection has been noted by the odd Wikipedian, but nothing more than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Who ELSE is going to note it? IP's who happen to think to comment on this page? Oh, wait, see IP's above. I count more people here complaining about it than not. FWIW. Readers don't identify problems and fix them, editors do. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

However - the pageview-feel has to be considered: too many 'different squares' and it will look over-cluttered (and 'come up peculiar' on small screens as well). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be that noticeable a square, or even a square at all -- we just need to pin the story at the top with the pic. The "in other news" is optional (but not a bad idea at all). ..... Any reason not to poll this? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of pictures. How long are we going to keep the image of Sepp Blatter up? Oh, that's a horse not a donkey. My bad.

TFA image (7 June 2015)

I noticed that we were using a photograph (of less-than-stellar quality) of a relatively obscure person involved in the software's creation. Such selections are common in the context of non-free works, given the typical lack of viable alternatives.

I checked the article and saw an animated representation of a flight maneuver cited as an example of those depicted in the video game. Mindful of the bandwidth that such a file demands (and the fact that the page's visitors didn't choose to read about the topic), I checked Commons and found a static diagram from the same contributor. This struck me as a superior option, particularly given that the specific scientific concept was mentioned in the blurb (with no editing involved).

So I made the change. Crisco 1492 reverted, with the edit summary "more standard to show individual involved in production". I believe that Crisco has mistaken the result of our aforementioned scarcity of options for an actual preference. We often settle for such photos (which we've deemed better than nothing), but I've never known the community to favor one when an illustration of the article's core subject or a major element thereof happens to be available (however infrequently this may occur).

Opinions? (Note that I left a message on Crisco's talk page and pinged him above.) —David Levy 13:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd side with David here, the image of Blackley is very poor and sinister. I'd replace it with the static diagram of the Immelmann. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) I just replied on my talk page (I was out having dinner). I reverted because, aside from the fact that this game play element is shown in the abstract (rather than an actual example of game play), it is one of several manoevers possible in the game, and thus I am concerned that choosing any one of them is undue. Meanwhile, Seamus Blackley was the project leader (in a film, he'd be the director) and thus he had a significant role in the production of the work. Yes, the image could be better, but his connection to the game is significant enough to make a picture acceptable. Being obscure meanwhile, doesn't strike me as a reason to remove him. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, a note: the discussion for this article was open at WP:TFAR for a while. If anyone has any concerns about images (or other parts of blurbs), it would be nice to have feedback before they run. That goes for the current nominations too. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
No argument there. You'd agree, I hope, that this discussion is the next best thing. —David Levy 14:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
An animated representation of the flight maneuver appears in the article. (I didn't introduce something new.) I wouldn't describe it as an abstract depiction of the game, but as a straightforward illustration of a nonfictional scientific concept depicted therein. It isn't comparable to, say, a rough approximation of Mario exploring the Mushroom Kingdom.
Yes, it's "one of several maneuvers possible in the game". Likewise, a mouse is one of many types of rodent. There's nothing unusual about providing an example, which enhances readers' understanding. The blurb conveyed the necessary context (with no editing on my part), so I don't know what consequence you envision.
Yes, Seamus Blackley's role was equivalent to that of a film director, but he isn't exactly Steven Spielberg (i.e., someone widely recognizable).
When TFA is an article about a flight simulator, it's natural to expect an image with some relevance to an aircraft's flight. Ideally, it should grab visitors' attention and provide a visual cue as to the article's subject, thereby encouraging them to read the blurb and continue on to the article. A photograph of a largely unknown man doesn't accomplish that. His physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with the subject and provides no pertinent information whatsoever. Only after reading nearly half of the blurb does his identity (and connection to the software) become apparent. The photo is essentially a decoration (and not a particularly good one, given its flaws). —David Levy 14:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Unrelated to the choice of image... please do not substitute the TFA image template. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The template doesn't support the "link=" parameter. It could be added, of course (and feel free to do so). —David Levy 14:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Missed that. Support for |alt= and |link= added. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(Unrelated note ... if there's a discussion here at Talk:Main Page about a TFA that's running currently, please add a pointer to the discussion at WP:ERRORS. My watchlist is already grotesque, and Talk:Main Page can get kind of fluffy, but I need to keep an eagle eye on ERRORS. I suspect there are others who don't watchlist here, too.) Just noting that the grainy image of the guy that people were complaining about here was replaced by a better image of him. My general lack of competence with image issues is well-known so I won't weigh in, except to say that there was something different going on with this TFA: the most interesting thread, the human-interest storyline, was different than the subject of the article. A brilliant guy from a different field (physics) livened up a video-game genre, outcompeted Microsoft, was fired by his company, and was hired by MS to help develop the Xbox, which will strike most of our readers as a lot more significant than his work on this video game. From that standpoint, I was quite happy to see his image on this one, though that wasn't my call (and never is). - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My general lack of competence with image issues is well-known so I won't weigh in, except to say that there was something different going on with this TFA: the most interesting thread, the human-interest storyline, was different than the subject of the article.
And that's the problem. As fascinating as this historical account might be, it isn't the subject of the article. Its inclusion as background information is appropriate, of course, but that's a very different context.
We display images alongside main page items to grab readers' attention, not to hint at unforeseen details. Whenever possible, the page's visitors shouldn't need to read the blurb to recognize the general connection between the image and the article's subject; their understanding of the connection is supposed to entice them to read the blurb (and the full article, hopefully).
If a visitor – lacking advance knowledge of the "human-interest storyline" – has an interest in flight simulation software, which is more likely to grab his/her attention: an aviation-related image or an unfamiliar man's photograph? —David Levy 16:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

On this date suggestion for June 12th for Loving v. Virginia

Guess it's too late now, but propose we add reference to Loving v. Virginia to the lineup for "On this date..." for next June 12th, this Supreme Court decision struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage nationwide and was quite the civil rights landmark, at least according to a radio story I heard on the way in to work, and the 1st sentence of the article... Roberticus talk 14:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree but I]jt made it last year Talk:Loving v. Virginia Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Loving Day is included in the "On this day..." section, at the top.Boznia 14:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent deaths

James Last?

Perhaps well known enough to be worth the front page mention in this section? FT2 (Talk | email) 17:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@FT2: I invite you to visit the candidates page for ITN to make a nomination. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated it on your behalf. What a kind chap I am. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You are! FT2 (Talk | email) 09:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there could also be a Dracula link of some sort on the Main Page as well Jackiespeel (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Lee's already listed at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
A passing suggestion that sometimes there could be a cross-linking of topics across the MP other than on April 1 (and sometimes WP contributors are ahead of the updating). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
How do suggest that works? It sounds fine but say Christopher Lee dies, how do we get Dracula to the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Image sizes

The current image sizes are still from the era of 14" monitors and 800x600 screen resolutions, and they look smaller than stamps, even on todays mobiles! The default sizes (100px) for DYK/ITN/OTD are smaller then the smallest thumbnail size (which is 120px). The default sizes for TFA/TFL (133px) isn't much better. I think we can bump them up a bit. I recommend:

  • a default of 150x150px max size for TFA/TFL
  • a default of 120x120px max size for DYK/ITN/OTD

...meaning image size is restricted in width or height. No change for POTD (ohter then some consistency perhaps). Thoughts? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Point of information: the default size for TFA was 100px, which TFA coordinators generally remembered to change to 133px for landscape images. You changed the default size to 133px only today, without (as far as I can see) a prior discussion, before seeking a further increase here. I have no particular view on what the answer should be, but people ought not to be misled as to what the TFA image size has been in the past, since the effect of your edit is to resize every TFA blurb in the archives that uses {{TFAIMAGE}} – it was first used on the main page in November 2013 – and people might therefore be confused as to what size(s) of image they had generally seen. BencherliteTalk 21:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I skimmed several pages in the archives and found all the pages already invoking the template with |size=133px hardcoded, so I asumed 133px was the default. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not. Image sizes depend on the ratio and orientation of the image, both at TFA and at POTD. At 133px wide, a vertically oriented image is going to look considerably bigger than a horizontally oriented image. An image with a ratio of 1:1.5 will look considerably smaller than one at 1:1.2. (That, coincidentally, is why there is no hard-coded size for POTD. It depends on the image. Charts and diagrams tend to be bigger because they need to be legible even at thumbnail size, for instance). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) And now you know differently. It must have been an odd sample to find only hardcoded 133px images - looking at the early part of June, for example, I find 133px hardcoded for 1st, 4th, 10th, 12th (horizontal images), nothing hardcoded i.e. the default [which was 100px until you changed it] for 2nd, 7th, 9th, 13th; 85px hardcoded for 3rd (tall thin image); 100px hardcoded for 11th. BencherliteTalk 00:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Both of you: I'm talking about the maximum deafult size, not overall size. Read. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, what a lack of good faith. The "default" size is, and has been, 100px. Bencherlite pointed that out already. 133px is not a "maximum default size", but rather a size entered by the TFA schedulers when the orientation of an image causes trouble. Changing that is considerably different than changing the default size. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we please get back on topic? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
OK than, I'll get back on topic and oppose change and also strongly suggest reverting your unilateral change to {{TFAIMAGE}} which, as Bencherlite has already pointed out, has screwed up a decade of archives. "Screens are getting larger" is a myth; your monitor may well be larger than it was a decade ago. but the tablets on which people are increasingly viewing Wikipedia are smaller than the screens of even the laptops of a decade ago. If anything, the screens on which Wikipedia is being viewed are increasingly shrinking, not growing. – iridescent 11:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, to be fair, it's not a decade of archives: as I started to use {{TFAIMAGE}} only in early November 2013, changes to it will only affect archives pages from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2013 onwards. And other archive pages such as Wikipedia:Main Page history/2014 January 1 (to take a date at random) are unaffected, as are TFA archives before November 2013 (since before then the daily subpage used the easy-to-remember formula of <div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">[[File:André Rigaud.gif|100px|André Rigaud]]</div>, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 January 1). Incidentally, if I switch to mobile view on my iPhone, I don't get any TFA image and I only get the TFA blurb - no other sections or headers/boxes. Didn't we used to get the ITN section as well? BencherliteTalk 15:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: Just a note, but on my iPhone 6 I get the TFA image, obviously the TFA article, then the recently featured links followed by ITN (including image), followed by RD, followed by the footer. That is in mobile, not desktop view. Pedro :  Chat  15:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose image size redefinition, particularly without prior discussion.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • This is the discussion. And I thought I was using the current default. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Read. I said "prior" discussion. Your change was done before any discussion, even if you didn't realize it was a change. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The main page images are too small on a desktop/laptop screen. They look stingy, like Wikipedia is paying in dollars per pixel. With complex pictures you can sometimes hardly even make out what they depict. Mobile devices are served a different page (aren't they?), so I don't see why the images can't be sized in a device-specific way if necessary. 109.152.147.140 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It turns out that a lot of mobile users still use the desktop version of the main page. We had an issue with a 7mb GIF that was crashing mobile users' phones. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support change. We need to be showing off our imagery, not making it smaller than a postage stamp (I've used the same analogy on numerous occasions). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support—I've been a longtime supporter of more reasonably sized images all over, especially on the main page. Tony (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment can we be sure that any increase in image size is compatible with mobile devices? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I think 150px/120px will fit 99% mobile screens. In mobile view, images are not surrounded with text (under a certain resolution) and when readers opt for the desktop view, they probably have enough space anyway. 120px is also the smallest thumbnail size (while 220px is the default), so one should not encounter anything smaller, unless hardcoded on the page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You may already have done this, but could you sandbox various image sizes so some of us could see how it looks? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Today's image of flooding in the Georgian capital Tbilisi is a prime example of how the current pictures are miserably small and need to be BIGGER. 31.51.134.58 (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

POTD - 12th June

I'm going to sound like a grumpy old man here, but it is called "The Featured Picture" not "The Featured Animation" or anything else that involving moving images. Unless we want to rename it "The Featured Visual Stimulus" or something. --wintonian talk 23:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Well in that case why does it say "Today's featured picture" on the main page then? Surely POTD is just an internal thing, or rather our incarnation of it is called The Featured Picture? As far as moving images goes, I'll go and find somewhere else to go and be grumpy --wintonian talk 00:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC).
  • I'd assume that "today's featured picture" was originally given as the title for the MP to be in-line with TFA (as early as 2004, the template was Template:Pic of the day), but when the subpage system was set up, the term POTD was chosen. This predates my involvement with the project considerably. I personally wouldn't mind just naming the section Picture of the day. A rename might be worth a separate discussion; Picture of the Day is a fairly ubiquitous term, after all. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Well I don't think I'm brave enough to start that discussion, but I might dig around the archives sometime to try and satisfy my c:uriosity. --wintonian talk 00:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Text for featured pictures displayed on the main page

Per the above discussion, featured pictures are displayed on the main page as "today's featured picture", but the subpages are at Picture of the day. Other parts of the main page have both the text on the MP and the templates under the same title. To standardize our term for FPs on the main page, I suggest we change the text on the main page from "Today's featured picture" to "Picture of the day".

  • Support as proposer. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency (within POTD). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Makes sense. Sca (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm a big fan of consistency, though I think I would slightly prefer to change everything else to "Today's featured picture", it's a very slight prefence though so I'm not going to start flogging that one. --wintonian talk 16:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'd rather have consistency with "Today's featured article." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have a difficult enough time explaining to visitors what "featured" content is without arbitrarily using inconsistent terminology on the main page ("today's featured article, "today's featured list" and "picture of the day").
    Like our "featured articles" and "featured lists", the pool from which the images are drawn is known as the "featured pictures". The real inconsistency is our use of the term "picture of the day", which began at a time when it was not yet a regular part of the main page.
    In 2006, we redesigned the main page. During the brainstorming phase, I suggested a layout enabling the appearance of both DYK and a featured picture on a daily basis. (At the time, DYK appeared on weekdays, with the picture taking its place on weekends.) When I created a mock-up, I stored the new box at Wikipedia:POTD row/February 5, 2006 (and subsequent dates), with "POTD row" being nothing more than a throwaway description of the element. (The key change was the use of a colored row in addition to the two columns.) I gave no thought to whether this label would be retained beyond the prototype stage or considered relevant in a discussion occurring in 2015.
    By this point, we (those working on the redesign) had incorporated the heading "Today's featured picture" to achieve the aforementioned consistency with "today's featured article". This was included in our final proposal, for which a community poll drew the participation of a then-record 943 editors (687 of whom supported the new design's adoption).
    The assumption, I believe, was that "today's featured picture" eventually would replace "picture of the day" throughout the project. For whatever reason (a lack of concern that the status quo was particularly problematic, most likely), that hasn't come to pass. As discussed above, if consistent nomenclature is desired, this is what should occur now. The opposite change (replacing the "Today's featured picture" heading with "Picture of the day") would directly undo a deliberate improvement made more than nine years ago, thereby increasing the likelihood of confusion by obfuscating the relationship between the section and our featured pictures process. (This is not an issue at Wikipedia:Picture of the day, where the connection is explained upfront – a luxury that we lack on the main page.) —David Levy 05:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – You convinced me. Main Page takes precedence due to volume of views. Sca (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rewording the main page to match the project namespace seems like putting the cart before the horse. hinnk (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose—instead the POTD name should be switched to TFP for greater consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If that does happen, I think we need to be very careful not to break anything. There are 8 or so years of templates, documentation, etc. which would need to be changed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose One of the functions of the main page is to indicate to readers that we separate featured content from everything else on Wikipedia; the main page should emphasize that this isn't a random picture of the day, but that it's been through a process for quality assurance, as with everything else featured on the mainpage. Seattle (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Tbilisi floods

The statement in news needs to be inform that floods caused the killing of zoo animals. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You will get a faster response at WP:ERRORS or by posting under the listing for the floods at WP:ITNC. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
That bad-ass hippo is OK. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Create "In sports" windows?

With many sports stories in the news recently, shall we create a separate window about different kinds of sports? It can have a Cup, Olympics, tournaments and/or any other stuff related to sports. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. It's not like the sports are keeping other items from being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Think this is ready for Perennial proposals? Here and here... Eman235/talk 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I had the same thought; this comes up periodically and never gains consensus(for good reasons, I personally think). 331dot (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:Perennial proposals is for all of Wikipedia and this doens't rise to that level. But if somebody wants to start WP:Perennial main page proposals then go ahead. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is enough sport events worthy of ITN consideration to have such a separate window that is on constantly for all 365 days of the year. Sure there is a surge of such events during this month, but what about other months when there may be little or no such sports events. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I've always liked the idea of that pane being tabbed for news, politics, sports, others if enough items exist. One of the side-benefits could be to relax our criteria a bit to allow certain things that aren't currently posted up. However, given Wikinews is a complete joke, we would have to take care not to repeat that mistake here. Resolute 13:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Danish Wikipedia has more than 200,000 articles

Please update the front page at the bottom. --94.189.38.110 (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll copy this to Template talk:Wikipedia languages, where it belongs. Art LaPella (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Deliberate gap?

How curious - Wikipedia editors are usually all over the big news items, especially scandals, but no one has written an article on Rachel Dolazel, who resigned as head of the Spokane NAACP, and she's not even mentioned on the Main Page here as being in the news? She's receiving international coverage. Especially coming so soon after the Vogue cover featuring Caitlyn Jenner, this is a big identity story, although much more confusing. And Wikipedia is not touching it? Parkwells (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Because we know how to spell Rachel Dolezal? – iridescent 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Insert - Yes! and I thought I'd put in a few variations. One of those days.Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Or because it's a parochial story that 99% of the world isn't interested in. Well, one of the two. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Possibly mildly interesting. Of long-term encyclopaedic significance? Not really. I have to wonder why those obsessed with getting in-depth coverage of whatever stop-press hysteria constitutes the digital equivalent of next weeks budgie-cage-flooring don't all move over to Wikinews, and do the job properly. A takeover (hostile or otherwise) would be easy enough, and they could all pretend to be journalists to their hearts content without being bothered by the rest of us... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Parkwells: You are welcome to visit the ITN nominations page if you wish to make a nomination(though I'm not sure what event you would use as a hook) though I think it unlikely to succeed; minor celebrities like that aren't usually posted, if ever. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not.Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Then can you enlighten us to the point of your original posting here? It would be helpful to understand why you made such a claim and yet now seem to be retracting from the situation... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate anything of course, though informally it's safe to say that this would not pass an ITN nomination. A good test for whether ITN would likely post something is "does a single line blurb for this sound like something of plausible encyclopedic interest?" In the case of Ms. Dolezal, "Evidence surfaces that local NAACP official Rachel Dolezal may not be biologically black" plainly fails that test. Stories such as this and Bruce Jenner's transition to Caitlyn may spark discussion in the news and among the public, but nothing actually 'happened' of any broad significance that could be posted ITN. It is also rather suggestive of crystal balling to guess that either or both of these stories represent some historic change in public thought, which is something Wikipedia in general strives to avoid. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 21:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In the news: Pictures should clearly correlate with stories

We really need to indicate somehow the connection between the photo and the corresponding story. It's very easy for a reader to assume the pic and the top-listed story correspond, because the reader has to read down the whole list to see a parenthetical mention ("...pictured") which is easy to miss. Suggest we either put the photo beside the story (which would be very easy to do) or somehow caption the photo. Otherwise we get some pretty interesting/strange/funny apparent "correspondences" between the photo and whatever the first-listed story is, like today, where a pic of a guy shouting excitedly is shown right next to a story on Ireland legalizing same-sex marriage. (I happen to think it's great news, but obviously we shouldn't be implying that FC Barcelona head coach Luis Enrique takes any position on the subject! ) Happy editing.... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not as easy as you think... In wiki markup, placing a floating image element inside an unordered list is not possible; it creates a listgap. It also threatens to displace the footer when the image is too low. So it was a conscious decision to place the image on top. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Being a 'non-technical wikian' - is it possible just to bold (or otherwise highlight) the relevant entry? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Good idea -- or at a minimum, highlight the word "pictured". But also see proposed solution below ("the list floats but..."). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It occurred to me as well. One thing that can be done about it is to have the story with the picture at the top always. Whenever a new story is to be entered, we can just add it right below the "top story". That way there will be no confusion between the photo and the entries. 117.192.161.77 (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Stories are listed in the order in which they occurred; changing that comes up now and then but has never gained consensus to be done. I think it would be more confusing to mess up the order for the benefit of readers who simply don't read carefully. We can't fix all problems for all people. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This perpetual glitch has been discussed repeatedly in recent years – notably in June 2014. Apparently those in the know technologically have not found it possible to devise a workable solution. Sca (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Proposed Solution -- The list floats but presumably the picture does not, in which case the following would work: Keep the story to which the picture correlates pinned at the top, and only have the stories beneath it float. A new story gets pinned at the top whenever the picture is to be changed. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. And in any case, a "thank-you" to the techies who do what many of us cannot. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Alas, it is the picture that floats. It is also implemented using a template, which cannot be used inside list items, or between two list items without breaking up the list. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Edokter - Ah, it is challenging, isn't it! Minor tweak: what about bolding "pictured"? That would very likely catch the reader's eye better than italics. And/or major tweak: auto-caption the picture? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 18:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We tried the former, which wasn't well received. (Complaints related to distraction and undue emphasis, I believe.) The latter has been discussed without establishing consensus to implement it. (I don't recall whether technical limitations played a role.) —David Levy 21:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@ David Levy -- Hmmm... maybe there's another way more recognizable than itals but less obstrusive than bolding (font, color, symbol -- cf. Edokter). Caption seems best, surprised at opposition... maybe worth reopening if it's been awhile. Cheers. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Middle 8: In general, people want the various sections to match each other as closely as possible. Also, I don't know how the caption could fit properly without increasing the image's size significantly (which we avoid to prevent problematic line wrapping at lower resolutions).
Of the implementations discussed, leaving the item related to the image at the top of the section (until a new image is used, at which point the blurb would drop down to its reverse-chronological position) strikes me as the most promising, particularly if we stipulate that the blurb mustn't be retained beyond the point at which an item tagged with a later date is bumped from ITN. (This would leave ITN without an image from time to time, exactly as it does currently.)
Such a solution would entail no additional coding, present no technical barriers, and require only minor procedural adjustments. Perhaps more importantly, it would cause no aesthetic changes (probably the easiest way to draw objections). —David Levy 03:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@David Levy - sounds good! --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Middle 8: There's just the matter of consensus. That proposal might have the best odds of succeeding, but I'm far from certain that it will. —David Levy 05:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
David Levy - yes there is that small issue. :-) Anyway, with this caveat, it may well be worth going forward with the idea pending further discussion here. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 14:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
No individual item (as opposed to "ongoing items") should ever be up for more than a week, picture or not. If things are getting that stale, there is a much bigger problem. --Khajidha (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC) PS-Put me down in favor of David Levy's proposal
So... perhaps use an icon pictured instead? Which hilites the depicted term, when not given: pictured. See {{pictured}}. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I can also make the subject term appear hilited when hovering over the image. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Icon is interesting; how would that work exactly (sorry I'm not getting it)? Icon appears next to corresponding text entry? Hover is good too but I suspect most readers don't hover. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI)

We do our best at ITN to update images when they're available. We already add (pictured) to the blurb that relates to the image. We also list items in chronological order, i.e. the most recent item appears first, regardless of image availability. For the handful that complain, we have several million who don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate volunteers' efforts (I said so above); don't make it personal. Just trying to help, and those who don't complain aren't going to be hurt by incremental improvements, and may be helped. For example we might add (pictured) or (pictured) instead of (pictured) to better catch the eye. Edokter has some good ideas. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 19:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that the millions of readers who casually check the English WP Home Page each day are simply bemused by this obvious glitch. Yet amid the welter of material on the Net, some of it confusing, they're not motivated enough to delve into WP's back pages and lodge complaints. And, true, if they look at it long enough, the explanation is there in the "(pictured)" advisories. Sca (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you need more than just your suspicion. Is this a real problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean for our actual readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, fellow editor and namesake of most groovy tune, we're all trying to keep readers in mind here. Lack of reader complaint isn't much of a metric... there are all kinds of obvious problems WP has that readers don't complain about but we fix anyway. This isn't huge but it's right there up front and imo rather embarrassing, especially when the pic and the article at the top are wildly incongruent. Most publications put photos right beside the pertinent story, no? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The 'linking ITN entries with the relevant pictures' is a 'fairly regular topic on the MP talk page.

As ITN is (traditionally/expected to be) 'fed from the top' having a 'sticky news story with picture' as the top entry with other material sliding in underneath is likely to cause more discussion - and 'seems more difficult to a non-technical wikian' than either having some form of emphasis #or# having a separate section (perhaps above 'ongoing stories') - 'ITN with picture.' Jackiespeel (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like a separate 'ITN with picture' section could be scriptable somehow. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 22:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
But it's not just a technical problem. We don't have a glut of images to put on the main page for ITN stories, they have to be free. So often the picture is relevant to an item several down in the list because we don't have a suitable picture for a story higher up in the list. So if we start leaving the pictured item at the top, we will get far more comments about why a stale item is still being unduly highlighted. Stephen 00:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Stephen - It wouldn't be terribly stale, though, since the pic changes reasonably frequently. Agree with David Levy on this (if I'm reading him correctly) [4] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It can get very stale. I think our worst was having the same guy pictured for more than 10 days, and a couple of times recently we've had no acceptable picture. The only reason why the picture does not align with the top item is due to lack of a suitable free picture for that top item (and many items have no pictures at all in the often newly created article). OTD has the same problem, by the way; I recall seeing their 'pictured' often being a few items down the list. Stephen 03:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Stephen - yikes! That is stale. Well -- in that case better to just let the pic drop away, right? Better no pic & no corresponding story than a stale pic & story. Allowing for that, wouldn't it be possible to keep the story and pic at the top iff they are fresh, and just vanish them otherwise? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 14:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This problem is easily fixed by adding a short caption in small font beneath the picture. 86.183.129.20 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    It would need to be awfully small. —David Levy 03:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
About this size? Sca (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Or closer to this. Or maybe like this. Or even like this. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really. Usually only a name or location or very brief phrase is required. When you actually try it, you might find that it works more easily than you expect. 109.157.12.42 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Or it could be small-ish and right-justified in a box, which would tend to stick out a little to the left. That would probably look OK, if not great. But agree with you that easier is better, certainly to start. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the average reader even KNOW that the items are in chronological order? I didn't until I asked about this picture problem the first time. --Khajidha (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • How about not having a picture at all? A picture gives undue prominence for a particular story which is something we don't want. 61.3.104.199 (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
In the case of these small mugshots, the picture serves as a typographical device to "break up the gray" (as they used to say ... back in the day) – and an "entry point" for the reader. Sca (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Pictures make a huge difference to the overall appeal of a page. Solid text is very daunting; pictures make it inviting. 109.157.12.42 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Could a 'technical Wikian' be invited to comment on the various suggestions? With 'highlighting the relevant entry' the simplest solution is probably best (bolding/font size/font kind/italic/colour etc). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you read WP:ACCESS? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The simplest solution is the icon ( pictured) I suggested above, and either hilites the pictured term in italics, or simply replaces "(pictured)". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Could you post an example in your sandbox, Edokter? Am not quite understanding, sorry. But sounds promising. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
See below. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I must say I'm always a bit intrigued when this issue comes up, as the complaints are always in regards to ITN rather than OTD, which has the same 'problem'. And the 'problem' is worse at OTD because there's no preference to have the top-most items pictured there and you can't change the order of the items.
I don't know if people know the ITN blurbs are in chronological order, but it seems like the most logical way to order items, so I imagine that assumption might be made. -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue arises more frequently for ITN simply because it's one of the first things the reader sees. I have to scroll down to see OTD. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Take today's for example. The pictured item, and a bad picture at that, is fourth out of five. Why do we need to 'fix' ITN again? Stephen 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Because sometimes the image and the first couple news items are wildly incongruous. And readers are used to seeing pics beside their corresponding stories (who else expects them to scan down a list besides WP?). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And it can be bad. For example, a story and pic of some controversial public figure goes up. Then the story scrolls down a few and a Pedophile is apprehended story appears next to the picture of the poor schmuck. Similar things have actually happened at ITN that have caused me to do a double-take. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
A picture can, and has, been omitted if such an incongruous alignment occurs, although I'm sure most updating ITN aren't paying super-close attention to that. Also, it doesn't help matters that there are few admins willing to update the image. It's quick and easy to add a blurb, whereas swapping pictures takes more time, and I guess slightly more skill. So even though we do have a free, seemingly suitable image for Nico Rosberg, it won't be added immediately.
As my quotes around 'problem' suggest, I don't see this as a serious issue. I feel like we have a workable picture for one of the first two items (which are next to the picture) most of the time, whether it's immediately posted or not. Keeping pictured items at the top has a potential for allowing stale items and pictures to fester more so than they do now. Not a terrible solution though. -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Icon

OK, here's a demonstration with an icon instead of "(pictured)". The name is italisized (the hilite), but that can be omitted. It just to catch attention that the subject is pictured. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I honestly can't see how that makes it more obvious than the plain text we currently use: (pictured). I think we ought to credit our readers with some level of intelligence and ability to read... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
If I had not read this discussion I would have no idea what that icon meant, nor would I understand the significance of the italicisation. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I feel the same, especially considering there are other words, such as the film title, that are italicized. Unfortunately, I think this version would be more confusing. Deli nk (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The idea was that the icon is more noticable then "(pictured)", which is somewhat burried in the brurbs. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand the reasons, I just strongly dislike the proposal and believe it to be a solution solving a problem that isn't really that big a problem at all, assuming our readers are capable of reading English. And presumably we would have to roll any solution out to the other sections of the main page for consistency? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
We assume that everyone here can read English, but the problem is that you do not immediately (or ever, if you choose not to read down the page) see the "pictured" text. Instead, at a glance, you see the first text item and the photo adjacent, and inevitably associate the two. Where the picture obviously does not correspond to the text, the initial impression is that something has gone wrong; when it's a picture that might match, it's downright confusing. For example, when the picture of Måns Zelmerlöw was adjacent to the story about Nico Rosberg, it looked at first glance clearly as if the picture was of Nico Rosberg. It is not enough, in my opinion, to just say that people should read further. Even if they do, which is not guaranteed, by this time the "damage" is already done. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's any damage, but we'll have to agree to differ on that. But you take the point that this would need to happen across all sections of the main page, not just ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
TFA is already clearly linking the article to the image, I don't see what change could be made there. DYK already places the hook with an image first. OTD is the only other section that would seem to need to change. Given that the connection between chronological order and layout order is much clearer in that section due to the visible dates, I would suggest that a simple date caption under the picture would be sufficient. --Khajidha (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But I don't think you'd want two or three solutions for the "pictured" caption on the main page, one saying (pictured), one with some odd icon and some rollover text (is that accessible?) and one with a date caption that doesn't explain what we're looking at. In fact sometimes text is required to clarify what relevance the picture actually has to the caption.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought we'd already decided against the icon. The proposal I thought we were discussing for ITN is the same as the one for DYK, first item gets the picture (with a "pictured" note still in the blurb to identify which particular part of it is being illustrated). TFA, being only a single item, is necessarily a different case from other sections. The idea of the date caption is just to associate a picture with a particular blurb, just as in DYK or ITN a "pictured" notice would be appended to the exact part of the blurb being illustrated. I did not recommend moving the illustrated blurb to the top of OTD (although I wouldn't oppose it), as I expected that to be met with HUGE disapproval due to the quite obvious chronological nature of OTD. Sometimes there is no best solution for all the different sections at once. --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't see the part where the icon was dismissed. We do have a solution that is coherent across all sections of the main page, the one we have right now. It seems that we'll be introducing a new problem (inconsistency) to fix a different problem (inability to read the word (pictured) until it's "too late"). I would prefer to keep ITN as it is and once a pictured blurb moves from the top, the picture is removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The current system is not any more coherent. TFA is one item with one picture. DYK always puts the pictured blurb first. That makes 3 different solutions on the page as is. --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But the identification of the picture is consistent across each section of the main page. I think this needs more thinking and less ad-hoc proposals. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding people's "inability" to read the word (pictured) -- you have to bear in mind that people do not read material like this sequentially. Their eyes dart quickly from one part of the page to another, until they possibly come to rest on something of interest. It is quite feasible that a reader would glance at a headline about Nico Rosberg, then glance at the adjacent picture of Måns Zelmerlöw thinking "OK, that's Nico Rosberg", then move on elsewhere, and never be any the wiser. And, as I say, even if you do scan down and see "pictured", there is at that point an annoyance at having been "misled". 109.145.19.122 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It can look slightly better with a smaller size of the icon enclosed within ( ), like this:
Måns Zelmerlöw (pictured), representing Sweden with the song "Heroes", wins the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna, Austria.
Note that hovering the mouse pointer over the icon pops up the text "pictured on the right" (I know the icon has become a wikilink to the said text, but someone with the knowledge of these things might be able to make the icon non-clickable and still display the text). - 117.192.166.51 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Once upon a time, For a very brief period of time the word "(Pictured)" was in bold type. I thought this helped a lot, but for some reason it was reverted very shortly afterwards. ApLundell (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Caption


Eurovision winner
Måns Zelmerlöw

Here's a demonstration with a caption. The sizes and spacing of elements might need to be finessed, but I don't see any reason why this solution should not work. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • For the record – if anyone's keeping one – I'll "vote" support for the redoubtable David Levy's proposal to leave the item related to the image at the top of the section until a new image is used. Small, very short captions – such as one-word last names – could also be used (long the practice in print media with mugshots). Agree with Khajidha's observation that readers aren't much concerned about ITN chronology. (Edokter, appreciate your work, but I find the icon suggestion more confusing than effective.) Sca (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've always wondered why we didn't go with the caption. That seems to me the easiest and clearest solution that doesn't look stupid. —howcheng {chat} 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If you're for limiting captions to one word, what do you suggest the protocol to be for pictures which aren't of people? E.g. [5] or [6] -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Or 'Artists impression of blah' or 'Most valuable player blah', or anything else which will throw the caption over two or three lines. We've also reversed the semantic effort and now leave it to the reader to parse through the blurbs and find the one that relates to (in the example above) 'Måns Zelmerlöw'. Stephen 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If it can't be done in one line that fits under the pic, then go without a caption. This would work as long as the pic is paired with the text it illustrates. Sca (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you will find (possibly with adjustment to "line-height") that at least two lines of caption will be viable. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the example above to a two-line caption to demonstrate. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The ragged right edge on the text and the fact it isn't centered under the picture bothers me, for some reason. I think it would look much better with an align="center" in the div tag. (I'd also recommend appropriate cropping of the picture such that it's sized wide enough that the text doesn't extend beyond the ends, but that's a minor thing and wouldn't need to be always done if you had an intrinsically narrow picture.) -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The caption, a.k.a. cutline, shouldn't exceed the width of the pic, and because of ITN's relatively small size, one-line captions are much better for clarity of graphics. (In the two-line example above, the lines are separated by too much space. a.k.a. leading, and the second line tends to fade or bleed into the text/copy block.) Sca (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
On the "lines are separated by too much space" point, which browser are you using? I specifically decreased the leading, and it looks fine for me in both IE and Chrome. It sounds as if your browser is not rendering it properly. 81.132.192.88 (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Firefox. Sca (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I tweaked something. Any better now? 81.132.192.88 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, altho lines could be even a bit closer together – of course they're are still too long, IMO. Sca (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
On my end, the lines are close together (arguably too much so) in Chrome and too far apart in Firefox. —David Levy 21:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Eurovision winner Måns Zelmerlöw
Eurovision winner Måns Zelmerlöw
I see that the example was generated manually.
We have a template for captioning non-bordered images. Its use resolves the line spacing problem, but for this to be feasible in conjunction with a caption of that length (barring technical issues not yet identified), we'd need to maintain a minimum width of 100px (instead of a 100px width for the landscape orientation and a 100px height for the portrait orientation). —David Levy 21:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Making these images slightly bigger, by the way, is in itself no bad thing. At the moment they are small to the point that sometimes it is hard to even see very clearly what the picture is depicting. This latest mock-up looks very good to me.81.132.192.88 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The new one at right above looks good to me - but (!) I wouldn't use ital for a cutline. Sca (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I retained the italic formatting for the sake of a direct comparison with the previous mock-up, but it can be removed now. —David Levy 23:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I still prefer one-line captions, though – ones that are short enough for the pic to overhang a (centered) caption on both sides. In the present example with a flush-left caption, see how the word "wins" tends to merge into "Måns" in the caption? (Cuz there's only abt 2 picas of space between them.) Sca (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any such problem. Would it be possible for you to post a screenshot somewhere? 109.153.226.99 (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A caption for this size image (100px) is not feasable. The template ({{Plain image with caption}}) David points out is also based on a table, and we're trying to get rid of tables. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A caption for this size image (100px) is not feasable.
Please elaborate. I've regarded the idea as iffy from the beginning, but I'd like to understand the specific issue(s).
The template ({{Plain image with caption}}) David points out is also based on a table, and we're trying to get rid of tables.
Might you be able to rework the template's code? —David Levy 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A caption that is restricted to 100 pixels is likely to break past the image sides if a user has a larger font set; there is simply not enaough space. But a bigger image would help. As for the template, it might be possible, but seeing all those options, I'd rather start from scratch. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, let's fix it this time

C'mon guys, please this time let's do something to actually fix this perennial problem. It is raised time and again, but nothing is ever done. The caption solution is eminently workable in most cases. Other solutions may be available. 81.132.192.88 (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks kind of weird as the picture currently relates to the sixth story (last story, if and when another story is added) on the list. If the story is important enough to have a picture, it should definitely be important enough to be placed at the top. "The story with the picture should remain on top" is my suggestion. Of course not everyone will agree, but the best (only) way of finding a solution is to start a poll. 117.192.167.158 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a poll isn't a bad idea. A second suggestion is to "remove the image if it relates to an item which is not at the top of ITN". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A poll is a great idea, to my mind. The solutions I see, from skimming this, are "use a caption", "keep at the top", "remove if not at top", "change (pictured) to (pictured) or (pictured)", or "use pictured". Eman235/talk 14:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If David Levy's solution is adopted, it also could and should be applied to OTD – where today, thanks to faulty juxtapositioning, we have Mark Felt leading the Mongol Invasion of 1223. Sca (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
It should probably also be applied to TFA and DYK too, as they too periodically currently use the (pictured). Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, any solution to this "problem" should be applied across all of the main page, this isn't an ITN-exclusive issue. TFL and TFP sometimes use (xxx pictured) to give a clearer description of what might be featured in the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that TFL and TFP actually have this same problem. They are a single article being illustrated by a single picture, ITN and OTD are a single picture illustrating one of multiple items. Having to dig through multiple unrelated items to find the "pictured" tag strikes me as more disorganized than reading a single item to find out what particular part of it is being illustrated. The mental disconnect is greater. --Khajidha (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Consistency is desirable. Most of the sections lack the juxtaposition issue, but a hodgepodge of two image identification methods would be sloppy and potentially confusing. —David Levy 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we shouldn't have more than one way of identifying an image which is relevant to a part of the main page. The "mental disconnect" argument is coming almost entirely from a handful of editors, and has rarely (if ever) been noted by anyone but that. In any case, one solution for the main page is important, as David Levy has noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. (!) Sca (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that only a "handful of editors" think the current layout is confusing? I only look at this page occasionally, yet I have seen it raised over and over again. 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Preceding unsigned comment posted by 109.153.226.99. Sca (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(belated) Or, if we go with the icon, do:   (pictured) pictured,   or   (pictured) pictured,   or   (pictured) pictured.   Catches the eye, unambiguous. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC) struck; note: Sorry, I realize that comment looked insane! My browser was not rendering the "{{pictured}}" template properly; only the icon appeared and not the text "pictured". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
How about:  (PICTURED!)  —David Levy 06:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No need to exaggerate... I like pictured. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, completely agree, my browser was on drugs when I wrote the above, struck post. I liked David Levy's observation. :-) --00:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I realize that some editors don't see a problem here, but since some do and it's a longstanding concern, why not try a solution if it entails minimal risk or harm? That's the case with Edokter's and David Levy's ideas. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

We could do Edokter's idea, pictured, immediately. Long-term I think we should do as most other sites/publications do -- since that's what readers will expect -- and keep the story and pic together (i.e. David's idea, pin at top). Can we bring this issue to a larger audience? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I see no overall benefit in adding a graphic to one section of the main page's captions, particularly a graphic which is utterly meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
No harm though right? -- and to the extent it catches the eye it will help the reader (see comment above "you have to bear in mind that people do not read material like this sequentially..."). But I think David Levy's idea (leave the item related to the image at the top of the section until a new image is used) is the better long-term solution. And again I don't see the harm... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't mean anything more than (pictured) means though, and to clarify, is this going to be rolled out across all sections of the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Primarily DYK, ITN and OTD (which are lists), but TFA and TFL could also benifit. And it's primary purpose is to simply indicate what the image relates to, so readers don't have to scan the text searching for "(pictured)". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not that a reader can't eventually find out what the picture is supposed to be after scanning the text. The problem is that the user can't immediately find out what the picture is by reading something sensible like a caption. The icon is an inscrutable bandage. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Find the icon even worse. It looks like some foreign script didn't render properly. --Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the icon, as I suggested, is generally meaningless. Also, see today's TFA, where it says (see video). We need a complete main page fix or nothing, no dodgy compromises please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the icon looks like what it means. Such things are fairly common, such as this. All the same, writing (pictured) would be clearer, IMO. Eman235/talk 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
As noted above, the bold text proved unpopular when we implemented it on a trial basis. —David Levy 22:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hover

Just noticed a post from Edokter, above: I can also make the subject term appear hilited when hovering over the image. Sounds like a good idea, care to elaborate? Eman235/talk 23:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Simply put, when hovering over the image, the depicted term shows like this. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That might help, at any rate, even if we don't change the (pictured) text. Eman235/talk 20:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It still requires the use of {{pictured}} though, to be able to target the term. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hm, maybe {{pictured}} could be redone to display...whatever we decide to use for (pictured). Because I think this really would be helpful. Or, create a {{itn-highlight}} template, somehow. Eman235/talk 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't like this idea. Highlight-on-hover is unexpected, needs to be "discovered" by the user, and also would be problematic on touchscreens. 109.152.147.140 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Summation

Can anyone condense this discussion to a singular RFC? Seattle (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Has this discussion actually been moved (link please)? Or has it simply been abandoned yet again after wheels spinning in mud, catching on actual surface beneath the mud, and then people arguing that it is better to stay mired in mud (view is adequate where we are) rather than go off in any particular direction?

Incidentally, in the past, my own suggestion was for every article to have a picture, the default always being for the top article. If no picture could readily be found, a default image of a miniature map or symbol for the top story would always free or fair-use for this kind of purpose. It could even be a word-symbol of a Wikipedian's own making: eg. simply the letters FIFA in an otherwise blank box. Using the example of the current ITN entries, I came up with
These took me five minutes to find, all of them being on the front page of the relevant Commons search. The map crosshairs is already a default script for other Wikipedia articles. If there were a will to find valid pictures, it would be just that easy for someone in charge to request a picture and then add it.

Having said this bit, I *could* easily condense the whole discussion which preceded this post. Bluntly, however, at this point, there is simply too strong a will to inertia among a few core people for me to put more energy behind a discussion which I can already predict will end up the same way as the others, no matter how technically solid a given proposal (others far more so than mine) or how many people support a specific direction. "Consensus" is a very flexible concept, the exact definition of which ultimately depends entirely on the will of the people with the power to effect change. On Wikipedia, fewer than half a dozen people can never effect consensus-based change; but they can usually manage to stall discussion on the basis of non-consensus until it spins to a stumbling halt.

For this particular issue, there will additionally always be a core group of Wikipedians who insist that the numbers of people seeking change are minuscule against the numbers of viewers ... which btw is also true for every change that Wikipedia has made within at least the past 5 years or so. For ITN, it could not be otherwise even if everyone who has ever individually brought up the need for change has managed to post in the same discussion at the same time, instead of multiple intense discussions, placed at widely spaced intervals several months apart. If anyone is curious, it might be a very interesting metric to count the number of individual people who have advocated or even suggested solid solutions for change, vs the number of individual people who actively advocate for no change.

(I probably should also add that my name always seems to elicit knee-jerk reactions against whatever proposal or summary I raise, possibly in part because I am upfront about that will to inertia which is so frequently disguised as seeking consensus. Better for any proposal to come from someone else other than me.)

Btw as to ITN and "staleness", for some time now I have usually watched rather than participated in most Wikipedia discussions (in part for reasons having to do with the common psychological assessment of expecting different results from sociologically identical actions). However, about two years ago or so, the news had gotten so very stale (3-4 weeks) that I nominated a good dozen stories to get the list moving again. None of these stories was minor. Every single one of them had found worldwide front page coverage (albeit not on the major U.S. networks, where several of those stories were relegated to the back pages or not covered at all). Not one of those stories was found acceptable. In the cases where the only reason was that the related article was (marginally) not up to snuff, not one person at ITN was willing to give a hand even to add the necessary citations to the articles in question. In one later case, the news article was eventually submitted to DYK by someone else (not me), because two weeks after the original lead balloon, the subject matter was considered too stale for ITN. Clearly at ITN, the staleness was seen as not that much of a problem. - Tenebris 198.91.170.140 (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with pretty much everything you've stated here. Especially that about the people at ITN who constantly complain about how some articles are not up to scratch when, in fact, they could themselves bring many of those articles up to the required quality within a few minutes. But all they seem to do is vote and complain and nothing else. 117.192.187.80 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I think, if a picture is available for the top story, it's usually been used. And it's much easier now that David Levy has set up a page where we can send images to be protected within fifteen minutes so they can be safely used in the ITN template. For your interest, I placed a Christopher Lee image there just in case he made top story, but he didn't. I've already sent a Baku image there in case we post the European Games. These things are already in full flow. Regarding the lack of an image, sure, if you can find someone willing to create maps with crosshairs for each story then great, we'll post it. If you can suggest a placeholder image for "no image available" then great, we can discuss that too. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
We already have plenty of placeholder images for that purpose, although I would prefer to simply omit the image than use the placeholder. I don't see very many objections to the caption option. What if we just started using it and see where takes us? I'd be happy to start putting them in OTD. —howcheng {chat} 21:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
We could always mandate that an image is selected for every ITN story, even if it's the placeholder image, so the posting admin has nothing other than to add the new image as part of his updating instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Today, James Joyce is leading Lancastrian forces in the Battle of Stoke Field. Sca (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. For most of us who read English, it's clearly stated what the (pictured) image is all about. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Once again, I tested a Wikipedian opinion about what readers understand on an actual reader, my teenage daughter. She had no idea who was in the picture. When I suggested reading, she guessed Marshal Ney, an unbolded name in the second item. Of course she never found the "pictured". Art LaPella (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
My wife also failed that test. Although she correctly guessed James Joyce, it was only because she randomly picked a name out of the page (perhaps because he isn't dressed like a general?). She also never saw the "pictured". And she also had no idea who it was before I suggested reading. Nothing short of a caption would have worked for either test subject. Art LaPella (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the point about change being constantly obstructed. Hence we have a main page that looks about ten years out of date. 31.51.134.28 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
So, after nearly four weeks and 8,500 words of discussion, we appear to be not much closer, if closer at all, to agreeing on a solution of what seems a fairly simple, and obvious, problem. Once again, I take the liberty of quoting the immortal words of David Levy several years ago: "That would entail overcoming the inertia's inertia."
Since everyone has had a chance to air their views, including those who, with admirable consistency, persistently declare that no problem exists, it seems time for a vote on David's eminently practical suggestion: Leave the item related to the image at the top of the section until a new image is used.
All we need is a neutral admin to monitor the vote. I had someone in mind but that person declined, citing unfamiliarity with Main Page technical protocols. Any volunteers? Suggested candidates for the task? Sca (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sca: I'm working on implementing the captions. See User:Howcheng/sandbox. We just need a few more test cases and people to check it from a tablet, from other browsers/operating systems, and in different skins. So far I've got IE11/Chrome/Firefox on Win8 and they all look OK to me. —howcheng {chat} 17:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice work, Howie.
  • Typographically, it'd be good if the captions could never be any wider than the "art" – at least, that's the way it was in print publishing for eons. Alas, given the restrictive parameters of ITN and the Main Page generally, one must wonder if captions are workable in every instance. Sca (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Even if we solve the little problem of where the image is smaller than its container, if you use skinny images, there would be no way to keep the caption from becoming wider than the art (especially when a word is long). I suppose the solution would be to avoid those types of images where possible. —howcheng {chat} 20:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I was bold

I put {{plain image with caption}} for tomorrow's TFA and OTD. See WP:Main Page/Tomorrow. Feel free to revert if we don't like it, but I think it works well. —howcheng {chat} 16:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You need another possessive apostrophe on "Blue's Clues<-here first host..." (I think the caption looks weird but I'm such a stick-in-the-mud, afraid to try anything new) Belle (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Boldness is good, but new code shouldn't hit the main page until it's been tested thoroughly (under a variety of configurations) to ensure that it doesn't break anything important.
On my end, OTD's image layout was broken in both Chrome (in which the image was pushed against the right-hand border, with the caption spilling out of the box) and Firefox (in which the image was pushed to the left, with the caption badly misaligned).
In the above discussion (in a message timestamped 08:23, 1 June 2015), Edokter warned us about the format's incompatibility with narrow images (for precisely this reason), which makes your decision to send it straight to the main page all the more perplexing. —David Levy 01:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I went with it because if nobody takes any action, the idea is likely to die here on this page. Strangely enough, it worked OK for me. Anyway, I just want to see some movement on this. —howcheng {chat} 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand the underlying motivation and share your desire to make progress. Specifically, I like the caption idea and hope that it can be implemented effectively.
But the main page is no place for untested code, let alone that which an editor with expertise in this area told us would cause a specific problem. (This isn't an instance in which an unforeseen issue emerged after the fact; it's one in which a flaw arose exactly as we were warned ahead of time.)
I don't doubt that the formatting looked fine on your end. (Otherwise, you wouldn't have pressed the "Save page" button, I'm sure.) As you know, the page's appearance varies significantly from one configuration to the next. —David Levy 02:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I must have missed that part of the discussion. Too bad we couldn't caught it earlier. —howcheng {chat} 02:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever Chris wants to do with the image and caption will be fine with me. The TFA column that's going to hit the Main Page in 30 minutes (and only that one) has an image caption, so I've removed (pictured), for all the reasons that redundancy at TFA is a bad thing ... but I don't have an opinion on whether (pictured) serves a purpose when there's a caption in other Main Page columns; when there are a lot of separate items, a pointer could in theory be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I saw an alignment problem with Battle of Waterloo caption in IE. Assuming the small alignment glitches will be ironed out, the captions are a useful improvement. I prefer the captions in italics. 81.152.230.178 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
... Also, as mentioned elswehere, if at the same time the opportunity can be taken to make these miserable little postage-stamp pictures a decent size, then even better. 81.152.230.178 (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that the captions may be useful, but they need further testing. I'll remove the caption from the current TFA, at least until we have consensus that the format is ready. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hope I'm not being too optimistic here but I very much approve of this sandbox presentation of how the MP would look with picture captions. I would love to see this implemented but appreciate that robust testing is needed, including with non-standard thumbnails, such as panoramic, tall-&-thin pics, animations... also mobile devices and varieties of browser / screen resolutions. Is there a pre-defined package of test scenarios that could be implemented? I can only see this in Chrome & IE on full-size monitors. I do hope this can be 'officially' tested and passed soon as this is a major improvement. Big thanks to Howcheng & others. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 07:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to edit or make copies as needed. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 08:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be a step in the right direction. On my end, the main issue (in both Chrome and Firefox) is that the narrow images (in the right-hand column) are pushed to the left (similar to what occurred in Firefox with the first attempt, but without the misaligned text).
Also, I think that we should reserve the italic formatting for terms conventionally styled in that manner (such as "Cerianthus membranaceus" in the sandboxed example). The captions are set off from the blurbs sufficiently without this measure, so it's better to preserve the usual semantics. —David Levy 09:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
By "pushed to the left", do you mean that the right edge of the image is not aligned with the right edge of the header box above it? I'm not sure why that is because I set the width of the container to be the same as the image, and yet it still comes out wider. —howcheng {chat} 17:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the small difference visible among images in general. Here's a screenshot. —David Levy 17:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, that's exactly what I meant as well. The containing div for the image and caption is ending up much wider than I set it to be, and I can't figure out why. In both cases, the images are centered in that container I did try to right-align them and they looked much worse that way. Anyway, I don't think it's a showstopper as it's not that noticeable. The utility of the caption outweighs the slight visual problem IMHO. —howcheng {chat} 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks great to me. I really don't see anything... Eman235/talk 19:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to agree if the alignment were consistent (i.e., if all images were affected). That it varies depending on an image's width creates a disparity that I find quite noticeable, and it might be symptomatic of an underlying issue with additional ramifications.
In the hope that this is fixable, I'm pinging TheDJ (who recently was extremely helpful in a similar situation). —David Levy 23:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone looked at it on the mobile site yet? I just did, on a computer, and it looked ok. Eman235/talk 22:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The mobile home page is actually different: It's TFA and ITN only. —howcheng {chat} 08:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand what you guys are talking about... The effect you are seeing is probably the minimum width of thumbnails being restrained to 100px. This is because under 100px, captions become difficult to read. The thumbnail is center aligned within this 100px width. Does that sound correct ? This can be overridden by resetting the min-width of the element that has the thumbinner class... There is also some additional padding/margins etc going on btw. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe I missed that. Duh! Maybe we override it 85px or something like that to make the effect less noticeable. I agree that shrinking it too much will make the captions screwy. —howcheng {chat} 15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done. @David Levy: how do you like it now? —howcheng {chat} 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
For me, the same two images remain shifted too far to the left. —David Levy 17:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The caption being wider that the image also looks a bit off. Putting text in a constrained space will always be problematic (consider readers which have large font sizes set). Perhaps bumping the image sizes is not so bad after all, if captions are considered an option. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The last option for the alignment issue then is to make all images the same width, which means very skinny images should avoided at all costs. It will also keep the caption from extending past the sides of the image. —howcheng {chat} 20:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_184&oldid=1159016031"