Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 20:45 on 28 May 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed, determined not to be an error, or the item has rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

Monday's FL

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Take a look at the discussion above in "Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture" and it is apparent that the text that accompanies a featured pictures does not have to be backed up by citations from reliable sources. It so happens that we have a factual error on the Main Page today which cannot be quickly remedied. The Main Page needs to showcase our best work and crucially that necessiates all information being backed up by citations from reliable sources. I propose that in future the accompanying text for a featured picture must pass WP:V - if not then don't use it. Greenshed (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is, errors is a broadly construed term. There have been no issues with verifiability in the past, that I am certain. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:58pm • 11:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory it's a good idea. In practice, not so great, as it's not uncommon for the article accompanying the POTD to be in bad shape, and it would be unfair to deny a Main Page appearance to an image through no fault of its own. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that the entire article needs to be in good shape, just that the text on the Main Page needs to be backed up by citations to WP:RS. Greenshed (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a pain to administer, but in principle Greenshed is correct. We don't let unverified text onto the Main Page for OTD items, DYK entries or any other content section. The text accompanying TFP should not be exempt from the standard applied everywhere else. Quite what should be done when the relevant article doesn't have enough verified text to allow a decent blurb to be written I don't know, but it's something we (or rather, TFP) should think about. A pain I know. Modest Genius ^talk 18:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be feasible to make the writing of a quality, verifiable blurb a requirement to pass the featured picture process? It would certainly help ensure that all featured pictures have a readily accessible quality blurb prior to assessing them for TFP. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of there already. See criteria 6 and 7 (and the footnote) at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps criterion 6 should be changed from "supported by facts in the article" to something like "supported by facts in the article which themselves are backed up by references from reliable sources". Greenshed (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted 'caption' as a different thing to the TFP blurb. Are they typically the same thing? I was under the impression that the TFP blurb was usually lengthier and more detailed than the caption for a given image. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Article titles#I have one proposal -- Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everyone enjoys this new addition to the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 00:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks excellent. Thanks again for all of your hard work, Edokter! —David Levy 01:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thought: we have a little over 2000 Featured Lists. This means, at one per week, it would take about 39 or so years to go through them all. OTOH, if we went to one new FL per day, we would go through them in about 6 years. We obviously have "inbetween wiggle room" there. My train of thought is that, given enough continued support of FLs on the Main Page, we can most certainly increase the frequency of new FLs from 1 per week, as it would be good for the lists themselves, as they would get more scrutiny before and while being featured on the Main Page, not to mention better recognize the effort those editors' efforts put into the FLs. –MuZemike 01:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a conscious decision to do it at this pace. At the moment we "only" have 15 prepared lists (three months at the current frequency, two weeks at a daily rate). More importantly, we're looking to use the main page carrot to try to diversify our range of featured lists. At the moment FL has a far higher proportion of everyday life articles than GA or FA. In particular, sporting lists account for over a third of FLs. I'm not ashamed of the achievement of having nearly 800 sports FLs and counting, or of my contribution to that with four FLs and a couple of WP:FLRC saves. But we need to try to encourage other fields to catch up. —WFC— 01:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All but two of the sporting events are European or Western hemisphere-related lists, BTW. Nice to contribute one non-Euro/Western list and save another from delisting. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 1 list every 3 days? Thanks for your hard work Edokter! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:56am • 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for a year before having TFLs full-time. We'd have to work out the kinks first. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think it should evolve to more than once a week. But the pink heading? Pass me the vomit bucket quickly. Tony (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that bad :P also re HTD: 1 list every 3 days or twice a week wouldn't be a big ask, it'd be sufficient for a couple of decades :P —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:43pm • 11:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The alternative was either orange, which wouldn't have blended well with the purple below, or to deviate from the established colour scheme, which would likely have garnered significant opposition. —WFC— 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the tables created with HTML-tags instead of Wikisyntax? Just because you have to use {{!}} inside the parser function? – F. F. Fjodor (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I simply saw no advantage in using {{!}}, and I don't like having to rely on formatting templates on the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall something about Featured Sounds also gunning for a spot on the Main Page. What if FL and FS alternated every day, so there'd be something new every day on the Main Page? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long story, but if FS can do it, FL would be more than happy to share a space on the main page. This proposal originated from a request from FS to be on the main page. Note, there'll always be something new on main page, the list won't stay for more than a day. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the above. But it's important to remember that we haven't even finished our first day yet.

There are several disfunctional processes on this site. Debateably one or two on the main page, and certainly several elsewhere. The decision for TFL to go at this pace is largely down to a determination not to become another one. I made very clear in the proposal that we have ambitions to eventually go daily: whether that's a pipe dream or a realistic ambition remains to be seen. For now, the time for talking is over. If you'd like to help accelerate our transition into a more regular process, please click here. Regards, —WFC— 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see something like 6 FLs and 1 FS. I just think it might help the FSers to have some exposure. But I don't think they should be pushing high volume (not enough really good FSes). Even for FL, I hope you lead with the best of the best.

I missed the run, where can I find it? TCO (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Main Page history/2011 June 13, for example. Bencherlite^Talk 02:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still is currently visible on Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday, but not forever... Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work all around and kudos, but it just turned midnight UTC and it is gone. I know this is once a week for now, but I already miss the FL. :( Hopefully this limited release will become daily before too long. --mav (reviews needed) 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's always Main Page/Yesterday :) — Edokter (talk) — 00:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, nowhere can I find a clear, simple, specific set of aims—a mission statement, if you like—for the main page. Can someone point me to it? I don't mean that big-ass, hard-to-navigate FAQ page.

If there is no statement of the aims of the main page, shouldn't one be created? Otherwise, I think we're in the dark, which is what an outside viewer might think about the look of the page. Tony (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the main page is twofold:

1. 1. To showcase relevant and/or high quality encyclopaedic content.
   2. To serve as a navigational aid for new users.

Save for DYK, I think that covers everything on the page. —WFC— 10:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WFC. Two responses.

First, so DYK is an exception to these two aims? Perhaps another aim is required to cover it. So we can arrive at a cohesive set of objections, what would that be?

Second, while the two aims you've put forward seem entirely reasonable, I wonder whether they are not in conflict in fundamental ways in the main page as we have come to know it. Tony (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. To encourage participation in the project?

Could you elabourate on your second point? I'm not suggesting that main page processes are anywhere near perfect, but at first glance I'd suggest that the main page broadly meets those three objectives. —WFC— 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you've come up with three guiding lights. I'd like to ponder them a while and see if anyone else comes up with more. Your (3) certainly does include DYK.

You ask about my "in conflict" concern. "To showcase relevant ... content" ... perhaps relevance is different for different parts of the page. Part of the discussion in the thread below concerns the relevance of the mass of links in hooks (and TFA for that matter) to (1) the business of hooking visitors over to the subject article; and (2) whether the "navigational aid" function should begin with great force and least focus on the main page itself, or once you've got your reader hooked into an article. To this extent, there are possible conflicts in the way we write the page at the moment. Tony (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main page features examples of the main features which Wikipedia hopes to excel at:

• TFA - We have high quality articles on a range of subjects.
• TFP - We have not just high quality written content, but high quality audio/visual content.
• DYK - We are constantly adding new articles and content.
• ITN - We are constantly updating article with information *as things happen*.
• OTD - We don't just have articles on recent topics, we have articles spanning history. (Okay, I kind of made that one up. Personally, I think we have OTD mostly because an "On this day" feature is an obvious addition to a page that changes content each day. )

Aside from OTD, those rationales aren't something I made up on the spot, but are the impression I get (and have had for a while) from reading the requirements and listening to the discussion surrounding the features. TFA/TFP - high quality content; DYK - recently updated content; ITN - not news items, but articles which have been updated with recent news content. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know where to start, except to note that I am extremely surprised and dismayed by the vast number of links in today's 'In the news'...

Using today's entry as a case study, my analysis of the text (pictured) is as follows:

• There are a total of six hooks, comprising 115 words, and links to 30 discrete articles.
• That makes an average of five links per hook – that is, in each hook, only one link targets the specialist, unfolding event that is the whole point of the entry; four go to largely unscrutinised articles that are linked to from the ITN target itself.
• Of the 115 word-count, 56% of the words are within links; 16% are in bold type.

I assume the key objective is to get readers to click on the ITN article in each hook – the one that has been vetted for exposure on the main page, so we really ought to make it easy for them, and minimise scatter. At present, we try to do this by putting the ITN one in bold type, further augmenting the rather unattractive and overburdened presentation. This is the visual equivalent of turning up the music to compensate for the background noise. Considering the level of this "background noise" is within our control, The answer is staring me in the face.

I thought about providing similar analyses of 'Did you know' and 'On this day', but one quick glance will tell you that the difference is marginal – they are all as bad as each other. So my question is: When are we going to allow hooks to do what they are supposed to do by linking simply and cleanly? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I looked at the section as an innocent reader. The NBA story is very interesting and I wanted to click on it, but had no idea with all the blue, where the actual story, story was!TCO (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose on the NBA blurb, "basketball" can be delinked. Probably "championship" and "Finals MVP" but the Main Page will lose links to 2 WP:FLs -- the Finals MVP link is also sorta important as it tells you what "MVP" means, although that'll be gone once Dirk Nowitzki's photo has been replaced.

The Le Mans blurb has 18 words, and only 4(!) words are unlinked. Dunno which should be delinked on the other blurbs, perhaps al-Qaeda can be delinked too. Anyone who uses the internet knows what that is. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've de-linked some of them. I wonder if anyone here thinks that we should de-link country names too. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, some people keep making this kind of requests. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you discount current country names, I don't think there is a problem with On this day. While the link proportion is high, year links are relevant to that section, and the vast majority of the non-country links are appropriate. —WFC— 13:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly oppose the default de-linking of countries. As I stated here, a uniform convention eliminates the need to decide which are "unfamiliar" enough to link (a highly subjective/debatable determination, which is subject to cultural bias).

I also noted, as I have when similar discussions have arisen in the past, that the links don't exist solely to define unfamiliar terms; they also provide direct paths to articles containing relevant background information, which are especially valuable on the main page (which is commonly viewed by persons otherwise unexposed to Wikipedia's content and unaware of what to expect).

Similarly, we've conventionally linked sport names to the corresponding background articles. In this instance, I'm reasonably familiar with basketball, but I don't recall encountering the term "sports car racing" previously (and had only a vague notion of the underlying concept). Both articles provide highly relevant background information, though the latter has a referencing issue. Meanwhile, the al-Qaeda article contains three issue tags, so I can understand eliminating that link.

I agree that the List of NBA champions link was expendable. I'd say that the same of the link to Prime Minister of Turkey (which contains relatively little information), so I'll remove it. But let's continue this discussion, please. —David Levy 14:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm at a total loss to understand why any editor who's worked hard to prepare and shepherd an article through the ITN, OTD, DYK, or TFA processes would want to swamp the main-page link to it (a link finally earned, to their pride) with invitations to divert to many articles that probably haven't been even been visited and checked for the occasion—articles that have escaped the close scrutiny expected for main-page exposure. But at the gateway processes, it's as though the subject article—occasionally a double, in hooks—is the only thing at stake. (The exception might be the year-links in OTD, which are, as it were, intro. titles to their hooks.) Why, then, are diversionary links inserted as though the purpose of the main page were to divert readers away from the subject article?

  It is one of the weirdest things I've come across at Wikipedia that visitors to this showcase page should be encouraged to divert to links in competition with the one to the article we've finally allowed to be the topic of the hook or the day? Does anyone seriously think a reader once diverted will obediently click back to the hook and re-click to the article you've slaved over? Are the secondary links that currently dominate the main page not all present—typically in prominent positions—at the subject articles? (If not, why not?)

  I urge participants to discuss how they want the MP to function—especially, why links should not function solely to funnel visitors to the subject articles, from which readers can choose further links if they wish within a much fuller context. Tony (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that directing readers to the "shepherded" articles isn't the main page's sole purpose; it also showcases Wikipedia as a whole.

Stroking editors' "pride" is much lower on the list of priorities. —David Levy 14:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Levy, the articles have been selected to showcase WP as a whole, haven't they? Otherwise, why have the gateways and the rules? Why scrutinise at all. Why is ITN mostly linked to articles that are not unfolding events, and DYK to articles that are not newish? Why have these different categories if the links all fuzz into one big porridge in terms of their function? The simple reply to your post above is: Are the links not already in the subject articles, in context?

Second, you have taken one phrase I wrote, out of context and falsely exaggerated ("stroking"), to try to discredit my overall point. That's a bit easy, isn't it? Tony (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the premise that "the links all fuzz into one big porridge in terms of their function." We might sometimes overlink, but given the proper balance, the bold links are distinct. Readers also click through to the others because they're useful.

Yes, the bold-linked article typically contains similar links, but we're trying to convey Wikipedia's comprehensive nature to new visitors (who have never seen one of our articles and otherwise might or might not click through at all).

And I wasn't trying to discredit your comments. We do seek to reward editors' work (thereby encouraging them to continue). My point was only that our main goal is provide a service to readers. —David Levy 15:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a balance to be had between plain text and wikilinks, and I agree that we don't have the balance right. However, the assumption being made here is that article hit counts from the main page are zero-sum. I disagree. Editors will only click on something that interests them in some way. Some articles will unconditionally interest particular readers (such as those at ITN). Others are worthy encyclopaedic subjects, but require the vast majority of would-be readers to be tempted (such as the subjects of DYK). OTD lies somewhere between the two, as do the wikilinks in TFA and TFL. —WFC— 14:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WFC, why do you think article hits won't come from links in the actual subject articles readers click to (or are less likely to, at the moment)? Tony (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: I believe they will, but only if the reader goes to that article in the first place. If that article doesn't interest them, they won't navigate through to the other one. —WFC— 15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Looking at view stats of my DYKs, the readers would, most of the time, click the first available link. So in formulating in DYK hooks, as much as possible, I make sure that the boldfaced link is the first link.

Also, for some reason readers click on the names whether they're boldfaced or not, and not on the verb that is boldfaced link.

Note that this doesn't always apply to ITN blurbs since articles already have massive page views even prior to the posting. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ties in with my point about conditional vs unconditional interest. On the left hand side of the main page (and TFL), the emphasis should very much be on drawing attention to the specific articles that we are promoting. On the right hand side, while we have taken linking a little too far, there is far less need. That side is very much there to draw the masses into Wikipedia, through whatever method happens to take their interest. —WFC— 15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to gas-bag on too much (would like to hear what other editors think). But WFC: "Tony: I believe they will, but only if the reader goes to that article in the first place. If that article doesn't interest them, they won't navigate through to the other one."—Do you think some readers might recoil from the sea of blue and be less inclined to click than they would if we shoved their nose in a single link, for example to the ITN dynamic article that the hook is about? I'm trying to visualise what it would look like, clean black text with just one "button" per hook (bolded not, I'm unsure). The page as a whole might look a lot more in control ... Howard the Duck: very interesting stats take. Is there a link or a facility for counting DYK links, and those from other sections? Tony (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can compare view stats on Henrik's tool, you'd just have to do it manually for every link on the blurb though. It's not always like that, as there are too many variables (such as how compelling the link is, the topic, the number of people who know about the topic, if the links already had massive page views, etc.). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: I think both of our views are valid schools of thought, and I agree that it's worth opening the floor here. While I question the extent to which we need to cut back, I am in agreement with everyone else that we have too many bluelinks at present. It's just a question of degree. —WFC— 16:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point. —David Levy 16:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear the general admission that the main page is overinked. Wanting to showcase wikipedia as a whole presupposes what we try to showcase is indeed worth showcasing in the first instance. If we are to systematically link to country articles, as has been insisted upon by someone above, ought we not to ensure that those country articles are at least up to GA standard? There is no such check at present. Of course we should not remove all the warts, otherwise we will not gain new contributors – those who might feel the dire need for something requiring an immediate fix; OTOH, those showcased articles shouldn't be a total embarrassment. Memories are short... need I remind you all that it was just a few short months ago when we had the scandal at DYK. Not needing one again is another good reason to get out of that overlinking habit. With in excess of 5 million daily hits at Main Page, we could be lulled into thinking clicks from Wikipedia's main page are infinite. Truth is they are not. The average DYK article gets maybe 3-5000 hits. All things being equal, I confidently expect that number to rise when we get more restrained and focussed with our linking. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius: Why would countries need to be up to GA status? There is a degree of priority given to quality articles at OTD, but very few ITNs and DYKs are GA, FA or FL. —WFC— 15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you answered your own question, honestly. I can understand removing links to articles tagged for serious issues, but setting GA as a minimum standard is going much too far. It's one thing to avoid advertising problematic content, but we should seek to provide an honest/realistic representation of Wikipedia as a whole, thereby emphasizing the fact that it's a work in progress in need of contributions from the public.

But yes, overlinking is a separate issue that should be addressed. —David Levy 16:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Overlinking is NOT a separate issue that should be addressed. I opened this thread believing it to be the No.1 problem here on the front page. I only got sidetracked into country articles because someone above mentioned it. Case in point about quality problems, though... there isn't even a quick fail test for wikilinks from the main page. It isn't an attractive showcase if readers click on links to find equally dense linking – but thankfully that is generally speaking not the case though there are specific exceptions. I would hereby challenge you to conduct a survey other home pages: my contention is that where there are a small number of linkables, I would not be surprised if they were all linked – they usually are. I believe that in web portals created by marketing professionals, cases where there are a large number of linkables which crystallise a high proportion of links are few and far between. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the Main Page looks like the old Yahoo! home page -- lots of blue links. On the new version, either one bullet point is entirely linked, or there's a big link at the top and a short unlinked paragraph after it, follow sometimes by another link such as "more" or "video". –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find Yahoo!.com portal strangely preferable to the style of linking we have here. They are an equally high number of linkables as we do, and it's not as if Yahoo don't have enough content, yet they have chosen to make one clean link per hook. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the issue of what types of subject to link is separate from your suggestion of setting GA as a minimum quality rating (the focus of my reply, up to that sentence). I didn't mean that the former shouldn't be discussed in this thread. —David Levy 16:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go from here?

To further the discussion, I've just done a mockup of yesterday's main page, purely for comparative purposes and discussion. Put them side by side. Note that I have taken out all the 'unfocussed' links from ITN and OTD, but left the bolding intact. Another alternative may be to remove the bolding altogether. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an excellent format if Wikipedia were a news website instead of a comprehensive encyclopedia. —David Levy 03:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that second screenshot is soooo much better. Gone is the scattered mess. Readers, I believe, are more likely to click on the subject of the hook, rather than just the first blue they see in a hook (as pointed out by Howard above). It does not expose us to the need to audit all 30 articles that are linked to in the first screenshot before they're exposed on the main page—yet all of the links are presented to readers once they go to the subject article, and in full context. Visually, this is looking more professional. (I'd even rather have the Yahoo whole-hook-as-one-big-link, actually, than the scattergun effect we now use.) Tony (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current format conveys the website's basic nature (i.e. that it's a comprehensive encyclopedia, not a news website with one-off reports about these events) and enables us to clarify potentially unfamiliar concepts (e.g. the term "MVP" outside North America) for the benefit of those who would prefer to gain background knowledge before diving in to the bold-linked subjects (and otherwise might not even realize that such articles exist).

The proposed format sacrifices these attributes, based upon the premise that some readers are following the "wrong" links, so we should remove the ones that actually interest them, thereby forcing them to click on the "right" links (assuming that they don't simply leave the page instead). —David Levy 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with David. I agree that there is some overlinking (King of France is silly), but the Main Page is not an article, so WP:OVERLINK isn't as applicable. As has been stated numerous times in the archives, the Main Page is for readers, and it has a wider audience than a specific article will. In your example, I think it's unconscionable that in OTD Tran Dynasty is not linked. We shouldn't dictate to the reader that they need to follow a desired path. howcheng {chat} 06:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the main page is not an article: for this reason, the normal practices of linking should be different—more selective linking, not less than in an article, because of the unique function of this page. You both appear to assume this means "link everything in sight". I put it to you that it means "link just to the subject article—the whole point of the hook—and let the reader choose other links from there." Why is it that your concept of "a comprehensive encyclopedia" is premised on linking more than half of the words, submerging the link to the topic article within them (even when bolded, which is ugly in itself), and creating an ungainly, noisy mess of a page? My concept of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to provide functional links and a professional-looking page that navigates to the articles that have gone through a specialised process; it is from those articles that readers might choose from a high number of contextual links. What, then, is wrong with the second screenshot above? Tony (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the main page is not an article: for this reason, the normal practices of linking should be different—more selective linking, not less than in an article, because of the unique function of this page.

As noted above, one of the page's unique functions is the illustration of Wikipedia's comprehensiveness for the benefit of new visitors unfamiliar with its basic nature.

You both appear to assume this means "link everything in sight".

Then you obviously haven't correctly processed our comments (assuming that the above statement is sincere).

I put it to you that it means "link just to the subject article—the whole point of the hook—and let the reader choose other links from there."

And we dispute the premise that this is "the whole point of the hook."

My concept of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to provide functional links and a professional-looking page that navigates to the articles that have gone through a specialised process; it is from those articles that readers might choose from a high number of contextual links.

Again, the main page functions as a gateway not merely to highlighted articles, but to the encyclopedia as a whole. Someone viewing the main page might be entirely new to the site and unfamiliar with its basic format. You either ignore/discount this scenario or expect such users to somehow know that they'll find links to background information or not care whether they will.

You also assume that our objective is to force readers down a predetermined path. It's particularly odd to apply this principle to the On this day... section, for which the bold links lead to articles requiring no special characteristics (e.g. recent creation/expansion/updates or "featured" status). The "specialised process" (which, to be clear, I'm not criticising) ensures that the articles are varied in topic, relevant to the blurbs' main focus and apparently compliant with Wikipedia's normal quality standards (i.e. not tagged due to content concerns). And yet, you believe that we should require readers to visit these articles instead of navigating directly to articles of interest to them (whose existence, if unlinked, might be unknown to said individuals).

I strongly disagree that deviating from the formats used by other websites (whose missions differ from ours) makes the page dysfunctional or unprofessional (let alone "an ungainly, noisy mess"). —David Levy 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge this spirited defence of previous linking practices, on the premise that Main Page ought to be exempt from WP:Linking, and that it is a service to provide background to readers. That argument is surely blown out of the water by linking of dicdef terms such as 'basketball', 'standard', 'Billboard Charts', 'live album' and 'double album'. It is easily discerned by non-statisticians and without regression analysis, each of these "background articles" only received an additional 300 or so hits; whereas yesterday's TFA scored a massive 11 thousand hits; Judy Garland's article scored an additional 3k, which is understandable. It certainly demonstrates the need to be much more focussed than we are right now. The TFA's links to Belgium and Netherlands were also unnecessary and completely failed to provide background that more specific links to an article such as ^[1]. Back to the main issue, though, the disposition and selective bolding of the links make for a very motley piece of screen real estate, a certain disservice to the reader, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the need to streamline what we link. I also acknowledge that half-way solution will involve subjective decision making. But surely the likes of The Book of Mormon, Battle at Chuong Duong and Habsburgs should be linked? Those aren't the only three, merely examples of why I think the above mock-up goes a little too far. —WFC— 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remain in 'binary' mode for the sake of this discussion. Yes, if we depart from linking only the selected target in the hook, or linking of every single term, we necessarily enter into the realm of subjectivity. One discriminator for such subjectivity could come from applying the stronger 'germane' test, and not mere 'relevance'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is surely blown out of the water by linking of dicdef terms such as 'basketball', 'standard', 'Billboard Charts', 'live album' and 'double album'.

Are you suggesting that all of those concepts are universally familiar? Are you suggesting that our articles amount to "dicdefs"?

It is easily discerned by non-statisticians and without regression analysis, each of these "background articles" only received an additional 300 or so hits

...which appears to contradict the theory that readers blindly follow an item's first link (which "basketball" was). —David Levy 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that people blindly click on the first link, nor did imply same. However, I don't deny there is the temptation to click on the first can be strong (viz the notion of "location, location, location"). For me, the above examples of low click-through rates demonstrate the would-be reader's perception, despite the links' apparent relevance, that he/she has sufficient background in the subjects. Those 300 or so who clicked on each of those "background articles" may have drifted and never read the article that was designed to attract their attention. The drift is likely to be higher where the link is more germane – like the link to Judy Garland in the TFA cited above, but I believe there is a stronger likelihood that the reader may return in such a case, although again this may never be proven.

We as editors necessarily make choices; the portal that is the main page is but one of our platforms. We have 6,828,572 articles in our repertoire, and even at the current rate of linking on the main page, say 60 links per day, it would take us 60,000 days to rotate the content. However, links on the main page to our eight major portals, declined in a structured fashion, help to further channel the reader to parts of the encyclopaedia of most interest in a way the Main Page could never hope to accomplish on its own. Rotation of the content on a daily basis already helps to give a better overview to the reader (as David claimed to be the objective), but we shouldn't rely on the multitude of links in articles' hooks to do the job of orientation – they are a crude and unpredictable tool. Assuming current practices continue, many common terms – through their appearance in hooks on a regular basis – get Main Page exposure many more times than the focussed (and vetted) counterparts. 'Reader scatter' occurs once we arrive at the article level, the extensive links that send the reader in hundreds of directions which are near impossible to predict. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Levy, you say, "And yet, you believe that we should require readers to visit these articles instead of navigating directly to articles of interest to them (whose existence, if unlinked, might be unknown to said individuals)". The word "force" was also used above. Please do not twist my words. Where did I say that visitors to WP's main page should be required or forced to visit the articles that have inspired the hooks?

You also say, "As noted above, one of the page's unique functions is the illustration of Wikipedia's comprehensiveness for the benefit of new visitors unfamiliar with its basic nature." So, the statement at the top that there are "3,659,036 articles in English" is unclear? And in what way do hundreds of links (rather than a few score of links) illustrate the basic nature. Forgive me, but aren't there links to Arts, Biography, Geography, History, Mathematics, Science, Society, Technology, and All portals, right at the top, visually prominent? And then further down, links to Community portal, Help desk, Local embassy, Communication in languages other than English, Reference desk, Site news, and the Village pump.

You do have strong ideas about the aims and purpose of this page, but I note that they are your own. Proof of that is the striking absence of any statement of aims, as I've raised in a thread two above. TCO has come up with some rather good ones that might be talking points. The aims should be by community consensus, not your or my opinion.

"And we dispute the premise that this is "the whole point of the hook."" Who is "we". And you're happy for nominators at the gateway processes to be reminded—often—that the subject article is not the whole point of the hook? Just OK me on that, and I'll let DYK nominators know, to start with. (I'm being pointy, but please respond to my thought experiment.) Tony (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that visitors to WP's main page should be required or forced to visit the articles that have inspired the hooks?

Obviously, no one is putting guns to their heads. I mean that if we assume that they're to follow any dynamic main page links at all, you wish to restrict their options to these.

So, the statement at the top that there are "3,659,036 articles in English" is unclear?

That statement conveys sheer quantity and nothing else. It also is problematic in and of itself (a separate issue not germane to this discussion) and persists largely due to tradition/inertia. (As I recall, the most recent debate yielded no consensus, which defaulted to the status quo on the basis that "no consensus to remove" trumps "no consensus to retain.")

And in what way do hundreds of links (rather than a few score of links) illustrate the basic nature.

1. Hundreds?

2. The links illustrate Wikipedia's basic nature by linking to articles on a wide variety of encyclopedic subjects. They also enable us to clarify potentially unfamiliar concepts intrinsic to the items.

Forgive me, but aren't there links to Arts, Biography, Geography, History, Mathematics, Science, Society, Technology, and All portals, right at the top, visually prominent?

Yes, and readers selecting one of those navigational paths are presented with appropriate material. Other users look past that list (which could just as easily appear in a Web index) and focus on the main page's dynamic content. Such individuals might not even view a second page if we fail to adequately illustrate the encyclopedia's basic nature with concrete examples.

And then further down, links to Community portal, Help desk, Local embassy, Communication in languages other than English, Reference desk, Site news, and the Village pump.

What is the meta-content's relevance?

You do have strong ideas about the aims and purpose of this page, but I note that they are your own. Proof of that is the striking absence of any statement of aims, as I've raised in a thread two above. TCO has come up with some rather good ones that might be talking points. The aims should be by community consensus, not your or my opinion.

Agreed. Discussion is welcome. That's why I'm writing these replies instead of telling you to go away.  :)

Who is "we".

I meant "Howcheng and I" (referred to as "you both" in the message to which I was responding).

And you're happy for nominators at the gateway processes to be reminded—often—that the subject article is not the whole point of the hook?

Yes, I am. It certainly is a major point (and the selection processes' main focus), but it isn't "the whole point" of presenting the blurbs to readers.

Just OK me on that, and I'll let DYK nominators know, to start with.

You have my blessing. —David Levy 14:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this discussion with interest and note that at present only a handful of editors have commented. I cannot phrase my opinions in such elegant terms as have been used, but if this is truly up for discussion, I would favour partial de-linking but cannot agree with the highly 'selective' approach mooted by Tony et al. As a for instance, earlier today we were presented with a DYK hook regarding a rather attractive dam in Austria. My immediate reaction was 'ooh, I'd like to know a bit more about dams, I'm fascinated by their construction etc etc', so I reached for the dam link, not the Kölnbrein Dam link as others may prefer. It could be argued that 'dam' is a dicdef but no, it's a good quality and pretty comprehensive article (although not a GA or FA) which taught me more about dams in general. This is one of the main purposes of this encyclopedia. Ok, so it's not such a great example as it would be simple enough for me to type "dam" into the search box but clicking a link is so much simpler and more intuitive. I fear that the policy favoured by Tony et al would be going too far. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you go back to read Kölnbrein Dam, perchance? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with OC, who got to my point immediately) So it would have been an unpleasant experience to simply click on the subject link, Kölnbrein Dam, which is what the hook is about? From the opening sentence there, you don't get to dam (Starts, "A dam is a barrier that impounds water or underground streams." Gee, no wonder a pillar says "WP is not a dictionary".). But you do get to a fascinating article on arch dams, the type that is the Kölbrein. And from arch dams, if you really want it, the opening phrase contains dam. Presenting a waterfall of links to the most generalised articles isn't the same as stressing the comprehensiveness of en.WP; in fact, encouraging visitors to move through more specific articles is a better way of showing them our structures—sideways, upwards, downwards: "look where this hook subject can lead to", rather than "you can directly look anything these articles that have a more tenuous relationship to the hook subject; we didn't really need to develop that DYK or ITN hook ...". To me, the first is a more serious, professional opening to visitor, and is ultimately one that will present a better experience. Tony (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone seeing the blurb simply wishes to read about dams, what's the problem? Why make people jump through hoops to reach their desired content?

"We know what's best, so you'll take this specific path and you'll like it." and "We went to the trouble of [fill in the relevant qualification, which isn't even applicable to OTD], so you should read that article first." aren't attitudes conducive to furthering Wikipedia's core mission. (Neither is an actual quotation, of course.) —David Levy 14:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can type it into the search box, which is a very useful tool we want our visitors to know about. If they're that desperate to read about "dam". Why stop at "dam"? I notice in the blue-mess screenshot above, words like "soldier" and "Somali" and "blog" and "opposition" and "elected" and "term" are not linked. Why not? What if I wanted to go straight to blog. You're stopping me.

We have to draw a line, and the line is being drawn at ITN towards linking almost every noun that appears. We had this debate years ago about articles. There is not the faintest reason such extraordinary abuse of our wikilinking system should persist on the main page. People are free to wander about the site as they wish by clicking on the subject articles, which actually provide many more links than are possible in a hook, in context. Again, I want hard-working editors at the gateway processes to know that their efforts are being cast as just a partial purpose; the rest as espoused here is not written down, as it should be by consensus, but is the opinion of just one or two regular editors. Tony (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez. For the record, I did visit the Kölnbrein Dam article, but that is immaterial. I personally favour a middle ground; I don't like the first screenshot as it does indeed look faintly daft to have so many links but conversely, I don't like the second screenshot either as I don't think it has enough links. Taking that screenshot as an example, I may well want to know (straightaway) what 'MVP' meant, or what the 2011 Syrian uprising was all about, rather than having to read the specific subject article of the hook first. I think the onus should be on the editor tasked with preparing the blurb of the hook to include appropriate linking, and a discussion such as this is a useful reminder not to overlink. As is this. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can type it into the search box, which is a very useful tool we want our visitors to know about.

Yes, but this won't help a visitor lacking the expectation of finding such an article here. As I've noted several times, the main page is viewed by users possessing no prior experience with Wikipedia.

If they're that desperate to read about "dam".

I don't know why you continually denigrate that informative article, which is far from a dicdef.

Why stop at "dam"? I notice in the blue-mess screenshot above, words like "soldier" and "Somali" and "blog" and "opposition" and "elected" and "term" are not linked. Why not?

As you noted, the line must be drawn somewhere. I agree that we sometimes have overlinked, but I strongly disagree that the solution is to move to the opposite extreme.

We seek to link terms that are centrally relevant and/or likely to be unfamiliar to readers. In this context, "Somali" would have been linked to Somalia, if not for the latter's link at the end of the sentence.

What if I wanted to go straight to blog. You're stopping me.

No, we're providing a sufficient illustration of the encyclopedia's basic nature, thereby encouraging readers to utilize the aforementioned search box for terms that aren't linked or don't appear at all.

There is not the faintest reason such extraordinary abuse of our wikilinking system should persist on the main page.

You're begging the question. And while you needn't agree with my arguments, I don't appreciate having them dismissed in this manner.

People are free to wander about the site as they wish by clicking on the subject articles, which actually provide many more links than are possible in a hook, in context.

And you either expect them to know this beforehand or don't care whether they do.

Again, I want hard-working editors at the gateway processes to know that their efforts are being cast as just a partial purpose.

And I've given you the requested "OK" to tell them.

The rest as espoused here is not written down, as it should be by consensus, but is the opinion of just one or two regular editors.

Perhaps we've been lax in documenting our conventions and the reasoning behind them, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Of course, consensus certainly can change, and no one has asserted that the matter isn't open for discussion or that certain editors' opinions are sacrosanct. —David Levy 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could you possibly say "the proof is in the pudding" when the recipe is either made up on the spot or a secret known only to a small handful? Actually, no, it's a 'fusion cuisine' of the cultures of ITN, DYK, and OTD, each of which is arrived at as much by accidents of evolution than by specific design. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current main page linking practices reflect consensus up to this point, arising organically and affirmed via various discussions held over the years (which presumably could be found in the archives by someone with enough patience).

As noted above, no one has asserted that consensus is immutable. I'm merely disputing the idea that an absence of formal documentation is the same as a lack of longstanding agreement. —David Levy 03:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea the de-linking crusade had made it to ITN, but David's comment just above describes how Wikipedia works very clearly. Consensus can be (and often is) arrived at though practice and without formal discussion. That fact doesn't make the consensus less real. And even if you did insist that there be a formal policy, policy is descriptive.

Overly de-linkiing postings directly contridicts the purpose of ITN: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. De-linking makes it harder and slower for readers to find content they are looking for. RxS (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Crusade"? RU sure you didn't mean "jihad"? ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If they are searching for an article related to the unfolding event, why is it so unpleasant for them to click on the unfolding-event article first? That will have all of the related links—many more than could be crammed into a hook—in full context. That is the way WP is supposed to work. This idea that readers are being short-changed or robbed because a word isn't linked comes from the old "Build the Web" days of obsessive linking, before we realised wikilinking beyond a certain density becomes is degraded. That is the current state of much of the main page—especially ITN. What is the point of preparing the subject article? RxS, you're back to your argument for never ever reforming, improving: "Consensus can be (and often is) arrived at though practice and without formal discussion." Says who? Just those who want to retain a link-everything practice here. Please accept that many other people want the main page to emerge from its current ugly appearance and degraded function. Tony (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Because they may not be interested in the main topic and may not want to click through 2 or 3 pages before getting to the topic they are interested in. Why make harder for those folks to access the content that drew them in, or even obscure it to the point that they may not even know it's there? As far as consensus and policy goes, policy has been described and arrived at here that way for years. That's just the truth. You may consider the current practice ugly, but many people now and in the past have not. I'm not against improvement and reform, but it needs to be brought about by discussion and agreement. Not by claming that somehow "we" have realised something. This is still a wiki and the only degradation going on by overly de-linking is the ease of which our readers navigate around the site. RxS (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "Because they may not be interested in the main topic"—Well, I say that's just too bad. Go onto the next hook. Or click on one of the other theme buttons. A hook's a hook, and we can't expect everyone to be fascinated with all of them.

  Your assumption seems to be that it's all too much bother for a reader to click on the subject link and then click on a link, in proper context. What is so hard about that? Again, if they don't want to click on Kölnbrein Dam, fine. Type in dam. Linking everything in sight, competing against the carefully prepared hook subject article, just fizzles our great wikilinking system into blue porridge. Tony (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]