Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently to appear on Main Page, use the appropriate section below. Reports should contain:

• Where is the error? An exact quotation using {{!xt}} of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible using {{xt}}.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 05:50 on 14 August 2026) and cannot be 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.
• Actual errors only. Failures of subjective criteria such as taste or interestingness, or failure to divert enough DYK readers to articles that aren't new or recently improved, are not errors.
• 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 or determined not to be an error, or the item has been 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.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Errors in "On this day"

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Monday's FL

(August 17)

Wednesday's FL

(August 19)

Friday's FL

(August 14, today)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

Add number of edits to the top banner

I’m using the template above to get the attention of administrators because my previous discussion got archived, although it got some supports. Anyways, I am suggesting this edit because:

• it adds more argumentum ad populum, even further encouraging people to become editors,
• it is another interesting fact about the immense scale of the English Wikipedia,
• it further demonstrates that "anyone can edit," and
• it also aligns with the statistics shown on Special:CreateAccount.

I suggest formatting it like this, considering the number of edits (1,364,547,723, ) changes much faster than the number of articles:

• 251,749 active editors
• 7,224,455 articles in English
• 1,364 million edits

Keeping the edit count more detailed (using the millions), whilst making sure it’s not too outdated. I’ve tested these edits at WP:Main Page alternatives/(editable). 2600 etc (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Link to the archived discussion for reference: /Archive 211 § Add number of edits to the top banner. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

That discussion had no consensus. I still don't think this change is either necessary or desirable. Modest Genius ^talk 10:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support, good idea to increase editor base HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Support the idea, but it should be formatted "1.361 billion" not "1,361 million". Buttons0603 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Good idea (1.364 billion). 2600 etc (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, I always like to look at numbers but there's a point where adding more makes the page confusing to look at. Also I don't think the edit count really tells us anything, as an edit can be as tiny as a punctuation change or as big as the creation of a new and long article (see Wikipedia:Edit count). So I look at this 1.3 billion and ask "what does this even mean?" and I honestly don't know the answer. An active editor count though is very easy to interpret: there is a community of 250,000 humans who make edits every once and a while. So I think we're fine with what we've got. Panamitsu (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a nice idea, I suppose, but I'd switch the order (articles - editors - edits) and write out the billion to keep the number formatting consistent. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes I think that the current ordering should be articles then editors (which is opposite what it currently is) as it seems to me that a reader would care more about the article count than the editor count. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. As per User:Panamitsu. Keep page simple and meaningful. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

•  Not done as to the immediate edit request. Please complete a discussion that can conclude with a strong consensus, then reactivate the edit request if supported. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Australia_Show

Politically meaningful point raised could be the promotion of stories of kidnapping and coercion (negative) w/ a politically relevant (positive) feature on this day, the day of Indigenous Peoples'. Nathanieldjenkins (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

For example, American Indian Movement Nathanieldjenkins (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

TWAFI post-RfC preparation to-do and discussion

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/This week's article for improvement § RFC close

 – This discussion would benefit from being located at a more visible page. For context, see also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adding this week's article for improvement to the Main page. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 02:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The RfC was just closed by Barkeep49, with consensus for template design M3, and weak consensus for placement P2. Let's discuss what the next steps are in this section. Just off the top of my head, we need to:

1. Test the template code to see if it works properly.
2. Decide what the first article for improvement should be.
3. Write the suggested improvements for the selected article.

After these are done, I believe an admin can add TWAFI to the main page.

I think we should clear out the existing TWAFI queue, as the articles for it weren't selected to entice new editors. Then we can use the standard voting process already in place there. Let me know if I've missed something/if there are other ideas. InfernoHues (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues: I think it's better if this is done in a new topic in the main Village Pump, since the "Reply" button isn't working due to the fact that the above RFCBEFORE discussion is closed (oh, and the closed discussion colour isn't displaying properly) fixed. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 04:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Page contents have been moved. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 11:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-SIN and InfernoHues: Will WP:VPT work for this? If so, I can make a move. (the missing color is almost certainly my editnotice templates mucking things up. I really shouldn't do transclusions like that...) 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 06:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it's now about the implementation stage. So the technical village pump will be more suitable, though I'd rather create one from scratch rather than a move.Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 06:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Work being done by the participants in the articles for improvement initiative should be discussed on its talk page. The technical village pump is for specific questions about using MediaWiki. isaacl (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@7amithorn: The reason why the edit notices were breaking the colour was because of the colon(:) before the templates. I've removed them already, the colouring issue has been fixed. Still not the reply tool though. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 06:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-SIN: Thanks. When I said move, I meant this section only (or just IH's comment, since the rest is related to this page). But yes, I can copy it over too. Doing... 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 06:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• I think the decision to proceed with placement P2 is not the correct one and we should not proceed with that given the weak consensus it apparently enjoyed. WP:MAINPAGEBALANCE is a longstanding principle to ensure there aren't large gaps between the main four main page sections and the POTD and TFL below. It would be better to place TWAFI in a single full width box below the main banner and above both TFA and ITN, leaving the remainder of the main page as is. This ensures both prominent placement for TWAFI and continuity.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  MAINPAGEBALANCE explicitly states it is for 'copyediting' not changes to the page in general. Also, WP:CCC. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  A full-width box for a week would be quite disproportionate for just a single article, when TFA gets half of that for just a single day. If we are going to do this then it makes some sense to put it at the top of a column, so that people notice the new feature. No doubt there will be plenty of feedback and further adjustments can be made in the light of experience. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. I expect we'll be having another discussion once it's been up for a couple of weeks. InfernoHues (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  This gives the most visibility of the three, but I still prefer P3. If we use either there will be room for an additional DYK hook that would fill the gap. Not to discuss that here, but any thoughts on that? NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think we should try to relitigate the RfC here. Ultimately P2 is what got consensus, even though it wasn't my preference. We should try to move forward on the practical implementation details.

  I think that ITN, DYK, etc. can figure out for themselves how they want to adjust. I think ITN already has a discussion started. InfernoHues (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, ITN has a discussion started about this by Andrew. For the sake of convenience: Wikipedia talk:In the news#New-look main page opportunity for ITN : deprecate ITNBALANCE and expand RD. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 12:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm with Amakuru on this. Why misbalance the main page when it can be avoided? The mockups we have look perfectly fine as taking up both columns. Having it take up a whole row would keep things balanced and keep it from looking like we've just decided to knock a certain section of the main page down a peg. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I support. -I sometimes eat bananas, and you can talk to me here: (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh wait, I forgot to add my actual thing I wanted to say. I think the article selected should be well-known enough that most visitors will know what it is, but obscure enough that they won't have much prior knowledge. That way they can learn to use sources. --I sometimes eat bananas, and you can talk to me here: (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There are a few concrete tasks that need doing to implement this change, please feel free to organize discussion under the subheadings below:

Update WP:Articles for improvement pages

Prose under WP:AFI needs to be updated to reflect the changes made by the RFC. For example, the main page should mention there is a primary focus on creating new editors, and the nominations page should cover the new page selection criteria. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

We'll also have to check if the bot currently used for AfI will work for this new purpose, or if it needs updates. If it does, we'll have to figure out who will make them. InfernoHues (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Has @Musikanimal weighed in here? - Wil540 art (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Probably @SVcode as well, seeing how engaged they are in the article nominations. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 09:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-, I think that this is a good idea, but we should wait until the changes are implemented. SVcode(Talk) 14:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I've made some rough initial changes to the main AFI page as well as the article nomination instructions, improvements are welcome. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Restructuring AFI

(I commented this on the RFC but it seems relevant again here)

While I am in full support of this proposal, one issue is that AFI itself receives little activity and the current process seems inefficient. I don't completely disagree with those who opposed the proposal on that ground. However, I think the solution is to fix AFI rather than not do this.

While TWAFI being added to the Main Page should help it be a more active project, a restructuring of how the project and nominations work and perhaps having a way of selecting which ones appear as TWAFI in the style of TFA (rather than just randomly selecting one) may need to be considered.

For example, should we start having subpages that transclude on the talk page like with DYK? Lots of questions. Not something to prevent this from going forward in the meantime, but something to think about and potentially workshop. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The current process is that AfIs are voted upon, and upon gaining consensus, are added to a queue. A random article from that queue is then chosen for each week. I think that system is fine for our purposes. One change we need to make is to clear out the existing queue, since those articles were selected for a different goal. The second change is to come up with some process to write the improvement steps on the template. InfernoHues (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest someone goes through the queue and sees if any of the previous noms fit the new goals. I know most won’t but there might be a couple. Also, the list of AFI nominations that never got a week should be archived somewhere. - Wil540 art (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The current TWAFI is Alan Paton. This article is level-5 vital but has a big banner cleanup tag indicating that it needs work. The person died 38 years ago and so it's not a BLP. This seems quite a reasonable and respectable choice. People wanting to purge the current queue should first provide a set of replacements and explain why their choices are better. The rival choices should then be subject to some process such as discussion and consensus. But that's exactly what the current TWAFI process is. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Any queue entries that aren't contentious, a biography of a living person, a medical topic, or otherwise non-ideal for new editors can naturally be kept, otherwise they do need to be removed per the RFC result. I don't believe Alan Paton will be featured on the main page yet, there's more groundwork that needs to be completed before pages can start being listed there. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There are already established criteria at WP:AFINOM:

• Highly important topics. Anything that has top or high importance to a WikiProject is likely highly important.
• Interesting to the general public. This can be evidenced by page views. Nominations with less than 200 views per day rarely succeed.
• Needing of improvement, with expansion opportunity. Stubs; start-class, and short C-class articles are the most ideal for improvement. Give due consideration before nominating higher-quality articles.
• Not targets of controversy. Keep in mind that controversial articles (articles that are the subject of heated discussion, edit warring, or questioned notability) can be very difficult to improve within a week.

These seem fine already. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think these have been strictly followed. For example, Nuclear program of Iran is in the list. InfernoHues (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Nuclear program of Iran was nominated in 2024 when it ticked most of the boxes and this was before the war which presumably triggered the NPOV tag which was added in 2026. So, the process was followed but the random mechanism for selecting articles in the pipeline means that articles may stay in there for some time while things may change. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The RFC found consensus that Each week a new article that is not contentious, a biography of a living person, a medical topic, or otherwise non-ideal for new editors (as determined by consensus) would be shown on the main page, and so the criteria must be modified accordingly. The time to express objections to these criteria was during the RFC. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree. I believe we should also have a check between the moment an article is randomly selected and the moment it shows up on the Main Page to make sure these criteria are followed? We shouldn't have a full process just for this, but, for example, require the person promoting the next AFI being in charge of checking these. An article nominated long ago could easily have become a target of controversy in between, or simply have already been improved. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 08:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Currently the AFI system claims that "If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles" although I've never seen this done. Alan Paton would have been worthy of a re-selection. With submissions, I often see topics like Alan Paton being suggested which are political and niche. The open nomination system needs a committee to bat down biased article suggestions. I do like the spirit of open nominations and it sometimes brings a magnifying glass to interesting articles; however, this project could also reconsider the open nomination system entirely and nothing would be lost. With open nominations, you require more moderation to prevent promotional suggestions (which there are a lot of). How essential are user submissions to the AFI program?

If all the previously nominated AFIs and all currently nominated AFIs were analyzed and a list edited down to only beginner friendly articles that need work, it's possible you'd have 200-300 articles or more. That's a decent starting point. A knowledgeable committee could curate the first 3 or 6 months and build the programming based on what worked and what didn't. There also needs to be eyes on an article the week before it gets selected to make sure it still needs work. - Wil540 art (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby @Wil540 art: I think we should have a manual selection instead because that is done for other sections on the Main Page, we can select certain articles on special occasions, and there may be some articles more in need of improvement than others. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

That could work, although we don't want to introduce too much bureaucracy by having people vote between many different articles each week, but we also don't want to limit article choice to select editors or introduce a new committee if not necessary. Maybe a priority queue where articles with the most support are brought to community review (and potentially scheduled) first? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Step one in changing how the articles for improvement initiative works: please take these discussions to that project's talk page. It'll be easier to track the history of discussions in future. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Side note: I have moved this section to be nested under "Update AFI pages" since the tasks to do are similar in nature. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 12:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

(commenting after the discussion was moved to Talk:Main Page): although this page is a better place for discussion than the proposal page, I still think it's better to hold discussion on the talk page for the articles for improvement initiative. All of the other sections on the main page hold discussion on their own talk pages, which is a more scalable approach than having all discussion on the main page talk page. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are suggesting the conversation is best continued here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_improvement ? - Wil540 art (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. isaacl (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I just saw that Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive, which doesn't look good for a long-running discussion, so support. 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 21:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that's advisable for future discussions on it when it exists, but this is not yet a section on the main page, and the project page has almost no visibility and will only be followed be the people involved in the, effectively unrelated, prior system or the chief proponents of this new initiative. Keeping it on this visible page is probably for the best, so that there is input from the outside community. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Seconding this, it's best to have as much visibility as possible, as this is probably when the project will be as its most flexible. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 08:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with posting pointers to discussions on the articles for improvement talk page from other pages. The RfC though was already in a prominent location for active editors. It's highly unusual to have discussions on implementing changes to an initiative's process somewhere other than that initiative's talk page. To me it feels uncollaborative, like the involvement of the existing community isn't being welcomed. (As I previously mentioned, it also makes it harder in future to track the evolution of the articles for improvement initiative.) isaacl (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Trout me later for this, but do you want the entirety of this discussion to be moved again, or is it okay that the bits specific to the AFI project to be discussed there with the other parts of the discussion happening here (ie status quo)? Should the AFI section be closed with discussion only happening there instead? Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 09:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

My personal view is to hold all discussions at the articles for improvement talk page, up to when there is a firm proposal for the appearance of the main page section. At that point, a co-ordination discussion can be held on this talk page regarding the new section. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link to fr:Wikipédia:Article de la semaine which has also seen restructuring in parallel. Something interesting that is being done there (and could be adapted to the now more visible English version) is to advertise the next week's article as a "source-finding drive", in order to provide material from which newer users can build up the article more easily. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 07:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement#RfC: Holding AFI Nominations on Subpages and give your opinions there. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Finalize the main page templates

The templates that will be used on the main page need to be finalized. Per the RFC the initial form of this template should be M.3, the one with bullet point suggestions. @Chaotic Enby has already created prototypes that would make for a good starting point at User:Chaotic Enby/TWAFI/3 and User:Chaotic Enby/TWAFI/data. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Any objections to moving the above to {{Article for improvement}} and {{Article for improvement/data}}? Not mentioning "weekly" as that may change in the future. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Just got the ping, thanks a lot! @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, feel free to move them. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 07:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

How do we want to proceed for the queues? My first idea was to either keep it simple and have {{Article for improvement/data}} for the current content and {{Article for improvement/data/next}} to workshop next week's, but having week-by-week templates could be more practical, and mean that the update could simply be to protect the incoming week's data template (e.g. {{Article for improvement/data/2026-08-17}}) just before the switch and have a bot make {{Article for improvement/data}} point there. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Formatting by the first day instead of the week number is intentional here, as it again affords us flexibility in case we want to change the "weekly" part. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

/YMD seems fine, especially if a bot could automatically add the relevant template links to each entry in the schedule and Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement#Scheduled weeks.

Do you have any ideas on how to best facilitate updating the displayed suggestions throughout the week? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Create an edit notice template

The template for the edit notice that will provide guidance and suggestions needs to be created. The suggestions within should be able to be updated through the week. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Created templates:

• {{AFI edit notice}} is the main template, it automatically selects which of the following two templates will be shown depending on an editor's extended confirmed status.
• {{AFI edit notice/old}} contains the notice that will be shown to experienced editors, initial version adapted from User:7amithorn/Editnotice twafi old​.
• {{AFI edit notice/new}} contains the notice that will be shown to newcomers, ditto.
• {{AFI edit notice/article info}} is used by /new, and will contain article-specific suggestions and guidance that will need to be updated often.

These are currently just a framework to get things moving, nothing is in any way final and improvements or suggestions are both welcome and needed.

{{AFI edit notice/new}} should give ideally give newcomers a single sentence (or less) overview for each relevant PAG in-situ, rather than relying on a link to elsewhere. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've slightly edited {{AFI edit notice}}, as the administrator layout defaults to the non-EC version (as you can't have an if/else switch for admins), so I made it display both one after the other. This way, admins still see there's a separate edit notice for each case and can work with them accordingly. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 07:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

They look really good! Thanks for making them. InfernoHues (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

+1 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 04:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

{{AFI edit notice/new}} has been rewritten to cover some key basics in-situ: V/RS, tone, neutrality, and Don't use AI. I've tried to keep the text short, engaging, and informative, using a touch of humor and humanity. This kind of writing isn't a strength of mine, review, suggestions and improvements are most welcome. The NPOV/BALASP point is the one I'm least happy with.

Also, does anyone know if there is a way to detect if an editor is viewing a page in the visual or source editor? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the editnotice looks good over all, but a few points on linking:

• perhaps Most content in the citation bullet should link to WP:BLUE?
• reliable sources linked to WP:RS or WP:FIND?
• in proportion to WP:DUE?

Other than that, my only complaint is that the notice is HUGE, and the wall of text might be dissuasive (especially since they'll see it even if they're almost XC). Perhaps some of it could be relocated to a talkpage template (with a link)? 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 05:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It is huge, especially when using the VE toolbar (even when not using the VE, that is the Wikipedia:2017 wikitext editor). Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 05:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Digestibility due to length is a concern, though I've tried to allay that issue by breaking up the info into short points and using a writing style that should (hopefully!) be more inviting and engaging than intimidating. While its possible to shorten it, the result will be a dryer read, I'll ping you to some examples on the template talk page to discuss.

Policy links were kept to one per topic to keep from overwhelming with choice. WP:BLUE is a non-ideal somewhat contentious non-policy essay. WP:RS is covered by beginner-friendly WP:REFB in point one, linking again may distract from NPOV. As for NPOV, I think that WP:BALASP may be a better target for the whole point. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)