Talk:Main Page/Archive 211

Archive 205

←

Archive 209

Archive 210

Archive 211

Linking in DYK

Has it become policy to not link anything apart from the bold link in the DYK section now (although I see Green Day is linked)? It seems very jarring to have a Wikipedia section that doesn't link things that would be linked anywhere else in the encylopaedia. If it was in line with TFA, OTD, ITN, TFP etc. I would expect to see links for Thirteen Colonies, American Revolutionary War, Cincinnati, Tuvan throat singing, mortician, Generation Z, Euphoria (American TV series). We shouldn't expect an international audience to know what each of these are, and there are possible WP:ENGVAR issues as some are known by different names in different parts of the world (American War of Independence, funeral director etc.) - Dumelow (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no formal policy on it. One (four of five, actually) of the purpose of DYK is to get readers to click on the newly-made article and see our new content. That newly-made article is bolded, but the data shows that readers (understandably) don't care about what is bold-linked. Some editors at DYK like the bold-linked article to be the only one linked since they have been recently checked for not continuing any policy vios and of being competent encyclopedic articles, and in general more people clicking on bold-links makes every purpose of DYK run better, while linking other terms is at best a net neutral. The terms are all properly-linked in the articles that they represent, and if readers don't understand a term and for some reason feel enamored to click on the article despite the lack of understanding they are very quickly able to go the article and see what it is in something that doesn't have the constraint of <200 characters of context. Nominators are given fairly-broad latitude to link whatever they want in their hooks. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It is easier to click on a link in the blurb than to click on the bold link and then search where the term is linked there (with no guarantee that there actually is such a link). I judge that I am at least three times as likely to do the former than the latter. So Wikipedia is missing out on displaying more of its contents and readers are missing out on learning about the world. I don't call that a "net neutral". I think that this policy of not linking in DYK has gone too far. It seems self-indulgent and contrary in spirit to Wikipedia's aim to educate. JMCHutchinson (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect heading formatting

The comma placement causes issues with some scripts, see for example https://i.imgur.com/SrNt88x.png.

−

<h1 class="html-heading">Welcome to [[Wikipedia]]</h1>,</div>

+

<h1 class="html-heading">Welcome to [[Wikipedia]],</h1></div>

FaviFake (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

But then it would be grammatically wrong. The image you link to means nothing. You need to explain what you mean by "comma placement causes issues with some scripts". Bazza 7 (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

But then it would be grammatically wrong.
No it wouldn't? Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" is grammatically correct.
The image you link to means nothing
It's an example.
You need to explain what you mean by "comma placement causes issues with some scripts". [/wiki/User:Bazza_7]
As you can see, the [ copy ] button appears incorrectly between the comma and the rest of the heading. FaviFake (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake: My bad. I didn't notice the comma lurking inside the heading tags on your proposed version.

I still do not understand your image. The link you supplied returns an image of a purple rectangle with "Content not viewable in your region". Is this what you see; or are you using an image repository which refuses requests from where I am located (UK)?

What "[copy]" button are you referring to? Bazza 7 (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I can see the image, it shows "Welcome to Wikipedia [copy]," Cerebral726 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cerebral726, @FaviFake: Thanks. I think I understand this now. There is no "[copy]", hidden or otherwise, in the heading I get sent from Wikipedia:

<div id="mp-welcome"><h1 class="html-heading mw-html-heading" id="Welcome_to_Wikipedia">Welcome to <a rel="mw:WikiLink" href="?url=https://www.wikipedia.org//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia" id="mwBg">Wikipedia</a></h1>,</div> :::::<div id="mp-free">the <a rel="mw:WikiLink" href="?url=https://www.wikipedia.org//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content" title="Free content" id="mwBw">free</a> encyclopedia...

Are you both running some sort of script which is adding this to the page? If yes, then I think that script is where any amendments should be made, not the unadulterated information as served. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

But isn't that comma part of the heading, which that tag seems to be marking? It'd make sense for it to be included. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. It is itself part of the heading. FaviFake (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. If the comma's part of the heading, so too should be the text following it.

But this is by-the-by. Your reasoning was to stop a problem with a script (as yet undisclosed) which places a button on the page. If it's not working because a comma is in the wrong place, then it needs fixing to make it work using something other than a crude screen-scrape. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

No. If it's not working because a comma is in the wrong place, then the comma should be moved to the right place. I suspect this also has implications for users of screen readers, which rely on the HTML output rather then the displayed text. FaviFake (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If the comma is part of the header, so too is the subheader? That seems clearly wrong. The tags are delineating the Welcome to Wikipedia line, then there is a break, and then there is the "the free encyclopedia etc." The comma is obviously part of the first line. If it is causing an issue with FaviFakes script, it's not unreasonable to guess it could cause issues with another of the multitude of valid reasons people use scripts. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm using the Imgur file hosting service; I was unaware of the fact that it was unavailable in the UK. FaviFake (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I unarchived this discussion. Since we're 2 in favour and 1 opposing, would anyone else like to chime in? Otherwise I'm thinking of adding the ER template back. FaviFake (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cerebral726, @FaviFake: Sorry for the delay. It's been too hot to think properly here.

You have misunderstood the purpose of HTML tags. They are to describe content and its relationship with other content, not implement how that content is presented.

If you're saying that the comma is part and parcel of the text in the page's top-level heading (so it's "Welcome to Wikipedia,"), then say so. If you're saying the heading is "Welcome to Wikipedia" which needs to be directly followed by a comma, then fine but do not include it within the top-level heading HTML tags ("h1") to do so.

You have still not revealed which script you are using which you claim to be malfunctioning because of the top-level header's content, and why the status of the comma within the document structure causes this malfunction. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I know @Redrose64 knows a lot more than I do about the accessibility of HTML code, so I'd appreciate if they or someone else could weigh in on this.

I believe the script that makes the issue evident is User:Nardog/CopySectLink, but yes, I believe the comma is part and parcel of the text in the page's top-level heading. We never have a heading text and non-heading text in the same line, this is a weird exception. FaviFake (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake: I've added that to my account. The button appears immediately before the comma. It copies the section link Main Page#Welcome to Wikipedia to my clipboard when I press it, which according to the script's documentation, is correct.

I'm guessing you're stating that the error is that the button appears to you to be in the wrong position?

A stripped-down list of the page's top-level headings is:

1. <h1 id="firstHeading">Main Page</h1>
2. <h1 id="Welcome_to_Wikipedia">Welcome to Wikipedia</h1>

Moving the comma so that the content of the second is Welcome to Wikipedia, would suggest something else follows in the heading, which it doesn't. I would consider that an error.

The script does not take account of this particular heading being inline (so allowing further non-heading content to follow immediately after it). In such cases, appending the button to the next non-inline parent might be a solution. You would have to involve the script's owner to pursue that. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're stating that the error is that the button appears to you to be in the wrong position?
No, I believe the comma itself is in the wrong position for the reasons given by @Cerebral726 in their comment. FaviFake (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

In the case of the main page we have the HTML:

<div id="mp-welcome"><h1 id="Welcome_to_Wikipedia" class="html-heading mw-html-heading">Welcome to <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia">Wikipedia</a></h1>,</div>

By default, browsers will force a newline after the tag that closes a heading, in this case </h1>, and this means that the comma ought to appear by itself at the start of the next line. However, this can be altered by a style sheet which suppresses that newline, and this is what is happening here - we have this CSS rule:

.mw-parser-output #mp-welcome h1,
.mw-parser-output #mp-welcome .mw-heading1 {
  font-size: inherit;
  font-family: inherit;
  display: inline;
  border: none;
}

It's that display: inline declaration that joins the comma onto the tail-end of the heading.

The question of whether the comma should be inside or outside the <h1>...</h1> tags comes down to this: is the comma semantically part of the heading text, or not? This is certainly accessibility-related, but not being a screen-reader user, I can't pronounce judgement. Try WT:WPACCESS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Your question is pertinent and better put than my attempt, but not restricted to screen-reader usage; good document coding reflects the meanings assigned to its contents, regardless of the device being used to read it. I have already stated that I do not think the comma is part of the heading text, in much the same way as we don't end the text in other elements (such as captions or paragraphs) with a comma. Bazza 7 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The screen reader usage is just an example of where this difference might be the most noticeable. Nobody will ever know the comma isn't part of the heading if they look at the main page without any power user scripts. FaviFake (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"Wiki/" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wiki/ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 12 § Wiki/ until a consensus is reached. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 05:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Please replace image

I would like the image here to be replaced with the front cover (can be seen here) due to it being (somewhat arguably) more relevant and on-topic. In my opinion, the current choice for the image makes it look like an article about a person. Γ+2 (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The front cover is non-free so it cannot be used on the main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Add number of edits to the top banner

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 (1,364,549,331, ) changes much faster than the number of articles:

• 251,749 active editors
• 7,224,457 articles in English
• 1.3 billion edits

I’ve tested these edits at WP:Main Page alternatives/(editable). 2600 etc (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t mind it, it fits rather well and could encourage prospective new editors to join. I see no downsides. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Same here. Sounds like a good idea. InfernoHues (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this, the total number of edits since 2001 isn't a particularly meaningful number. A lot of those edits were reverting vandalism or happened years ago. Perhaps the number of edits in the last 24 hours or last week would be slightly more informative, but it still seems unnecessary to me. Modest Genius ^talk 17:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s any way to put the amount of edits in the last 24 hours or the last week into an article like the total edit count, just saying —paranormalcaramel (leave a message) 17:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I support this, and honestly I think having three statistics on the top banner might look better than the current two from a purely aesthetic standpoint. It’s interesting in general and I don’t see why this wouldn’t be changed. (also you do know argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, right?) —paranormalcaramel (leave a message) 17:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe changing to say something like 1360.1 million edits instead of 1.3 billion would make the count more interesting to see as it provides more detail. I made that change in my user sandbox. Just a personal opinion —paranormalcaramel (leave a message) 17:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd lose the .1 then. The nearest (lower?) million seems a more natural rounding. No need to mention how many of them are vandalism... Certes (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You know what? That’s a good idea to say 1,364 million edits, rather. I prefer that option now! 2600 etc (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Will oppose this, although an interesting topic, as the existing numbers are adequate to present a look at the current state of Wikipedia. Number of edits won't mean very much to non-editing readers and including them could be seen as unneeded clutter at the top of the main page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t think the general reader of Wikipedia will think that the main page is cluttered because of an additional statistic. The number of edits seems like a good statistic to represent Wikipedia, potentially better than the number of active editors, which is currently on the main page. Adding the edit number would probably be appreciated more than disliked —paranormalcaramel (leave a message) 14:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Nominate an article

Instead of "Nominate an article" - maybe it should be just Nominations Astropulse (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

For clarification, are you just asking about the "Nominate an article" link under ITN, or the one under DYK also? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

In the news Astropulse (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it is clearer as is. "Nominate an article" tells the reader that they can make nominations. "Nominations" might just link to a list of articles that have been nominated. The reader may or may not be able to make a nomination and may or may not be able to vote on nominations. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion either way but will note that when I was first starting out I was wary to click on "Nominate an article" because I thought it would send me to a form or something, not another link. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think "nominations" is better because it implies you can either create a new nomination or vote on existing ones (which is how ITNC is), whereas "nominate an article" only implies the former. Left guide (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

So went my confusion back then. However I, like Khajidha, am also worried about the effects of removing the "action" of the wording. Though it also could work out the same in the end. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

New RfC of interest to this page

There is a new RfC that is of interest to this page: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposing a 24-hour blackout in response to WMF actions. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)