Talk:Main Page/Archive 211

Archive 205

←

Archive 209

Archive 210

Archive 211

Discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Main page featured article Crusading Movement is a contentious topic that doesn't follow WP:NPOV

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Main page featured article Crusading Movement is a contentious topic that doesn't follow WP:NPOV. Lijil (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Trigger Warning Type Scenario?

It seems that convention is becoming (in at least U.S. English use) to say that one "dies by suicide" as opposed to "committed suicide." It might be relevant in the context of the date in history segment. Balancedternary (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to change MOS:SUICIDE on multiple occasions, so how one describes suicide is a normal editorial decision for editors to debate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Contradicting information

Hey, according to this mainpage there are about 270,000 active editors on the English Wikipedia. According to the Wikimedia Statistics there are only about 40,000 active editors on the English Wikipedia. On Wikimedia Statistics, 270,000 is the number of editors.

Counting 1 edit in the last 30 days versus counting 5 edits in the last 30 days.

Can this contradicting information please be fixed? WikiPate (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

That link says the graph is of editors with "five or more edits" and the main page link says that is for editors with "an action" in the past 30 days. Maybe that's confusingly presented, but it doesn't sound like a contradiction. It's easy to imagine that of 270k acounts with an action in the past 30 days that only 40k had five or more edits in that timespan. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

the link says:

• 40,000 active editors
• 270,000 editors

the main page says:

• 270,000 active editors

that it is counted differently is written in small letters. WP belongs to Wikimedia. Having two widely differing numbers for the same KPI is unprofessional. WikiPate (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@WikiPate I'm not sure this can be fixed by us. Special:Statistics seems like a MediaWiki thing and it does not include any 40k figure بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the two have different values, it is that YOU are not paying attention to the definitions that each is using. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

So for every term on Wikipedia, the reader always needs to check which definition is used for it this time? Again: Unprofessional. WikiPate (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

No, but when looking at two different things (WP and WM), you need to make sure that they are using the terms the same way. Not checking that is unprofessional on your part. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

WP belongs to WM. Having the same definition for active users is self-evident here.

I wouldn't mind if a newspaper would count it differently, because a newspaper and WP are not the same organization. WikiPate (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Lots of companies measure things differently in different parts of the organization, so I fail to see how it is "self-evident". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the underlying issue is that you may not understand how Wikipedia organises itself, Khajidha. All the 346 language editions of Wikipedia make autonomous decisions how to do that. And that seems sensible. I could not see the point that everything across all languages needs to be coordinated and fully aligned with what the Wikimedia Foundation does. It would be a logistical and administrative nightmare trying to do so. As volunteers, surely we have better things to do than trying to nut out tiny details like what defines "active". As long as it's stated how things are measured and reported on, the interested reader can find out. Schwede66 21:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you meant this for the other guy. I'm the one who actually does understand this.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ha, indeed. Sorry for that. It was WikiPate who I was intending to ping. Schwede66 05:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

You only "actually understand" your point of view in a discussion where there can be different opinions. WikiPate (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I could not see the point that everything across all languages needs to be coordinated and fully aligned with what the Wikimedia Foundation does.

I didn't write that everything needs to align. It's just that a metric on the main page of the English Wikipedia is widely different to the official statistics website of Wikimedia. That should be fixed. WikiPate (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

We have no control over the Wikimedia Statistics pages. The metrics they use are likely chosen for a particular purpose, which may not be the same as the one we use here. CMD (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Different entities (even those that are linked) can and do utilize and present data differently. This is not a problem.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

"On this day" May 1st

I think that it's biased to write about Loyalty Day but not about International Workers' Day. Since these holidays are counterparts, we should either include notes about both of them in that column or not include either of them. Sknerus MacKwacz (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to participate in the processes that determine what appears in OTD. See WP:OTD. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

There are already a lot of events that take place every May 1. International Workers' Day was on OTD last year, as well as 12 other occasions before that (many alongside Loyalty Day, which only has 11 appearances to date). -- Reconrabbit 17:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Linking to sections

Is it possible to link to sections in the main page? I've tried "Main Page#Did you know..." but it does not work. Could we add this functionality if it does not yet exist? Panamitsu ✨ 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Main Page#mp-tfa-h2
• Main Page#mp-dyk-h2
• Main Page#mp-itn-h2
• Main Page#mp-otd-h2
• Main Page#mp-tfl-h2
• Main Page#mp-tfp-h2
• Main Page#mp-other
• Main Page#mp-sister

These links are relatively stable, but they are not guaranteed to work in the future – they might stop working if there is a redesign of the main page.

The anchor (aka hash, aka fragment) for each link can be found in the wikitext of the main page in the "id" attributes of h2 tags. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, forgot that it's the IDs that are used instead of the names of the headings. Panamitsu ✨ 10:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

In regular ==section header== wikitext, the generated ID is the heading, e.g. #Linking to sections and #"On this day" May 1st. In rare cases when characters <>[]{|} are used in the section heading, percent-encoding is required. E.g. Talk:Main Page/Archive 78#{{permprot}} ???? has the anchor %7B%7Bpermprot%7D%7D ????. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Snooker Still a headline after 11 days?

How long is Wu Yize defeats Shaun Murphy going to be a headline? Its been 11 days and this is still a main headline? I am a snooker addict, and even I am questioning why this is still in the headlines. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to join the discussion of new nominations at WP:ITN/C and to help improve the relevant articles. We cannot post new stories unless there's a) an updated high-quality article, and b) consensus support for the nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 19:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It would have been there even longer had we not posted that nonsense story about the Canvas "hack" (current status: 2 days past the "hackers" deadline, nothing has happened, Canvas is fuly operational and has been for a while). Actually, shouldn't we pull this? Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Canvas story: pull?

As per my comment in the section above. This really has been a nothing story. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not the right place to discuss this. I direct you to ITN where the nomination discussion was held. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine, it'll just get bludgeoned by Andrew there as well, as per WT:ITN. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I read the discussion. As much as Andrew can sometimes be a pain I find that in this case both of you have many good points. I would also be hesitant to label Andrew as bludgeoning given that it was a relatively short back-and-forth conversation between you two. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § This week's article for improvement

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § This week's article for improvement. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 21:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Should we show first and last names of all articles of human internet personalities, musicians, artists, actors, and others?

It's basically should not be obvious to include both first and last names of well known people, on the internet, television, successful humans, rally drivers, CEOS, and others. UltraAtom (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this question is better suited for somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. — Fox 23:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page. Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Languages

Hello all, I was on the French Main Page and realized that there is a languages bar to conveniently switch between Wikis (eg. from French to English Wikipedia). Why is this not present in the English version ? Just a question. &RezAlt! (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to look a bit harder. Under the heading "Languages", there are some 50 other wikis listed, including "Français". And at the bottom, you get a dropdown menu to the other 346 languages. Schwede66 07:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. It is still an inconsistenc though, no ? &RezAlt! (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

We don’t tell the French how to design their home page and neither do they tell the English Wikipedia. Schwede66 16:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

(Possible) Grammatical Error

"In association football, Arsenal (manager Mikel Arteta pictured) win the Premier League." Here, "win" should be replaced with "won", since it's a bit weird when you ignore the parentheses. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am using AmE. Welovecontributors! [talk] 23:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

A team can be considered a plural noun, especially in UK-English, according to MOS:PLURALS. However, switching it to the past tense would make it grammatically correct regardless of singular vs plural, so that would be an improved MOS:COMMONALITY. DMacks (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

ITN is always written in present tense. Plural here would be "wins". 1brianm7 (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

"wins" is for singular subjects: "John wins the game" vs "John and Jane win the game". DMacks (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't think there's an error here (and we're not at WP:ERRORS regardless), ITN is always written in present tense, and win is the most correct in both American and British English, per MOS:PLURALS, this is the best we're gonna get. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Passive voice would solve it: "In association football, the Premier League is won by Arsenal (manager Mikel Arteta pictured)." But again, that's a more substantive style change that might be contrary to general ITN style. DMacks (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Chicago win the NBA Finals or Giants win the Super Bowl instead of the (Chicago) Bulls win the NBA Finals or the Giants win the Super Bowl would ungrammatical in American English the team names are almost all plural like Dodgers, Titans, Chiefs, Dolphins, Jets, Nets, Yankees, Hawks, Rangers, Islanders, Broncos, Cowboys, Twins, Jaguars, Lions, Cubs, Patriots, Tigers, Brewers, Flyers, Eagles, Ravens, Celtics, Steelers, Colts, Bears, Rams, Chargers, Warriors, Ducks, Cardinals, Texans, Spurs, Golden Knights, Grizzlies, Braves, Panthers, Commanders, Guardians, Vikings, Trailblazers, Raiders, Buccaneers, Athletics, Diamondbacks, Suns, Stars, Saints, Hurricanes, Blue Jackets, Penguins, Bills, Sabres, Pistons, Pacers, Red Wings, Bucks, Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Senators, Nationals, Wizards, Capitals, Canucks, Oilers, Hornets, Pelicans, Blues, Nuggets, Rockies, Seahawks, Mariners, Marlins, Rays, Rockets, Astros, Royals, Packers, the future Sonics or Supersonics, etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

ITN typically uses passive wording to avoid this WP:ENGVAR misunderstanding. In this case, I suggest:

In association football, the Premier League concludes with Arsenal as champions.

Modest Genius ^talk 10:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Some sprucing up

I was recently on the front page of RuWiki [1] and I was struck by how nice it looked. While I'm not suggesting we wholesale change our front page, there are some changes I suggest that might spruce the place up here a bit.

1. De-bold the links in "Other areas of Wikipedia" mockup
2. De-bold the links in "Wikipedia's sister projects" mockup
3. Add the Foundation logo, like as is done on RuWiki, over the "Wikipedia's sister projects" section
4. Center "Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:"
5. Center "This Wikipedia is written in English. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below."

I think that would help make things a little nicer and smoother. If there is appetite for that, I can draw up some drafts for more formal approval. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Debolding Other areas feels like it'll help everything look smoother. Not sure it'll make the same impact for the sister projects as the font there already seems small but worth a look. Neutral on the other changes, I assume the centering is to be tested at the default page width? CMD (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

These are all minor formatting changes. Could you mock them up (e.g. on Main Page/sandbox) so we can see the effect of your proposal? Centring might look odd, because the content columns are not equal width. Modest Genius ^talk 13:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/ also looks similarly nice, with the serifed headings giving it an elegant look Squarebracket (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Pre-RfC workshopping: Brooke Vibber day notice

With June 1 approaching, I would like to propose a temporary Main Page banner to mark Wikipedia:Brooke Vibber Day, building on the suggestions raised at WP:VPWMF and Wikipedia talk:Wiki Workers United solidarity.

June 1 has been celebrated on-wiki for over twenty years to honour Brooke Vibber, the first developer hired by the Wikimedia Foundation, the former and first Wikimedia Foundation CTO and the second all-time contributor to the MediaWiki software that powers our project. The day was created and first celebrated in 2004 by Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.

This year's milestone is particularly significant following the WMF's recent decision to disband the Community Tech team, which resulted in the layoffs of several key developers, as well as Brooke's own separate departure from the WMF under undisclosed circumstances on May 26.

These announcements were sudden and unexpected, and occurred approximately 90 days after the formation of a union by Brooke alongside most developers on the Community Tech team. Some community members noted that under California law (SB 497), the WMF is rebuttably presumed to be retaliating if they lay off employees within 90 days after they begin forming a union. Thus, for these reasons, these events sparked a major on-wiki discussion, including a community solidarity petition signed by over 320 active editors, administrators, and Arbitrators, which is at the time of writing the 10th most supported proposal or petition ever on Wikipedia. You can learn more about the situation at WP:COMMTECHGATE and WP:WWUS (which also hosts statistics about the impact of editors who have signed the petition).

In light of Brooke's longstanding holiday, and the current developing situation, I think a temporary banner that both celebrates Brooke and neutrally presents the current situation, is appropriate. The Main Page does have a limited amount of self-referentiality (e.g. artist credits for featured pictures). I think celebrating one of the most influential developers on a longstanding (20 years plus!) day created by our very own founder, as well as acknowledging a serious and developing situation occurring in the community (as demonstrated by the 320 signatures, and growing), is exceptional enough to deserve this self referentiality too, just for a day.

I propose the following text and Wikilinks (thank you to Tamzin for helping copy-edit it!).

Today, June 1, marks Brooke Vibber Day. Brooke is a pioneering developer who wrote much of the original code for MediaWiki, the software that powers Wikipedia, and remains one of its most influential maintainers.

Recently, Brooke and several other unionising developers were laid off or terminated from the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Wikipedia community opened a discussion and over 320 editors have signed a solidarity petition.

The Foundation's response to the situation, in which they deny any union-busting behaviour, can be viewed here.

Of course, this is just a draft and I am happy to workshop it as a community to settle on the correct wording for this sensitive situation. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Support, as proposer. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Strong support for reasons already stated on village pump Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

We’d need an RfC for this. Personally I’d suggest

Today, 1 June, is Brooke Vibber Day on Wikipedia, in celebration of the legendary developer who wrote much of the original code for MediaWiki (the software that powers Wikipedia); while assisting with the unionisation of Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) staff, Brooke was recently laid off by the WMF under unclear circumstances.
We invite you to create an account and start editing (see Help:Introduction for guidance), the volunteer community that runs Wikipedia is made up of people like you! There is currently a discussion related to prioritisation of the community needs and workers' rights at the WMF, consider signing a petition in support of the unionising effort. Thank you.

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

If we start the RfC later today or tomorrow and WP:CENT it there should be adequate time to form a consensus before Monday Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I've already added it to CENT. I'm not too sure if a formal RfC is needed or just consensus of the community in this discussion with appropriate noticing (like CENT, which I've done) is needed. If a formal RfC is needed, you (or anyone!) is welcome to WP:BOLDly add the needed RfC tags, I would do so myself but I have to go do something IRL now. I like your wording too, perhaps we can incorporate some of it as well? It is so hard to find the right words for something like this, and thank you also for helping with that. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose the original wording. Bluntly this just seems to be an attempt to stick it to the WMF, particularly with the 2nd and 4th lines. — Czello ^(music) 08:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Happy to make any changes needed to change that to a support! What do you think should be changed to make those lines more neutral more neutral (which is my aim)? Perhaps unionising developers and The Foundation's response to the situation, in which they deny any union-busting behaviour, can be viewed here, though I'm not sure if that's taking too much context out. Wording is tricky so thanks for helping point out! - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll suggest a copyedit:

Today, June 1, marks Brooke Vibber Day. Brooke is a pioneering developer who wrote much of the original code for the software that powers Wikipedia, and remains one of the software's most influential maintainers. Until recently, Brooke was employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, the entity that hosts Wikipedia on its servers; she was one of many seeking to unionise those who work tirelessly to support the Foundation, and through it, the mission to make knowledge available for free, for everyone. This month, however, Brooke and several other developers attempting to unionise were laid off or termianted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Wikipedia community has opened a discussion and over 320 editors have signed a solidarity petition. The Foundation has released a response statement to the situation, and has denied engaging in any union-busting.

But I have two big questions. One, why are we doing this – is this a call to action, and so, what are we calling readers to do? I think many will sign the solidarity petition, despite their signatures not being the ones we want there. The text currently hangs awkwardly; no matter how I write it, my first thought scanning the text as a hypothetical reader is "okay, and what do you want from me?". Two, I'm not sure where the initial discussion for this is – did Brooke ask us to tell millions of visitors to one of the world's biggest websites that she was laid off? That is a matter of concern to us as the community, but it is also her private life and reputation and I don't want to embarrass her inadvertently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to target the message at readers. I think adding We invite you to create an account and start editing (see Help:Introduction for guidance), the volunteer community that runs Wikipedia is made up of people like you! or similar to the start of the second paragraph is necessary Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Btw, see [2] re Brooke being okay w this Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Isn't inviting people to edit the exact opposite of what we want to do, in case an editorial strike is called for? Thanks for the link re: Brooke's privacy, I'm queasy but understand why a clear "yes" is too dicey. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

They can't strike if they're not editors! Tbh I doubt a strike would be called on 1 June? It's also a bit of a dig at the WMF prioritising donation banners while we want more people to know they can edit Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

personally I'd like

Today, June 1, marks Brooke Vibber Day. Brooke is a pioneering developer who wrote much of the original code for the software that powers Wikipedia, and remains one of the software's most influential maintainers. Until recently, Brooke was employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, the entity that hosts Wikipedia on its servers; she was one of several seeking to unionise staff at the Foundation, people who work tirelessly to support Wikipedia and, through it, the mission to make knowledge available for free, for everyone. This month, however, Brooke and several other developers attempting to unionise were laid off or terminated by the Wikimedia Foundation.

We invite you to create an account and start editing (see Help:Introduction for guidance), the volunteer community that runs Wikipedia is made up of people like you! The community has opened a discussion about the prioritisation of community needs and workers' rights at the Foundation, and over 320 editors have signed a solidarity petition in support of the unionisation efforts. The Foundation has released a response statement to the situation, and has denied engaging in any union-busting.

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I like this, but I think what it's missing is, as you allude to, a clear sense of why it's being said. I think the best way to present this is to focus on this message being one of genuine gratitude to Brooke and the laid-off engineers. That sets a tone that makes the rest of the message make a lot more sense, and also means we've conveyed something important independent of any implied call to action. So I propose something like this:

Today, June 1, marks Brooke Vibber Day. Brooke is a pioneering developer who wrote much of the original code for the software that powers Wikipedia, and remains one of the software's most influential maintainers. Until recently, Brooke was employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, the entity that hosts Wikipedia on its servers; she was one of many seeking to unionise those who work tirelessly to support the Foundation, and through it, the mission to make knowledge available for free, for everyone. This month, however, Brooke and several other developers attempting to unionise were laid off or terminated by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has released a response statement and has denied engaging in any union-busting.

The Wikipedia community would like to take this year's Brooke Vibber Day to say "dankon" to Brooke for her decades of service to Wikipedia and its editors, and to thank the laid-off engineers for their years of hard work developing software requested as part of the Community Wishlist—a process many fear will languish with them gone. They are valued members of our community, and the Wikimedia Foundation is worse for their absence. Over the past week, dozens of community members have made their feelings known in a lengthy discussion of the controversy and over 340 editors have signed a solidarity petition with Wiki Workers United.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

As an addendum, I'm not inherently opposed to Kowal's idea of adding encouragement to create an account, but I don't see it as very central to what's going on here, and think every word added increases the percentage of people who stop reading there, so I've left it out of this wording as uneconomical. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't made it through today's 99+ notifications, hopefully I haven't overlooked any major developments. I have a personal fondness for this wording as I recently went looking for my earliest communication with Brooke and think I found it on my Esperanto talk page in 2003. (I never did progress much beyond "saluton" and "dankon".) —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 09:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Ngl I don’t want the implication that the community is a gated/exclusive group, but otherwise this is good Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

On second thought I struggle to see this gain consensus among those not closely involved in this debacle, it’s the deprioritisation of the community that widely resonates, the sole focus on lay-offs and unionising may be undue, and our readers will just be confused as to why they're being shown this, it’s irrelevant for them unless we note the incorporative nature of the community Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I think Tamzin's current Sandbox version emphasises the deprioritisation and impact on the community better. From that version, are there any further edits you think should be made before RfC? - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In all honesty I think it was a mistake to solely make the basis of collective action about the 7 individuals and unionising rather than the advancing of governance reforms surrounding community representation in tandem with that. I fear that the petition doesn’t really amount to much more than posturing which management can ignore, and that striking of volunteers would be quiet and ineffective. But since we’re here now, we might as well shoot our shot w that RfC as it’s much better than nothing, and the banner's well-written. I’d support as it means we’ll get more media coverage Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Very well-written, I would support this. Some1 (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is so perfectly worded and would support it strongly. Thank you so much! - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Since all that's needed for the pre-RfC stage is a rough consensus among people who would support about what it is they'd be supporting, I think we're about there. @Gnomingstuff @Theleekycauldron: Do you have any thoughts here? If neither has objections, @MolecularPilot, I'd suggest you start the RfC proper in an hour or two; see § Procedural note below as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

no further thoughts - also no need to ping, rest assured I’m following the discussion Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Could we add a link to Special:CreateAccount somewhere? Maybe as a parenthetical on the second paragraph to be

The Wikipedia community (which you can join) would like to take...

In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

OMG yes great idea, thank you! I think Help:Introduction would be more appropriate, though. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

If I recall correctly I think people get taken through the same introduction tutorials after creating an account that are linked on the help page. I'm open to either option though. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• I've changed the section heading to frame this as a pre-RfC workshop for now, and for the same reason removed it from T:CENT for now. I think we have a lot of good ideas here but it's good to have some sense of what wordings people like before we invite a much larger audience. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• This seems misguided to me. If there's a staffing or union issue at WMF, the WP:SIGNPOST would be a better venue to describe it. Plastering a banner on the Main Page is WP:POINTy campaigning and unlikely to appeal to readers. No-one is going to see any of the proposed banners and be prompted to make their first edit. It's just going to annoy readers while making Wikipedia look bad. Modest Genius ^talk 10:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn't characterise this as "disrupt[ing]" anything really, it's a small box, present for only 24 hours, that wouldn't impede access to anything - much less drastic than the strikes, lock-outs etc that have been proposed elsewhere. Reading Tamzin's version above (which I think is so-far the best and ideal proposed version), it is less about purely raising a staffing or union issue, but instead honouring Vibber's day and her contributions (as well as those of the laid off engineers) that are the entire reason we can use Wikipedia today, and their legacy. A purely signpost issue would not recognise these really fundamental and crucial contributions (which I can attest to as a MediaWiki developer) to readers, who also benefit greatly from Brooke's and the CommTech team's work, which was so great that even back in 2004 Jimbo attested that it deserved an entire day of recognition. I can't imagine why such a statement would annoy or make anyone think badly of Wikipedia, but if you do have reasons, we would love your feedback to keep workshopping and improve the notice to avoid this. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think to illustrate how non-disruptive this will be (which will also help with the RfC voter confidence) I will begin prototyping the Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox with how it might look. Feedback is of course appreciated, and I'll comment here once I've got smth I think is workable. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  My mockup is published now and available at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox. I'd like to get some feedback on this before starting the full RfC, and if anyone has the time, I would be greatly appreciative! - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've tightened up the prose a bit more, let me know if you have any objections. I feel like the ending doesn't quite hit right, but I'm still thinking on it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  The new prose seems good. Maybe it needs a little more tightening, I feel that the length of the box is inversely proportional to the chance of passing RfC, but I'm not sure. I agree about the ending, I'll think a bit about it too. Thank you again so much for all your help, hopefully we can get a good refined version out before the end of today. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I flipped the order of the last two sentences and I think it ends better that way. But if I'm wrong feel free to just rv, I don't want to overthink this. Will think on if there's any way to tighten things further. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think that sounds good. Maybe a bit of a crazy idea but what if we just make the main page announcement something like June 1, 2026, marks the 23rd annual Brooke Vibber Day. Brooke is a pioneering developer who has been perhaps the most influential maintainer of the software that powers Wikipedia. The community has an important message to share about Brooke, which can be accessed here. to minimise the real estate taken up on the main page, and then link to the full message. That way, it doesn't annoy uninterested readers much, but those who are interested can read more. But I'm not really sure about the phrasing, particularly "about Brooke" because it isn't just about her, and maybe we need to make the importance clearer. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Okay so I thought of 3 versions (if we go for the short approach with link) but idk which is best:

• Today, June 1, marks the 23rd annual Brooke Vibber Day, honoring a pioneering developer of the software that powers Wikipedia. The volunteer editing community has released an important statement concerning Brooke's legacy and the future of our technical teams, which can be read here.
• June 1 is Brooke Vibber Day, celebrating one of Wikipedia's most influential software maintainers. In light of recent changes to our developer teams, the volunteer community has published a statement of gratitude and support, which can be viewed here.
• Today is Brooke Vibber Day, honouring the developer who helped build Wikipedia. Read the volunteer community's urgent message regarding Brooke, our technical staff, and the future of community software development here.

- In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I think if you're gonna demand readers' attention, you don't want to also ask them to click on something. Most simply won't. I think what we've got in sandbox is roughly as good as it's gonna get. I'm not sure this'll pass in an RfC, but can't think of any way to make that more likely than what I've done. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, really good point, yeah. Re-reading what's in Sandbox right now, I agree and think it's pretty good. I feel the same about the RfC honestly, could go either way and I feel like some people won't like it, but the reason I started this thread, and will start the RfC, is because if we don't try, the chance of anything happening is 0%, but if there's an attempt, it still might happen. I'm going to take some time away from the computer now, and if there's no other comments and I (and you!) can't think of anything else, when I get back I might start the RfC. I think we have the rough consensus needed. Thank you again so much for all your help. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Professional lurker here -- I've been following this from the start, but haven't said anything until now. I don't think the main page should be used for this purpose. Like Modest Genius, I see this as rather pointed, and quite frankly I doubt our readers care. I would really prefer that the main page not be hijacked to spread the word about internal troubles... The people who are interested in this situation are already aware of it. MediaKyle (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Procedural note

Given how quickly things need to move, I would suggest that any RfC begin with a note that it will be procedurally closed at 12:00 on 31 May UTC no matter what, and that we try to get one or more admins to sign on to close it in advance of that. If there is no consensus at that time, then so be it; easier to have a clear endpoint and a clear process to get things closed and (if there's consensus for something) implemented. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tamzin I am happy to do so; I've been keeping abreast of the discussion and have a vote count sheet going. My intent is to close it sometime around 6 or 7 UTC on the 31st (i.e., late this evening American time). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Brooke Vibber Day gratitude note

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From 1 June 2026 00:00 UTC to 2 June 2026 00:00 UTC, to celebrate the long-standing Wikipedia tradition of Brooke Vibber Day, should the Main Page include a gratitude note towards Brooke Vibber and other engineers which were recently separated from the Wikimedia Foundation, as stylised at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox (see comment below for various Options as to the text, the mockup represents only one such option)?

Note: This RfC will be procedurally closed at 12:00 on 31 May UTC, should a close fail to develop prior to that. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Options

Option 1 - mentions controversy as context (current mockup on Sandbox)

Community Announcement: Brooke Vibber Day

June 1, 2026 marks the 23rd annual Brooke Vibber Day. Brooke is a pioneering developer who has been perhaps the most influential maintainer of the software that powers Wikipedia. Until recently, she was employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit that maintains Wikipedia's technical infrastructure; she was one of many seeking to unionise the Foundation's workers, who work tirelessly to support its mission to make knowledge available for free, for everyone. This month, however, Brooke and several other developers attempting to unionise were laid off or terminated by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has released a response and has denied engaging in any union-busting.

The Wikipedia community (which you can join) would like to take this year's Brooke Vibber Day to say "dankon" to Brooke for her decades of service to Wikipedia and its editors, and to thank the laid-off engineers for their years of hard work developing software listed on the Community Wishlist—a process many fear will languish with them gone. Over the past week, dozens of community members have made their feelings known in a lengthy discussion of the controversy and over 350 editors have signed a solidarity petition with Wiki Workers United. The terminated engineers are valued members of our community, and the Wikimedia Foundation is worse for their absence.

Option 2 - mostly gratitude, link to discussion

Community Announcement: Brooke Vibber Day

June 1, 2026 marks the 23rd annual Brooke Vibber Day. Brooke is a pioneering developer who has been perhaps the most influential maintainer of the software that powers Wikipedia . Brooke and a number of other engineers recently separated with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Wikipedia community (which you can join) would like to take this year's Brooke Vibber Day to say "dankon" to Brooke for her decades of service to Wikipedia and its editors, and to thank the laid-off engineers for their years of hard work developing software listed on the Community Wishlist. Over the past week, dozens of community members have made their feelings known in a lengthy discussion on the issue.

Option 3: add .., including encouraging unionisation efforts at the Foundation. to the end of option 2

Option 4, middle ground that still mentions the unionisation and the solidarity efforts but remains more concise.

Community Announcement: Brooke Vibber Day

June 1, 2026 marks the 23rd annual Brooke Vibber Day. Brooke is a pioneering developer who has been perhaps the most influential maintainer of the software that powers Wikipedia. Until recently, she was employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit that maintains Wikipedia's technical infrastructure. This month, however, Brooke and several other developers attempting to unionise were laid off or terminated by the Foundation, which has denied engaging in any union-busting.

The Wikipedia community (which you can join) would like to take this year's Brooke Vibber Day to say "dankon" to Brooke for her decades of service to Wikipedia and its editors, and to thank the laid-off engineers for their years of hard work developing software listed on the Community Wishlist—a process many fear will languish with them gone. Over the past week, dozens of community members have made their feelings known in a lengthy discussion of the controversy and over 350 editors have signed a solidarity petition with Wiki Workers United.

Option 5 - all about Brooke with a link to Brooke's public statement, no mention of CommTech or the union

Community Announcement: Brooke Vibber Day

June 1, 2026 marks the 23rd annual Brooke Vibber Day. Brooke is a pioneering developer who has been perhaps the most influential maintainer of the software that powers Wikipedia, and is no longer employed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikipedia community (which you can join) would like to take this year's Brooke Vibber Day to say "dankon" to Brooke for her decades of service to Wikipedia and its editors.

Option 6 - privacy-preserving pure gratitude version, resolves issues re consent and mentioning the current wiki drama

The idea is that we run it on Brooke Vibber day for the symbolic value to the community, but the readers wouldn't be familiar with that (and also for privacy reasons) so we don't frame it as that for them.

Community Announcement

Recently, several engineers and developers who were instrumental in maintaining and improving the software that powers Wikipedia, were laid off or terminated by the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find out more about the changes on this project page.

The Wikipedia community (which you can join) would like to thank these engineers and developers for the combined decades of service that they have dedicated to Wikipedia and its editors and readers. Their years of hard work developing software requested on the Community Wishlist was greatly appreciated.

Survey

• Oppose - Brooke is a genuine Wiki treasure, and I have no objection to using the main page to occasionally publicly celebrate some of the people who have made this project successful. I forget if we linked to e.g. Wikipedia:Magnus Manske Day or Wikipedia:Tim Starling Day from somewhere public in the past, but I'd support that kind of thing, too. What I'm opposed to is using the main page to get into these union busting allegations or to air other grievances about the WMF. We already know the vast majority of readers do not understand the differences between the WMF, its staff, administrators, editors, etc., and it just reads as a confusing advertisement of sloppy internal dysfunction, which does not seem in the best interest of the project IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comment, and feedback in the Workshop phase as well (which informed Option 2). Would you support Option.2 then? Sorry, I really shouldn't have put the active RfC tag before putting the options in my comment. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  It says "pure gratitude", but as Robertsky points out below, it's not pure gratitude. I mean, even if it just linked to Brooke Vibber Day, it seems unlikely that page wouldn't have all the rest added to it. It's better than option 1, and I'll keep thinking about it, but I guess I wish we would express gratitude for major contributors even when it's not tied to active petitions and wikidrama. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree too! I didn’t even know some people had special days prior to all of this, and I think once the dust clears, we should seriously look into recognising all the other amazing days as well (as well as awesome contributors who don’t nessecarily have a day) in some way. I can definitely see how even wiki linking to “Brooke Vibber day” or the discussion still will likely contain info on the current drama, and respect whatever decision you make on what that means for your support / lack thereof. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support both (prefer 1): I feel I have made my rationale sufficiently clear in the many discussions on Village Pump (WMF), am happy to expand upon at a later time if needed Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support both (prefer 1) 6, if consent is obtained then 4>1>3>2>5 Edited to prefer 6 per some convincing safety arguments raised by !voters. I think it is something nice to do to honour them, and is not really disruptive, as it is a small note, visible only for 24 hours, that does not otherwise obscure access to the page. A lot of feedback that was received in the workshop phase was that the initial drafts focused too much on union-busting allegations or grievances about the impact on the community and the wishlist. The current proposed version has been re-written to focus primarily on gratitude to Brooke and the CommTech team. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• I am not opposing to any, but how is the second version "pure gratitude" when the controversy is mentioned? It shifts the context away from it being "pure gratitude". – robertsky (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Good point, I’ll rename it to “mostly gratitude, controversy only as link” - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support both, prefer option 1 6 and, if consent is obtained, 4>1>3>2 it is well within bounds for us to use the main page to celebrate Wikipedians, promote the community, and advocate for the community's needs. It does no one any good to pretend that there aren't rifts between the community and the WMF. If we really believe that the core role of the WMF is to support and enable the community then the community should be willing and able to publicly pressure the organization to serve the editing community's wants and needs. If we thought that the fundraising banners served no purpose for supporting the project, then we shouldn't have them; but we do think they serve the project, that's why we're ok with the WMF putting them up. Its the same here, putting pressure on the WMF to support the community serves the project in the long run even if it creates tension in the short term. We shouldn't underestimate the ability of readers to understand the issues at hand and we should be honest both with the WMF and our readers about what we want and need in order to improve the project. This banner, including the criticism of the WMF, serves those ends well and is in the best interests of the project. I'm convinced by the privacy issues brought up by Zzz Plant and agree with Toadspike below that consent for this needs to be affirmative. I hadn't thought about that being an issue yesterday when I wrote the support comment. Option 6 kind of serves the purpose I mentioned above and hopefully addresses other criticisms of the idea that I don't necessarily agree with. If consent can be obtained I prefer option 4. Edited twice, last at 07:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC) In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree with many of the sentiments here, this would be hijacking the MP to make a political statement. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Can you explain why you think it's a political statement? --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 16:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  One of the many definitions of "politics" in the dictionary: the relationships within a group or organization that allow particular people to have power over others. If one views the movement as a collective group, all these (here and elsewhere on wiki) are actions to hopefully achieve an realignment of relationships within the group/movement (therefore political). – robertsky (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, I am opposed to this being on the main page at all, no matter what the specific wording, including any possible future wordings. I also object to @MolecularPilot's attempt at spin. When I say "oppose", I mean "oppose". I don't need somebody else to analyze what they think I really meant, or what they hope they can convince other people I really meant or whether I'm still paying attention. RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Please WP:AGF. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose option 1 and 4: While I disagree with the WMF's decision, I do not believe we should drag ordinary readers into internal drama, and, as mentioned above, this just seems like an attempt to stick it to the WMF. Nor should we promote or imply the allegations of union busting, for which there is little evidence. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC) +4 ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Regardless of the result, Wikipedia:Brooke Vibber Day should be updated and expanded. It is too short right now, and it would be better for the readers to add some context and information on what Vibber has done. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Absolutely agree, I've opened a discussion about it here. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support but... I'm torn between options 1 and 2 and would prefer a compromise with a shorter mention of the union and controversy. In particular, "separated with" might be misread as "Brooke walked out", and we should clarify that the WMF brought about the departures. Certes (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  4 is a slight improvement but we should state that the WMF laid off the Community Tech Team (perhaps with a very brief description) rather than "developers attempting to unionise". I know AGF has limits, and I'm close to them, but we shouldn't suggest without evidence that union activity was the selection criterion for dismissal. Certes (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support 5>2 only. I feel that 1 makes too many assumptions. Linking to the VP discussion in 2 is sufficient at this point. (I'm not striking the previous, but I'd prefer 5 at this point over 2.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support both (prefer 1) 1>4>3>2. I wrote this wording, so my !vote might seem like a given here, but I'm actually a bit surprised to find myself in favor of putting anything on the Main Page relating to internal matters. It's nowhere near, say, the SOPA/PIPA blackout in terms of scope, but it is a rare action that would fall in the same category of blurring content and community matters. But, we are not categorically against such things. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço closed with consensus for a statement from the community atop that article, which remains there, and compared to an actual article the Main Page already has a bit more leeway to drift from normal encyclopedic content. The question, then, is whether it should in this case. My !vote is informed by a few factors: First, Brooke Vibber Day has existed since 2004, and the idea of noting one of our internal holidays on the Main Page is not, on its own, that radical. Second, Brooke's firing is relevant to our readers, not just our editors. She is the person second-most-responsible for the software they read Wikipedia on (according to Special:Version), she was literally on the Reading team most recently at the WMF, and the WMF terminating her and other experienced developers is something that generally stands to harm our readers as well as our editors. Third, the related layoffs of CommTech lead to a situation where the WMF is no longer spending donor money on anything that donors would expect them to other than keeping the lights on. As long as our encyclopedic efforts are used to fundraise for donations, and as long as the WMF refuses to rehire the CommTech engineers, we are forced into being accessories to a lie. This banner, without being too aggressive or demanding any particular course of action from our readers and donors, lets them know about something they really ought to know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC) ed. 14:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support both (prefer 1). I've long been a supporter of breaking the barrier between readers and editors, and of making Wikipedia's internal processes more transparent, as understanding those can only help our readers get involved more. Here, I don't think the banner makes the Wikipedia community look any more dysfunctional, but, to the contrary, shows it to be standing for what is just. Small detail: should "Community Announcement" be in sentence case to match the other boxes? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Support option 4>1>3>2 per above. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support Option 3>4>2>1, it celebrates Brooke, invites people to join the community (a flashpoint re banners where the WMF prioritises donations), and links to the discussion for journalists (it also has the most chance at gaining broad consensus at a time where we need unity). Sorry to say I’ve been swayed by the above !votes re option 1, the discussion linked to focuses heavily on the unionisation efforts so I think that link does more work than it may initially seem I think mentioning the unionisation dispassionately is more than due and reflective of the statement Brooke released. Option 3/2 is more classy for want of a better word, there will no doubt be more opportunities for greater escalation in the coming days Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Add to the end of option 2 …, including encouraging unionisation efforts at the Foundation. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Nope, people have already voted on the existing wording. If you want to change it, propose an option 3. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, done :) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support both (prefer 1) —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 13:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Support 3 > 2 > 4, weak support for any of the other banner options. I've held off revising my !vote over the last couple of days as more discussion and options kept gettting added. Reviewing the six options now, my preference remains to have some acknowledgement of the contentious circumstances surrounding this year's Brooke Vibber Day, but my preferences have changed to favour the more concise options to try to reduce banner fatigue. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 23:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support option 3 as it adds a little bit of extra context to option 2.FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 14:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC) Support 4 > 5 > 6 > 3 > 2 > 1 as a middleground. FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 14:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support both (prefer 1) Options 4>3>1>2 - (Summoned by bot) - per Chaotic Enby. I also believe that the Wikipedia community publicly taking a principled stance on this issue can only be a good thing. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose all ; I think (as often) Rhododendrites says it well. Article space is for readers, and that is especially true of the main page (I know it is probably a portal technically but ykwim). Wikipedia:Brooke Vibber Day is a community event, celebrating an immensely valued community member. Using it as a way to shoehorn a conflict between the community and the WMF into the main page does not serve any constructive purpose, and to the contrary would just be a massive showcase of dysfunction. How disruptive it would be is a matter of opinion, but WP:POINT certainly comes to mind here; no matter how important we think the point we are making is. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support option 4>5>3>2>1. We definitely should be recognising Brooke and I think option 4 is the best proposal so far, followed by option 3; I think option 1 goes too hard for the front page banner and option 2 is too vague. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Addendum to add second-choice support for 5. I'd prefer 4, as it gives to clearest context about everything that's happening, but I would much prefer Levevich's proposed version that keeps the focus on thanking Brooke over 2/3 (which are too vague) and 1 (which is too OTT for my liking). --Grnrchst (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support option 4>1>3>2. I think, especially at times like these, we have to realize that a lot of our readers actually do care about Wikipedia, and enjoy reading about it and the people behind it. I think this is a real heartfelt gesture, and it is important for the community to show our readers that we are not in fact mindless automatons. Echoing Tamzin and Grnrchst, I feel four is the best wording. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Amending my vote to additionally Oppose 5. A true cop-out if I've ever seen one. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rhododendrites and Choucas. If it were ever appropriate to do something like this, it would be in response to an external attack that has caused direct harm to the community, the WMF, and the readers. Not to engage in infighting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Also, has anyone asked Brooke if she would be okay with this? It would be incredibly unethical, not to mention tacky, to support such a public use of her name to make a point without getting her go-ahead. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

    As I've discussed elsewhere, there isn't a way for anyone to satisfy this request without violating confidences, subjecting Brooke to legal risks, and violating WP:HARASS with respect to publicly disclosing private correspondence. What we can do is look to what she's said publicly while this discussion has been ongoing, which is that she supports WWU and encourages staff members to join it; she's also reacted positively to WP:WWUS' existence. And it is a matter of public record that she is aware of this discussion, as I pinged her in the linked thread. For so long as the WMF maintains its abusive practice of holding fired employees to non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements, that combination of facts is the most we're going to get. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support only option 2 as the other options do not match established wikivoice. Kinopiko ^{in solidarity with Esperanza} 15:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support option 1. If not, 4 > 3 > 2. --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 16:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Just noted #5, wanted to say that I don't support it, it barely touches on the issue. --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 16:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support 5, oppose 1-4 and 6. I added Option 5, which include the thanks to Brooke, and links to Brooke's public statement on the mailing list, without mentioning the infighting/inside-baseball regarding CommTech and the union. As to why not 1-4, per Rhododendrites and Choucas0, and, similar to others, being generally uncomfortable with using Brooke's name/day to say anything beyond thanking her and linking to her own public statement (which invites WMF staff to join the union, but doesn't mention CommTech or the enwiki solidarity strike)--anything beyond using her own words would be putting words in her mouth IMO. I understand she may not be able to, or want to, speak publicly as frankly as she'd like. Until/unless that changes, we should err on the side of caution, and say no more than she's said publicly, by thanking her and linking to her public statement. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment why is our sentiment of thanks solely being delivered in an obscure Esperanto word? Surely on the list of things we want readers to take away from this, a synonym for "thank you" is last. 1brianm7 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. I had to click the Wiktionary link to figure out what it meant. FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 16:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Have you checked WP:BROOKEDAY, or User:Brooke Vibber (and perhaps even eo:Uzantino:Brooke Vibber)? It may give you some pointers. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  @1brianm7: Please wee WP:BROOKEDAY. Jimbo's message notes "On [Brooke] Vibber day, Wikipedians everywhere greet each other in Esperanto", before saying "Dankon". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, that is context I really should've checked. That makes sense. I still think it would be wise to say something like "dankon, thank you,", if only because the front page of English Wikipedia is really a much more impersonal context than a mailing list 22 years ago, or anything in projectspace for that matter. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support anything All of these look fine. Feeglgeef (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support 5>2, Oppose 1,3,4 I'm not happy with the WMF either, a state that is the default for me, and I'm not always nice about that, but going beyond the Wikipedia-specific issues of the encyclopedia itself to a possible employment dispute is I think a place that we should not be going. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rhododendrites & Choucas. Staraction (talk · contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support 4 > 1 > 3, oppose 2 and 5.
  I reject the "inside baseball" concerns about putting internal Wikipedia matters on the main page. We do regularly break our encyclopedic kayfabe with things like redlinks and maintenance tags as a tradeoff between improving the project versus presenting it. And to that end, I firmly believe one of the best ways we can convince readers to become editors is if we make it clear that we're not a bunch of faceless gargoyles wordlessly writing articles in total silence. Readers need to realize that the best way to support our project right now is not to throw money at the Foundation, but rather to get involved with our community and contribute. Making it apparent that we even have internal affairs and highly influential community members is going to be beneficial by drawing in editors, separate from what the internal affair in question is.
  Still, the reason to break kayfabe has to be a good one. WP:WWUGATE/WP:COMMTECHGATE is an important and self-evident enough fiasco for that purpose. Readers deserve to know what's going on.
  It's a bit before my time, but I can see why she would be considered such a treasured member of the community, and I have nothing but respect for Brooke and her contributions. However, not to be disrespectful, but I don't think that it's worth putting up a banner if all we're doing is celebrating Brooke's accomplishments.
  4 over 1, because I think it's more neutral and concise. 4 and 1 over 3 because 3's mention of these affairs, though sufficiently prevalent, feel MOS:EASTEREGGy. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 17:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I support 6 with equal weight as 4, I.E. 6 = 4 > 1 > 3.

  I'm only partially persuaded by concerns of harassment against Brooke, and the difficulty in discerning whether she would consent to this. Keeping her name out of this just because we're worried that some people out there will harass her, feels like we're caving in to what those people want. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 22:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bannering Brooke's name on one of the most highly trafficked home pages in the world risks opening her up to a massive amount of media scrutiny. I am not convinced that making one person the face of this controversy is the best way to support the affected workers or deliver justified criticism to the WMF. Zzz plant (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Addendum: option 6 was added after my !vote, but to clarify I do not believe it prudent to post any MP banner (regardless of phrasing) while the situation is still unfolding. Some of the affected workers may be re-hired in other departments and the union hasn't yet been recognized, let alone begun bargaining. I don't see why we should risk bungling a statement just to rush it out for June 1 symbolism (especially if Brooke isn't going to be mentioned). Also, I'd like to suggest that any further additions to the RFC such as "Note: If you are considering opposing on the grounds of privacy..." be timestamped or otherwise conveyed as newer. Zzz plant (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Note: I removed that note per WP:RFCNEUTRAL and it no longer applying to Option 6 since that option was updated. Levivich (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support 5 > 2 > Oppose all other wordings. First, less is more, longer messages here will cause more banner blindness and information overload. Second, per CoffeeCrumbs, we should stay focused the enwiki-specific issues. Third, I think that readers will be less inclined to conclude a political position is being advocated to them if they believe they're being presented "just the facts", on which they came to their own conclusion as to a position. Not saying 1/3/4 aren't factual, but I believe a reader would be more likely to conclude they're being told how to think. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose all per privacy concerns raised below. The new option 6 is too vague - what do we expect a reader to do with the announcement? ~ A412 ^talk! 15:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option 5. If we're going to celebrate Brooke, then we should celebrate Brooke. Including information about the recent controversies is, in my opinion, not the best way to celebrate Brooke's legacy. The point of posting something like this on the main page is to honor Brooke, not to air grievances about the WMF. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Changing my !vote to oppose all because of privacy concerns. As others have said, we don't know if Brooke will be okay with the amount of scrutiny that comes from being featured on the main page, and if it isn't possible to obtain her consent, we shouldn't do it at all. If we do end up posting something, I still support option 5. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all, for the same reasons as in the section above. The Main Page is not the appropriate place to discuss WMF staffing issues. If you want to complain about recent events, sign the petition, don't plaster them on the Main Page as a WP:POINT. Our readers don't know what the WMF is, let alone care about the internal controversies. This entire concept is misguided navel gazing. Modest Genius ^talk 19:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support: 6>5>2>3>4>1 I'd really prefer very minimal mention of the discussion/union, but some mention of Brooke and the team's effort should really be made. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 19:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC) Updated: ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 01:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Option 5 is fine; I don't like the rest. This would be sufficient to send a message to the WMF. I don't know the full facts of the case, but generally I think we should strive to make the front page neutral to uphold our reputation for objectivity. This is not an important or clear-cut enough issue for making an exception. JMCHutchinson (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Option 6 appeared later; I would still support only option 5. JMCHutchinson (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all proposed options per others above; the main page is not for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose all if we want to take action to influence WMF decision making, which I am open to, we should do it in our name (the enwiki community), instead of using someone else's. NicheSports (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support 4>1>3>2 Support 6, if consent is obtained then 4>1>3>2>5>6. Wikimedia projects do not run on magic: WMF's firing of key software engineers, especially Brooke, is effectively an attack on the whole Wikimedia community, which justifies the exceptional nature of bringing this to attention on the main page. Boud (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC) (updated; better a weaker announcement than none at all Boud (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC))
• Support any - I'm completely fine with mentioning the controversy on the main page, but I primarily want to see a clean solid consensus, and any one of these statements on the main page and stable for the day. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support any, preferably 1. jp×g🗯️ 21:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support 1 (first choice), 4 (second choice), but any of those five however many banner options would work. Some1 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  If we're linking to the Village Pump WMF discussion in the banners, I suggest splitting that discussion ("WP:COMMTECHGATE") off to its own separate, standalone page before June 1. Some1 (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all. With the right wording I could potentially support a banner thanking the CommTech employees and expressing concern about some of the WMF's recent choices, but I don't think tying it to a corny made-up holiday that celebrates one person only is going to come across as very credible to our readers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Does #6 (added recently, which just thanks the employees with no mention of holiday) meet your criteria for "right wording"? I've tried to get it right and strike a good balance, with privacy considerations in mind as well. Always open to feedback on how to try and tweak it to be correct and something you'd support, and thank you for your existing feedback as well. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't oppose it. I do kind of agree with S5A-0043 below that it feels incomplete, but I'm not sure I can think of additional wording that would have any chance of gaining consensus at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I've made some changes to the wording of the options to better comply with the Manual of Style. If anyone thinks any of my changes were bad or something feel free to rv. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose all; if I were forced to pick one, it would be #5. Among the many concerns raised above, my greatest worry is that this forces a massive violation of privacy on a person who has not confirmed whether she is okay with this. We need affirmative consent from the person who we will be exposing to the scrutiny of tens of thousands of people. The excuse that we should do this anyways because Brooke will not be able to consent due to external pressure/legal reasons/whatever else is laughable – I think we all know that's not how consent works. Toadspike [Talk] 22:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Why is it laughable to discern someone's wishes on a matter if they are legally barred from expressing them? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I get all the arguments otherwise but it would be really, really, really, tremendously, crucially helpful to have even a secondhand “they’re ok with this” (or vice versa) statement, given that several oppose !votes kind of seem to assume they’re not (as in actively not, not just indifferent). Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah. In the meantime (or in case that doesn’t happen), I’ve made option 6 (and thanks to those who helped c/e it) which doesn’t name anyone by name and just mentions “engineers” and I hope it can help sway over those who are (with quite good reason, as shown by some other !votes) conscious of privacy. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4, no objection to 2 and 3. I understand the Brooke cannot express support directly. If she objects, then we should not go ahead. If we use 5, then its sending a message to WMF that readers won't get, but I think WMF will already be well aware of WP:WWUS and needs a stronger message which the press will pick up on.-Gadfium (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• If something receives media attention to a degree justifying its inclusion in the "In the news" box, it can be mentioned there. In my eyes, Wikipedia's main page is neither an acceptable place for political advocacy ("stop TTIP" or whatever) nor for broadcasting internal political views of a loud but small portion of the entire community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose all: Recognising Brooke is one thing. What it seems to me, not so arguably (from a not so in-depth look), is an intentional disguise. The mostly gratitude addition (gratitude note) is overshadowed by the underlying drama. Be that as it may, supporting the past employees or the organizational efforts may or may not have an impact on Wikipedia editing, except for calls for an editing strike. While I have not followed the incident at all, and Florida is an "at-will" state, there are Federal as well as Florida state protection laws. Regardless of any editor's support or not, if the foundation's action violates the law, there will likely be consequences. Maybe a GoFundMe for those fired would be needed. The combined salary of the seven employees likely far exceeds $500,000.00 a year, so they are likely in a financial bind. There are probably far more important issues to be concerned about than Wikipedia hiring, firing, or possible union-busting practices. Apparently, a significant number of editors support the intended unionizing, but I feel the main page is not the place for this to play out in any form. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  That is a very valid perspective which I can understand. Is option 5, which does not contain any elements of a "disguise" and does not mention at all (and is thus not overshadowed by) any current drama, and is (unlike the others) a purely gratitude note, acceptable to you? If not, what changes might you want? Thank you for your input. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have no opposition to accolades toward anyone the community views as an asset to Wikipedia. I feel we should just keep politics out. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't really understand. So are you saying that the purely accolades and non-political #5 (and/or the work-in-progress privacy-perserving draft in my reply in S5A-0043) are thus acceptable to you? - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all per above. Would probably cause more harm than good. Wizardman 00:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Toadspike. Also in consistency with my oppose at Watchlist-messages: Have we asked them if they want this?. – robertsky (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose all per many above. Call me old fashioned, I still believe the project should be nonpolitical.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify that "Oppose all" includes opposing 6 and any others that may henceforth come. Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all per the privacy concerns already mentioned above. I would support something similar to what Extraordinary Writ mentioned, but these are not it. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 01:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Would this be something like what you are Extraordinary Wit are thinking is ideal, and also resolve the privacy issues? Just to clarify what you think would be best, so I can understand. If multiple people would prefer this, perhaps it can be added as an option (anyone reading this is welcome to boldy do it, you can modify my rough draft as well). The idea is that we run it on Brooke Vibber day for the symbolic value to the community, but the readers wouldn't be familiar with that (and also for privacy reasons) so we don't frame it as that for them. But I'm not too sure.

  Community Announcement

  Recently, several engineers and developers who were instrumental in maintaining and improving the software that powers Wikipedia, were laid off or terminated by the Wikimedia Foundation.

  The Wikipedia community (which you can join) would like to say thank you to for the combined decades of service that these engineers have dedicated Wikipedia and its editors, and for their years of hard work developing software listed on the Community Wishlist.

  - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• I have now added this as Option 6 to provide an alternative that those concerned about privacy or consent issues about naming Brooke can support. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I get the gist behind this message but I feel like the phrasing is weird. Like, we say thank you to the workers, and then after that nothing? I feel like this particular phrasing doesn't express the gravity of the situation well, and also doesn't highlight the "expressing concern about some of the WMF's recent choices" part that EW mentioned. That being said I haven't really been eloquent in terms of expressing things myself so I can't say for certain how I would like it changed also, so I won't vote on this yet and see how it develops further. My opposition is primarily focused on the privacy concerns, so once that's out of the way I can reasonably support a message that addresses the recent situation. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 03:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your thoughts! Yes, I think that part is important as well. I am very bad at wording things so hopefully someone else can come along with fresh eyes and fix up the wording of it. As no-one has !voted on Option 6 yet, I give permission for it to be BOLDly changed by anyone who wishes, to reflect better wording and better address the concerns raised, or once it's been !voted on, encourage anyone to make a better new option, just wanted to get this privacy version out ASAP so any potential !voters could support it. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm curious why we got five oppose votes in a short span, when there had been few before. Was this discussion linked somewhere? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Well, first, it is a RfC and also on WP:CENT, in short, widely advertised as it could be on here. Second, it has been a day or so since it is opened and it gives people the time to evaluate further if they want to support or oppose or developed nuanced reasoning. Personally, I keep watch of this talk page primarily because of ITN. I suspect many admins do as well as they gravitate to the various main page sections. If you are thinking of canvassing, I am not aware of this discussion being shared in the offwiki communications I am in (even if others did, I wouldn't know as I don't monitor all communications like a hawk). – robertsky (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose with my entire being. Do you want the ongoing political attacks on enwiki to laser-focus on Brooke? Do you want Tucker Carlson going after her, or worse, Kiwifarms? This kind of attention gets people killed. Apocheir (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  In response to the privacy concerns raised (thank you to everyone for raising them!), and this !vote, a new option, Option 6, has been added above which no longer mentions Brooke by name, as a potential compromise. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support 6 in principle, oppose the rest per zzz plant and Toadspike. I have no problems with alluding to internal politics on the main page, but I'll admit that the privacy issues raised by the above editors concern me deeply. If the enwiki community wants to exercise the leverage it holds in Wikimedia affairs for a positive end, that's fine. Admirable, even. But I'm very uncomfortable doing so with a figurehead that has not/can not assent to such a major public display. DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 03:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  @DiscoursesonLivvy Note that I just reworded 6 per MolecularPilot's comment above on rewording. I fixed some grammatical issues and added a link to the VP page. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all, per above. Lets keep internal drama internal. Also, most of these are inaccurate; only Brooke has been laid off, the rest remain employed by the WMF - the main page is subject to our policies on WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, and these proposed texts do not meet these policies. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Huh? Has the Foundation since reversed its stance, I’m a bit confused. Can you please show where you got this info from? - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  See this comment by a WMF employee. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Interesting. I (and also what seems to be the community consensus in the replies to that post) think they still meet the definition of being laid off according to RS, which is when “your employer ends your employment for reasons beyond your control”, which may “ include their salary for a period after they finish working” [3] Their current employment has undoubtedly ended, and just because they are being allowed to apply for new employment opportunity at the WMF and kept on payroll for one month, it doesn’t mean they aren’t laid off presently (the same website also notes “In particular situations, being laid off may be temporary, and you could be rehired” later, which supports they notion that in the current state the engineers are laid off by definition, which could change later but is unlikely as none of the open roles are core PHP MediaWiki work, and these engineers aren’t from data science etc.) - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  There are multiple interpretations, but to state one on the main page, especially in wikivoice, would require clear sourcing in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  So they’re laid off in 30 days rather than 0 days; 30 days of security is certainly preferable to 0, but making anything more of it seems like splitting hairs (and also doesn’t dislodge the union busting allegations). Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:VPW#Response from WMF 24 May. They're still employed by the WMF, and are interviewing for new roles. If they fail to get new roles they will be laid off, but that hasn't happened yet and we shouldn't presume that it will. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. As I detailed above, I personally think using RS definitions they are "laid off", but can understand your perspective. Perhaps to ensure 100% accuracy in all interpretations, we can say "positions were eliminated" rather than "laid off" if enough people would prefer that in the messages. I also just fixed up your comment above as I think you typed 5 tildes which will only add the date, not 4 which does the signature. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support 6 or similar. Also, I support adding a link to any page that would give more context about this immediate issue that the community is dealing with. — Newslinger talk 05:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC); superseded 19:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Newslinger Note that I just reworded 6 per MolecularPilot's comment above on rewording. I fixed some grammatical issues and added a link to the VP page. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. I found off-wiki information about the situation, which I probably should not disclose under a strict reading of WP:OUTING, that leads me to support all. — Newslinger talk 19:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support 6 I believe that specifically naming people can be a potentially detrimental violation of privacy without express permission. Nevertheless, what I have read regarding the situation troubles me. In this day and age, we should be hiring more people to work on the underlying tech, not firing them, whether due to misguided thinking that they can be replaced by vibe coding, attempts to bust unions, or both. A response from the community should be made so that this isn't just swept under the rug. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm Note that I just reworded 6 per MolecularPilot's comment above on rewording. I fixed some grammatical issues and added a link to the VP page. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support I don't know much about Vibber but can confirm that Magnus Manske impressed me as someone worth remembering and thanking for their foundational work on Wikipedia and we should make an effort to do this. A special banner might be be too much per banner blindness but note that we already have a place on the main page for listing special days: On this Day. An entry there would be easy and comparatively uncontroversial. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support 6, oppose everything else — per Apocheir. We don't want various criminals like Kiwifarms to have a person representing the community.--KEIT (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support 6 only as the only safe option. Layzner (Talk) 09:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support any of these - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose all. Both because of privacy issues, and because it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to editorialize on its main page, especially about internal politics of little interest to readers. Sandstein 13:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  My concern is that a certain owner of X will use this to push his "wikipedia is woke" narrative as proof Grokpedia is better. Let's not give him anymore fuel ... Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  He could have all the fuel in the world and it wouldn't even come close. Forks rise and forks fall, but Wikipedia has always come out on top. Feeglgeef (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all. I'm in agreement with ToBeFree. I've agreed with many open letters. I've disagreed with some too. I don't think the main page should be used in a way that implies an opinion is shared by more people than it is. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback. I tried to strip all opinions and implications in #6 (and Levivich tried the same with #5) to just say what happened without taking a side, but if there’s any implications left I’d appreciate knowing what so they can be improved to match better with their intention. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I read all of the proposals. Please do not interpret anything I have said as being support for any future version of the proposal to use the main page for a statement about this topic. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean it that way, but was just curious if there was any further feedback you had. If not, that's totally okay. I totally understand and respect your perspective that with any wording, the main page isn't the best place for this. :) - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all, weak support for Option 6. Promo does not belong on the main page, this is better served in a Wikemedia website post somewhere. We don't wish Jimbo a happy birthday, or much mention his contribution anywhere in mainspace. I'd like to keep Wiki as neutral as possible. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTWIKI. Feeglgeef (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oaktree has been there for more than 20 years, I don't think throwing the acronym of an old humorous essay at him is really warranted. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 18:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all. I am highly uncomfortable with the idea of using Brooke as a mascot for this message, which would be true even if she explicitly accepted it, and she hasn't. I also find it hard to support the new option 6 given that the water is muddy about the exact circumstances of these layoffs at the moment. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  @MolecularPilot, @TechnoSquirrel69 For 6, thoughts on replacing were laid off or terminated with were made redundant. To my understanding this was the phrasing used by Selena and should accurately reflect the staffs current status. Sohom (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  This is a gross corporate euphemism — note to scolders, the adjectives here apply to the noun “euphemism,” and a euphemism is not a person — that we should not legitimize. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Gnomingstuff I mean, I do plan to personally refer to it as a layoff until there is confirmation that all of the engineers were re-hired. But, I do think the Main Page is a different environment where we should try to use whatever term is legally correct and in this case "laid off" is not legally correct, even though socially (imo) the correct sentiment to have. Sohom (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  It isn’t “legally correct” though, it’s just a euphemism. The closest thing to “legally correct” would be the wording used by Brooke, “no longer employed by.” Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Brooke has been laid of, so "no longer employed by" is correct. CommTech folks are still "employed", they're just not allowed to do the work and will be laid of soon? Sohom (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's a confusing situation -- I would argue that in some job situations like this, the confusion is part of the point -- so something like "recently informed they would lose their jobs," which covers both losing them immediately and in a month? Could be more concise. Better, at any rate, than euphemisms -- which are discouraged by the Manual of Style regardless Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Look, I don’t really like it, but if it’s what’s needed to remove ambiguity and get support I’m fine with that change I guess. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reevaluating after a couple more days of discussion, I think I'm going to stand by my !vote for the moment. Some people are mentioning that this notice should comply with the policy around privacy for living persons — that is not my point. I am concerned with exposing Brooke to unwanted attention, but, primarily, I do not think that using Brooke (or any other single person, for that matter) as a figurehead for the pro-unionisation, WMF-protesting sentiment among the community. Being mentioned in a news article or two is very different from being the highlight of one of the most viewed pages on the Internet. I understand Sohom and Gnomingstuff's points about the (perhaps intentionally) vague language used in statements from WMF management, and reading Selena's May 29 update makes it look much more clearly like a mass layoff — delaying the decision to June 5 or expediting interviews for other positions doesn't change the fact that these people are scheduled to have their employments terminated. However, I still find it difficult to support option 6 after reading some of the other concerns raised by the opposition; for example, by Rhododendrites and by Choucas0. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support Option 6, oppose the rest. qcne (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option 6 or be patient, the rest are off the table due to privacy concerns that can only really be alleviated by an affirmative consent that we don't have. I'm hesitant because the situation is still a bit muddy. I understand the whole symbolism thing, but if we're going for option 6 I do feel like that isn't the most important thing; we can wait to do this. I would be fine with holding off doing this to see if we can get some more clarity, which also might allow us to be a bit stronger in our wording. If the community does not want to hold off I'm totally being doing option 6 though. I don't buy into the idea that we shouldn't place a note on the main page of the wiki to thank those who have helped the wiki. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 06:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support 4 > 3 > 1 the privacy condideration is important, but not convincing imho. Public media is already covering the "internal" affairs. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support 4. BV is being mentioned by RS (e.g. [4]) so there is no real concern about WP:BLPPRIVACY. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose all while I do think Brook Vibber deserves a day of commeration, this day of commeration is really only important to editors (we don't have a "Jimbo Wales day" on the main page commerating his birthday.) If a Brook Vibber day is to appear on the main page, it should be done outside the context of the recent CommTech fiasco. Making this proposal right now just seems like you're trying to weaponize Brook Vibber day as an excuse to talk about WWU/CommTech.msk 16:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose all I was going to say something similar as msk. In general, I don't think it serves readers to link to or mention back-end community discussions or disputes regarding the WMF. I also worry a bit about it backfiring by annoying readers. S0091 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support 4>1 but would not oppose the others. --Yodin^T 19:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support with a preference for 4. The WMF uses Wikipedia all the time to further its non-Wikipedia aims, it is time for us to show that our solidarity is with the community and the developers, not the Foundation which is not fit for purpose in its current structure. (The WMF behaves more and more like a tech company, not like an organisation empowering volunteers to build something great). —Kusma (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support 4 conditionally, 6 otherwise. I would support option 4 if there was positive consent from Brooke. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• Statistics - approx. 24 hours in
  While of course this is a !vote and consensus, not numbers, will decide the outcome, I still think statistics are important to understanding the emerging sentiment, so I thought I would do an analysis now that we are approaching the approximate 24 hour mark for my own interest. I didn't see any reason to keep my results private, so thought I would share them for everyone's context. Note that is my own best effort at a rough count, and might not be right. It includes everyone but Andrew Davidson (supporting, but raises OtD as a better option and potential banner blindness, so I don't think it's fair to call it a support of specific text versions in the context of my analysis) and ARandomName123 (opposing "harsher" versions but neutral on other versions), which were excluded as I don't think they cleanly mapped into a binary "oppose" or "support" (and it balances out anyway, as it's one arguable oppose and one arguable support).
  Of the 20 oppose !voters:

• 11 (55%) were concerned that such a notice is not appropriate for Main page / is a vector for airing WMF grievances and allegations.
  • This is a fundamental issue and cannot really be addressed by any new versions.
  • I do note that some of these !votes focused around airing WMF grievances were made before the much softer wording of #5 and #6 was developed, and those versions may resolve some of these concerns, though it depends on the opinion of the !voters and if they return to the page to check, and I understand that even #5 and #6 still hint and link to ongoing issues.
• 9 (45%) were isues with using Brooke’s name - privacy, consent, harassment, corny to use the holiday etc
  • All of these issues have now been fully addressed with the proposed #6 now, which was recently added. Again, it depends if they return to check, and some people might still not support it.

Of the 33 support !voters:

• Note that for the purposes of this category, as not all options were present at the time of !voting for each person, I have roughly grouped versions into "softer" (2/5/6) and "harsher" (1/3/4) which matched up with most !votes anyway. 31 of the 33 !votes fitted into my classification system.
• 10 (30%) preferred harsher versions, but would accept softer versions
• 5 (15%) preferred softer versions, but would accept harsher versions
• 11 (33%) preferred only softer versions
  • Of these 11, 5 (45% of the 11, 15% of the support !voters) supported only Option 6 over privacy concerns
  • 1 (Jmchutchinson) supported only Option 5
• 2 (6%) supported only harsher versions
• 3 (9%) would support "anything"
• 2 (6%) did not fit into this classification system (i.e. ranking a "harsh" one, then a "soft" one, then another "harsh" one in their preferences)

Experimental modelling for fun - not to be relied upon The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On the issue of #6 specifically, extrapolating (which, warning, might not entirely accurately represent the views !voters who voted prior to the creation of #6 if they were to see #6 now), there are 30 extrapolated supports (support !voters, removing the 2 which would only support harsh versions and then Jmchutchinson) and 14 extrapolated opposes (oppose !voters, removing those only focused on Brooke's name/privacy/consent/etc. which was corrected in this, but keeping all others, and also adding in the 2 support !voters who only support harsh versions, and then also adding in Jmchutchinson).

Anyway hope this helps, I do love numbers, and sorry if there are any inaccuracies! - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you should be careful about extrapolating supports and opposes based on prior votes and later options, because your 70/30 result as it is looks very contrived. Someone who opposed for stated reasons might agree with later ones mentioned specifically in opposition to new versions as well; the same goes for supports. It is not reasonable to expect participants to adjust their !votes and the associated reasoning just because people keep adding options. It takes only one person to add a new one, and that is why this RfC is becoming increasingly messy, now at 6 options when we started with only two. I saw that coming and that is why I said "oppose all", but I absolutely should not be expected to go edit my initial comment to add all the subsequent reasons to oppose all the subsequent options that did not exist at the time of my !vote. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it was just for curiosity and I have qualified it as not to be relied upon and may be (and probably is, for the reasons that we both raise) inaccurate. I guess the percentages maybe put too much emphasis on that section, so I will edit it to just the raw numbers as the more important thing is the actual analysis of current !votes and that is where I want the focus. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

So you are leaving admittedly incorrect and at best speculative numbers in bold. Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

At this point, I didn't think they would cause so much drama, sorry, I thought the qualification with extrapolated is okay, but I will HAT now to make super clear. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems like an apt place to put a pet essay from a few years back: Wikipedia:No pre-close summaries, please. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that, some quite good points raised there. Originally I said I didn't see any reason to keep my results private, so thought I would share them for everyone's context, but after reading that, I do now understand (and agree with) arguments that such counts should be kept private, and will do so in future. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 31: Johnstown (Pennsylvania) flood not noted

Greetings Wikipedians! It's May 31, but I see no mention of the Johnstown Flood on the main page "On This Day" section. Shouldn't it be noted each year? Over 2,000 people were killed when the South Fork River dam broke. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@BuzzWeiser196 It was included in 2004-10 (inclusive), but it looks like in 2011 it was noted as ineligible to appear because it had maintenance tags - we try and avoid highlighting anything with tagged issues. The original issues seem to have been resolved but there is still at least one maintenance tag there (on the "Depiction in media" section). You're very welcome to fix that and put it back in rotation for next year, however - see notes on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#How to contribute to the project.

In general though we do try and avoid routinely featuring the same entries every single year - there's a preference to mix things up a bit, try and get a global balance and avoid an absolute "these are the most important five events" - the 1935 Quetta earthquake was taken off this year on that basis, for example. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the response ,Andrew. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC) BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Post-RfC discussion about solidarity action on the Main Page

I am opening a space for discussion after the close of the above more narrow discussion. I missed the RfC but I am strongly in support of some statement on the Main Page, which is the most visible page on this project on which we have the most control as editors. I strongly support using the Main Page to the fullest extent to hold the WMF accountable to the many paid and unpaid labor forces it extracts from. Union busting is disgusting! It is in the best interest of this project (to which I have dedicate nearly a decade of my labor) and our continued work of free encyclopedia that we brandish our most powerful weapons to bring the Foundation to heel on this matter. WMF is nothing without the workers, and we need to show the Foundation we mean business. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Option 6, which appeared late after many commenters had opposed harsher versions, is little more than a vote of thanks. I think it's the least our developers deserve. Certes (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Unequal column widths in main page layout

Currently, the main page has a two-column layout where the left column has a width of 55% and the right column has a width of 45%. I don't think this looks very good; it seems uneven and unintentionally misaligned.

I think this issue would be much less apparent if the two columns weren't directly below the "Welcome to Wikipedia" text, which is center aligned. Older revisions of the main page where the "Welcome to Wikipedia text" isn't center-aligned and the Spanish Wikipedia's main page both have unequal columns but don't have the "lopsided" feeling, since it's harder to notice and looks more intentional without a centered element right above the columns.

I know this issue has been brought up multiple times before (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), but I want to see if people think any differently about it now. — alpine0x37 (talk · contribs · block user) 18:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's a mockup of what a main page with equal column widths would look like. — alpine0x37 (talk · contribs · block user) 19:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've always found this strange and raised a similar concern when the 'Welcome' text was moved to centre aligned a few years ago (though couldn't find that discussion in the archives on a quick search). I understand the 55/45 balance is deliberate, but I don't know what the actual reasoning for it was. It's sufficiently close to 50/50 to have little effect, but sufficiently far off that it looks odd. It should be easy enough to adjust the main page balance to accommodate 50/50 e.g. by having one more item in ITN or OTD. Perhaps there's some other reason for the imbalance that I'm missing? Modest Genius ^talk 12:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It's been 55:45 since the modern-style Main Page was deployed in February 2004, though the history has a couple of brief times it was tweaked to try and avoid length-balance issues by giving one side more space (example).

The very first test version of that was I think this, which was 40:60 (the FA was on the right; it switched to left shortly afterwards and became 60:40). But nothing on Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Test seems to mention the imbalance. I wonder if it was just an early arbitrary choice to get the columns balanced? Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the instituting diff for 55:45 was this one with the text of not enough space on the right?. 60:40 did look like it was squishing the right column quite a bit. The prior main page was 53:47, which had different kinds of content on the main page (just to make the point, the version before the content change). Going further back I see 58:42, 60:40, and 61:39, which is the ratio at which the columns were introduced in January 2003 for the 2nd birthday. IOW, it's always been slightly offtilt, and from what I can see regardless of whether the content above was centered or had its own lean. We seem to like imbalance in our main page. Izno (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Just go to a single column and all issues with balance ( between columns, berween section)would be automatically solved forever, never to return. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Village pump has idea

WP:VPP. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 17:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Which discussion are you referring to? There are several there. RudolfRed (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The main page one. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

TAFI _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've already left a notice to that discussion here before, see Special:Diff/1354705702, which was made via Template:Please see. Should that notice be revived in the place of this (unclear) section? - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 21:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the discussion being talked about here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#This week's article for improvement ScienceD90 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Replace the link “Content portals” with “Wikiprojects” in Main Page

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Replace the link “Content portals” with “Wikiprojects” in Main Page. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Sea of blue

The Main Page's subtitle has always had an annoying quirk: the fact that it links both the words "free" and "encyclopedia" despite them being near each other, thereby violating MOS:SEAOFBLUE:

Do not place links next to each other that appear to be a single link, as in [[chess]] [[tournament]] (chess tournament). Instead, consider using a single and more specific link, such as [[chess tournament]] (chess tournament). If this is not possible, consider omitting one of the links (chess tournament) [...]

I don't see the need to violate or overrule this guideline, on the main page no less! I, as I'm sure many other readers, have often been confused after clicking what I thought was a link to free encyclopedia but which turned out to only be a link to one of the two words. To fix this annoyance, as NebY nicely explained in their edit summary, if we're going to unlink one of two words on sea-of-blue grounds, it should be the overlinked everyday word used in an ordinary way, not the term we're using in a particular way as linked.

Plus, encyclopedia is the very first wikilink in the Wikipedia article, which arguably makes its presence on the main page redundant. So, this is my proposed change:

−

[[free content|free]] [[encyclopedia]]

+

[[free content|free]] encyclopedia

FaviFake (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. But also "free" is also a everyday and widely understood term, and could also be unlinked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The reason why it's link it's to distinguish it (free as in speech) from free as in beer (the "gratis versus libre" ambiguity). FaviFake (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

We link to Free content, which is highly specific, talking of "copyright and other legal limitations" in the first paragraph. Of course, Wikipedia is also free of charge and freely available, but that remains true of most of the internet and even of other online encyclopedias such as Britannica, but they're not free content and thus neither available for copying nor editorially constrained by that availability as Wikipedia is. NebY (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest linking to free encyclopedia (or rather [[Encyclopedia#Free_encyclopedias|free encyclopedia]] per WP:MPNOREDIRECT). dot.py 04:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we'd want to send our readers to that section, which is basically only talks about Wikipedia anyway. The Wikipedia article does a much better job at explaining what Wikipedia is, and that's already in the header. FaviFake (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Support, too many links there already, nice to cut down on one. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Would also support. No real reason for "encyclopedia" to be linked. InfernoHues (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)