Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 18:31 on 26 July 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Please bypass the redirect from Independence of Maldives to Independence of the Maldives per WP:MPNOREDIRECT. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ^talk 02:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed – Schwede66 03:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• 1759 – French and Indian War: Troops led by French brigadier general François-Charles de Bourlamaque attempted to blow up Fort Carillon, near present-day Ticonderoga, New York, rather than defending it against approaching British forces.

Is there a reason we have piped "Fort Carillon" to Fort Ticonderoga when the French fort has its own article? The Ticonderoga article is an FA but why have an article on Carillon if we're not going to use it? - Dumelow (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I couldn’t work out why we have the redirect on place. I’ve removed it. Schwede66 17:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 26, today)

Monday's FL

(July 29)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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

General discussion

Main page redesign

Link to page under discussion: Main Page working copy and associated CSS.

The discussion on the 2013 main page redesign proposal has completely died after the RFC. The RFC has provided many useful ideas, but no one seems interested in continuing the process, and no one is stepping up as a 'manager'. It seems the collaborative model is has also been proven unsuccesfull. I have been working on a basic framework (and design) but I severely lack feedback, especially on the content. This is becoming a bit of a one-man show.

I might just be very bold and just put the thing up... Then discuss and tweak. This seems to work better then trying to pre-plan everying in advance (just look at Visual Editor). But I would really like to have some feedback and collaboration. So I'm calling for participants in this process. Without you, the Main Page may suddenly look like this. — Edokter (talk) — 13:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to express my interest in this. I have submitted my proposal before and it met with hearty discussion, but as yet, none of the proposals have been implemented. Can you please include the items listed in the below proposal?

A Proposal I believe the main page of Wikipedia could be make a great deal bolder with a couple of small changes. The top boxes (In the News) and (Today's Featured Article} are not bold enough - the headings should be in BOLD and ALL-CAPS and the typeface should be at least 2 points larger, with the blue news headlines possibly flashing or just scrolling along the top of the page in the manner of a news ticker, also there should be a much larger image on the page, and the font is a bit square, should be replaced for something a bit more fun. I think this would get more people keen to view more parts of the site.

Thank you, Horatio Snickers (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Flashing and scrolling headlines? You're joking, I take it? This is an encyclopaedia, not a 12 year-olds website.....82.21.7.184 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

How about the Commons main page design? It's a refreshment of what we have now, but I probably wouldn't include the lime green here. Cloudbound (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be very original, would it? Commons' design is bland at best. We need to be simple yet innovative and elegant. — Edokter (talk) — 18:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I for one would have no problem with the Main Page Edokter is proposing. I like the fact that it gives more prominence to the encyclopedic aspects of the encyclopedia and our best content, as well as to the nuts and bolts Other areas.

One nitpick. As was suggested some time ago, it seems to me more logical to reverse the titles of DYK: have From Wikipedia's newest content as the section heading outside the box, and Did you know... inside the box, directly preceding the hooks. (The overall structure of present order, Did you know...From Wikipedia's newest content...that the music video bla bla bla is simply incoherent).

And er, no flashing, scrolling or the like, please. Awien (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Another vote generally in favor of Edokter's proposal, for the same reasons Awien has given. I would also second Awien's proposal about DYK. Alternatively, the "from Wikipedia's newest content" blurb could be moved to the end of the list and rephrased as "...that all of the above were taken from Wikipedia's newest content?" Basically working the notice into the format of the section. Additionally, I would place OTD before ITN, it just seems more encyclopedic. Finally, another "no" to any flashing, scrolling, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Note I cannot change anything inside the boxes at this moment, as that content is transcluded from the respective projects. What I would like the change/replace is the Other areas... blurb, making it focus more on aspiring editors and pointing them to the appropriate pages. I could definitely use some input there. — Edokter (talk) — 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly should I go to propose my change to DYK? --Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WT:DYK. — Edokter (talk) — 14:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Make the pictures bigger than they presently are. Presently they are miserable little things; often you can hardly even see what they depict. I would also like to see the "picture of the day" more prominent, if the layout can bear it. 86.161.61.22 (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea. Currently the animated GIF is one of the most popular media formats on the Internet. I believe the front page would be more vibrant if an animated GIF of reasonable size (about 350-400px) was placed in a prominent position. These animations would illustrate some of the key topics of Wikipedia, and could possibly accompany the featured article. Also if music was mentioned on the Main Page it would be good if it could play that music when you view the main page. I can see some of your points about how the flashing and scrolling text may be a bit distracting but it would have the benefit of making the main page stand out and the content seem more enticing. Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite aside from rendering the page unprintable, substantially slowing the download speed, drawing attention away from more significant aspects of the page, and the general dislike many people have of intrusive animated elements, any animated GIF of over five seconds would break Wikipedia's own policy. What sort of a signal would it send out if our most visited page broke our own accessibility policy? Mogism (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That suggestion was obviously a joke. 86.161.61.22 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've thought this since Horatio Snickers's previous post in this thread. I certainly hope he is joking, as I see no benefit to making Wikipedia look like an old Geocities page. --Khajidha (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Snickers", i.e. "gives a half-suppressed secretive laugh", about says it all. Awien (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You know, I have never heard that definition before - I had always assumed it related to the chocolate bar. It is a family name and it is not meant to display any troublesome intent, and neither do I - I believe in being WP:Bold and I can see my suggestions may seem a bit surprising. It is a shame about the policy on five second gifs - I was not previously aware of it. Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's just put Edokter's version up and work from there, that's probably the best bet at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No. It's a shame that discussion died out, but suddenly introducing a redesigned main page without the consent of the community is not on. It would only result in an almighty drama followed by a return to the status quo in any case. Formerip (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure there will be dramah. But it's better then nothing happening at all. The process is dead, someone needs to step up and be bold. My feeling about all this: Input is welcome all the time, but don't complain afterward is you didn't have anything to say when you had the chance. — Edokter (talk) — 22:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's only better if it's an improvement. Which I'll reserve judgement on, but just point out that it hasn't been discussed or explained. Your design is basically made up of a series of more minor changes. Why not try a new tack and seek consensus for each one in turn. Propose changing the font, moving this, resizing that, each in turn.

Oh, and BTW, you've technically lost the ability to cite BOLD for the change by opening a discussion first... Formerip (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BOLD recommends this very thing. I am bold in not seeking consensus (because a !vote is guaranteed to fail), but looking for constructive feedback instead, working that in, and finally go ahead and replace this dinosaur. — Edokter (talk) — 20:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD depends on the ability of other editors to revert your work, and as you are an admin editing a protected page, this approach is not possible. I consider "boldly" editing the main page to be the equivalent of editing through protection. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Were the main page be protected due to an content dispute, you would have a point. But the main page protection is there only because of high visibility, to prevent vandalism. There are also over 1500 admins who can revert any change, so "not possible" does not apply. — Edokter (talk) — 21:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I like it; it looks fresh. I think you should go ahead. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not put up a formal proposal on here that we adopt the new design and then ask for comments on the proposal on the banner on the watchlist page. Then no one can say they didn't have the chance to discuss it. Richerman (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Lots and lots of white space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the thing most lacking is a call to action, inviting readers to become editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I want to replace the 'Other areas...' sections with something like 'Be an editor' wich links to the relevant introducory pages. — Edokter (talk) — 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now replaced {{Other areas of Wikipedia}} with {{Be an editor}}. The blurb is a draft, so comments/edits welcome. — Edokter (talk) — 09:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the text "Our goal is to build an encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of human knowledge" could be better honed. Arguably that goal has already been largely achieved. Often now it's more about the quality of information. 86.128.4.139 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember the maxim about a camel being a horse designed by a committee? Ever wonder what Fallingwater would have looked like designed by a committee? Or whether Picasso's Femme would exist if Picasso had had to work to orders from a committee? Never mind a committee of the whole, which is what we would get here if we were to throw the question open to the community. Just imagine the endless contradictory demands and incoherent design if we tried that! No, what we need is someone with vision looking at the big picture.

So what I say is, with firm opinions all being positive, and in the absence of any serious objections, put up Edokter's (imo well-thought-out) design, and tweak as necessary. That, after, all is the principle that has got WP to where it is today. Otherwise, the process is interminable, nobody knows what constitutes a consensus anyway . . . and yet again, nothing happens. Awien (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

With the greatest respect to those involved, you could scarcely say the new design has anything to do with "vision". It is mostly just a slightly less space-efficient rearrangement of the old design, with some cosmetic tweaks. 86.128.4.139 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It may look like a cosmetic tweak on the outside, and you are right that the content hasn't changed. But under the hood, the whole code base has been changed to allow a lot of flexibility in terms of content, layout and styling. None of the other proposals/designs have this flexibility. That framework serves as the basis. — Edokter (talk) — 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please suggest a better phrasing. Feedback is a good thing! And don't be afraid to edit it! I will make sure nothing breaks. — Edokter (talk) — 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been here since January 2006, the Main Page has pretty much remained the same since I joined, so I wouldn't mind a little spruce up, and I have no objections to using Edokter's proposal, but I will say is it possible for the DYK and Other areas of Wikipedia boxes to be aligned at the bottom, same goes for ITN and OTD? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not without some serious CSS hacking, I tried. I used divs to get away from tables. Divs have the annoying property of not allowing its height to be set. But it does add some 'looseness' to the layout, which I think is not a bad thing. — Edokter (talk) — 21:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks awesome and I would support a bold replacement of the Main Page. However, as a future change, I also would like to see the "Other Areas" space turned into some sort of "Become and Editor" section, I think that's a great idea. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I too support this refreshing change but would like to suggest some minor rearrangement of the boxes. For me, "In the news" is more 'encyclopaedic' than "Other areas of Wikipedia". I would swap these two over, bringing "Other areas..." lower down the page. I would then push "Other areas..." to the right, bringing "On this day..." to the left. Finally, I would move Today's featured picture" (always nice eye-candy) above "On this day..." and "Other areas...". As "Other areas..." is more about the maintenance of the project, rather than part of the encyclopaeic content, I feel it may be better situated nearer "Wikipedia's sister projects" and "Wikipedia languages", near the foot of the page. Would love to display graphically what I mean but do not have the technical knowhow or time - sorry. Also agree with Crisco that there's a bit more whitespace than perhaps is necessary. There was something else but I can't remember what it was... Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 08:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

While I slightly prefer the finessing of the slightly rounded corners and shadows and stuff of this, I really don't see any advantage in the rearrangements of the panels and other layout changes. In fact, in some cases I think the changes are detrimental. Perhaps the new "finishing touches" should just be applied to the existing layout? 86.160.87.209 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Everything else is fine except I don't fancy the arrangement of the sections. "In the news" and "On this day..." are too far down, they should be right below TFA. "Other areas of Wikipedia" should be at the bottom right above "Wikipedia's sister projects", like the way it was. Th4n3r (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• Why is the discussion taking place here? Why do we have to start with one editor's "single" proposal? (personally I don't like it.)
• More importantly, why is redesigning always about rearranging elements? Why can we try something totally new? (I don't understand for example why we must keep "Welcome to Wikipedia"; that's so 90s.)
• My personal proposal (which I suggested numerous times before) is to make the main page more like a newspaper without focusing on news: we need to have sections on politics, math, science, arts, sports, etc. Just like newspaper site, we can let a relevant Wikipedia project to manage a section; Wikipedia project math can decide what to put on the math section; maybe newly improved article.

-- Taku (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done so far

• Replaced 'Other areas...' with 'Be and editor'.
• Moved POTD up; Will move down on mondays to make space for TFL.

— Edokter (talk) — 19:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes in content

• I put up a draft blurb for 'Be an editor' (replacing 'Other areas...'). Any comments on wording welcome. This also goes for the blurb in the banner (Welcome to Wikipedia). — Edokter (talk) — 19:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is about Edwardnew (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes in layout

• I would miss "In the News" appearing at the top without scrolling so much that I am opposed to the redesign as it currently stands. I think the community does a pretty good job of news curation. EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I will add my voice to the number of people who would like to see ITN remain towards the top as well. While I approve of the redesign in general, having the news so far down seems unfortunate. --Nizolan (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I concur with EllenCT and Nizolan as well. Spencer^T♦C 07:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Could we swap the DYK section on the design with the OTD section? I think that the OTD section will be able to make a much better use of that slot, and serve to promote the most relevant articles for the day to the reader, save the OTD section. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. It does imbalance the OTD/BAE row a bit, but that can be fixed. — Edokter (talk) — 19:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Hm, I'd actually disagree. I think DYK should be above the fold. DYK is usually more interesting and has better articles compared to OTD. Legoktm (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree here. DYK also fits better next to BAE. Swapping it back. — Edokter (talk) — 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd also support DYK being in the second row rather than the third, as it features articles that editors have actively worked on recently, while OTD tends to cycle through articles that have not recently been improved. A big part of DYK is that editors can have their hard work rewarded by getting on the Main Page even in a small way, and putting DYK under the fold lessens that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• There seems to be a lot of space devoted to the featured picture description. I don't think so much will generally be needed. Only the first couple of lines of long descriptions are really needed on the main page, I think. I would roughly half the width of the featured pic box, float it right, and move "in the news" up to the left of it. Not sure what to replace the current "in the news" space with, but for the time being you could stretch "on this day" to 100% width. equazcion ^(talk) 22:14, 21 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is that POTD will sometime feature a 'panoramic' image, taking the full width of the page, with the image on top and the description below. If that happens and and it only has half the space available, it may push the rest off the screen. — Edokter (talk) — 09:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am liking the look of the new layout, although I believe the featured picture should be pushed to the bottom, with In the news and On this day above it. Commons is more the place for photos, whereas the news, on this day, and DYK are all things on the Main Page which are all regularly updated, interesting, and encyclopaedic information, which is exactly what we'd want to be prominent on the homepage. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 05:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• When the Main Page featured randomly rotating accompanying images to the featured article, that gave me an idea. Why should Today's Featured List/Picture always be below (and less visible than) TFA? Could the Main Page have the three current slots for TFA, TFL and POTD become randomised, such that the position of those three items on the Main Page becomes randomised? This would IMO give TFL and POTD more prominence. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes in design

• It seems the pastel colors meet with some opposition. Please suggest alternatives here. — Edokter (talk) — 12:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The proposed design is an improvement, but not by much. It still looks dated. I feel last year's redesign contest had some revolutionary ideas, and I'm intrigued that the Chinese Wikipedia was basically able to steal them and streamline them into a nice, modern front page. I feel we should steal that layout back. -- tariqabjotu 02:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It may work for the Chinese, but it would be way too minimal for here. I also aim for some originality. — Edokter (talk) — 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Huh? But it's quite obviously based off two of the most popular designs from last year's Main Page redesign attempt (Pretzels' design and rework of that design). Perhaps it is minimalist (and I think the Chinese minimalized it even more), but that appears to be something a good number of people like. I don't understand the attachment to the pastel colors and the restricting borders; are websites made that way anymore? -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It is based on Pretzel's design, but virtually all origonal styling has been stripped to a few grey lines. I'm not attached to the pastel colors, but no one has yet put up an alternative, so by all means, suggest a different box style. The beauty of my framework is that it is now possible to do so without affecting layout and content. Not sure what to make of "restrictive" borders; they are always there, visible or not. — Edokter (talk) — 09:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

General Comments/Informal Votes

NOTE: This should not be considered a vote on the current design, but for opining on the framework.

• An enthusiastic Support for the design as proposed by Edokter. The new format looks well-thought out and chic enough to not be too 2000s. I suppose it's possible to iron out any minor issues, but I agree in principle with this new design. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support the proposed design; it's a step in the right direction, an upgrade that can be readily adapted to changing needs. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the layout changes (don't see any purpose to them; if there is, could it be explained here?). Support the cosmetic changes such as slightly rounded corners and shadows. Sorry, I am changing my opinion after seeing other suggestions linked below, which I was not previously aware of (this and this), which have greater potential IMO. Also, can someone add a more prominent link to what we're voting on and make sure it does not change while voting is in progress? (Alternative versions can be separately linked, so long as it is clear which version people's votes apply to.) 86.161.61.73 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Link added to the top. Currently there is only one version and it is constantly changing according to comments. This is not a formal vote, just collecting some opinions. — Edokter (talk) — 19:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with having any sort of vote on something that is constantly changing. How can you possibly tally the votes if people are voting for different things? And if you are not intending to tally votes then it should not be a vote. 86.161.61.73 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This !vote section wasn't my idea. I think gathering suggestions and working on a live version is the better method. But as Nick pointed out below, it is more the concept that is being opined. — Edokter (talk) — 21:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel the purpose of the "vote" should be more clearly explained at the top of the section then. For example, the comment below seems to be supporting invisible "behind-the-scenes" changes more than any specific implementation. Most ordinary punters will presumably be voting on exactly what they see at the linked page. If that changes significantly then the tally of votes just becomes meaningless. 86.161.61.73 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support The fundamental proposal is this: abandoning the rigid structure enforced by tables, and moving to this more flexible framework. This can be used to render the Main Page in exactly the same manner it is now. As I write this, I think that perhaps it should. When it is accepted and editors play with the framework, then we can play with layout and content. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Comes across as a small improvement, still quite dated. I would prefer jettisoning the pastel colors and restrictive borders, as in this design or this design from last year's redesign competition or the Chinese Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Pretzel's design is IMO the only viable option from last year's efforts. Technically, it fits very well in the framework (but has a rigid two-column structure). It could be a bit more daring in its use of colors. — Edokter (talk) — 21:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose due to suppression of "In the News" which I usually appreciate more than TFA. EllenCT (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Decision to place DYK next to static "Be an Editor" section either places a new and arbitrary requirement that DYK utilize the same amount of vertical space as this new section or will result in the introduction of a wasteful and ugly block of whitespace. Similar situation with ITN and SA/OTD section shows design has not considered the needs and normal operational patterns of these sections or an awareness of how balancing the the sizes of Main page sections is traditionally performed. --Allen3 ^talk 22:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - A terrible idea. This is change for the sake of change. Main page is fine just like it is. Jusdafax 05:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Nickpenguin. I would suggest putting an opt-in link for the Visual Editor in a prominent place near the top.—S Marshall T/C 20:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Win7, 1280x800, FF24 (with proper menus, address bars, tabs, title bar, aka not awful unusable Chrome look) the only thing visible without scrolling is the gigantic static banner and TFA. DYK requires scrolling, ITN and OTD require significant scrolling. If there is a great american Wikinick or some pledge drive running, that banner will push the dynamic content down even further! Rounded corners do not render in older versions of IE. Current Main Page on the same setup has TFA, ITN, OTD and DYK all fully or partially visible without scrolling. In fact, isn't Wikipedia well known enough that the huge banner with the 9 portal links and string "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." totally unnecessary? IMO ditch that banner all together, put the portal links and article count, and "be an editor" in the sidebar. All static content in the sidebar, all dynamic content in the main frame. --Robert.Labrie (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't see any rhyme or reason to the layout changes. I don't think many people would say that TFA is currently not dominant enough, that ITN and OTD need to be shoved as far out of view as possible, or that the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box needs to be made bigger. I quite like the headers with the serif font, so I would probably support that change if it was proposed as a standalone. Formerip (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support at least the move away from the adjoining, clunky, tabular design that the Main Page currently has. I'm not too fussed about any particular order or placement of content but Edokter's proposed page is far more pleasing on the eye. Gizza^{Talk ©} 08:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• The current main page was put in place by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, in which the discussion was widely announced throughout the Wikipedia namespace, and for which around a thousand editors turned out to voice their support/opposition/comments. You can't trump that with a minor discussion amongst a few editors. A major overhaul of the main page, without bringing it to the whole community to reach a new consensus, would shock a lot of editors. It would certainly result in the page's speedy reversion followed by much drama. However, the current main page is subject to evolution, in which individual changes are discussed, adopted, and then implemented from this talk page one-change-at-a-time. Like the way Today's Featured List was added (appears Mondays). The Transhumanist 07:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support the layout change. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The layout is essentially very similar to the current one, and the design is just terrible with all those rounded corners and fake shadows. I think if something need to change from the current layout is the size of images, which should be bigger. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - new layout/design seems much more inviting DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 13:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support for the framework, and for iterating on a design. I like Edokter's layout, a nicely cleaned-up version of what we have now. I love [Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal/Pretzels|Pretzel's design]] from last year, and would enjoy seeing variations on those two designs, to choose among?

  Tariq makes a good point that the Chinese main page does an excellent job of limiting whitespace and reducing the total # of borders while maintaining a clean, elegant look... we can learn from that in updating those two designs.

  Support for having a small 'Be an editor' section. – SJ + 05:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support . A step in the right direction without being too radical change. It keeps the steady reliable brand feel of Wikipedia with just a little freshness. I believe people want and are reassured by , continuity and reliability in an encyclopedia, not a fashionable design which changes with the wind. Lumos3 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the rearrangement of material, which doesn't seem to have much logic behind it and puts everything except TFA below the fold. Neutral on the graphical tweaks, which look fine but don't seem any better or worse than what we have currently. Lose the serif font for titles though - that's not what it's designed for. Strong oppose the very concept of a 'be an editor' box. We shouldn't put that sort of material on the Main Page - it's supposed to be a resource of use to readers, not a recruitment advert. Modest Genius ^talk 17:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The last RFC has established that editor engagement is one of the primary objectives for the main page. Only catering to readers is not a consideration. — Edokter (talk) — 08:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Supportive I'm positive towards this. Not quite there, but very good so far. Keep it up! --Tóraí (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Formerip. I don't like having just one section (TFA) at the top of the page - fewer people will look at the others. Neljack (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The general layout is haphazard looking. I don't like the way that the gaps between the sections look, and I don't like that I have to scroll down even further to get to the picture of the day. It's already below the fold on my 1600x900 screen, but it's even further down in this proposal. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How would YOU organize a redesign?

I feel that any recent attempts to organize the redesign of the main page is doomed to fail; the community has simply gotten too big to gain some form of consensus. How would you go about organizing a process that resulted in a new main page?

• For me, I think a small committee comprised of a selection of trusted community members with the relevant design and technical skills should be elected. That group can design the main page without haveing every step under scrutiny. There will be several community consultations before presenting the end result. That result will be put up for consideration, with the condition that any opposing voice must be well motivated, to prevent weeks or months of hard work to be for nothing, simply because of "I don't like it" comments. — Edokter (talk) — 11:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 23:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well, when you're talking about design, "I don't like it" is really pretty valid. If you're looking for a process that will guarantee a front-page redesign regardless of whether the community wants it or likes it, I don't think you're going to get your wish. As I suggested above, it might be more realistic to propose incremental changes. Perhaps a competition could also work, although someone would need to be willing to put in a lot of effort to organise it. Formerip (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking at the past two years, competition or otherwise, no process based on consensus is ever going to change the main page. That has become very apparent. Incremental changes might work, but people will still complain. What works best is what worked for the Vector skin; just put it up, hear the roar and let it die out, and go on with our lives. — Edokter (talk) — 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you should give up all hope that no-one will ever complain. If you agree that incremental changes could work, then surely you have identified your best option? I would make each proposal as tiny as it possibly can be. So, with the headers, I would propose removing the boxes, then I would propose switching the font, then I would propose changing the font size. That way you have simple yes/no questions. By presenting a re-design in one go, you are giving people a hundred things to say no to, which is the root of your problem. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree that incremental change might be the best option. Implement the current design in proper css and get that fully debugged first, then replace the {{Other areas of Wikipedia}} with the {{Be an editor}} (once a more final content selection has been debated), then update the header bar. Defer any re-arrangements, or re-colourings, or font changes till the end (in the hopes that the official efforts towards researching and then proposing a change to the font stack moves forward, and because aesthetics and ordering are the 2 most subjective/contentious/divisive issues...); then once all the content and architecture changes are working, begin the process of iterating on alternate designs. –Quiddity (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• I suppose the first step should be to define what the redesign is intended to achieve. Or has that already been done? 81.159.107.100 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sort of, see Wikipedia talk:2013 main page redesign proposal#Some "conclusions". — Edokter (talk) — 22:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured pix

A belated comment on the above (partly joshing) discussion of featured-picture size: Today's photo of Abbotsbury (File:Abbotsbury, Dorset, UK - May 2012.jpg), however picturesque (it looks like a backdrop for Last of the Summer Wine), is a case in point. Even at full resolution it's impossible to make out much of the distant detail. Seems to me featured pics should be limited to subjects that can fit with decent resolution into the space available. Sca (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• FPs are already considerably larger than they were this time last year (50 to 60 percent, I believe). In the case of Abbotsbury, I could have gone with a scrolling bar allowing greater zoom levels. Maybe I will next time there is a panorama. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

As with all other pages on Wikipedia, the man page should be categorized. As this is formatted as a portal, it should be categorized into Category:Portals

-- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, all categories on the Main Page are usually hidden categories. There has been several discussions on this issue of categorizing (such as here and here), but current consensus is to leave the Main Page as "uncategorized". Basically, the two objections of having a category on the Main Page was that it spoils its appearance, and that no one needs help finding it because it is linked from every page via the left sidebar menu. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"the man page"? Wikipedia is not Unix. Daniel Case (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

See here for categorising the main page, and here for tagging it as an uncategorised article; it was done completely without discussion! After finding them, I now see that Zzyzx11's links mention them. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Who decides what's on OTD?

Some odd choices of topics in OTD recently (and not so recently), for instance today, is a single murder (Yoshihiro Hattori) really noteworthy enough to put on OTD? I think not. Many better options for today. So what exactly is the process of deciding what goes on OTD? 131.251.254.110 (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's all explained at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries Edgepedia (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Several days late, but the Hattori shooting was a big international kerfluffle at the time. —howcheng {chat} 16:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

19th October TFA choice

Moved from WP:ERRORS

 – Bencherlite^Talk 23:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Another article about cricket? Pathetic. Who decides what articles to feature? And are they all obsessed with cricket? Pathetic! Autodidact1 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Autodidact. As it says at the top of Talk:Main Page, the place to nominate or discuss nominations for the TFA slot is WP:Today's featured article/requests. In default of nominations for a particular date, I make the decision, so the more nominations the better - at present, the community on average only nominates three articles per week so I'm choosing the remaining four and trying to achieve the impossible of keeping everyone happy.

I don't know whether your complaint is that there's too much sport chosen as TFA, or simply that too much of the sport chosen for TFA is cricket. If it's the first, 10.9% of featured articles yet to appear on the main page are sports articles (147 out of 1,349), which means that if each broad type of FA category was selected in strict proportion to its size, there'd be between 3 and 4 sports articles every month. In fact, today is only the 22nd day this year on which there's been a TFA from sports and recreation, so not much more than 2 per month. So if anything sport is underepresented in the TFA slot (compared to, say, historical/political articles or literature articles, which have done quite well so far this year).

If it's the latter complaint, please bear in mind that more than half of the FA sporting biographies yet to appear at TFA are cricket-related, so they will inevitably appear more often than, say, American football biographies (only 2 left) or basketball (only 2 left). As for today's TFA, I chose Bart King because it was the 140th anniversary of his birth and he is that rarity, a leading American in a game that is not traditionally associated with American achievement. I'm sorry you didn't find it interesting, but hope to see you contribute at WP:TFAR in future, or bringing an article to FA standard yourself to help widen the choices for TFA. Bencherlite^Talk 23:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, insulting editors contributions and hard work with "Pathetic!" doesn't seem to be conducive to improving the project. Perhaps a little civility and personal involvement would make a bigger difference. Robvanvee 06:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Today's Featured article should be chosen based on the date of the day. For example, historical events, anniversary celebrations etc. You should not keep selecting the TFA from the similar categories or else people may feel bored reading it.Newestcastleman (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• If you think so, please feel free to find anniversaries and nominate them at the requests page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Please be sure to tell me, Newestcastleman, when you find anniversaries for articles such as our many FAs on dinosaurs, birds, fungi, food and drink, people from the Middle Ages or earlier where we have no dates of birth or death, early literature or music without a date of publication, constellations and stars etc... Your "date of the day" approach is far too simplistic and would make TFA an offshoot of OTD, as not only would it exclude many articles without a date link but also doesn't help when there is no article with a link to a particular day. What do we do then - not have a TFA? Or re-run the same articles every year?
  2. Please tell me the categories from WP:FANMP from which I haven't been selecting enough articles. I'd love to know... Tell you what, check out this table of FAs in 2013 and tell me. Bencherlite^Talk 08:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you can use some articles related to food and drinks as you have not been using it for the year such as those food and drink companies. I suggest that tomorrow (October 22), Chandrayaan-1 can be used as the featured article since it is the 5th anniversary of the lauch of this unmanned nuclear mission in India.Newestcastleman (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The only FA-class food and drink article not to have been on the main page is Cabbage, which was promoted less than a week ago. But it seems that you don't understand the term "Today's featured article". When it becomes "Today's B-class article", then I'll use Chandrayaan-1. Bencherlite^Talk 09:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, it is not always that you follow the date, you can simply randomly select the featured article, such as those related to things or events that interest people.Newestcastleman (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I do already, then. Glad we've cleared that up... Bencherlite^Talk 09:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Smallpox featured picture for Saturday

The smallpox image (which will run on Saturday) will cause a significant amount of negative commentary. In generally, Wikipedia tends to keep certain content off of the main page because while it's not (and shouldn't be) policy, we do follow the principle of least astonishment. I'm just going to be direct here and say that running this image on the main page is a bad idea. It was significantly discomforting for me to look at, and I figure that I've got a higher tolerance than many. This image has a place on the project, but I don't think that it has a place on the main page.

I fully expect to be roughed up at least a little for saying this, so all I ask is that you be civil. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a little graphic, yes, but that also makes in poignant in some convoluted way of human psyche. Controversy sells.KonveyorBelt 04:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that featuring this image was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day, with notification on this page. That proposal followed a discussion at Talk:Main Page/Archive 175. - BanyanTree 04:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Graphic it very much is. I personally will refrain from scrolling down to that section on Saturday. But we do have many such "too-graphic" unused images which at a certain time have to come out. Although to debut from the list a lesser controversial one could be used, like maybe the lynching one, but lets go with a bang is also fine. We should definitely try it out. People have criticized for being too birdy and cute and hence lets try this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Less controversial is... quite subjective, to say the least. Having graphic images on the MP is not new. Lynching of Jesse Washington ran with a very poignant image of the young man's charred corpse last year. POTD has, until now, not partaken, but the both discussions clearly showed a consensus for running the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sven: As indicated above, I did not choose this image willy-nilly. There was discussion, and a clear consensus. That this may cause discomfort in some does not make the image any less encyclopedic or valuable to the encyclopedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an academic resource. The image is an unbiased, uncensored look at the effects of smallpox. Sure, it might look a bit 'icky', but are we really going to start applying "I don't like it" to featured images too?

While it is regrettable that this may cause some people personal discomfort, it's a very-real consequence of a very-real disease and gives significant weight. I, for one, think an image with such educational potential should be hidden because someone might find it gross. m.o.p 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me say, I have seen several far more disturbing medical images than the smallpox one (which is visually just a bunch of bumps on the skin). Chris857 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's substantially less disturbing than say Noma or something of that nature. (Re Dharmadhyaksha above) I also find it odd that a candid shot of a skin disease is considered more graphic and controversial than one of murder. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)