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 15:11 on 12 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

If I'd my druthers, I'd mention that the submission of the rulers to the English monarch secured seven years of peace. That's the "on the ground" effect. Bremps... 06:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never made a posting here, so my apologies if this is the wrong forum or irrelevant, but the image illustrating today's OTD does not have a tag for its US copyright status, and in fact will be copyrighted in the US for a long time to come (cf. WP:URAA). Of course, there are plenty such images on Commons that no-one came round to doing anything about, but they should probably not be on the English Wikipedia main page. Felix QW (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it looks like it is only PD in Israel, as least that is what is documented. Secretlondon (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 12, today)

Monday's FL

(July 15)

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

Why "did you know?"

The DYK section of the Main Page is populated with the newest content. Given Wikipedia's already exhaustive nature, any new content is always going to be obscure and little-known. So the answer to 'did you know?' is always going to be a depressingly overwhelming 'No'. The title 'Did you know?' implies interesting facts which you might not know but would be pleased and fascinated to be told. By contrast, Wikipedia's DYK section is obscure and trivial by design. Might there be a more appropriate title for it? It rather smacks of sarcasm and satire to sincerely ask readers whether they knew that Général de Brigade Henri Vanwaetermeulen began his career in the French Army as a private soldier (a random example from today's DYK). —Noiratsi (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point: Maybe a better title would be “You may not know this, but…”. OTOH maybe, in English, “Did you know” is shorthand for just that. Interesting argument, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The MP is a 'lucky dip bag' - and 'DYK' is short for 'You may not know - but may be interested to find out that...' (and it would have been amusing to have a link to watermelons near Vanwaetermeulen). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Given Wikipedia's already exhaustive nature, any new content is always going to be obscure and little-known." Didn't we just have a DYK from a brand new article for "cup" just a few weeks ago? --Khajidha (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you knows come not just from newly written articles, but also newly expanded articles and (as of a few months ago) articles just promoted at GAC. This means that we do occasionally get very high-traffic articles at DYK, but I agree with Noiratsi that it's perhaps not the best title. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed we do, for example Silver Cross Tavern got almost 200,000 views when it appeared on DYK. Proof that DYK is definitely not just a collection of facts that one might have a passing interest on. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's simply a snappy name to apply to a section designed to showcase the newest content added to the wiki, in the form of easily digestible interesting trivia. I don't have a problem with the name at all, to be honest. --Connelly90 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A new title would be change for the sake of change.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the existing title. It's not meant to be taken literally. No one is expected to run down the list answering "No, No, No, ..." 86.151.118.96 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The expected answer is "No, but I will check it out." or "No, and I don't care." or "Yes, good that Wikipedia also knows it!" Maybe the title could be changed, but I don't see an overwhelming reason why. I don't oppose it, but a good title must be found. --Con^structor 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with OP. It's condescending to the max as it is. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see there's people on both sides. Myself I'm divided too; I can see why 'DYK' is an okay title, but at the same time it still strikes me as far from perfect every time I see it on the MP. I wonder would it be better or worse if it were simply titled "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content"? At the moment that line is rather awkwardly placed as a sort of cross between an aside and a subtitle. —Noiratsi (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've got it! Let's call it "What if I told you that..." (WITYT) or maybe "Consider that...". Maybe something else, but WITYT is very catchy, in my opinion.მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 08:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it reminds you of the Morpheus meme.[1] —howcheng {chat} 18:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's it, ha-ha! In any case though, most of the facts on the DYK page really are facts that the average person wouldn't have any clue about. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 18:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think 'Did you know' sort of indicates obscurity in it's connotation. I wouldn't talk to somebody and say 'Did you know...' about something most people knew. It's generally used linguistically to prepare someone for information they did not know. If it's information they may know you'd be more likely to say 'Of course, ...' or 'Well, you know that...' or 'As you know...' Zkbt (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think "Did you know" is fine. It's metaphorical and not meant to question one's knowledge. However, since it's a collection of supposedly interesting factoids, "Believe it or not..." could be an alternative. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 20:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Believe it or not..." may be quite nice; it makes me think of Ripley's Believe It Or Not! Also, I understand the metaphorical principle of DYK; I can see how that, in practical speech, we normally only say "Did you know..." before we tell someone information we have recently found out and think is pretty neat. Based on this, I could see the title of "Did you know..." being a "trivia" section that's wanting you to find out the information and tell your friends, "Hey man, did you know that...?" So either way I find okay. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 18:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Pine Tavern

It may be the oldest restaurant in Oregon, but the article reads like one giant advert. What do the DYK team actually check? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. I see zero EV in this article or DYK blurb. The Pine Tavern may be a charming establishment in the charming tourist town of Bend (to which I've been several times), but this is free advertising. Sca (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another zero EV DYK blurb on the main page that took one of the most interesting areas of science today, the evolutionary biology of the Liliaceae, a major plant family, and turned it into another article completely, the tulip trade article.

... that when the tulip trade reached Antwerp in Belgium in 1562, they were mistaken as vegetables?

Except, tulip is not linked to the tulip trade article, the DYK is about the Liliaceae, a fascinating group of plants, and botanists have made major advances in the understanding of this huge plant family, its evolutionary relationships, and how this relates to the spread of angiosperms, the diversification of the monocots and modern plant ecosystems. But we have a DYK that conveys nothing about this fascinating subject, and is a bad link when there already is an article about the tulip trade. DYK the most boring thing about the Liliaceae is already written up in another article?

I don't think the DYK team have the interest to check much of anything. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

But you do, so you can be that difference! Welcome to the team! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Being that difference would be removing a bad DYK from the main page, and that is impossible. Errors are largely ignored. DYK editors fight you when you point out mistakes, then removing your comments about the problems with the DYK articles from the template, so the articles can be promoted without the errors being corrected. Meanwhile the bad article, to which editors are indifferent, is copied into cyberspace permanently. Like the 50,000 google hits I got for a misspelled plant family. Be that difference would require that Wikipedia be able to correct errors and have editors who welcomed editors who could point out errors. Correcting them gets too many nasty comments. So, no, being that difference does not seem likely in a hostile editing environment. At some point, though, editors ought to care how bad Wikipedia looks when it makes silly DYK quotes. There are other problems with this quote, besides the offense of dismissing the interesting evolutionary science. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

I'd be interested to see how many ERRORS report against TFA, TFP, TFL, ITN and DYK. It feels like every single day I see someone noting a serious (i.e. pull it off the main page) issue with a DYK article. Because DYK offers a quid pro quo review structure, it's clearly always a conflict of interest to "sanction" a DYK because it means that your own DYK will be more likely to be "sanctioned". Anyone fancy doing some analysis of ERRORS? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's often pointless to report an error with DYK, because they rotate quicker than the typical admin response time. I've lost count of the number of times I pointed out a problem with a DYK blurb only for it to rotate off the MP without any action being taken. These days I don't bother looking at it, let alone reporting mistakes. Modest Genius ^talk 00:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And then the ignored errors are in the articles forever, they sit on the DYK templates, they're prominent as a hook on the top of article talk pages. Why not make a place for them, a category at least, "Articles that appeared on the main page with errors?" The interesting thing would be to tally how many times WikiCup racers contributed to errors. Maybe getting articles on the main page and winning contests on Wikipedia will eventually require accuracy.

Every time someone just moves an uncorrected error off of the main page, they are accepting that article as it is, approving an error. The main page is read by many editors who don't edit Wikipedia. One of my office mates used to post corrections about errors, but her error reports were always ignored, the mistakes staying in the articles for years. The errors are never repaired, as far as I can tell, no matter how bad they are, such as a hook that redefined Tunicates--it was nonsense, yet it was on the main page. Of course, it's not only the main page where errors remain uncorrected--I corrected a misspelling of a plant family name that sat on en.Wikipedia for 7 years, and had generated 50,000 Google hits of the misspelling. Errors that hit the main page are bad. They need corrected in the article, on the template, everywhere they occur. Too bad getting them off of the main page while creating an accurate encyclopedia is so much lower in priority than making quick repartee at ANI. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC))

The error is usually in the blurb, rather than the article per se. Modest Genius ^talk 23:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it is in both. Should I be more or less worried that DYK editors can't read their own articles well enough to write an accurate blurb from them? --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC))

Another one

The main page says, "DYK ... that the moss species Chorisodontium aciphyllum can survive for more than 1,500 years frozen?"

The article did not make this conclusion, it discussed that a single group of scientists is making this claim based on results of an experiment that grew the plants once from one moss core. But en.Wikipedia is reporting this primary research as established fact.

Must be WikiCup season again, time to avoid the main page. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC))

Most every DYK reads like an April Fools Joke, or some faux-clever witticism. Cosprings (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they often do miss the interesting fact to make up something faux-clever. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

You are taking the one or two errors in a process that churns out 20-30 articles per day for the main page, 140-210 articles each week. Given that whenever you self nominate an article you have to review someone else's nomination, there are bound to be one or two errors in reviews. And the statement DYK editors can't read their own articles well enough to write an accurate blurb from them is wrong, not all nominations are self nominations, many articles are nominate by other editors who find the article, and nominate it crediting the creator. Thanks, Matty.007 18:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Baloney

This is nuts! There's more Gibraltar spam on the home page! Jehochman ^Talk 01:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What on earth has some loose April Fool's hooks got to do with Gibraltar? And for the record 3 or 4 of the "Gibraltar spam" articles passed GA fairly recently. And no, I wasn't paid to promote them, I didn't need much work on them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's face it. Wikipedia is ruined now. GamerPro64 01:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm 100% serious. Don't mock me!! Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Don't Tread on Me! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Great. Goddamn April First complainers all over again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Its April First? How the hell am I able to know when that comes around? GamerPro64 03:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out. You put your right foot in and shake it all about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I find your lack of faith disturbing. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Found some Faith. GamerPro64 03:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I throw all of my faith into the Church of Wales. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a repentant member of the Church of Putin. Where can I register? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I just drink Kool-Aid. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• LOL TheChampionMan1234 02:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for this, I think I'll work on Gibraltar articles just to get them on the main page to piss off the anti-Gibraltar crowd. How's that for pissing in your cheerios.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to our new sister project!

April Fools' Day is done for this year, closing non-serious proposal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see the bottom of the following list for our new sister project. Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects: Commons Free media repository MediaWiki Wiki software development Meta-Wiki Wikimedia project coordination Wikibooks Free textbooks and manuals Wikidata Free knowledge base Wikinews Free-content news Wikiquote Collection of quotations Wikisource Free-content library Wikispecies Directory of species Wikiversity Free learning materials and activities Wikivoyage Free travel guide Wiktionary Dictionary and thesaurus Wikifission Wikifission Free access to fissionable materials Now all we need to do is to update Template:Wikipedia's sister projects... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I don't know, I think we should wait until Wikifusion is ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC) The WMF (or rather, the radioactive crater formerly known as the WMF) keeps delaying the launch of Wikifusion, so as Wikipedia's official Dalek Supreme, I decided this was a good day to release Wikifission. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC) We should probably center the image, mainly because someone will complain that their eyes are burning from the fact that the whole thing isn't in perfect harmony with itself. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Agreed. (And, brilliant.) ansh666 07:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Careful, the project might be unstable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC) In other news, the Wikiminati have approved the use of nuclear weapons for all administrators. Efforts to make the process of becoming an administrator easier are underway, so that as many people as possible can take part in this fantastic program. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "Efforts to make the process of becoming an administrator are underway"? I hear that dropping words out of sentences is an early sign of radiation poisoning... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Ix-fay, or-fay e-thay ive-hay! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC) My eyes are burning from the fact that the whole thing isn't in perfect harmony with itself. --Stfg (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

New framework for main page

April Fools' Day is done for this year, closing non-serious proposal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After an extensive discussion exploring the general idea of redesigning the main page, a general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal. But the underlying framework of that design has proven to be a potent foundation on which any future design can be built, and replaces the aging layout practices of 2006 to bring it more inline with today's layout recomendations. With that in mind, we would like to replace the underlying layout with this new foundation. Several advantages include: Flexible layout which allows future modifications to be implemented more easily. Responsive design; sections will stack instead of being pushed off-screen. This also makes the page more mobile-friendly (for those prefering desktop view on mobile). Typography preview; the upcoming Typography refresh has already been incorporated as a preview. Other then that, the main page should look very familiar. Some older version of Internet Explorer may show a small gap between colored sections, but that is a small trade-off, as the flexibility of this design is more future-proof then the current layout. Please test the page in any way you can, under any platform, and report any bugs. Main page with new framework Alternative design - version 2 Please state your opinion below. Support As proponent — Edokter (talk) — 12:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Time to Seize the Day --Allen3 talk 12:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Support A very well-rounded design, I should say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose Maybe this is an April Fools Day joke, but when I clicked the preview button (as opposed to the first link), the header text was in some weird Comic Sans-like font that looked completely unprofessional and amateur. If the fonts can be fixed, sure, but not before. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC) cough I will continue to oppose all main page redesigns than don't include lots of animated gifs. And a hit counter at the bottom of the page. Weak support for Comic Sans though, because it's pretty funky. Pedro :  Chat  13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose Not enough mainspace edits, administrators should write... wait, where am I? EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose Not enough ponies. --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Strongly support "Alternative design - version 2", but "oppose Main Page with new framework", which makes Wikipedia look too professional. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Shimmy Alip Roolf. Dweller (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Kill it! Kill it with fire!! "A general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal"? nice April fools joke, but no such consensus has been established. Nor has anyone shown any interest in a main page redesign process that actually tells us what the consensus is. Instead, year after year, a methodology is used the has never resulted in any firm answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "No consensus has been demonstrated that editors will realistically not achieve consensus on any substantial changes to the main page in the near future, so I will continue to oppose any and all incremental changes until such a consensus can be demonstrated to my satisfaction. Also, stop using the failed process that you didn't use." 85.255.233.108 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Really? Care to show me a diff of me registering an oppose !vote on any incremental improvement to the main page? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Discussion April Fools!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Not sure what's going on with the font... I have changed it back and posted a second version with the font restored. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Complaint

There's not enough material about cricket and video games on the front page. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm more annoyed by the front page displaying the feminist agenda everywhere. I mean, where does The Hulk get off stating his opinions like that? GamerPro64 18:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But there are minors visiting here all the time! And we now have fucking and titties right at the start! ... XD :D Abhinav (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Right you are. Around 12 hours ago it was quite entertaining, but in the last few hours we've been back to the same kind of silly vulgarity we had last year, and was commented on then. Do we really have an average age of 4? --Stfg (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• It was deliberate, putting the sexist-ish hooks together. THEN FEMINIST HULK SMASH! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't grumping about that so much as about the fugging and the wankard and the titties. We did that kind of stuff last year. To death. --Stfg (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• To insult and mock feminists? Fucking, breasts, Wanker(d), hooker cockups, then slap those feminists. All this talk about the 90% male editorial posse, and everyone wonders how and why. Next time I see one of those posts, I'll just paste today's April Fools main page DYK list as the final answer. 4 might be generous. And, yes, it will be just as laugh gaining next year. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

• Who is saying Feminist Hulk is a dig at feminists / women? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, we'll put Feminist Hulk on the main page, but only after we get our "boys will be boys fun" out of the way to show that, sure, we'll put Feminist Hulk on the main page, but first the fucking breasts wanker(d) hooker Little and Big Cockups, then, just to show we're equal opportunity, after a long line of filth, that's exactly where Feminist Hulk belongs. Sure, who is saying it is a dig at feminists to put them in the sewer and the whorehouse and with the porno jokes where they belong? --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

• (ec) "Titties" (small white breasts) = one of the sexist hooks I was referring to. No, it was not nominated to be run like that, but I tried to mitigate the "childishness" of it with some more succinct humor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 6:50 am, Today (UTC+7)

• It just came off as the typical misogynistic-dominated fun of boys at Wikipedia. From reading outside and inside reports, this is obviously something women have to quickly get used to on en.Wikipedia. You want me to like it and laugh, also? A smart April Fools was not possible? It had to be sexually graphic and offensive for humor? Again, 4 might be generous. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

• If you find it offensive, I understand. However, if you are saying it came off as "misogynistic-dominated fun of boys at Wikipedia" owing to its placement on a page with fugging and breasts, please give me an example of how Feminist Hulk could be presented as actually smashing (read: combating) these and other patriarchal and misogynistic constructions (i.e. women's breasts as a symbol of their worth, among others) without "put[ting] them in the sewer and the whorehouse and with the porno jokes"? Those "whorehouse" / porno jokes are a manifestation of what Feminist Hulk is combating, along with ideas such as there only being two genders (and that one must fit into one, otherwise one is deviant), and possibly the construction of masculinity / masculinities (likely, as Feminist Hulk smashes the gender binary, which would by definition include the traditional concept of men needing to be masculine, but unclear from the article).

To shoot down the obvious examples, having Feminist Hulk smashing the gender binary first, followed by hooks which are possibly sexist, would be to say "No matter what women do, they will never have have equality, even if they appropriate the epitome of (the patriarchy's idolization of) brute strength". Having Feminist Hulk on a day without any possibly sexist hooks would be to have Feminist Hulk smashing things which are not present (and thus out of mind, and thus generally not considered an immediate threat, an issue considering the fact that women's rights are at the forefront of discourse in certain areas of the globe). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, can't have an article about feminism on the main page, unless it's in its appropriate context. I think you made my point. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

• And you are misreading my post (my apologies, I did not clearly indicate that I was referring to the joke). My concern was with the meta-joke of Feminist Hulk literally "smashing" the gender binary (only possible on April Fools Day, under current rules). The article could certainly have been run as a normal hook, on any day, as with the numerous articles related to women and feminism which were run through March. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Do you realize why there were "numerous articles related to women and feminism" in March? So it could have been run in March, along with other womanly things about the 50% of the population that gets main page attention 8% of the time? No, I don't get the meta-joke, because it was buried beneath a juvenile pile of garbage. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a little boys' playground. The hooks were disgusting, especially when looked at in a line of breasts, wankar(d), fucking Little and Big Cockups. It just said, "No, we're not an encyclopedia, we're a social network, but don't think Facebook or LinkedIn, head right to Reddit and keep going downhill from there. It just put feminism where it usually sits on en.Wikipedia, buried beneath the juvenile, vulgar boys in-club. Glad you had your laugh, but, hope you're not really going to make this argument next big RFC or discussion about why en.Wikipedia can't get and retain women editors. That's my say, more effort than anything could possibly return, so why bother to say anything more. I am woman, hear me no more--got that covered on en.Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

• International Women's Day on 8 March, with the month (Women's History Month) also dedicated to commemorating women's struggle for equality. I contributed several hooks, and I'm having trouble AGFing with these patronizing questions.

If you believe that Feminist Hulk should have not been run as an April Fools hook, then you should discuss this with the article's writer and the reviewer. My involvement with the article begins and ends with its inclusion on the template (and the attempt to make a meta joke with the ordering). That's all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

And with your attempt to hijack the discussion about the juvenile and offensive article hooks on the main page by somehow relating these hooks to your meta joke, in a way that I have yet to understand. You're the one who foisted your hook or whatever your contribution is onto the bottom of the fucking wankards Little and Big Cockups pile, not me. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

• Lack of GF = Confirmed. Thank you, and have a nice day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I do question why he has a problem with cockup, It's just a British slang word for mistake. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not even just British; I've seen it across the Pond as well. The issue is the word "cock" itself. As if there were never roosters. Mind you, if the term were "tits up" (as in "We tried to reach the pole, but everything went tits up"), there'd be complaints as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Mutual high five and mockery of those who were offended and targeted by those who weren't. Well done, en.Wikipedia style. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

Fucking is something that can be engaged in between a number of variations of genders. Isn't it rather misogynistic to assume that mentioning it is particularly offensive only to females? Likewise, isn't it rather misogynistic to assume that mentioning a variety of body parts some of which belong to various genders, is particularly offensive only to females?

It's been said before; historically, quite a high proportion of the editors who work on bringing controversial articles like this to reviewed high quality status, have been female.

Personally, I'm glad at least some sections of the main page escaped the silliness. It made a nice contrast. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to implement new framework for main page

We've had our fun. Now let's get back to business. The fonts were a joke (obviously), but the proposal itself is quite genuine.

After an extensive discussion exploring the general idea of redesigning the main page, a general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal. But the underlying framework of that design has proven to be a potent foundation on which any future design can be built, and replaces the aging layout practices of 2006 to bring it more inline with today's layout recomendations.

With that in mind, we would like to replace the underlying layout with this new foundation. Several advantages include:

1. Flexible layout which allows future modifications to be implemented more easily.
2. Responsive design; sections will stack instead of being pushed off-screen. This also makes the page more mobile-friendly (for those prefering desktop view on mobile).

Other then that, the main page should look very familiar. Some older version of Internet Explorer may show a small gap between colored sections, but that is a small trade-off, as the flexibility of this design is more future-proof then the current layout. Please test the page in any way you can, under any platform, and report any bugs.

Main page with new framework

Please state your opinion below.

Support

1. Support The benefits of using this framework are many. Especially the fact that it eliminates tables and makes the whole thing easier to modify, and therefore, other incremental proposals would be easier to pass. It is a strong improvement over the current design, and it has been developed over the course of many weeks. The differences between the current main page are almost non-existent, except for a few behavioural changes which can be explained. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support assuming we can get the IE11 bug below fixed, and any other browser compatibility issues fixed. Glad to see this finally happen! Legoktm (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support and looks great in Windows 8.1. All the rest are just software tweaks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 04:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support. Very well done, though as per Legotkm all compatibility issues should be checked and fixed. If they can't be fixed they should be documented and this poll restarted - it may still be worth going ahead but we should be clear of about any problems.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. A great start. Worth it for the responsive aspect alone. — Pretzels 21:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Tested on latest Firefox and Chromium on Arch Linux with no issues. Note that I'm using Arimo as my default sans font and Tinos as my default sans-serif font, so my results might not be representative of Firefox and Chrome using other defaults (e.g., DejaVu Sans or Arial) on Arch Linux. Cloudchased (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Layout fails catastrophically in IE 11. Can't really be considered for deployment until this is fixed. 86.167.125.50 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   Can you provide a screenshot? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   Sure, see [2]. The page is about a million miles wide, and most or all of the missing content appears way off to the right somewhere. 86.167.125.50 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   Confirmed. Not million miles, but lines don't wrap on IE11. Materialscientist (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   I can't see the screenshot; it looks like the image was removed. — Edokter (talk) — 10:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   I don't know why the image has disappeared. Even so, to fix and test it someone will need IE 11 anyway, so will be able to see for themselves. 86.130.67.56 (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   I fixed the wrapping issue, but I cannot see if the boxes still align at the bottom (they should though). — Edokter (talk) — 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   Everything looking good to me now in IE 11. Thanks for that. 86.130.67.56 (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose, strictly because this proposal is premature. I'll support the change after all of the necessary testing (across various browsers and operating systems) and troubleshooting have occurred.
   Has accessibility via screen readers been checked at all? (Note that the 2006 main page redesign initially broke functionality therein — something that we should explicitly seek to avoid repeating.) —David Levy 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   It is an illusion to think we can put up a page that is entirely bug free without subjecting it to some form of testing. This poll is one such form. Already, one bug has been remedied (by actually simplifying the implementation). This is the testdrive, so I think it's not entirely fair to oppose on that ground. As for screenreaders, the framework is fully complient, but some parts need work. The banner is one piece still using a table splicing up a list in three columns. I'd much rather see that changed, but as I understand it, this proposal calls for an exact 2006-look, so my hands are tied here. — Edokter (talk) — 17:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   It is an illusion to think we can put up a page that is entirely bug free without subjecting it to some form of testing.
   Agreed. There appears to be no dispute that further testing is needed. That's why I regard this poll as premature (if it's needed at all).
   This poll is one such form.
   I see great value in the discussion. I don't see value in asking users to "support" or "oppose" the deployment of code that clearly isn't ready to be deployed.
   Already, one bug has been remedied (by actually simplifying the implementation). This is the testdrive, so I think it's not entirely fair to oppose on that ground.
   What, if not the existence of serious bugs, would be an entirely fair reason to "oppose"?
   I've stated that I'll support the change after all of the necessary testing and troubleshooting have occurred, so if you prefer to think of my response as conditional support, that's fine. I just don't feel comfortable placing it in the "Support" section, as that doesn't describe my current position accurately.
   As for screenreaders, the framework is fully complient, but some parts need work.
   Has testing occurred? (The 2006 code was supposed to be fully compliant, but we learned after its deployment that the headings weren't read properly — a problem that hadn't existed beforehand.)
   The banner is one piece still using a table splicing up a list in three columns. I'd much rather see that changed, but as I understand it, this proposal calls for an exact 2006-look, so my hands are tied here.
   My main concern is that new flaws not be introduced. But as I commented previously, I personally didn't expect your reworked code to replicate the current output exactly. If improvements to the underlying infrastructure necessitate that the page's appearance be approximated, I'm fine with that. I suspect (but can't be certain) that the community would agree, so that might be a sensible poll question. —David Levy 21:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose, for now - the new code shouldn't go live until the bugs are worked out and reliability has been proven. Until then, swapping out the underlying structure should not even be considered. This proposal is premature, but the design warrants further development. Please resubmit the proposal after the design has undergone an adequate error-free testing period. Three months of glitch-free operation should suffice. The Transhumanist 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   I am left wondering: glitch free to which userbase? All users, or only certain configurations? How can we determine that the userbase uses the page daily, and experiences no glitches for a three month period? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

   The same userbase that Wikipedia has now. It should work at least as well as the current main page. To the extent that it doesn't will determine the size of the flood of complaints you'll get when you put the new code in place. The Transhumanist 04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

4. Oppose, The new fonts look awful. I do not like this at all. In all honesty I find the new framework to be repellant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.202.51 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

   You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the change proposed above, which is unrelated to the typeface change discussed below. —David Levy 02:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• It seems slightly spacier than the existing version (viewing in the latest version of Mozilla Firefox) and the column balance is somewhat different. More space is needed in the left column between TFA & DYK. I quite like the behaviour at narrow widths, but I'd suggest cutting to the single-column format at a slightly narrower width. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It may or may not be considered a bug, but with my font size at 26, the words "Technology" and "All Portals" in the upper right extend out of the rectangle that starts at "Welcome to Wikipedia". It looks funny but it still works that way. Firefox 28.0 Windows 8.1 1920x1080 pixels Art LaPella (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Where has it been established that "a general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal"? Was there an RfC that was closed with a determination that this is the consensus? A straw poll of some sort? A count of comments with diffs so the count can be verified? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• When you've been trying to get consensus on something for over 5 years, and failing, is it fair to say that it isn't a viable short-term goal? And are you really prepared to oppose this change on the basis that it isn't some bigger change? 86.146.28.229 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Broken on Dolphin Browser 10.2.8 (no wrap, just lots of white space on the right) on Android 4.1.2 but works fine with Chrome 33 on the same device (Droid Razr Maxx HD. Looks great in Firefox 28, Chrome 33, & IE 10 on Windows 7. --mav (reviews needed) 14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Can't win 'em all... I don't know if you have JetPack as well, which is a heavily hacked version of Webkit. Though I intended it to be mobile-friendly, it is primarily a desktop page. — Edokter (talk) — 15:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Many people (including me) use desktop layout on tablets. There is no reason to use the mobile version on a tablet-sized screen with a fast WiFi connection. In my opinion it really ought to work with the major Android browsers. 86.130.67.56 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I also use Dolphin on my phone, perhaps you are experiencing the same layout problem; the box for TFP has the text to the right of the picture, making that box stretch right, and all the other boxes have the bottom text (Archive, start a new article, nominate an article) justified right, so it stretches those boxes too. This could be solved by modifying the TFP box so that the text wraps under the picture at lower resolutions. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Can you provide a screenshot of some kind? — Edokter (talk) — 17:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

About ″Article in English″

In the main page,there have already said "English Wikipedia",so it's no need to say "English" again in "Article in English".--昏君 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think he means at the top, where it says "4,485,090 articles in English". If it didn't say "in English", we might think 4,485,090 articles total for every language – even though the page is written in English, and even though much later at the bottom where everyone has forgotten the top, it says "This Wikipedia is written in English." Art LaPella (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any notification on the page itself that this is the English Wikipedia, at least not before the "in English" note. The address is en.wikipedia.org, but that may not be understood by some people.

There is real merit in this. It would make far better sense if the line above welcomed people to the English (wikilinked) Wikipedia, and the wikilink in the line below disappeared. --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sahara desert sand in Britain

Why is there no news of the Sahara desert sand and pollution causing a smog in Britain, I think this is just as newsworthy as the volcanic eruptions that brought Britain to a standstill--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 16:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it is not that rare thing to happen in the UK, rather than a lot less often volcano activity. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates Art LaPella (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's minor local news here: most of the UK isn't effected. It's getting disproportionate coverage on e.g. the BBC as they're based in London and somehow think it's special but it's really just local news. It doesn't compare to the volcano that grounded flights across much of Europe, or the far worse pollution problems in E.g. China.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a slow news day story and a scam by those people who want me to wash my car. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Font of mainpage headers

Has the font of the headers on the mainpage changed for anyone else? I just reset my browser preferences (Google Chrome), and I'm still seeing a different font for the headers. Seattle (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Look!! Another much-loved wiki improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

mw:Typography refresh Stephen 22:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Voting after the event always seems to get more participation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it changed for me. I have to disagree, I think it looks terrible. Really disappointed in whoever changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.202.51 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooo –HTD 22:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite so. Can we please go back to something more traditional? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, absolutely awful. On default zoom the letters are too squat and far apart, zoom in one level and the lines are practically on top of each other. Why do people feel the need to change things that are perfectly fine just to make themselves feel they've had some sort of "influence"? --77.102.114.99 (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)]

I am not happy at all with the new font. How can I put this? It doesn't carry the authoritative weight of the original font, and articles now appear much larger than they actually are, potentially putting off the reader from scrolling through at all. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree and am utterly livid, outraged, wroth, yea, vexed by such insolent indiscretions such as this uncalled for adulteration. Let us know peace through what was right, the original, classic font scheme. 69.244.43.156 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If we want, it's not hard to change the Main Page headers back to sans-serif. It's definitely a special case. Let me know if you want me to take a stab at it. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering what was going on at first when I was reading something, followed a link and suddenly the font was different. I don't care for it at all, the old one was much more pleasant to read.

The serif headings look almost kitschy. I guess I could be down for that, but it looks pretty comically unprofessional. 108.27.52.44 (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The new font has made it easier for image captions to bleed into other sections, resulting in more mess. Was this font change discussed at all, or put to a vote? - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Un-bold Main Page headers?

I like the new typography and the serif headers elsewhere, but on the Main Page they look weird because of the extra bold applied to the font which was there before. This is too black, and not in line with the headers elsewhere. Any objection to me removing the bold, leaving it looking more like this? the wub "?!" 23:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind the bolding. Note that the headers already have their fontsize reduced to 120% (from 150%) and removing the bold makes them look like regular text. You would have to increase their font size to retain their appearence of headers. Or like Steven suggestes above, we could change them back to sans-serif. — Edokter (talk) — 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the sans-serif for the box headers. — Edokter (talk) — 00:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not just MP headers, it's all H1 headers, and it looks out of place. Please change back. --Robert.Labrie (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I realized it's global change. But I don't like it. Because not good looking Cyrillic letters (᠌᠌᠋"ү", "ө") for Mongolian in headers. --MongolWiki (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)