Talk:Main Page

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured article

• Do you think today's featured article is awful? Instead of complaining see what you can do about it.
• "Today's Featured Article" is selected from existing featured articles. To nominate one for the Main Page see Today's featured article.
• To report an error in today's featured article, leave a note at the Error Report.

Did you know...

• "Did you know..." lists facts from new or newly unstubbed articles. To nominate a fact for inclusion see Did you know.
• To report an error in "Did you know...", leave a note at the Error Report.

In the news

• "In the news" items are listed as they are added – there is no subjective order.
• To suggest a Wikipedia article that has been updated with new material, see the "In the news" page.
• To report an error you've seen in "In the news", leave a note at the Error Report.

On this day...

• If an important event isn't mentioned in "On this day...", it may be because you haven't suggested it yet at Selected anniversaries.
• To report an error in "On this day...", leave a note at the Error Report.

Today's featured picture

• Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
• To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

• Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Main Page
• Preview tomorrow's Main Page at Main Page/Tomorrow. To report an error on tomorrow's Main Page, leave a note at the Error Report.
• If you want to start a new article seek help here.
• If you see something wrong with a particular article, raise your concerns on that article's own discussion page, or fix it yourself. Do not talk about other articles here.
• Wikipedia running slowly? Check the server status.
• If you have an opinion, comment, question or are looking for help regarding Wikipedia in general, find the place where your post will get the most attention here.

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

• This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
• Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
• Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

Californium

In Anniversaries, californium should not be capitalized. --Cam 15:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, BanyanTree 16:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth games

As with the Winter Olympics Wikipedia included news on the happenings of each day in the headlines. There should be a section in English wikipedia detailing the games. -- User:Tim_teddybear

Two reasons why this likely wouldn't happen. The Commonwealth Games is less international, and more importantly the articles relating to the Games aren't being as actively updated. If you could put in more info the article 2006 Commonwealth Games, they'd be more likely to appear prominently on the front page. -- Zanimum 17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There are simply too many of these competitions to keep them all on the mainpage. We settled for the Olympics, them being the most international event and occuring only once every 2 years (winter/summer). If we start including other, less international competitions, there's also Mediterranean Games, Balkan Games, Goodwill Games, etc, etc. We should get rid of the separate section and include any newsworthy results in the main body of ITN. Zocky | picture popups 17:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm wondering why it has made it to the mainpage. Nickpowerz 17:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the wikipages for Mediterranean Games, Balkan Games, Goodwill Games, .... will get updated well enough to deserve being featured on ITN. -- PFHLai 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a major international competition, with more than 1 in 3 of the world's nations competing?! Batmanand | Talk 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's still not international as in "any country may appear". It's simply not the same level as Olympics. Remember, we don't normally do sports on the main page - we made an exception for Olympics, as opposed to setting a new rule. Zocky | picture popups 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The page 2006 Commonwealth Games page seems to be updated enough (with a medal tally, and daily highlights). To anyone who says it isn't an "international" event, it is actually the second largest international sport event (first is the Summer Games), with twice as many athletes than the Olympics Winter Games. I can see what other people mean, though, but if the Winter Games is featured, than so should the Commonwealth Games.

Millennium Development Goals

I would like to see the Millennium Development Goals discussed on the front page. The plan to end world hunger is underway and agreed to by every nation on earth and I think Wikipedia could play an important role in bringing attention to the international agreement that will lift 600 million people out of hunger by 2015. The Borgen Project is a good source for more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.58.206 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a short article at Millennium Development Goals. With some effort I'm sure it could be expanded to potentially featured article candidacy. --Quiddity 22:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Last week's is up again instead of a new one. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 00:02 (UTC)

And it's not {{mprotected}}. --199.71.174.100 00:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. RexNL 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The link under American West is U.S. West, which redirects to some bell comany. American West itself redircets to the correct article for the situation. —This unsigned comment was added by Theunknown42 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

Such as Western United States. -- 199.71.174.100 01:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Or better, American Old West. EdC 02:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, American Old West is indeed better. Where are the admins when we need them ? -- 199.71.174.100 02:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the rest of the cabal is out someplace with green beer. Fixed. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The new Main Page

Does anyone know what the timetable is for implementation of the new design, since it appears to have consensus? Just wondering... it's still the old Main Page that is serving that role at this moment... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See discussion. hydnjo talk 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a Wikiportal now.--Kross^Talk 04:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked, in my capacity as a bureacrat, to take a look at the vote and render an official decision. I decided that roughly 75% was consensus, and went ahead and implimented the new design. Raul654 04:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[PS - expect a titanic revert war, followed by a wheel war, followed by 17 RFCs and 3 arbcom cases ;) ] Raul654 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• LOL, hehehe... ;) - Mailer Diablo 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• It would have been nice for the new main page designers to actually specificy the text color, so that people with custom skins can still read the text. Right now, my main page is light green text on light green background. They specified the text color in the old main page, why not in this one? Or did they just not think of it? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 04:51
  • You're the first person to complain about this. Please insert whatever code is missing. —David Levy 05:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I complained about it with the old main page, but apparently the designers of the new page missed that. I've fixed most of the problem, although everything from the POTD down is still unreadable, and I can't figure out how to get the text to be defined as black so that it is readable. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 05:49

• I still have major problems with this design... I know others like it so is there any way of having a skin which allows some of us to have the old main page instead whilst everyone else has this design? I've looked through the current options and I can't find such at current. - JVG 05:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The old main page is saved somewhere for people to use, and you can use javascript to get your Main Page links to go to that page. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 05:35
    • The link is Main Page alternate (Classic 2006). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way someone could put a tad bit more space between the featured picture and the text of section? It looks cramped. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is something to do with an "margin-right:0.9em" or something of that source. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You would have to change it in all of the Wikipedia:POTD row subpages, and make sure that people keep using this change in the future. If you do do this, please make sure to add color:#000 to all their style definitions so that people like me with custom skins can read the text. :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 06:07

Change is bad. --NoPetrol 05:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC) One of the main arguments for the new design is that Welcome to Wikipedia REPLACES the Main Page title at the top. Your implementation completely ignores this.

As long as we have this hideous design (didn't even realize they were making a change until it was implemented; it should have been advertised better that there was a vote for a new page design), the least we can do is fix the featured picture section. Every time I come to the main page now I have to refresh it to have the text aligned correctly in the featured picture section. I'm not sure if it's the main page or my browser, but it's very annoying. Does everybody have this problem, or is it just me? bob rulz 06:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Try pressing Ctrl-Shift-Reload to flush your cache, that might fix things. And the main page voting has been going on for awhile. --Cyde Weys 06:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Say what you will about the design, but saying it wasn't well advertised is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a valid criticism. It's been featured at the top of this page for weeks; it was mentioend multiple times in the signpost, at goings-on, on the announcements page, at the village pump, and on the community portal (among others). Several outside news sites even picked it up [1]. Short of hiring people to write it in the sky, I don't see what more they could have done. Raul654 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

They succeeded in advertising it. Now if only they could have succeeded in increasing its usability... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 07:56

A small notice at the bottom of the Main Page itself, perhaps... anyhow, has anyone looked into the fact that the "Main Page" heading disappears for the Main Page's page history too? It looks quite ugly, and it seems a line or two of JavaScript could fix it. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I can't replicate that problem on my browser. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• I noticed this as well (in Firefox). I also noticed that, for some reason, the main page background colorings are "bleeding over" onto the history. My skin defaults to black background, and everything shows up that way, even histories. The old main page's history always looked that way. Now with this one, the defined white background of the main page are causing the main page's history background to become white as well. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 07:58
  • I've attempted to correct the background issue in MediaWiki:Monobook.js. Please let me know if this worked. (You might have to clear your cache.) I suspect that some (perhaps most) of that code is no longer needed, but I don't know how much of it can safely be removed. (Tom- is the expert.) —David Levy 08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, that worked. Thanks! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 08:15

• i think it looks fine and dandy Rubber cat 08:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Portals: Any reason why only 8 of the Category:Top 10 portals are listed in the top bar? Did Culture and Philosophy lose a bet?--Mike Selinker 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That interests me, too. --Missmarple 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Top 10 was created with virtually no discussion. There's been talk of restructuring the portal hierarchy (which would necessitate modifying the list), so it would be premature to add new ones to the main page at this time. (There's no consensus for which ones should be added, and we didn't want to tie this into the redesign.) —David Levy 16:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the new off centre title and portals list. The gap in between looks large and out of place for a title bar, at least in my resolution. Much prefered old centralised list of portals, capitalised, which added prominence to them, being categories. As of now they appear as normal links to the side. There are very few items justified to the right in wikipedia, it simply doesn't do them justice. I don't see why the title can't be centralised with the portals as a horizontal list underneath. --Liquid121 09:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sister projects on new Main Page

The new Main Page is wonderful, and congratulations!

Nevertheless, for the bottom of the page, could some admin please work in the up-to-date Sister projects template as per the discussion here? The one that currently appears is is out-of-date, has incorrect links, and doesn't look as good. Dovi 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As per user:David Levy's suggestion, I am bringing the discussion here (please see also the template talk and David's talk page). Here are David's previous comments and my previous reply:

I disagree with the idea of including the slogan (instead of the description "Free-content source texts," which is based upon wording from the Wikisource main page). We don't list slogans for any of the other sister projects, and descriptions are more useful in this context. ("The free library" could just as easily be applied to Wikibooks.) We certainly should include whichever text is backed by consensus, so please feel free to raise this issue at Talk:Main Page.

The slogan is a Wikisource decision, as is the logo that appears in the template. (The logo currently happens to be undergoing intense discussion at Wikisource. If and when Wikisouce changes it, it will change on the Main Page here too). Wikibooks is in no way an open library, nor does it claim to be. Wikipedia is listed as "The free encyclopedia" in "sister-links" from all the other projects, and I would expect the same courtesy here. Perhaps, however, we will change our Wikipedia link to something more descriptive and attractive, like "Wikipedia - Open-source information articles..." Dovi 09:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my replies on Dovi'a talk page. —David Levy 14:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just some basic information: "The free library" has achieved unusually strong across-the-board consensus at Wikisource, in all of its language versions. Take a look here and here. This was already discussed earlier on the template talk, and discussion was brief out of the simple realization that this is common courtesy towards the sister project. Dovi 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The "discussion" consisted of you requesting the change, someone else complying, and a third person protesting the change (due to exactly the same concerns that I cited). That was it (until you finally added a reply today—four months later). —David Levy 14:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it would be nice to sign your edits. I just suggested on the en.wikisource.org scriptorium to refer to Wikipedia as the "collection of free content knowlegde wiki texts". Please tell me what you think about this idea before we proceed. I personally find it great, but I would like to receive some feedback. Indeed, the previous slogan, "The Free Encyclopedia", was not at all self explanatory. It was even misleading, because there are several other free encyclopedias on Wikisource; such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911. And they are all free! How wrong then to assert that wikipedia is "the" free encyclopedia, when there are many? In contrast, "collection of free content knowledge wiki texts" perfectly reflects what you are. If you think it does not, I am open to adding more adjectives upon enlightened suggestion. ThomasV 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I apologize for neglecting to sign one of my comments. 2. If such a change is backed by consensus, I have no objection to the replacement of the Wikipedia slogan with a description along the lines of the one cited above. —David Levy 16:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Free-content source texts," YUK. Yet another mangling of the English language by business-speak. Please tell us what is wrong with "Wikisource: The free library." Don't readers know what a library is? Apwoolrich 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "free content source texts" appears on the Wikisource main page. I realize that "the free library" is the official slogan, but it isn't as useful as a description. (It could just as easily be applied to Wikibooks.) And again, we don't include slogans for any of the other sister projects. —David Levy 16:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has indicated in the past that he is not happy with changing the slogan, at all. I don't think that the support for the new main page design carries any kind of weight in changing the slogan of the whole site. -Splash^talk 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Free-content source texts" is not being presented as a slogan; it's merely descriptive text (similar to what accompanies all of the other sister project links). —David Levy 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, "free content source texts" is useless because it mangles what's trying to be said (although not as well as "collection of free content knowledge wiki texts"!) - remember a lot of readers aren't necessarily IT-literate and will not know what "content source texts" are. Why isn't "the free library" useful as a description? —This unsigned comment was added by 86.136.190.159 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

If "free content source texts" isn't a useful description, why is it included on the Wikisource main page? Again, "the free library" is a nifty slogan, but it doesn't convey any sort of distinction between Wikisource and Wikibooks (which also could be referred to as a "free library"). —David Levy 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a library in the sense everyone knows "Library", it is a very specific collection of original-content books created by Wikipedians for a very specific purpose, educational text books, it is an "education textbook library". Wikisource is a true Library, it is a collection of any and all books that are published - that's what Library means to most people. It is important that the Wikisource library slogan be on the page. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't share your perception of the word "library," and I'm not the first person to express this concern. Why is it important to include that particular sister project's slogan (instead of a descriptive phrase that appears on their main page), given the fact that we don't include slogans of any of the other sister projects? —David Levy 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. Can you please take a step back and look at this with a fresh eye. On Wikisource's main page it reads

Wikisource – The Free Library – is an online collection of free content source texts built by its contributors.

It is obvious that phrase you chose to copy is used simply to allow links to different concepts and is not used as a desciption of the site in Wikipedia's article on Wikisource which reads

Wikisource – The Free Library – is a Wikimedia project to build a free, wiki library of source texts, along with translations of source-texts into any language and other supporting materials. It is located at www.wikisource.org.

The free library has also historically been part of the Sister Projects Template. So it is not as though we asking for someting new. I do not entirely understand what the reasoning was for changing it. Did the other sister projects complain they didn't like us having a slogan? Do you personally dislike the free library slogan? Do you really honestly like the current description? You say other people had concerns about the use libary as well. Unfortunately the people at Wikisource were unaware of this. We are now all watching this discussion and are ready to answer those concerns if you please reiterate them. I really think the current phrase is horrible without being wikilinked like it is on Wikisource's Main Page, simply because it is hard to understand. I understand that you are defensive at being questioned about this and you have taken a lot of heat over various things during the Main Page Redesign. I know this change was made with good intentions, perhaps simply for love of consistancy. Please step back and look at this again. Is really so important to you to keep the new phrase? The Free Library is a very important concept to us, it is only natural that is more important to us than it is to you. In trying to describe Wikisoure's acceptance guidelines I often use the idea of if you would find something in a library. It really helps explain why we would host astromical charts and not a list of people killed in Iraq. Thank you for all the hard work you did on the new main page there was a lot of drudergy involved. I am impressed with the overall result, although obviously not this one issue which must seem small to you after all you have done --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I sincerely appreciate your non-adversarial tone. I understand that your slogan is important to you, but the goal of the sister project summaries is to unambiguously describe the nature of the material contained therein. I have no particular attachment to the specific wording "free-content source texts," but I don't believe that the phrase "the free library" adequately conveys the site's content. (What type of "library" is it?)

FYI, the slogan was added on 15 September 2005, following a request by User:Dovi. (Up to that point, it contained the text "Free source documents.") A couple of months later, Minh Nguyễn raised exactly the same concerns that I've cited, and this user received no reply (until Dovi posted one today). That was the extent of the "discussion" that Dovi claimed had occurred. Dovi also has indicated that Wikipedia has no say in the matter. (We're required to include your slogan, despite the fact that we do not include the slogan of any other sister project.)

I've inserted the wording "free library of source texts." Is that an acceptable compromise? Can you suggest another variation that's more descriptive than "the free library"? —David Levy 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

RESTART INDENT Thanks for your reply. The "free library of source texts" is a definate improvement over what was there moments ago. However I do not see an ambiguity in the simple description of "The free library". If you would find something at any sort of library it fits the mission of Wikisource. This includes mathmatical reference tables, cout case decisions, the US Code, almanacs, encyclopedias, election data, computer source code, poems, national anthems, novels, essays, speeches, etc. Also as a libary Wikisource does not publish any new material but collects things which have already been published. WS is simply limited by copyright which is why the description is prefaced with free. I don't believe adding "of source texts" adds any clarification, especially as it is an obsure term. Most people would think "texts" would not include the variety of data that WS does actually accept. I am also concerned about the attitude that the people of Wikisource are somehow outsiders in this disscussion. I do not believe my contributions to Wikipedia have been minor and believe many other people from Wikisource contribute here. This does not need to devolve into them or us. The fact that other sister projects have not declared the manner in which they would like to be represented does not mean that Wikisource is wrong to do so. I am personally very considerate of how WS represents other sister projects. I changed the Wikispecies logo in WS's sisterproject template as soon as I noticed they had agreed on it without being asked. I made sure to cite Wikipedia in the manner recomended by Wikipedia in s:Gettysburg Address, researching Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. This was then incorperated into the template s:Template:wikipediaref so wikipedia is easily cited as "on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." per WP's preference. Beyond these examples I in general believe in honoring the opinions of those most affected in minor discrepencies. So I am having diffculty understanding your position in this case. I think your sense of ambiguity with the description must come from misunderstanding. As I am much more familar with Wikisource than you are, please let me assure you it is an appropriate description for Wikisource. I am saddened that this opportunity is not being used to promote harmony and cooperation between all the sister projects. We are not only all together in our desire to spread free information, but we are also here as a service to each other, providing a space and direction for the things other sisters projects do not want to host.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my reply to Dovi, I'm not implying that a member of the Wikisource community is any less a member of the Wikipedia community. My point is that a group of Wikisource users recruited for the purpose of arguing this point is not a valid cross-sampling of Wikipedians.

I certainly don't see this dispute as "us vs. you." As you wrote, we share the common goal of spreading information, and it's the readers whose interests I have in mind. You point out that you're much more familiar with Wikisource than I am, but I'm thinking of people with no such familiarity. You have a very specific definition of "library" in mind, and I don't believe that it's shared by everyone. —David Levy 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In truth I have the most general definition of a library as possible in mind. In fact so general that to try and define it more specifically is in effect misleading to the readers. I am sorry I have been unable explain this in a manner you can understand. Because I am sure you would have agreed with me otherwise. Lets give people a bit more time to find this discussion and weigh in. Perhaps someone else can convey what I mean with more justice--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but here's an analogy:

Suppose that I were to open a store that sells a very wide range of products. Would it be sufficient to advertise it simply as "a store"? Would that be interpreted as "a store that sells lots of things," or would people wonder "what kind of store"? Wouldn't "department store" send a clearer message?

Numerous pages (including at Wikisource itself) identify the site was a collection of source texts. Is there a better means of classifying its content (rather than leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions about the lack of specificity)? —David Levy 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there are such things as law libraries and patent libraries. However most libraries unlike stores have no other description short of describing access (ie public or University), Actually contributors at Wikisoure use "source text" in a non standard way because there is not such an expression that is accurate. Which is why I feel it is misleading to readers. I doubt most people would take "source text" to encompass sound recordings and computer code. However most readers would know you can find sound recordings at a library, computer code is little new for readers to have many expectations at all. I would rather have readers be unsure of what we contain than decide we wouldn't have what they are interested in because it isn't a "text" in their minds. I do not see the lack specificity as a problem but an intrinsic part of Wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

---

In reply to David Levy: The phrase "the free library" is a horrible description for Wikibooks. Wikisource is a general free library; it includes fiction (Wikisource:Author:L. Frank Baum) and encyclopedias (Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica). Though Wikibooks has multiple books, and those are free, thus making Wikibooks a free library, it is not a general library. Official policy at Wikibooks:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks prohibits fiction, encyclopedias, and essays. --Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that "the free library" is a good description for either site; it doesn't convey the types of works that are included. We specify that Wikibooks contains textbooks and manuals, so why shouldn't we specify that Wikisource contains source texts? —David Levy 18:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Stbalbach: Actually, we who write Wikibooks are Wikibookians, not Wikipedians. There is no rule that requires one to be a Wikipedian to join Wikibooks, and I was not a Wikipedian when I joined. --Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikibooks:User:Kernigh, Wikisource:User:Kernigh)

To sum up:

• Wikisource slogan is "The free library." That should be respected unless there is an extremely good reason not to.

  1. I've cited reasons. 2. We don't include any other sister project slogans. What makes yours so special?

• The overwhelming approval for the new Main Page implies nothing about this change. Most voters were scarcely aware of it, and Wikisource was not asked.

  I don't know why you believe that the Wikisource community is responsible for dictating the content of our main page.

• There is no confusion with Wikibooks, whose overall mission is not to provide published works and is not a library. Both Wikisource and Wikibooks are OK with this slogan, which actually does a very good job clarifying the differences between them.

  1. Wikibooks can be considered a library. 2. Your perspective is that of someone who's familiar with both projects. I'm thinking of readers who know nothing about either. It's our job to inform them. Indicating that one contains textbooks and manuals and that the other is some sort of library (A library of what?) falls short of accomplishing this.

• "The free library" is an extemely good and accurate description of what Wikisource is and does. In fact, there is no possible better description. Wikisourcerors (or whatever we are called) should know.

  "The free library" is a good slogan, but it fails to convey the specific nature of the material contained therein.

• Consensus should have been needed to make the change in the first place, not to revert it back now. For clear lack of such consensus, we (the Wikisource contributors who commented above) ask that David Levy or some other admin please restore "The free library." Enough is enough, and this is common courtesy.Dovi 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  There was no consensus (on this site) to change the wording to "the free library." I've switched to "free library of source texts," and you have yet to comment on this. Are you totally unwilling to even consider compromise? —David Levy 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Like Birgitte above, I think the new Main Page is outstanding, and I am greatful to David Levy and others for the excellent work they did on it. I'm sorry a small thing like this got blown out of proportion (one small problem versus a huge improvement to Wikipedia). Nevertheless, I think David's insistance not to do this small but important courtesy is out of place. Please respect the Wikisource decision, just like all of the English sister projects list Wikipedia as "The free encyclopedia" without splitting hairs. Go take a look, once again, and the "sister projects" templates on all of their main pages. Dovi 22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you do the readers the courtesy of allowing us to explain what type of content Wikisource offers? —David Levy 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We disagree that what you are offering is a courtesy, or any improvement in any way over "The free library." Your objections have been noted, but other users do not agree with them. Plus, we fundamentally disagree that consensus should be required to reinstate "The free library" - on the contrary, consensus should be required to write anything else, since it is the Wikisource slogan/description.

David, you asked me to move discussion here so I did. You asked to look for consensus (even though we at Wikisource feel none is necessary) and the nearly all here consider the slogan is perfectly fine. Since you are the only one who seriously objects, it would be proper to reinstate it. Dovi 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

When I suggested that you initiate a discussion, I meant that you should attempt to forge consensus among the members of this community. I didn't mean that you should rally support from the members of a different community.

And again, you're yet to explain why we should display your exact slogan (despite the fact that we include none of the other sister projects' slogans), and you haven't specifically addressed the new compromise wording (which actually contains the phrase "free library"). —David Levy 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. The members of the "other community" are of course good Wikipedians too. But you have to admit that as "Wikisourcerors" :-) they have a special and legitimate interest in this.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that these users aren't upstanding Wikipedians as well. The problem is that they aren't a valid cross-sampling of the Wikipedia community as a whole. If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't expect you to allow "consensus" on Wikisource to be determined by a group of people recruited from Wikipedia.

You are the only Wikipedian who strongly objects to using the slogan/description (it is perfectly fine as both in our opinion despite your objections) that Wikisource itself has chosen. So yes, in a sense you have taken it upon yourself.

The above post preceded CBDunkerson's and Quiddity's comments, but I don't understand why you disregarded that of Minh Nguyễn.

We are not the only sister project with a slogan. Wikipedia has one too, and it appears in all sister-project templates. These templates do not exist in a vacuum; this is a Wikimedia issue, not just a Wikipedia issue. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum either, and just as WP slogan appears with no nit-picking on sister projects, WS can be on WP.

I believe that "the free encyclopedia" is a suitably specific description. If you disagree, feel free to discuss changing it at Wikisource. I promise not to send a bunch of Wikipedians to complain.

Well, I'm going to sleep already. I think it is quite clear that were this not a protected template, it would already use the WS slogan/description. Please use your admin tools in the spirit of both the majority will and common courtersy here. Dovi 23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you object to the very concept of allowing a fair discussion to run its course. Regardless of the outcome, the walls won't come tumbling down if the "wrong" version is displayed for a few days. —David Levy 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the label text for Wikisource on the various sister projects has been inconsistent across projects for a long time. Currently we've got "Free library of source texts" on Wikipedia, "Free source documents" on three, "The free library" on three, and no sister projects section on MetaWiki. I agree with David that 'The free library' is a bad description as it could apply to MOST of the projects... 'free library of quotations', 'free library of textbooks', et cetera. It doesn't tell a user what they can expect to find there. --CBDunkerson 23:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is where I think the misuderstanding is Wikisource's mission is actually inclusive of the material found on other sister projects. Although we accept it in a different form. The Enclypedia Britannica published in 1911 is being put on Wikisource slowly but surely. Any public domain book of quotations would be appropriate on Wikisource. The same with public domain dictionaries. I believe WS already has some primer's, which in the past where used as textbooks. While the other sister projects narrower missions, Wikisource truly is a library. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand... Wikisource is the WikiMedia equivalent of [Project Gutenberg. Since it includes any published document which is in the 'public domain' it covers a wide array of topics and is a 'library' in all ways except that it cannot include copyrighted works. Thus, 'The free library' is an excellent slogan... but it is not a good description. A user unfamiliar with the projects looking at 'Wikisource - The free library' and 'Wikibooks - Free textbooks and manuals' could not possibly understand the difference. A good description might be something like, 'Wikisource - Public domain books'. Most people know what 'public domain' means and it is more specific than 'library'. I guess it comes down to whether it is more important to have a slogan which makes sense to experienced users or a description which makes sense to people who don't know anything about the project. --CBDunkerson 00:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not understand. "Wikisource - Public domain books" would be inappropriate as WS niether contains solely public domain items nor solely books. For example WS recently added a recording of Vietnam era airforce mission transcribed by one of the participiants. I understand that people here think they have correctly described what can be found at Wikisource to readers. As someone with a greater knowledge of what can be found at Wikisource, let me assure you that your description is misleading. I do not understand what the hang up is over "The free library" being a slogan. It is still the best desription of Wikisource, regardless. Please take some time looking at the variety of materials at Wikisource. I can think of no free content available at any sort of library that would not be welcomed of Wikisource. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I knew there were other materials (though I can't think of what wikisource would contain which is not public domain)... I just thought that 'books' was a primary focus and more understandable than 'source documents'. Just as Wikipedia is listed as an 'encyclopedia'... but you don't usually find sound files and animated images in encyclopedias. We can't give a detailed description of everything included in each project. The problem I have with library is that 'Wikibooks' is a 'library'... of user created textbooks, and 'Wikiquotes' is a 'library' of quotations, and 'Wikipedia' is a 'library' of human knowledge, et cetera. Amongst the other libraries it doesn't explain the distinction. The term 'free content' you use above might serve; Wikisource - The free content library. Only adds one word. A library of all content which is freely available. No longer expresses that the library itself is free, but that seems self-evident. --CBDunkerson 02:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the other projects can be classified as libraries. Wikibooks is more of a publishing house restricted to instructional material than anything else. A library of quotations has never existed. Wikiquote is more equivalent to a multi-volume book of quotations. I also think the people here would object to the idea that Wikipedia is a library of human knowledge. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But if you want to define Wikipedia as a library of human knowledge try and get consensus for it :). I truly don't see the difference between "free library" and "free content library" since the objection was library was to vague rather than free. But I don't have any problem with it either. "Wikisoure - The free content library" is completely accurate.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ditto reasoning per CBDunkerson and David Levy. --Quiddity 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with "The free content library". And it fits. but would we need to use "The free-content library" to fit with the wikinews subtitle? --Quiddity 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be "Free-content library," because appending "the" would falsely imply that this is an official slogan. —David Levy 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Subtitle breaks

Is it necessary for the Meta-Wiki subtitle to span 2 lines? The old template didn't and was the same width. Also, this same subtitle breaks into 3 lines at 800x600 resolution. fix per this dif. thanks. --Quiddity 10:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 14:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikitravel

Why is Wikitravel not listed as a sister project? It appears neither on the Wikipedia home page, nor on that of the other sister projects. Zingi 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikitravel is not a sister project. (It isn't affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.) —David Levy 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image of the Day

Problem - The text for "Image of the Day" overlaps the picture. I'm using a 1024 x 768 monitor, and IE7.

Just to let you know Neilgravir 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Headings on new main page

On the old main page, I could use the keys h/shift-h (next/previous heading) to navigate between the sections (today's featured article, did you know, ETC), and this was convenient and intuitive when using a screen reader. Now, I can't do this. Would it be possible to have headings separate the sections on the main page, or at least have better navigation markers? It would make things easier for those using screen readers. Graham talk 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On the old main page those sections were marked with '===' to indicate section titles. Now they are marked with a '!'... which indicates a header section in a table. This could either be changed back to '===' format or things like <div id="Did you know"> could be used to set the same sort of anchor points which the '===' uses. The latter is probably better as it doesn't impact the display of the page at all. --CBDunkerson 13:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I support this most strongly. I used the document map extension for Firefox to navigate Wikipedia pages; and Wikipedia uses the DOM properly so it is very useful. However as CBDunkerson points out the new page has lost a usability feature. Please add it back. --ChrisG 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reducing accessibility was the last thing that we intended to do, and it's extremely unfortunate that this shortcoming didn't come to light until now. We absolutely must implement a solution as quickly as possible. I wish that I knew exactly what code to insert, and I'll do so as soon as someone tells me. —David Levy 14:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added the div tags. Does it work now? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 17:54

IIRC you need to add some corresponding CSS code (either to your personal monobook.css or to common.css) to tell the browser what to do when it encounters each div. Johnleemk | Talk 19:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the 'id' attribute is 'built in'. Graham, now that I've looked at it closely it seems like the old main page had 'id' links in addition to the '===' headers. Do you remember if you had to 'jump' twice to get to the 'In the news' section? Looking at the code it seems like there'd be a 'box1' anchor around the two items on the left... each with it's own '===' anchor, and then a 'box2' and two '===' anchors on the right... for a total of six jump points. The new setup has id's specified for each segment and thus four total for that section rather than six. Is it working properly now and do you notice any difference from the old behaviour? --CBDunkerson 20:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest in the future that a Usability WikiProject actually investigate usability before assuming they have a full grasp on the situation. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 17:44

We sought as much feedback as possible, but no one brought this to our attention. How were we supposed to know? —David Levy 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To be expected. Even with all the discussion about the page it would be impossible to think of every possible detail that is important to some users. You always find things shaking out and needing to be tweaked when a major revision goes live. What's surprising is that there haven't been MORE issues with the changeover. --CBDunkerson 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Document map works on headings (H1, H2, H3 etc.) Fixing div's will not make Wikipedia play nicely. This problem effects many of the portal pages. --81.158.76.242 20:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Attached below are some of the current main page code and comments thereon in relation to this issue;

<h1 style="font-size: 162%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em; color:#000">
Welcome to <span class="nounderlines">'''[[Wikipedia]]''',</span></h1>
<div style="top: +0.2em; font-size: 95%">the '''free encyclopedia''' that '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]'''.</div>

Note the <h1> and </h1>... these place header one around the word Wikipedia. If the anon above is correct about screen-readers and the like linking only to headers rather than other anchor points then we should use tags of this style around each major section. H1 is equivalent to Wiki '=', H2 to '==', H3 to '===', et cetera. However, the font-size and other factors can then be over-ridden by additional HTML/CSS settings.

<div id="articlecount" style="width:100%;text-align:center:padding:1em;font-size:85%;">— [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in English —</div>

This 'id' creates a point that Wikipedia can link to. For instance the above is what allows a Main page#articlecount link to jump directly to the article count at the top of the page. I'm not sure that a link to that is really needed.

{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa"
! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000"  |Today's featured article
|-
|style="color:#000"|<div id="Today's featured article">{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</div>

The 'div id' here should probably be moved out to include the actual section title. I believe it can also be put directly into the table markup;

{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa"
! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000" id="Today's featured article" |Today's featured article
|-
|style="color:#000"|{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

Hopefully these details will help explain how these links work for any admins making updates. I'm not sure how screen-readers utilize these links, but either 'h1'/'h2'/et cetera or 'id' should address the issue here. --CBDunkerson 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Father's Day

The only country that lists today as its Father's Day on the Wikipedia article is Belgium. If other countries celebrate this holiday on this day, they should probably be mentioned in the article. The Jade Knight 09:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Scroll further down on that Father's Day page and read carefully, Jade Knight, then you'll see Portugal, Spain, Italy. Belgium got separated 'coz it has 2 Father's Days. --64.229.6.111 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The Jade Knight 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Heading font

For headings such as "Today's featured article" etc, would it be possible to control the formatting via the stylesheet instead of explicitly setting it to be Arial? I have a custom font in my monobook.css for the rest of the page text, so the Arial sticks out like a sore thumb. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Day

Can you sort out the text so that it doesn't go over picture. Djm1279 10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Heading

In the proposed draft of the new page the heading:

Main Page From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

was not shown - instead the banner was at the very top - I thought this was part of the new design - I think it is better with the banner at the very top since on large resolution monitors you can see all 4 main parts and the banner without scrolling Trödel 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone just dealt with it -- Gurch 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks someone ;) Trödel 11:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Serious problem with Featured Picture display

In IE6, the text of todays Featured Image is spilling over onto the picture, making the text unreadable and the image ugly. Loom91 11:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• See

  

I can confirm that this issue exists in Internet Explorer 5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 – Gurch 12:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be fixed, at least for me -- Gurch 12:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It comes up for me whenever I navigate to the page, but refreshing the page fixes it. This was never a problem in the draft of the new Main Page. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 13:27 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem. It was on Wikipedia:POTD row/March 19, 2006, not the Main page itself. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 13:54 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny how simply putting in an image can draw far more attention than simple text! Loom91 14:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In interest of full disclosure, I think I was the one who originally messed it up, but like I said, I wasn't too sure with the image coding, and had requested help, but since no one seemed to respond, I took it upon myself to try and fix it. It was my mistake, but has been cleared up now, so I don't want to hear any snickering at my skills. ;-) Sorry for any confusion. Ta ta. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Article count in the header

When the draft of the Main Page redesign was deemed to be in its final state ready for a vote, the article count didn't appear in the top header, though it remained on the first line of the Languages section. Seven days into the voting process, administrator David Levy added this back to the protected page in response to some conditional support votes requesting its reappearance. I haven't followed the process meticulously, but the form of the article count (as we see it now, enclosed by emdashes) is unlike any of the many I've seen in previous drafts. Am I the only one who thinks this a little underhand? I am relatively neutral about the include-or-remove question, but I really don't like the form it's in at the moment. If there are sufficiently mixed opinions then maybe we ought to consider the options for change, and establish a consensus on the best option. It's not too late is it? BigBlueFish 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's never too late to edit a wiki (which is why it wasn't inappropriate to do so in response to the comments, most of which were from unconditional supporters). I personally oppose the inclusion of the article count in the header, and I welcome further discussion.

In the meantime, adding the following code to your personal CSS file (User:Bigbluefish/monobook.css, if you're using the default skin) will suppress the text's display:

/*

*/

#articlecount {
 
display: none
   
}

/*

• /

—David Levy 15:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the handy CSS tip that I'd already seen; it's not my viewing I'm concerned about (to be honest this applies to anyone who regularly works with things like talk pages). It's more about new users who see the count and get the wrong impression. And those of sounder integrity who see the count and think "damn that's messy". These are two separate issues. See my proposal below for what in my view is a better-looking header, if it to contain an article count at all. BigBlueFish 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Given the enormous amount of voting and discussion, it was a laudable effort to keep an eye on everything and those who organised the redesign and the vote made a great effort to address all relevant questions. Kudos! While I have not followed everything, it was my impression that the matter of the article count was not handled overly transparently, as the design over which we voted seems to have been changed during the process (my apologies if I am mistaken). Given that there has been relevant criticism and that the original new design seems to have excluded the counter from its prominent position (with the rationale that our focus should be quality instead of article numbers), it seems a questionable move to have it return there. I would suggest to remove it, as the current design is apparently not that on which the vote was started, and discuss the matter again, separately from the new design per se.

May I repeat my suggestion to count featured articles instead of total articles. I believe that might help shift the focus from ammassing text "that anyone can dump here" (which is what many people read in "that anyone can edit") to refining articles to a really high standard. Kosebamse 15:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the voting and discussion occurred after the article count was retored to the header, and a great deal of support for this change was expressed prior to its implementation. This is a wiki, so we obviously weren't considering an exact design that would never be modified. We could have waited until after the election concluded, but how would that have been more transparent?

Yes, this is an issue that should be discussed, but consensus thus far favors the article count's inclusion in the header. —David Levy 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think counting featured articles at the top would be a bit ridiculous, simply because 923 is not a high enough number. I suppose it would be nice to add a sentence to the Languages section, to the tune of: "923 of these articles have become featured articles. I think the only measure of credibility of Wikipedia is through the featured content boxes and by more in-depth investigation. It cannot be condensed to a tally at the top. As such, if the article count is only there to serve as a way of measuring Wikipedia's progress, it should be gone. But short of remove it altogether, I propose at least a different way of presenting it. The em dashes are inappropriately used for aesthetics which I don't find that aesthetically pleasing anyway. May I suggest something like this:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This English version has 6,865,470 articles.

Arts Biography Geography

History Mathematics Science

Society Technology All portals

I removed the articlecount id so everyone can see it. Another alternative caption might be, "We are working on 6,865,470 English articles."

As for consensus, David, if consensus was thus then why has it not resulted in the draft reflecting this, and why was a vote page written outlining why the draft had resulted in its ommission? If you have answers to these then fine, but I hope that answers your question about transparency. This should have been clear from the start, and I don't think consensus really has been formed properly yet, judging by the confusion. This is what this discussion is for. BigBlueFish 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I (and some of the other editors from the redesign project) firmly believe that the article count should not be included in the header. (The aforementioned explanation reflected this fact.) It wasn't until the election was underway that the consensus began to emerge.

But yes, consensus can change, and I wholeheartedly advocate further discussion on this matter. —David Levy 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(re-indent)I dont know if that was a call for input on this here&now, but i'll reiterate my opinions:

• I Oppose the inclusion of the headerbar line that says "1,032,932 articles in English".
• It implies "that our site is no greater than the sum of its parts"
• It is discussed in depth here, here, here, and here. (newest to oldest)
• I dislike the emdashes as a styling flourish. If the count remains, i propose we change the emdashes to something else. --Quiddity 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the em dash used? --Grocer 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

Why on earth is this the featured article? —This unsigned comment was added by 69.251.23.118 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Why not? —David Levy 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a book which may have been extremely influential on the breadth of anti-semitism in the early 20th Century, hence being instrumental in the extent of the success of the Nazi Party, of the Holocaust, and therefore also in the extent of the necessity of the Second World War. We can pose many such "if"s but if this book had not been written, there may have never been WWII, or it may have panned out very differently. The article itself is excellently written and is a great example of the small but important details in major historical eras which are so well-covered by Wikipedia. Is that enough? BigBlueFish 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing wrong with featuring the article. But with all due respect (and going OT), the idea that there would have been no World War II without the Protocols, or even that they were in any way instrumental to the "success" of the Nazis, is preposterous. The Nazis were supported by influential bankers (like Hjalmar Schacht), industrialists (like Fritz Thyssen), and media tycoons (like Alfred Hugenberg). The desire of the elites in Germany to support a totalitarian regime and another war had nothing to do with the Protocols or even Hitler's anti-Semitism; that desire already manifested itself shortly after World War I when the first attempts were made to destroy the Weimar Republic. The German elites wanted a war, and the "strategy" of appeasement against Hitler's regime and the lack of enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles (regarding the size of the German military) was what allowed it to happen. The Jews were a convenient scapegoat for the lost first World War, and they may have been a personal motivation for Hitler to wage the Second one, but even Hitler's anti-Semitism was not linked to the Protocols alone and would have existed without them; his brief notes in Mein Kampf about the Protocols make that abundantly clear.--Eloquence* 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Usability improvements

Please add to this list any usability improvements or drawbacks that resulted from this new main page design by WikiProject Usability. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 18:00

Usability improvements

1. All 'daily' content now available on the main page every day.
2. Link to all featured content now available on the main page.
3. New navigation and help links now available at top of the main page.
4. New 'other areas' section with links to various 'community' pages.
5. Found to be 'better' in some way by 76% of those who voted Support or Oppose.

Usability drawbacks

1. Removed the specific text color definitions, making the text difficult or impossible to read for those with custom skins. - Corrected
2. Removed the "===" headers from sections, making the page difficult or impossible to navigate between sections, as is used by screen readers. - Corrected

• You're listing unintentional coding bugs (which no one brought to our attention until today) as though they were deliberate decisions. We could have used your help during the design process. —David Levy 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you would like to add usability improvements to the list, feel free. Such obvious bugs should've been realized before the page went live. I didn't include the monobook.js bug since that one wasn't as obvious. I apologize for not being available during your design process; I was busy writing articles. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:02
    • You've yet to explain how we were supposed to be aware of these "obvious bugs," given the fact that zero respondents (out of over 1,000) brought them to our attention. —David Levy 19:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You could have looked at thjavascript:insertTags('— ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:57',,);

Your signature with timestampe original main page's coding, and tried to remain as close to it as possible. People rarely complain unless an obvious problem is thrown right in their faces. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:34

• As Mark predicted, "... expect a titanic revert war, followed by a wheel war, followed by 17 RFCs and 3 arbcom cases ;)..." , and I'll add my ;-) at this time. David, please take a well earned rest. The nits and the picks will be here whenever you feel a need. A thousand votes later there are some who will always insist that they've been neglected - a thousand. Has there ever in the recorded history of WP been such a massive outpouring of thoughts on a single subject? And yet, up above the comment "why didn't you tell me..." unashamedly gets posted! Perhaps we need the Never Ending Poll whereby no one will feel neglected, only held in suspense. Again, ;-) hydnjo talk 19:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly you are misunderstanding my replies. I voted Neutral in the main page change, because I didn't care which version was used; the change was not big enough to warrant a support/oppose. That doesn't mean I'm forbidden from pointing out that this change seemed to be more of an improvement appearance than usability. You cannot dismiss this by trying to categorize me as a naysayer opposed to the new page. If your only purpose is to dismiss my claim, why bother to reply at all? You're not being productive. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:53

<grrr - triple edit conflict> Brian, what exactly do you hope to achieve with this snide attitude? What is the purpose of listing 'usability drawbacks' which have already been corrected? Consider... alot of people worked on this for a long time and compromised on the version which was approved by the greatest majority. You had other things to do... so did I for that matter. But that lack of participation limits your right to be critical of the outcome. If you feel this strongly that it should have been done another way then you should have been in there saying that... and should be making suggestions for improvements now rather than just being critical. Consider that over six hundred people (76%) approved this page design. It can't be that bad. Do you have ideas for improvements or just want to be nasty for some reason? --CBDunkerson 19:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm trying to figure out if indeed the Usability project went astray from their original purpose, and pinpoint how to prevent it from happening again, that's all. My lack of participation in the original version in no way restricts my ability to criticize the outcome. That is a ridiculous notion which assumes that the community never gains or loses members, that all members are always active, and that everyone in the community was informed of the project and its development. I am not trying to be nasty, but it doesn't help that everyone (you, hydnjo) is dismissing my statements as snide remarks. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:57

• ... " it doesn't help that everyone (you, hydnjo) is dismissing my statements as snide remarks "... Umm, I don't understand. Where were the snidines' of my remarks. hydnjo talk 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• You (Brian) wrote, "I would suggest in the future that a Usability WikiProject actually investigate usability before assuming they have a full grasp on the situation."
• I ask you... can you read those words and seriously tell me that they weren't "snide remarks"?
• That being said, one aspect of 'usability' is layout and design. Obviously the work on the Main page concentrated on that area more than the various other usability issues listed on the project page. I do note again that the issues you've listed were easily corrected. --CBDunkerson 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • That remark was part joke, part snide, yes, but it is undeniable that this change is more aesthetic than anything. You changed some colors, put blocks around headers, moved the portal links up a bit, nothing big, although this is like the result of the democratic process, since compromise usually leads to less improvements. I am still waiting for items to be listed under usability improvements. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 20:17
      • Brian, if you believe that this should be done over, why don't you be construcive and start a WikiProject Usability/Main Page II wherein all of the deficiencies of this effort can be addressed all at once. After all, this rendition is getting kind of old <snide> now that's snide </snide>. hydnjo talk 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Where did I say it should be done over? It's just like the old page, but with a few usability problems that were fixed. It is not an improvement beyond the most superficial changes, and was a huge waste of resources. I'm suggesting that if you plan on fixing any other pages, you do it right by researching usability improvements (note: this would involve more than asking the community for any good ideas). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 21:51
          • • "Where did I say..." No, you never quite do that. You just lay back and expose the deficiencies. Thanks for that I guess.  :-( hydnjo talk 22:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
              • If I never quite say a specific opinion, why do you assign me that opinion? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-20 00:59
      • Actually Brian, >I< did not do any of those things. Like you I'm an uninvolved bystander. I've added some of the obvious usability improvements. --CBDunkerson 20:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • First of all, you need to consider the difference between usability and accessibility. Screen reader support is very much an accessibility issue. This does not make it unimportant but please don't make the claim that the improvements have not improved usability. The precise layout and visibility of various links of the main page is absolutely critical to how easy the majority of new visitors find the encyclopedia to use. In this area the new design is enormously more usable than before, and it lends much more easily to the new user trying to find what they want. Secondly, may I ask exactly what the purpose of this edit? The xhtml specification specifically forbids spaces in the id attribute. What is the purpose of the additional div when the parent element does not yet have an id and contains exactly the same content as the div? Why did the edit summary have to be so incivil? Have some respect for the work that has already been done, assume good faith and yes, remember that just as it is your right to make criticisms at this late stage that it to be expected that flaws remain. I cannot believe the attitude I've just seen come from an admin. BigBlueFish 20:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Hi Bigbluefish. The 'id' changes Brian0918 made were in response to this issue further up the page. There may be further adjustments needed to the 'id' and 'h1' type links throughout the page to improve accessibility. --CBDunkerson 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
          • My edit summary was not uncivil. It was a simple fact. Please feel free to continue to label me as violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, however. As for my "attitude", please consider the possibility that you are assigning attitudes to my words which may not accurately represent my actual attitude (WP:AGF). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 21:56
            • I should like to see your evidence that this particular loss of functionality was initiated by a member of the said Wikiproject. Wikiproject Usability was responsible for the organisation and practical running of the drive that led to the redesign. The resulting design is the result of the work of hundreds of Wikipedians from all over the community. It seems quite clear to me that your intent was to juxtapose the two uses of the word "usability" to imply that the Wikiproject was not doing its job properly as a product of this shortcoming. If you are making a criticism like that, and the faith in which it was made may be unclear, then don't point fingers. It did nothing for the Wikiproject or the Main Page. Neither, in particular, did making a list of drawbacks to the new design, which I think is very poor show. The design is not up for reconsideration, so it is not constructive to look at the page in terms of what's bad about it, but how we can fix it. Nobody expected there to be any steps backwards like the small ones you identified; all you had to do was point them out and that could have been the end of it. BigBlueFish 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
              • The things that I mentioned above worked fine in the old main page, and were broken in the new version. Doesn't that suggest someone either overlooked it or didn't understand what they were doing when they made those changes? My intent is not to try to bring the page up for reconsideration, but to prevent such a large waste of resources from happening again, as I have said all along. I really hope we haven't effectively frozen the main page now that "hundreds of Wikipedians from all over the community" have voiced their opinions. This would be much worse for improving usability than anything this new design has done. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-20 00:55
          • I was not aware of the problem with spaces in div id's, and have fixed it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 21:59
          • Thank you. " Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. " hydnjo talk 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
            • What is the point of your reply? The subject of the discussion is not me. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-20 00:55

• Obviously. hydnjo talk 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Code cleanup needed

Actually i think all the code needs to be cleaned up by a developer/expert. There are a lot of duplicated style types that could be replaced with css classes, divs that could be spans, and other unnecessary duplication (also in its transcluded templates). Volunteers wanted! --Quiddity 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be a good idea... though it is true of most of our complicated pages. I just added header links to the standard portal box templates after someone pointed out above that most of our portals don't have them. Adjusting the code for usability might be an important sub-set of the usability project in general. --CBDunkerson 22:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

wikifying 'In The News'

Could someone wikify Breaststroke and Butterfly stroke at 'In The News', please ? --199.71.174.100 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. :) Gflores ^Talk 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy-addition, Gflores. :-) -- 199.71.174.100 21:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

News

Could we add the Category 5 Cyclone that is about to hit around Cairns, Austrailia? [2]--Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Too wide

The main page is too wide when viewed with the Classic skin and an 800 width screen (on Firefox). The culprit is the Welcome/portals listing box. Mixing px and % widths is bad HTML, but in this case changing the two 300px to 250px would work for me. --Henrygb 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar - Why create an account?

(bump/copy comments from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Archive_6#Browsebar_items): --Quiddity

how about Why create an account? on the browse bar? Kevin Baas^talk 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeahhh! I don't mean First time here? exactly but something recognizing a first-timer and extending our helping hand. That's been missing ever since I got here. We've come to a place where we are not just an enclypedia. We're a web-destination for many many newcomers and our front page has yet to recognize this. We should have a prominent link on our Main Page which hand-holds through their first experience. hydnjo talk 02:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so long as it isn't a blatant ad but a place ofr the interesting but uninformed user to start.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no extra room in the header (with the 800x600 resolution in mind), but we could consider adding such a link to the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section. —David Levy 00:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I still believe that the Wikipedia:Searching page is of insufficient quality/utility to merit such prominent placement, and should be delinked from the headerbar. Once it has been improved, perhaps it could also be more usefully placed within the side-nav search box as a "help" link?

Talking of which, could someone take charge of the proposal to highlight the search box using css? --Quiddity 02:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

POTD on the Main Page

Can we make it bigger, please ? We have room to display wider images now. -- 199.71.174.100 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to be considerate of users with slow Internet connections. We certainly can't approach the image's original dimensions, but it can be clicked on to view the full-size version. —David Levy 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

New Look

I love the new format!!! Wandering Star 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't. I think it's ugly and I miss the image of the day (Have to scroll to see it - like I'm going to do that every time I visit). :( (Bjorn Tipling 01:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

You preferred having it slightly higher on the page, but only on weekends (instead of every day)? —David Levy 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bjorn. I think Featured image should be placed in the centre for best effect and convenience. Bwithh 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the convenience of users with slow Internet connections? And which of the long-running features should be bumped down to create this non-thematic layout? —David Levy 01:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from that, Wikipedia is first of all an encyclopedia. Pictures generally support the written content. Wikimedia Commons is a side project dedicated to free images. Therefore, I think that the featured picture should not be too prominent on the main page. RexNL 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree per RexNL. --Quiddity 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Pictures are just as important for wikipedia as text. People who contributes good pictures deserves the same recognition as those who contribute good text. Zarniwoot 03:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so now we've expanded the main page's "today's featured picture" section to seven days per week (instead of two), and it even has its own box. —David Levy 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think its brilliant!

Main page heading is not necessary

Why does the main page have a heading saying 'Main Page'? It takes up a lot of unnecessary space and is ugly. Am I the only one that feels this way? Averisk

If you're using a CSS-capable browser, and your skin is "MonoBook" (default), "Chick," "MySkin" or "Simple," bypassing your cache should remove the heading. —David Levy 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

New User

I think they removed a sign-up link! I think this is a big turn-off to users-to-be, such as myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.138.179 (talk • contribs)

Hmmm...It should be there. Contact an admin. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Template for Wikipedia languages

what about creating a template for the Wikipedia languages on the frontpage

Mateus Zica 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We have one now. Do you mean something different? —David Levy 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nouruz

It's Iranian (Zoroastrian) new year :) Along with the Indian "Holi" celebration (which is related to the Iranian "Nouruz") it is celebrated by more than 500M people all over the world, from Turkey to India, and from Iran to Kazakhstan. I suggest to put some information about Nouruz on the front page. Tajik 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's on the right side of Main Page, mentioned right after the equinox and before Earth Day. A link to Zoroastrianism may be nice there. -- 199.71.174.100 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 Commonwealth Games

"Australia sweep" should be "Australia sweeps" ("Australians sweep" would also be OK). Art LaPella 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)