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 03:43 on 27 May 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, determined not to be an error, or the item has 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

• 1967 – Australians voted overwhelmingly for the number of Indigenous Australians to be included in population counts for constitutional purposes and for the federal government to make laws for their benefit.

Two suggestions for this hook:

1. "for the number of Indigenous Australians to be included in population counts" feels clunky to me, I would suggest "to include Indigenous Australians in population counts"

2. I would also change "and for the federal government to make laws for their benefit" to "and to allow the federal government to make special laws affecting them in states" (much closer to the article's wording). As this section points out, although the intention of the change may have been exclusively to benefit them, that was not part of the wording of the law and not always how it's been applied. And as it also mentions, the government already had this power in territories. And thirdly, the referendum simply gave the government the power to enact such laws rather than directly forcing the creation of any like the current wording implies.

-Elmer Clark (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 31)

Monday's FL

(May 27, today)

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.

Today's POTD

• "Van Gogh saw plowing, sowing and harvesting symbolic to man's efforts ...". I think there needs to be an "as" before "symbolic". JMCHutchinson (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed. Also changed it to British English "ploughing". The mix of language varieties in the target article should be fixed up. Schwede66 23:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

unwikified FA blurb

Is this something we're experimenting with for the next few days? If so I vote oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspected that it was unintentional and went ahead and re-wikified it, but tomorrow's blurb has no links either... --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not unintentional. I was asked to copy-edit a few of these TFAs, some of which are riven with links. No one has audited those articles for policy compliance, especially plagiarism and copyvio, but quality more generally. Is someone volunteering to thoroughly check them if they're to be directly exposed on the main page? A few of the links were trivial anyway, and should not appear even in the article. But most importantly, the TFA is named for good reason: it's a featured article, which has gone through a laborious, difficult process to get its star, and that process is the reason it gets exposure in the best spot of the main page. Why discourage people from clicking on the link to it, by peppering links to tons of other articles that are not FAs. Those links are in the article itself, in much better context. I do hope people are not trying to degrade the linking system here by spraying links throughout a text that has a very specific function, quite different from the lead of the actual FA to which it refers. Tony (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Was this discussed somewhere, or is this strictly your personal preference? --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Your personal preference, and that of Daniel Case? Tony (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Am I to understand that there was no discussion, and you were merely acting on a personal whim? --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, were you acting on a personal whim? I presume that since you flung in a whole lot links, you expect to divert a proportion of readers away from the target featured article. Can you confirm this? And second, can you confirm that those link-targets you've inserted have been checked through for compliance and quality, since they're now in a privileged position top-left of the main page for 24 hours. We wouldn't be happy finding copyvios, factual errors, plagiarism or close paraphrasing, or substandard prose in them, would we. You've already informed me that you're not prepared to do that, even though you've inserted those links. It doesn't add up. Tony (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You know full well that the burden of building consensus rests with those seeking changes, not those wanting to maintain the status quo. Quit being evasive. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about consensus for your personal preferences (I believe it doesn't exist). But what seems plain as day is that you're unwilling to put the work into auditing articles you want to expose by linking them right at the top of the main page. You can't have it both ways. Which is it to be? Tony (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's going to be this way: I'm not going to relink the three other upcoming TFA blurbs that you have delinked, because frankly I don't care, although someone probably should before they go live because it gives the main page an inconsistent appearance. If you would like to keep unlinking everything, your next stop is here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Uneven? How? I'm genuinely interested. And I'm wondering whether your main concern is visual ("appearance"). The matter certainly needs discussing. Now, "It's going to be this way" sounds fairly aggressive. No matter. I was going to put it to you and anyone else who wants to continue the practice of replicating the links in the leads of the actual FAs:

1. intend to divert readers away from the targeted FA; and
2. are willing to ensure—either personally or systemically—that the articles those links target have been properly audited for main-page exposure, just as the FA itself has been.

Oh great, now that Tony want another arguement we'll have three pointless and long discussions on the main page. Joy. 86.138.171.81 (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

These two assumptions, I think, are the default, unless you have something to add to them (I'm keen to know whether there's a misunderstanding on my part). BTW, the title you chose seems to be biassed: wikification involves more than just internal linking acccording to the guidelines; and the continued presence of the key links—to today's FA (twice if you count "more ...", which is a good link indeed), to yesterday's FA, and to the FA achives for the month—appear to be at loggerheads with the notion of "unwikified".

This is a discussion worth having (again). Thanks for your participation. Tony (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As it is right this instant, I'm fine with it; but there's no way things like "Loop" should have been left unlinked; that's not something anyone outside of Chicago is ever going to understand. Leaving things like that unlinked isn't just an aesthetic thing, it's deliberately introducing obtuse language. A lower amount of links in the FA blurb than the article itself is perfectly fine but none at all is rarely going to work. GRAPPLE X 05:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you're completely missing the point. Items can be highly technical in a TFA ... obscure, unknown; but why link them from TFA, which is not a WP article: it's a main-page blurb based on the opening of the actual article. The whole point of TFA is to give prominence to the featured article. Loop is one click away IN the featured article, a few seconds from its top. I'm surprised this is still the subject of misconception. "Loop" is not the FA; it has not been audited ad infinitum as the FA has. If someone desperately wants to look at the article on "Loop" (unlikely, but possible on rare instances), let them do so from the full context of the article itself. Tony (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm missing the point; being able to hover over a link to see where it points allows for things to be piped for better prose, without the need for contextual asides. It allows the TFA blurb to stay focussed on the subject of the article without needing to waste precious words explaining, for example, what or where the Chicago Loop is; if there's absolutely no help offered with that either through direct prose or a link, then why even mention it at all in the blurb, rather than just saying the building is in plain and simple Chicago? If you want to focus on the subject at the expense of other links then a further streamlining of the blurb to iron out any jargon would be more than useful—say for instance the next plain text TFA blurb is on Chromatophore (I'm aware it already has been). I'd hope that terms seen in the lead like "organelle" or "neural crest" are either rephrased a bit more layman-friendly, or given a link that can be quickly visited to explain what they are. Either option works but going with neither presents a stumbling block for readers, who I'd say are likely to then look this stuff up by searching for it anyway if they're still trying to read the article. Focussing on the subject alone shouldn't mean it's only 100% legible to people "in the know" in that field without consulting a dictionary or manually searching for terms. GRAPPLE X 14:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

They can click through to those pages after they've navigated to the TFA itself. I agree with Tony, the TFA section exists to direct your attention to one particular article. People shouldn't be reading the blurb for the entire story, it's just a blurb. If you have questions about it, click through and you should find the answers in the full article (including links to less familiar words).--Khajidha (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I second what Grapple X said and would like to add a thing or two: a lack of links makes the article unsightly and unseemly among other sections with appropriately placed links all around it. On top of that, I think it's our job to allow people more and easier access to more information, not less. I have no idea who Odet de Foix was, nor what the circumstances of the Italian War of 1521–1526 were, but it took me significantly more time to find out without the links than it would have with them. One of the main reasons Wikipedia is great is because of the inline links. Without them, the current TFA looks more like a paper encyclopedia entry; old, dry, and difficult to navigate through. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 00:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess I (and possibly Tony, though I can't claim to speak for him) have a totally different idea of how the main page should work. I find that the linkless blurb highlighted the over linking throughout the rest of the page. I see all the items on this page as being teasers to draw you into the relevant article where you will find all the information and all the other links. Thus they don't need all those extra links, that's what the main target articles are for. --Khajidha (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Erm, yeah... that looks terrible. Prospero Colonna? Arcimboldi Villa Bicocca? I can't make heads or tails of some of these things. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Why fix a one day problem and ignore the permanent ones?

On a related note, Tony mentioned above they were copy-editing the blurbs. A quick check shows they did indeed do some copyediting to the blurbs. But as seems very common in general with fixes concentrating on the main page, they've ignored where these issues originated i.e. the article. I understand that the main page is a highly visible page but still, I've never understood this extreme concentration on the main page, where most issues are only going to be seen for a day or more (ITN) or less (DYK). To some extent this is worse with factual errors where potentially such an error could mislead people for weeks or months but only be on the main page for 6 hours or so in the case of DYK. But even with copyediting, I don't see any good reason to show off our writing skills for our blurbs when people visiting the articles find they aren't as good.... To be air, not everyone understands how our processes work so may not appreciate errors occuring on the main page often come from articles. Or they may not understand, that fixing errors on the main page often does not lead to the fixes being repeated in the article so they should fix the issues they (usually) can first in the articles, as the error section tells them to. But Tony has been around on wikipedia and the main page talk page for long enough that they must know that blurbs are often minor rewrites of the article WP:LEDE from the time of the blurb and a quick check would have confirmed that e.g. the wording they changed in the "Say Say Say" blurb was from the LEDE. And I can't see any good reason why the wording changes were ideal in the blurb but not the article. I.E. I presume a conscious decision was made to just change the wording in the blurbs but not the articles. So can Tony or someone else explain to me why fixing the main page issues but ignoring the same issues in were they originated from, in the articles, is a good idea? To be clear, I'm not suggesting it's necessary to copyedit the entire article if you want to copyedit the blurb, just that if you do want to copyedit the blurb, I don't see why you shouldn't also copyedit the necessary parts of the article if the problems originated from and remain there. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A comment about "fixes concentrating on the main page" (not about Tony or overlinking): Experimenting with stats.grok.se shows that "issues [that] are only going to be seen for a day" as the Featured Article, will be seen as much for that day (actually two days) as for a couple years without Main Page exposure. And that statistic is for the Featured Article itself. We can only guess how many people read the blurb without clicking the article. But we do know how many people load the Main Page where the blurb is visible: 7–8 million per day, which is a couple hundred times a typical featured article on its day. And we do know that almost everyone reading the article on its day must have seen the blurb first, otherwise the article wouldn't spike. We insiders know that the purpose of the blurb is to introduce the article, but readers don't know that; the blurb is just something to read. It has a bold link, but most readers probably don't know or care what that means either. So we may presume the blurb is read much more often in a day than the article is read for many years to come. Perhaps a lifetime. Wikipedia may not exist in its present form by then. Art LaPella (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I usually only read a sentence or two before clicking through to the article. I rarely read the blurb in the entirety. I'm not saying I'm the same as an average user by any means, but the idea that anyone reading the article must have read the blurb seems lacking of any real evidence at best. The spike could easily be because of prominent main page exposure as much as anything, IIRC DYK and ITN stuff gets similar spikes.

And as you said, we can only guess how many people read the blurb without clicking the article, the fact is a large percentage of main page visitors likely do not read much of anything. (As a history of complaints have shown, many people simply use the main page for searching, even though there are better places for that.) And of course, it depends significantly on the article. To give an obvious example, the spike of when Michael Jackson was TFA was dwarfed by the spike of when he died.

And I don't understand what you mean by 'actually two days'. TFA blurbs only appear for one UTC day. While there is yesterday's main page, the number of people visiting that is small. Similarly screwed up caches could exposure the blurb for more or less then a day, but the number of people that affects is likely small, and more importantly ultimately it will average out. The fact that the spike in FA reads continues usually for 3 days after the TFA (while the FA continues to be linked via the archive) doesn't show that many people are continuing to read the blurb for those days after TFA. If anything it suggests the main page linking itself is sufficient. Considering as I said the limited use of common ways to see the previous blurbs, the vast majority of people reading the FA in those extra days have very likely not read the blurb, but will potentially read the LEDE.

In other words, I don't see any reason 'we may presume the blurb is read much more often in a day than the article is read for many years to come', you seem to be assuming stuff with insufficient evidence. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the number of people is definitely larger.. But since one is ultimately our core content, which will remain until some modifies it, and which will be served in a variety of ways including outside wikipedia (potentially even after wikipedia itself dies) for a long time, I don't see a good reason to give such a high level concentration on the main page to the extent we ignore our core content. Even if the other is our first public face. Or to put it a different way while I'm fine with people trying to fix the main page, they should also fix our articles. Particularly since in most cases they can do it themselves unlike with the main page where they may need an admin's help and if they think the articles don't matter their priorities seem out of wack. (Somewhat OT but even more so in cases like DYK where by the time someone fixes the error, it may only be 1 or 2 hours left where the correction will show.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. To give another random example which I accidentally came across. Chrisye got 23k hits when it was TFA [1], it got 4k hits in June 2012 helped by a spike in 2012-06-29 [2], the cause of which I don't know (nothing in the article's talk page or SA/OTD [3] offer much clue). If you add that to extra hits the days after TFA (I think I looked in to the time frame of the stats once but can't recall of what I found, it's possible/likely? some of the day after TFA stats belong in the TFA one but it can't be that many), we're not far from not that far from the number of hits on TFA day. Of course these numbers are quite small, it's easily possible the number of people reading the blurb dwarfed them but I think it still demonstrates the point it's easily possible people may come to the article in numbers for some reason. (I acknowledge the spike here predated the TFA so fixing the article when fixing the blurb wouldn't have helped them, but that's beside the point. In any case as I explained above there's little guarantee those who went to the TFA even when the blurb was present read that much, if any, of the blurb. In fact as in the MJ case, it's not helped by the fact this was an anniversary so people may have came here from elsewhere.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Chrisye has had occasional spikes based on the (somewhat frequent) DYKs on his albums and films. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think about someone who would read one sentence of the blurb and then click the main article, but why would a typical reader (not an editor, and not a Main Page editor) do that? Would he know the bolded link was featured, and why would he care what some bureaucracy considers "featured"? Authentic Science Fiction got as many hits on its day as the previous 32 months, and 1740 Batavia massacre got more hits than its entire history since May 2010. But after compiling more statistics, I have to agree that two years is too high. Just under one year is about the median. I can't explain the "two days" either; the Chrisye graph is more typical. I still think it's obvious that the one-day spike in viewing can only come from people reading the blurb (at least some of the blurb, and it's hard to imagine a typical reader doing that); random events also occur, but they average out. Excluding anniversaries, which aren't typical, and probably not significant except for something well-known like September 11. And whatever the true statistics may be, it's how often our work is read that counts, not how long it sits on some disk drive. Art LaPella (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I asked my wife if she knew how to find Wikipedia's Featured Article. She said she clicks Wikipedia in her favorites, and it just comes up (confusing the Featured Article with the Main Page no, she was thinking of the blurb coming with the Main Page). So I showed her the Main Page, and asked again. She confidently pointed to the blurb, naturally enough, since it is entitled "Today's Featured Article". She said "Is that right?" I said "No." Her next guess was to click the words "Today's Featured Article". Hence my unproven assumption that it must be far more common to read the blurb than to click the featured article link. Art LaPella (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nil Einne, blurbs are deliberately different from leads (see Raul's list of ?four differences between the two genres). Those differences resonate with my central point that people here seem to be treating the main-page blurbs as the lead of a WP article. It is not that for one moment. And we have someone called "Neelix" bombing the blurbs I'd fixed just a few hours ago, leaving extremely cogent edit-summary justifications such as:

"Restored valuable links that correspond with links on the article itself" [Um ... there's not meant to be a one-to-one correspondence ... they're different genres, with quite different purposes]

"These are valuable links that should not be removed in order to direct users to the main article" [why not? tell that to those hard-working editors at the FA forum]

You'd think someone stomping through relinking a sea of diluted blue links for the TFA blurb—apparently in pursuit of personal preferances unstated—would offer more logical and more reasoned excuses. Tony (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that blurbs are the same thing, simply that they are similar, and one usually derives from the other therefore if changes are introduced in the blurb, it needs to be considered whether those some changes should be introduced in the LEDE. If you already did this, can you explain why the wording changes you made for "Say Say Say" were ideal for the blurb but not the article lede? To be clear, I'm not referring to the link issue at all, hence why I never referred to it and I started a subthread. The link stuff can be dealt with in the main thread so I don't see any reason to discuss it here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

More on the TFA blurb–article lead difference

At a guess, copy-edits made to the blurb were suitable for the article lead. I don't have time to copy-edit entire FAs that are on the queue—it's not my role—but I do care if sub-professional language appears directly on the main page. I'm expecting that someone else, like the queue organiser(s) or the guardian editors for the FA, care enough to improve what they should have already improved in the article when a blurb is copy-edited.

Now, since there seems to be confusion about the different roles of the TFA blurb and the FA lead, let's look at the some of the differences Raul has noted for TFA blurbs:

1. a blurb is made into a single paragraph, no matter how the lead is paragraphed;
2. the days and months should be omitted from the dates of birth and death, leaving only years;
3. alternative names should generally be omitted;
4. there are tighter length restrictions ("if the lead is longer than the blurb should be, it has to be selectively edited").

I say again that linking in the main-page blurb should also be consistent with the different functions of blurb and article lead—not blindly cut and pasted in from the article lead. Tony (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the distinction between a blurb and an article lead, and one of those is that we should be more selective on what we link on the Main Page. But the bottom line is that a term that the majority of non-expert adults wouldn't understand should always be wikilinked on first occurance, whether on the Main Page or not. For instance, on the Monadnock Building's blurb (1 October), I don't think "Chicago" needed to be linked (although place names are admittedly somewhat of a red rag to a bull), but "Loop community area" probably needed something. Most people would be able to take an educated guess at what a "window bay" is, even if they didn't know the precise definition, but the majority probably wouldn't be able to decipher "cornice". —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 06:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So your intention is to minimise the likelihood that visitors will single-click to the actual FA to read the article proper, and from there to click on a link to some term a reader doesn't immediately understand"? I thought the point of the TFA was to get people to visit the FA, and the point of links in the lead of the FA was to make available, in full context, links to technical or little-known items. This seems to defy the different function of a TFA blurb. Tony (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My intention is avoid annoying the majority of people whose understanding of the blurb might have been compromised by not understanding two or three terms. If I can't even understand the blurb, I'm less likely to delve into the full article, not more.

Look, I'm largely agreeing with you: 80% of the links in the typical TFA or TFL blurb don't need to be there, and the same goes for around half of ITN and OTD links. But if you take it too far, and remove links to terms that the vast majority of readers and editors would want the option of clicking on, this will inevitably happen. By removing links to relatively obscure terms such as cornice, there's a danger of preventing the very thing that you are trying to achieve. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

<sigh> But the link to cornice is right at the top of the article. If anything, I'm more inclined to go to the article to follow up my curiosity if there's something I don't understand, but I'd like to think people will go to the FA first before choosing to follow up other things. Again, any links in the blurb will inevitably siphon off potential visitors to the actual topic article, which is the proper place for linking elsewhere, from the full context. Linking practice should match the function of special pages, shouldn't it, when different from that of normal WP articles, shouldn't it? Tony (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard III

'Under the circumstances' his birthday could have been mentioned. Jackiespeel (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what circumstances would those be? We only list birthdays on OTD on centennials. But happy 550th birthday, Richard! —howcheng {chat} 16:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

560th, actually. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume it's because his remains might have been found under a car park recently [4] Hut 8.5 16:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) I think the circumstances in question are that his long-lost mortal remains may have been found buried under a car park in Leicester last month. The BBC has a news story today in which the local MP calls for a state funeral if the king's identity is confirmed. He didn't get one at the time because he was the defeated enemy of the new king, Henry Tudor, who avoided having Richard buried with full honours at London or York, for fear of creating a focus for anti-Tudor sentiment. (Amazingly, they've been able to find someone whose mother was a direct matrilineal descendant of Richard's mother, Cecily Neville - allowing for mtDNA testing.) Personally, I'll be calling for the story to go into ITN if the tests come back positive. They're expected in December. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That NCP overdue fine should be quite hefty by then. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonder why he didn't make it to ITN. —howcheng {chat} 16:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been confirmed yet. The discovery of a few remains is interesting, but it's not the same as the successful outcome of the search. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A "few remains"!? we might not all look that good after 560 years, you know... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If they agree it's his remains, archaeologists will be able to confirm that Richard didn't "look that good" even on a good hair day. --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

His birthday was mentioned on the German Wiki main page. Even if a decade-round figure date and 'not quite decided' there was a case for a mention even if just on the talk page (and not one of the 'usual topics of discussion for the talk page'). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Weatherpedia

Forget the image filter. I want a hurricane filter! Kaldari (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fox news update!: Once again a hurricane has cast a gloomy shadow over the main page.... BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:TAFI

A discussion is taking place here over whether the Main Page could be used to further the project's goals, namely promoting collaboration and encouraging potential new editors to take that first step. For those interested, this week's article for improvement is List of food preparation utensils. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The only comment related to the Main Page there is 'Keep asking for the Main page', which doesn't really explain things. What are you trying to suggest? Modest Genius ^talk 12:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Their project is currently advertised from Wikipedia:Community portal, and they want to be mentioned and linked directly from the Main Page. However, their predecessor was similarly banished to the community portal. Art LaPella (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Main Page slot proposal

This discussion has been moved here from the DYK Talk page, suggested that this is the appropriate place to post it:  —  Maile66 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't GAs have a slot on the main page? Why should GA be a step child of anything else?  —  Maile66 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• That GAs get their own equal daily slot on the main page, neither subordinate, nor superior to anything else, nor blended in with anything else

• Support But this is really not the right place to be having this proposal, like, at all. Silverseren^C 18:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur; move this to WT:main page then. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with that. After all GA is almost 1 step off FA so it should have it's own part in the main page. It would allow GAs to get main page exposure without compromising DYK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support and agree. Jona^{talk to me} 19:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd support this, but why are we still discussing it here, it won't do anything. Village pump proposals or the talk page for the main page would be a better place. Ryan Vesey 19:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All Comments below this line are after the move from the DYK page

• Support, but where to put it, and how to proceed it? --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The talk page says: "This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content. Please direct your suggestion to one of the forums listed above or your post may be removed or ignored.". --LauraHale (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Good Article reviews are less thorough than DYK reviews and there is no discussion linked to which suggests a radical overhaul for GA, no suggestion for how to implement this and no link to a conversation showing WP:GAN actually wants this.--LauraHale (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  That's a strange position to adopt, bordering on the delusional. In what way are GA reviews less thorough than DYK reviews? I'd go so far as to say that it's very evident that the majority of DYK reviewers don't even take the trouble to read the entire article, so they can hardly be producing thorough reviews. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)