Talk:Main Page/Archive 177: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Talk:Main Page. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Talk:Main Page. |
||
Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
::::Well that explains it. –'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">H</font>]][[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">D</font>]]''' 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
::::Well that explains it. –'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">H</font>]][[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">D</font>]]''' 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
{{archive bottom}} |
{{archive bottom}} |
||
== Requested move == |
|||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|||
The result of the move request was: '''no consensus'''. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
[[:Main Page]] → {{no redirect|Wikipedia:Home}} – This is not a main page. It is by title and it is in the way that it has a load of content bundled together on it, but it is not very main for readers. The vast majority of articles are accessed by a search engine result to the article, not through other parts of wikipedia. Some readers are in fact not even aware of the existence of the main page. I am uncomfortable with it being named this but not used in that way enough. My proposed name is open for discussion, but I want something that defines it as a base page and center page, but not "main". That's too cold and hard. I think something with "home" in would work well. It fits in with 95% of other websites. It sounds recognisable and stands out as a place to start or explore articles. Do you see what I'm thinking here? It needs to look nice and friendly as a name, and perhaps more people will visit it. |
|||
Here's how the discussion will happen:<br> |
|||
The community discuss the merits and demerits of renaming, and what new names would be suitable below.<br> |
|||
After a week, an admin decides if consensus is to rename. If not, they will close this discussion. If it is, they shall start a vote on which names are most supported. The community places one vote on a potential new name in a period of five days. The most agreed upon name is taken and the Main page is moved. <font color="#151B8D">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:10pt; color:#151B8D">Rcsprinter</span>]] </font><font color="#151B8D"> ''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:8pt; color:#488AC7">(speak)</span>]]</font> <small>@</small> 23:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Do not place reply comments here, place them in subsections below --> |
|||
===Background=== |
|||
The current title, [[Main Page]], in the [[Wikipedia:Namespace|main namespace]], was created in the default namespace before pages were divided into "Wikipedia", "Portal" and so forth, and has continued there mainly due to historical inertia. Several previous proposals to move the page failed due to rejection or lack of consensus. See previous discussions in archives [[Talk:Main Page/Archive_67#Namespace|67]] (April 2006), [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 87#Requested move|87]] (January 2007), [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 89#Main page move discussion|89]] (January 2007), [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 90#Requested move|90]] (February 2007), [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 114#Article about main pages|114]] (December 2007), [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 115#Who's been complaining about the Main Page being in the wrong namespace?|115]] (December 2007), [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 123#Main Page|123]] (May 2008), [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 125#Proposal: Move main page to Wikipedia namespace|125]] (July 2008), [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 128#Main Page article|128]] (October 2008), [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 129#The name of the page|129]] (October 2008) and [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_143#Why has the Main Page...|143]] (August 2009). |
|||
In the [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 90#Requested move|February 2007 move discussion]], one user created a list of the advantages and disadvantages of moving the Main Page out of the main article namespace, including various technical issues (including the numerous redirects and links that would have to be fixed). One point that is commonly raised in these previous discussions is the lack of clear evidence that a rename would necessarily encourage more people to visit it, especially when the Main Page is already the highest visited pages on Wikipedia.[http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Main%20Page] |
|||
Several other Wikimedia projects also use "Main Page" as the default home page, like [[:Meta:|Meta-Wiki]], [[:Commons:|Commons]], [[:Wikibooks:|Wikibooks]], [[:Wikinews:|Wikinews]], and [[:Wikiquote:|Wikiquote]]. Some however do not: the default home page for Wiktionary is "[[:Wiktionary:|Wiktionary:Main Page]]" and the one for MediaWiki is "[[:mw:|MediaWiki]]". This issue varies in the Wikipedias in other languages. For example, the [[:de:|German Wikipedia's Main Page]] is in the Wikipedia namespace while the [[:it:|Italian Wikipedia's Main Page]] is still in the main namespace. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 03:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* If there is such consensus to rename the Main Page, a request will have to be made to the developers via [[mediazilla:|Wikimedia's Bugzilla]]. To prevent the servers from locking up for over half an hour, the developers removed the technical ability from admins to delete or move pages that have more than 5000 revisions; the Main Page now exceeds that limit (see also [[Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page]]). [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 09:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*Your background didn't go far enough. This was originally called HomePage. Until sometime in 2002. [[Special:Contributions/75.41.109.190|75.41.109.190]] ([[User talk:75.41.109.190|talk]]) 20:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion about the renaming idea=== |
|||
*'''Support''' - It should be a friendlier name, but more for "us" than for "readers". I feel like people who take themselves too seriously here use the term "main page" to kinda sorta scare others and feel elite. Ie. If you're involved in the "main page" you're somehow doing something more prestigious than the rest of us, who are evidently doing peripheral non-main things. Just my take. I think "home" is a fine suggestion. <font style="font:Futura;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #999">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#009;">equazcion</span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small> 00:08, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)</font> |
|||
* '''Comment''': I would like to note for the record that the main page got [http://stats.grok.se/en/201308/Main%20Page nearly 300 million hits] in August 2013 ''alone''. The idea that there are people out there that don't know the main page exists is a stretch. [[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]) 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
** I'm sure I read that somewhere. <font color="#151B8D">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:10pt; color:#151B8D">Rcsprinter</span>]] </font><font color="#151B8D"> ''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:8pt; color:#488AC7">(whisper)</span>]]</font> <small>@</small> 08:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**Although that's out of about 11 billion page views (August enwiki pageviews, http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/), and I'm betting random logo clicks account for most of that. I think we all know how Wikipedia is generally used by the populace. Of course there logistically should be a good landing page with useful things on it, but that'll never be our main event. <font style="font:Futura;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #999">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#009;">equazcion</span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small> 00:30, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)</font> |
|||
*'''Oppose''' "Main page" is a well established name for 11 years. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 04:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**Pardon my flip reaction to this, but, so what? <font style="font:Futura;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #999">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#009;">equazcion</span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small> 05:59, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)</font> |
|||
***Yes, if human history was filled with this attitude, there would never have been much progress. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 07:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
***This is one of wikipedia's big problems. Editors all fear change. <font color="#151B8D">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:10pt; color:#151B8D">Rcsprinter</span>]] </font><font color="#151B8D"> ''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:8pt; color:#488AC7">(whisper)</span>]]</font> <small>@</small> 08:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 07:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**The editor who began this discussion pointed out some problems. In light of that, your post is actually a little insulting. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 07:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
***It wouldn't be a Wikipedia discussion if someone didn't post that most trite of clichés. — [[User:Scott Martin|'''<span style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott Martin|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**A lot of the things we've all come to rely on at Wikipedia were the result of ''improvements'' to things that nevertheless weren't broken. Just because something is working doesn't mean it can't be made better. <font style="font:Futura;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #999">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#009;">equazcion</span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small> 17:45, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)</font> |
|||
***The whole point is that to go to all the work to change something that's been in place for several years, there should be a pretty good reason. This isn't it. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Weak support'''. Introducing readers to namespaces is perhaps a helpful way of demonstrating that Wikipedia's more than just the articles. I don't think putting the main page in projectspace would be a good idea, since projectspace is meant for developmental purposes: we encourage readers to be editors by including "Edit" links, by placing sitenotices and banners, etc., but we shouldn't start them off by introducing them to a namespace that's primarily for maintenance. However, putting it into portalspace would have the effect of demonstrating the concept of namespaces, as well as highlighting portals in general. I said "weak" because of my opposition to WP:HOME or whatever we'd call it: I'd prefer staying at the current title to a move to WP:space. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 07:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' No need to confuse casual readers with a random name space entry. Some don't even realise that there are talk pages. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 08:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**I didn't say take it out of article space, I just want to lose "main". WP:Home is just one I came up with and the section below is for discussing the new name. <font color="#151B8D">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:10pt; color:#151B8D">Rcsprinter</span>]] </font><font color="#151B8D"> ''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:8pt; color:#488AC7">(chinwag)</span>]]</font> <small>@</small> 08:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
***WP is a [[Wikipedia:Namespace#Aliases|namespace alias]] for the Wikipedia namespace so [[WP:Home]] is actually [[Wikipedia:Home]] with url en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Home. That's definitely out of article space. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 09:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
****I think he knows that. He's saying WP:Home is just one possibility he thought of. His primary concern is getting away from the name "Main Page". It could be changed to something else in article space, or ''possibly'' to something in project or portal space. <font style="font:Futura;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #999">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#009;">equazcion</span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small> 10:02, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)</font> |
|||
*'''Weak support''' Consistency of namespace for editors. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 09:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''—I prefer the existing title. This is the main page of the website, so the name is appropriate. I do not agree that "Main" is a less friendly term. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<font color="white">Imzadi 1979</font>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<font color="white"><big>→</big></font>]]'''</span> 10:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' Sensible. It's clearer. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 11:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. Thank you Zzyzx11. It's good to see this being discussed again; the extremely long period since it was last considered had led me to the conclusion that the inertia was terminal. I specifically support moving the main page into the Wikipedia namespace for reasons of consistency, whether it stays being called "Main Page" or is renamed to "Home" - although there are valid arguments being made that "Home" is clearer and friendlier. Really, "it's always been that way" and "it works fine" are reasoning mired in the mindset of accepting kludgy workarounds to legacy issues. We shouldn't do that. Moving this non-article page out of article space does not pose any serious technical issues (redirect and link fixing is trivial), and would resolve an inconsistency that has been nagging at people for years and years, as the old discussions linked above indicate. Likewise, the notion that the move might "confuse readers" is also bogus. Why would random readers be confused by the title of the page? Are they editing it, or linking to it? No. They're looking at the content, which is rich and varied. We should resist attempts to invent problems to which the answer is retaining the status quo. Regardless of the eventual conclusion on changing the page's title, we should ''fix the namespace either way''. — [[User:Scott Martin|'''<span style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott Martin|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 14:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' - Personally if there is to be a move I'd prefer something in Portal space. It fits the purpose of the main page better, and it would hopefully boost the visibility of our other, underused, portals. Also the current proposal would result in a url of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Home - which to anyone who doesn't understand our namespaces (i.e. the vast majority of readers) looks terribly redundant: two repetitions of "wikipedia" and three of "wiki". [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<span style="color: #008000">"?!"</span>]] 16:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**I'd just like to say again that I'm not proposing that it should be in wikipedia space, with the repetitive "wiki"s. That was one suggestion because I had to put something in the requested move heading template. <font color="#151B8D">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:10pt; color:#151B8D">Rcsprinter</span>]] </font><font color="#151B8D"> ''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:8pt; color:#488AC7">(yak)</span>]]</font> <small>@</small> 18:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' - per Rschen7754, who summarizes the situation accurately and gets badgered for his efforts... No actual problem being resolved here, just a matter of semantics. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 16:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - I don't buy the argument that "Main Page" is an unfriendly title that, when used in a certain way, will scare away new users. Therefore, I see no reason to rename this page. [[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Tahoma">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Tahoma">C</font>]][[User:TCN7JM|<font color="gray" face="Tahoma">N7</font><font color="black" face="Tahoma">JM</font>]] 16:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''', good idea. [[User:WikiRedactor|WikiRedactor]] ([[User talk:WikiRedactor|talk]]) 17:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**This isn't a !vote at this stage, it is a discussion. Although your support is noted, we are still thinking about the different aspects of a renaming. <font color="#151B8D">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:10pt; color:#151B8D">Rcsprinter</span>]] </font><font color="#151B8D"> ''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:8pt; color:#488AC7">(yak)</span>]]</font> <small>@</small> 18:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' for now at least. A problem with finding this page, as most searches go straight to articles, has been identified but there is no explanation of how changing the name is going to make it any easier to find. It seems a bit like deciding to respray your car a different colour because the engine is misfiring. Would it not be more effective to add a link or a caption under the puzzle logo to direct readers here. I see nothing cold hard or unfriendly about the name "main page". And why the indecent haste? Only one week to decide on changing something that has stood for over a decade?--[[User:Charlesdrakew|Charles]] ([[User talk:Charlesdrakew|talk]]) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' changing from the already existing arbitrary name to another arbitrary name does not fix anything. Not that anything is broken that needs fixing, but the perceived problems noted above leading to this discussion exist regardless of what the name of this page actually is. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 19:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' I see no benefit. Before we change a feature of long standing, there should be a much better argument presented that the new version would be better. It seems like change for the sake of change. I do not agree that "Main page" is "cold" or that "Wikipedia:Home" is warm, fuzzy, and inviting. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 21:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' Because it is not a article so it should not be in the article space. The article [[Home page]] should have a redirect from [[Main page]], be it can't because [[Main page]] is being used. I would be fine with either [[Wikipedia:Home]], or [[Wikipedia:Main page]], but not [[Main page]]. '''[[user:Ross Hill|<span style="color:#088A08;">Ross</span>]] [[User_Talk:Ross Hill|<span style="color:#0489B1;">Hill</span>]]''' 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' The main page gets roughly [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Main_Page 10 million views a day] on a routine basis. I can safely say that is not the result of ''accidental'' logo clicks or bots. Individual articles rarely break the million-view mark. People do use the main page for navigation and are not going to find it difficult to locate or use. It is true that the vast majority rely on search engines or a Wikipedia search bar on their browsers, but that is true for most sites nowadays. People do not often visit a site's home page.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="vermillion">'''The Devil's Advocate'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="burntorange">tlk.</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/The Devil's Advocate|<font color="red">cntrb.</font>]]</sub> 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' I do not find the reasons put forth for this change at all compelling. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' A solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place, per [[WP:TITLECHANGES]]. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 06:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. "Main page" is the Wikipedia name for that page, same as "Wikipedia" is the name for the project as a whole. It works. There's no reason to change it. Changing it involves unnecessary work and creates momentary confusion when people look for links to the "Main page" and find it gone, but "Welcome page" or some other such name instead. Also, the very act of discussing this is an unnecessary distraction from the real work of building the project. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 10:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. Inertia, basically. I know, for example, "Main page" looks more correct, but there is just no compelling reason to change what is working. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 11:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. The naming as "Main page" reminds me of the practice in print newspapers of having a "Front page". It is not really ''"home"''; it is the main or front page. Stylistically it reads thusly, with headlines of "''In the news''" and "''On this day''" and columns and pictures... Unless we are to call it our ''front page'', I prefer to keep referring to it as our ''main page''. <b>[[User:Fylbecatulous|<font color="#595454">Fylbecatulous</font>]] [[User talk:Fylbecatulous|<font color="#DB7093">talk</font>]]</b> 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*Preliminarily, if this proposal gains enough traction that it's significantly likely to be implemented, this discussion will need further publicity. I realize it's been listed on all the required locations (such as RM), but for a change of this magnitude, more eyes would be needed. (Personally, I learned of this discussion from a thread on the critic site Wikipediocracy making fun of it, which is hardly a source we can rely on for community notifications.) Substantively, I '''oppose''' the change per several above, most recently SilkTork. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' the name change. The reasons advanced aren't compelling at all in my eyes. If a user doesn't use the Main Page as an actual main page (and I'm not convinced there are many people who are unaware of the main page), it would be even less appropriate to call it a "home" for them. And while for the nominator "main page" might sound cold and artificial, for me it sounds straightforward and professional. That's a matter of taste and not a convincing basis for a policy change. I'm neutral on the namespace change, though it seems to be largely pedantic to me. --[[User:Nizolan|Nizolan]] ([[User talk:Nizolan|talk]]) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. This has been discussed many times over the years. Yes, consensus can change, but only when something about the situation or context changes. It hasn't done so. There's simply no good reason to change this, it isn't broken, and tinkering around with one of the top home pages on the internet for no good reason is unproductive and pointless. [[WP:DONTFIXIT]] applies, in every way. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 20:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**Additionally, I'm confused as to why an RfC was opened without at least discussing the issue on this page beforehand. This came out of the blue, and smacks of heavy-handed intervention. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 20:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*As with other rebrandings - will people actually notice? There are various ways of getting to WP - none of the obvious ones involve putting in 'main page' (or other term). [[User:Jackiespeel|Jackiespeel]] ([[User talk:Jackiespeel|talk]]) 17:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Don't care, but ...''' one very small thing I've noticed in the past is that it says "Main Page" on the tab but "Main page" in the list of links on the left of every page. Shouldn't the capitalisation be the same? [[Special:Contributions/86.160.211.148|86.160.211.148]] ([[User talk:86.160.211.148|talk]]) 20:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' and '''Close''' There is no demonstrable good reason to change it and there are several good reasons for leaving it alone that have been pointed out (confusion, tradition, not broken so don't <s>fix</s> break it, changing from one arbitrary name to another is not an improvement). Constructive change is great, but this seems only to be tying up productive editor's time. [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 05:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''', the main page is, for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia's main page. The title is accurate, and while "Home" arguably is as well, I see no reason to make a move to such a widely-referenced page without an exceptionally compelling reason. I don't see that reason here. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 05:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' - 'Home' would be a much nicer name for the navigator in the top left, and the 'Main Page' is actually Wikipedia's home page, but not necessarily the 'main' page given there are many different articles and portals. '''[[User:DarkToonLink|<font color="black">Dark</font><font color="blue">Toon</font><font color="green">Link</font>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:DarkToonLink|<font color="crimson">''Heyaah!''</font>]]</sup> 05:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - Main page doesn't need renaming, it is what it says it is. "Home" is feel-good nonsense for social website computer users. The 'pedia ain't Facebook. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 05:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. "Main page" is not perfect, but it is well-established, and moving it would be highly disruptive both within Wikipedia and for all those outside who link to it. I could support a change if there was an alternative which was clearly better, but as far as I can see every alternative has its own problems. For example, "home page" is widely-used terminology for the entry point to a website, but is also used to refer to a personal website. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 11:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Not much I can add to the many well-reasoned opposes above. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 11:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' If even 0.1% of incoming links are broken by the change that's a lot of frustrated users, and for what? When those people complain the response will be "''Sorry you were inconvenienced, but thanks to the change, we can now do '''[What Goes Here?]''' that will help a a lot of people use Wikipedia more easily.''" [[User:APL|APL]] ([[User talk:APL|talk]]) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Per RSChen7754 and BrownHairedGirl - both make substantive points. It works just fine, it is recognizable, and it would be disruptive to change something as central as this so we better have good reasons to do so (since it works just fine, there are no good reasons!). --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' It seem this proposal is destined to failure which is unfortunate. IMO a mistake was made in not discussing possible titles first, while I appreciate the proposer has made clear the precise title is open, I think have a title that has some minor consens and in particular has received enough scrutiny to consider possible problems would help a great deal, even if the final title is still open. I suspect it was a further mistake in not discussing the proposal first. In particular, it seems to me the explaination is insufficient. For example people talk about breaking links, but it seems clear any change will initially result in a transparent redirect so no incoming links will be broken. A second common complaint is that there's no good reason for the change, and I agree the initial explaination doesn't seem to provide much (the primary reason seems to be that the proposer feels it isn't our main page which many people disagree with). A good reason IMO for the change is that while initially we may provide a transparent redirect depending on what happens in 5-10 years from now we could consider changing this. An occasional question we get on this talk page is where is our article on main pages. I AGF that these questions are serious and not trying to criticise the main page name. This is a problem which is basically unresovable as long as the Main Page is titled such as the small number of people looking for our article will always be seen as far less important than the large number of people looking for our Main Page. But if we do change the title, depending on what happens in 5-10 years (in particular how many incoming links still link to the older title), we can consider the alternative of making it a disambig page. Perhaps this will never be possible, but unless we try we will never know, and I haven't seen any compelling reason not to try since even if it doesn't work there will be no actual problem for people visiting the page (the only reason I've seen presented is that people will get confused by the change or the existance of name spaces but I haven't seen any evidence that many people will actually notice or care about any change). Note that this is all stuff which has breen discussed before in previous move discussions which is one reason why it seems to me unfortunate it wasn't raised in the initial proposal. While this is a discussion and not a vote, in discussions which needed as much participation in this one, there's a very good chance any key points raised later in support of the proposal will be missed by a substanial number of participants so it's important that they are raised initially. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 07:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**"An occasional question we get on this talk page is where is our article on main pages." - it's over at [[Home page]], which would have to be changed if the most-supported title to move the current main page to (which is, of course, "Home page") were done. [[User:Ansh666|Ansh]]''[[User talk:Ansh666|6]][[Special:EmailUser/Ansh666|6]][[Special:Contribs/Ansh666|6]]'' 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
***That question comes up, what, once or twice ''per year''? Hardly a common query we should be worried about. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' "Main Page" is by far and above the most established name for the page and its content. To change it would be disorientating, confusing and potentially misleading. Let us not get into the .com trick of thinking rebranding fixes everything. It often doesn't. "Main Page" should - must - remain. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per all sorts, including Silk Tork, Crisco, and, most especially, Rschen; the last-named's point that it's not broken (despite assertions to the contrary, which amount only to [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|personal preference]]) seems quite strong to me. [[User:Kahtar|Kahtar]] 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per basically everyone above. I note that the most supported rename is [[Home page]], but that's simply moving it to a synonym (I don't buy the "more warm and friendly" argument either, do people actually notice the title here?) and creates further problems with moving actual articles and redirects and such around. The only move I could somewhat support would be to project or portal namespace, but I understand that would be confusing to users that don't know much of the technical matters of how the site works. [[User:Ansh666|Ansh]]''[[User talk:Ansh666|6]][[Special:EmailUser/Ansh666|6]][[Special:Contribs/Ansh666|6]]'' 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think anybody is suggesting moving it to replace the "Home page" in article space, that would be even more bizarre than keeping it in its current article space position. [[User:TheGrappler|TheGrappler]] ([[User talk:TheGrappler|talk]]) 03:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' - it would be far more consistent with how we do everything else - this isn't an article, it doesn't belong in article space, and this is a distinction that readers should probably be led to understand (so they know that e.g. if they see something in "Wikipedia" or "User" space, that it may not follow the same guidelines as article space content). Moreover there is a vulnerability in our inconsistency that might just be storing up trouble for later. If I was an evil publisher, for instance, and I wanted to publish a notable book that would have outrageous SEO, I might be tempted to retitle it "Main page". Then what would be done? Have a disambig notice at the top of the page? [[User:TheGrappler|TheGrappler]] ([[User talk:TheGrappler|talk]]) 03:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - A rose by any other name would smell as sweet; [[WP:CRYSTAL|what-ifs]] and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|"it's wrong"]] arguments are not convincing. The "Main Page" has, AFAIK, been at "Main Page" since Wikipedia was founded; it hasn't been broken before and it isn't broken now. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 09:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''; don't see a real problem needing fixed here. [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 19:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - if it ain't broke, .... -- [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 21:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' - it is part of the encyclopedia proper, which is why it is in the main namespace. Many people have it set as their browser's home page. If it gets replaced by a disambiguation page, or a redirect to the synonymous topic "home page", they may be in for a bit of a shock. A move could also affect the destinations of a great many links on the Web. [[User talk:The Transhumanist|<i>The Transhumanist</i>]] 06:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. It is content that is meant to be read by general readers, and so it belongs in mainspace. Analogous to a journal, it could have been called a "Front Page". As the top page of a website (it is usually discovered by going to en.wikipedia.org), it could be called a "Home Page", but it now doesn't function as a home page because you don't return to it as a matter of restarting navigation. It now has a history as "Main_Page", and a much better reason is needed to change. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. No need. Has always been this way, and doesn't cause a problem. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 14:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''-If I could travel back in time and change the title from the start, would I? Maybe. But as it is, the gains from moving the page simply don't overcome the various problems that such a move would cause.<span class="nowrap">--[[User:Fyre2387|Fyre2387]] <sup>([[User talk:Fyre2387|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fyre2387|contribs]])</sup></span> 15:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per Rschen7754. [[User:My name is not dave|<sup><font color="#009933">My</font></sup><font color="4000FF"><small>name</small></font><sup><font color="#009933">is</font></sup><font color="4000FF"><small>not</small></font><sup><font color="#009933">dave</font></sup>]] <small>([[User talk:My name is not dave|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/My name is not dave|contribs]]) (formerly Insulam Simia)</small> 19:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion about what it shall be called=== |
|||
*This is a portal, why move it to WP:space? [[Portal:Main Portal]] would seem to be it. -- [[Special:Contributions/70.24.249.39|70.24.249.39]] ([[User talk:70.24.249.39|talk]]) 01:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**How about simply [[Portal:Main]] or [[Portal:Home]]? <font style="padding:1px 5px;background:#F5A9A9" face="BRITANIC BOLD">'''[[user:Ross Hill|<span style="color:#000000;">Ross</span>]] [[User_Talk:Ross Hill|<span style="color:#000000;">Hill</span>]]</font><font style="padding:1px 5px;background:#81F7D8" face="BRITANIC BOLD">''22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)''</font>''' |
|||
**And you seriously think that's more friendly? LOL. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 07:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*** It is a portal, why use WP-space? -- [[Special:Contributions/70.24.249.39|70.24.249.39]] ([[User talk:70.24.249.39|talk]]) 06:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Home''' It's the site's home page. Call it that. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 11:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Home''' seems obvious to me too. [[User:Awien|Awien]] ([[User talk:Awien|talk]]) 12:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Are you and Anthony suggesting [[Home]] or [[WP:Home]]? No objections to the latter (except the namespace issue that I mentioned above), but the former would cause problems with our current article on the concept of where you live. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 13:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Both suggestions have issues. The former is the name of an article on the concept, and the latter is a shortcut in use for a extant WikiProject. IFF the page is retitled and moved, it should be put in the Portal space, perhaps as [[Portal:Home]], however, I'm not convinced that it needs to be moved. (And even that idea would need work to implement because the Housing Portal already occupies that title.) <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<font color="white">Imzadi 1979</font>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<font color="white"><big>→</big></font>]]'''</span> 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[WT:HOME]] has had 4 edits in the last 2 years so I see no problem usurping that, if that's what this discussion decides. I don't care if it's WP:Home or Portal:Home. WP:Home is quicker to type. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Honestly, I'd be more concerned if a redirect had something like 20 edits. The vast majority of redirects don't attract more than an edit a year, if that. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 09:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''index.html''' is the universal name for all home pages. This is the only correct choice, obviously. — [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 00:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*:[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php index.php] works :P [[User:PiRSquared17|<b style="color:#f90;font-family:Arial">πr<sup>2</sup></b>]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|<i style="color:#0f3;font-family:Arial">'''t'''</i>]] • [[Special:Contributions/PiRSquared17|<i style="color:#03f;font-family:Arial">'''c'''</i>]]) 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*::Can I '''support''' this seriously? This would make us more like every other website out there. ~[[User:Charmlet|<span style="color:maroon;">Charmlet</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Charmlet|<span style="color:black;">-talk-</span>]]</sup> 03:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*:::'''Technically impossible''' No. MediaWiki software uses the index.php file to do URL rewrites. Basically, every page on Wikipedia is actually index.php. However, everything after the / is converted passed to the index.php file and parsed to generate a page. We can't use that.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*In my support I mentioned 'Home,' although 'Front Page' doesn't sound like a bad idea either. '''[[User:DarkToonLink|<font color="black">Dark</font><font color="blue">Toon</font><font color="green">Link</font>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:DarkToonLink|<font color="crimson">''Heyaah!''</font>]]</sup> 07:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*I think it should be moved to [[Wikipedia:Main Page]]. Main Page shouldn't be an article itself.--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 10:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with you.I think [[Wikipedia:Main Page]] is where it should be moved to.'''[[User:Lsmll|<span style="color:#1C2F80;">L</span>]][[User talk:Lsmll|<span style="color:#00A9E0;">smll</span>]]''' 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. It has been at [[Main Page]] for donkey's ages and from the beginning and everybody knows where it is. Leave well enough alone. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 07:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*:That doesn't offer alternatives to the name, which is what this section is for. If you're opposing, it's confusing why you're in this section at all. <font color="#151B8D">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:10pt; color:#151B8D">Rcsprinter</span>]] </font><font color="#151B8D"> ''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:8pt; color:#488AC7">(deliver)</span>]]</font> <small>@</small> 17:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*It's not a true portal, because it doesn't cover a specific subject. But it doesn't really belong in Wikipedia: space either, because it's designed to be read by readers and not just editors. As a compromise, I suggest moving it to the main article space. As for 'Home', I don't really like this because you don't return to it again and again as part of browsing. Perhaps something that summarises its centrality without giving it undue importance. How about moving it to '''Main_Page'''? Oh wait. --[[Special:Contributions/86.181.17.180|86.181.17.180]] ([[User talk:86.181.17.180|talk]]) 10:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[WP:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|||
== polski WP has passed the 1,000,000 articles mark == |
|||
Please move polski up the list to the "More than 1,000,000 articles" group in the [[Main page#Wikipedia languages|Wikipedia languages section]]. |
|||
Thank you. [[User talk:The Transhumanist|<i>The Transhumanist</i>]] 07:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Template talk:Wikipedialang]], where this has already been raised. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 12:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:44, 2 October 2013
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 170 | ← | Archive 175 | Archive 176 | Archive 177 | Archive 178 | Archive 179 | Archive 180 |
Recent deaths byline
Can we change that to someone far more famous like Elmore Leonard? I'm sure Hungarians all miss their water polo player, but...Peter Greenwell (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The recent deaths list is discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. On that page, I see that it's ready to post. Edgepedia (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Some of us have not heard of the first gentleman either.
The Main Page is a means of 'encountering topics one has not previously been aware of.' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Portal Links Icons
How about adding little picture icons next to the portal links on the main page to make it more user savvy? Not sure if this needs its own category or if it can just stay in general discussion. To elaborate I mean like having a little picture of art with a paintbrush on it next to the Arts portal link, a little book with a persons picture on it next to the biography link, a picture of the Earth or a cartoon version of Earth next to the geography portal link and so on.
I could host a icon creation contest with voting to create the best suited icons for Wikipedia on a art forum. Albeit there might not be a prize for it as of this posting. If you have feedback or if this just cannot happen then please advise and I will remove this inquiry and revise my approach. Thank you for your time! Tech Crusher
- Why? What would it add aside from a handful of tiny pictures that would tell you no more than the bare text link does? --Khajidha (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Norrmalmstorg robbery (on this day, 1973)
I don't think it has enough "citation needed" tags. Anyone disagree...? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know; I kind of think it has too many. It's not the bolded article, though, so it's not really an issue. -- tariqabjotu 18:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that any article with that many citation needed tags shouldn't be linked from the main page at all, bolded or not. --Khajidha (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but it is not a problem to link to an article requiring maintenance from the Main Page. It is, however, a requirement for ITN, DYK, and SA/OTD for the bold article to be free of maintenance tags. —howcheng {chat} 03:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I know that it is not currently considered a problem, but I feel that it should be. ANY link on the main page is high profile enough that we should not be using it to show off substandard work. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but it is not a problem to link to an article requiring maintenance from the Main Page. It is, however, a requirement for ITN, DYK, and SA/OTD for the bold article to be free of maintenance tags. —howcheng {chat} 03:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Whether it doesn't have enough I can't say. Tariqabjotu is right about one thing though, it did have too many. I removed one which was unneeded, already supported by the source used for the next sentence (which I would have thought obvious, you don't turn yourself in unless you believe someone believes you committed some crime). Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Serbian Wikipedia miscategorized
The Wikipedia in Serbian has well over 200000 articles, but it's listed in the "over 50000" category instead of the correct one for at least a few days now. Possibly the same goes for some of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spa (talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 August 2013
- Hi Spa, please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. I've copied this to Template talk:Wikipedia languages where this sort of thing is handled, please discuss there. Edgepedia (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Spa (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Robert Bales main page picture now reached 5-6 days, will he pass Fernando Lugo record?
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Fernando_Lugo_-_ITN.jpg/220px-Fernando_Lugo_-_ITN.jpg)
Robert Bales main page picture now reached 5-6 days, will he pass Fernando Lugo record?
– HonorTheKing (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Bale has got a long ways to go to seriously challenge Lugo's record. Lugo's 13-day run began on April 21, 2008 and did not end until May 4. Bales is only now approaching the half-way mark. --Allen3 talk 11:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- HODOR!...I mean, LUGO!...I hope not, that "smile" from a psychopathic murderer is a little disturbing. Right now ITN/C is very, very slow. This would be much nicer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Julie_Harris_1973.JPG sadly, she's only up for RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, and Lugo went on ITN twice! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- HODOR!...I mean, LUGO!...I hope not, that "smile" from a psychopathic murderer is a little disturbing. Right now ITN/C is very, very slow. This would be much nicer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Julie_Harris_1973.JPG sadly, she's only up for RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- LUGO!! My hero is back. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Luuuuuuuuugo. <3 --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like Bales' run ended after 5 days and a couple of hours. Long live LUGO's record. --Allen3 talk 15:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- And before that it was Manning. That's what, like two weeks where the lead image was a US soldier who went rogue in some fashion? And what's weird is that this isn't ITN's doing, appears to be simple coincidence... or is it? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Make it 3 in a row, now its U.S. Army officer Nidal Malik Hasan. The ITN/R picture is now officaly a US court-martial mugshots place.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)- Not to ruin your conspiracy, but there was a brief period where there was a picture of WISE. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- ITN has become "US soldier goes rogue"-pedia. Somewhat amazing that all the news all over the world is about Syria and chemical weapons. I suppose it's all about idiotic and crazed assassins. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well that is how World War One started. GamerPro64 19:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- We live in the Wikipedia generation. The first shot will not be because of a sandwich, or because some lowly corporal was saved, but because Lugo did not return to ITN. The shame. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of records being broken. We "need" to move on to as "post-Lugo age." I'm not sure the photo of the poet will carry the day(s). 8) Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not to ruin your conspiracy, but there was a brief period where there was a picture of WISE. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Make it 3 in a row, now its U.S. Army officer Nidal Malik Hasan. The ITN/R picture is now officaly a US court-martial mugshots place.
- And before that it was Manning. That's what, like two weeks where the lead image was a US soldier who went rogue in some fashion? And what's weird is that this isn't ITN's doing, appears to be simple coincidence... or is it? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Swahili?
From the "Did You Know?" section:
"...Swahili, the first language of fewer than 800,000 people"
...but Swahili has much more than this (see page). --MosheA (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no clash. Swahili is spoken by millions of people, but <800k as their first language. Adabow (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Adabow: The Swahili language article definitely says there are 15-25 million native speakers of Swahili. Even this page from Stanford's Swahili department says that, conservatively, there are just under two million native speakers. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- The reference used in the Official language article is of poor quality (citing Wikipedia a number of times, for goodness sake), and the source that reference uses to get the < 800,000 number does not actually say that. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Adabow: The Swahili language article definitely says there are 15-25 million native speakers of Swahili. Even this page from Stanford's Swahili department says that, conservatively, there are just under two million native speakers. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've reworded the blurb as
... that Swahili is the official language in more countries than Mandarin Chinese, the language with the most native speakers?
. By the way, next time you see an error on the Main Page, please post it in the Errors section at the top of this page. While I addressed this rather quickly, you usually get a quicker response there. -- tariqabjotu 03:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Change the current WP:ITN image
Can't we get a picture of The Ashes instead of Nidal Malik Hasan. We've gone from one American military mass-murderer to another. See the edit summary. - hahnchen 12:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I second this request. Coincidence or not, we don't need pictures of three convicted American military murderers in a row. If someone is trying to make a political point, that's even worse.--WaltCip (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I approve of the appearance of Seamus Heaney in that spot. A HUGE improvement! Awien (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- There was a picture of a piece of NASA hardware in there between soldiers, but it was brief. Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 August 24. Chris857 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I approve of the appearance of Seamus Heaney in that spot. A HUGE improvement! Awien (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- While io agree that a change was needed, i would just point out that the first one, Manning, was not a mass murderer like the other two but rather a leaker of classified documents. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- And well we're at it, let's make sure that Mr. Heaney is there much longer than Lugo, as it would be a beautiful tribute. Plus I need an excuse to think of poetry more often and, sadly, a meme would do the trick. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- While io agree that a change was needed, i would just point out that the first one, Manning, was not a mass murderer like the other two but rather a leaker of classified documents. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
(reset) Will David Frost displace Mr Heaney? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope not. Haploidavey (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- And the great race between the iconic corpses of the two largest British Isles begins! 75.156.68.21 (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- The point I was making :) Jackiespeel (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Right. Let's one half of us start digging potatoes and the other half start interview presidents and we'll see who wins ... er, somehow. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- DF should at least have a mention.
- Right. Let's one half of us start digging potatoes and the other half start interview presidents and we'll see who wins ... er, somehow. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- The point I was making :) Jackiespeel (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- And the great race between the iconic corpses of the two largest British Isles begins! 75.156.68.21 (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
CS Lewis and Aldous Huxley also died on 22 November 1963 - which if WP had existed then would have generated much discussion. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
On this day
For the section on On this day where it talks about North Korea "launching" its first satellite, shouldn't North Korea be highlighted so you can be redirected to its page? Leoesb1032 (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- WP:ERRORS, please. --69.157.46.84 (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
About the system ssl
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It would be possible to move to the SGC system? João bonomo (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, what? I don't understand the question. And what does this have to do with the Main Page? Modest Genius talk 11:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I guess this is about Secure Socket Layer versus Server gated cryptography, but you are in the wrong place. If the recent switch to https as default for logged in users is causing you problems then see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If your post is not about Wikipedia then you can post to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Picture of the Day discussion
- I have begun a discussion which may interest readers of this page here. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Mobile version
Why are DYK and OTD not in the mobile version of the front page? See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. SpinningSpark 09:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's an after effect of the 2007-2009 mobile efforts. It was done to make it a very lightweight page, and because the mainpage was not easy to 'reshape' over the past few years. This is why the main page is still 'hardcoded' to take certain small fragments of the main page, and not everything. There have been some improvements, and the current 'experimental/alpha/dragons'-mode of the mobile site shows you how it currently looks with all sections enabled. This is a one step at a time development process, if you want to contribute to it, please do so. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I might be underestimating the difficulties, but it seems to me a very simple thing to have a link at the bottom of the page linking to "main page sheet 2" or whatever. DYK, OTD and TFP are all transclusions. It can't be difficult to construct a page containing just those. It is a very sad state of affairs that users of the mobile site have no obvious way of getting to DYK. SpinningSpark 10:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently it's even easier, you can just change it, because it's already configureable: Configuring the main page. Dze google be your friend. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I might be underestimating the difficulties, but it seems to me a very simple thing to have a link at the bottom of the page linking to "main page sheet 2" or whatever. DYK, OTD and TFP are all transclusions. It can't be difficult to construct a page containing just those. It is a very sad state of affairs that users of the mobile site have no obvious way of getting to DYK. SpinningSpark 10:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that these sections should at least be linked from the mobile main page. I said so recently and note that my questions and suggestions there, addressed to @Maryana (WMF): (who doubt is busy; no criticism implied) weren't answered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ping-summoned! Hi :)
- With regard to why DYK, OTD, and TFP specifically aren't displayed, there's just limited screen real-estate on mobile devices, and something had to get cut. It would be useful to hold an RfC to gather more feedback on the mobile main page, because I'm guessing (based on the feedback we've received to date), for every user who wants one specific main page area displayed, there's another who doesn't (or wants something else in its place). Andy did indeed have some good ideas: Why could DYK etc not be "below the fold", or displayed as a link to a subpage? As for the formatting of "help" & "contents", why not create "mobile help" and "contents for mobile", and link to them? Replace "in the news" with a link to a sub-page, and you'd have more than enough room for links to the others mentioned. The mobile team has talked in the past about tinkering with the main page to surface featured content in a more modular way – it would require some design work, but if there were a list of links & information prioritized by the community, that would make it a whole lot easier :)
- I would suggest talking about this with Kenan, who's in the process of taking over the product management duties on the mobile team. I'm actually switching over to working with the Flow team, which is part of the reason I'm being tardy in mobile-related queries. Apologies! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, everything that is available in the main Wikipedia should also be available, by some means, in the mobile version. I really don't understand why this is such a problem. How does mobile handle ordinary pages that are exceptionally long? The reader is just required to scroll down are they not? Why should the front page be any different? You already have to scroll down to see everything on main Wikipedia. That appears to be what "below the fold" means. Why make a big issue of it and use technical jargon to baffle everyone? I also don't understand why we are getting comments like "the community should hold a discussion" and "go and talk to X". A discussion on the main page talk page seems to me to be the ideal place to hold a discussion about the main page. What you are hearing hear is the community opinion.
- By the way, another thing that is impossible to navigate to from the mobile version is this (or any) talk page (unless one understands how to modify the url). SpinningSpark 15:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the space, but as has been stated before if you want to have any chance of getting something done a well advertised RFC would be essential. Of course it would also be a mistake to rush in to something, a poorly designed RFC would also achieve nothing. (For example, any discussion that makes the assumption the mobile version is only going to be used by high end smartphones is likely flawed. Similarly having some idea of the possible problems including bandwidth related ones for the wide variety of devices and connections out there before an RFC would be ideal.) And since the WMF could obviously veto any changes if they conflict with their goals, discussing with the WMF people involved would also be wise. Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Obvious bias at ITN
Two items at once on geology? WTF!!! Obvious pro-science bias!!!!
Someone was bound to complain so I figured I'd just get the ball rolling... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just be happy no one's dying. And we have at least four good stories lined up at ITN/C (also with no death). This is actually -- I think there's a double meaning here -- good news. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, there's death in the Recent deaths line, but that doesn't count. -- tariqabjotu 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- IAS? Is that shorthand for Ignore All Sources? :p Modest Genius talk 15:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- If he's starting the ias thread, I'm starting the "The photo of X has been up too long thread" and reposting LUGO! Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You're still all missing the real bias problem: terracentrism. We've only got one item that's not entirely Earth related, and even that's just a launch from Earth to...you guessed it...Earth's moon.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know, Vincent van Gogh always struck me as being on a different planet. SpinningSpark 00:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
9/11
Could we maybe get a "killing almost 3,000" on the 9/11 entry in OTD? (Optional link to Casualties of the September 11 attacks.) We routinely list death tolls for far less notable attacks, so I don't think it'd be a U.S.-biased move. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I second this. The current blurb seems underwhelming when considering the magnitude and historical impact. Also, the blurb needs more emphasis on the attacks than the hijackings in my opinion. It almost reads as if the attacks were not on the same day as the hijackings. Samuel Peoples (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is kind of an anniversary that needs no introduction, though. Let's keep things concise. Formerip (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. But do consider that younger people with no or vague memory of the attacks also visit Wikipedia, and they may not have an accurate understanding of the magnitude of the event with the current blurb. Samuel Peoples (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) I agree with Formerip that the entry is basically fine as it stands as far as detail is concerned. I do however also agree with Samuel Peoples about the relationship between the hijackings and the attacks not being clear. That could be addressed very easily by changing the wording from "Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four passenger airliners for a series of suicide attacks . . . " to "Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four passenger airliners and used them in (or used them to carry out) a series of suicide attacks . . .". Awien (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- (Adds) The purpose of these blurbs is, after all, to take the reader to the article, not to substitute for the article. Awien (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Awien's suggestion on the change of wording. The blurb should be fine after that. Samuel Peoples (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. —howcheng {chat} 16:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, because this section should have been in WP:ERRORS not here, Howcheng accidentally introduced an error into the blurb (not realising that this very issue had already been dealt with (by me) at WP:ERRORS). All's well now, but please put reports about main page errors in the right place, to avoid duplication and confusion. BencherliteTalk 17:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I apologise - I'm the one who triggered the duplication by posting the suggested rewording as a request at errors without leaving a note here. Awien (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, because this section should have been in WP:ERRORS not here, Howcheng accidentally introduced an error into the blurb (not realising that this very issue had already been dealt with (by me) at WP:ERRORS). All's well now, but please put reports about main page errors in the right place, to avoid duplication and confusion. BencherliteTalk 17:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Awien's suggestion on the change of wording. The blurb should be fine after that. Samuel Peoples (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. But do consider that younger people with no or vague memory of the attacks also visit Wikipedia, and they may not have an accurate understanding of the magnitude of the event with the current blurb. Samuel Peoples (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is kind of an anniversary that needs no introduction, though. Let's keep things concise. Formerip (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Chilean Coup?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Something missing from day in history. Just saying....204.108.237.194 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you check the "staging area" for today's OTD/SA listings, you will find an unusually long list of potential items for the roughly five available slots in OTD's available Main page space. Additionally, the 1973 Chilean coup d'état article has several sections that need referencing improvements. Fix the problems with the article (you or any other interested party have close to a year to complete the work) and you should have a good chance of seeing the coup listed next year (the person who performs most of the OTD/SA maintenance is usually kind to articles that have seen improvement sufficient enough to remove them from the ineligible list). --Allen3 talk 14:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- The article isn't tagged so it should've been fair game; more so on its 40th anniversary (since we're biased towards multiples of 10 anniversaries). –HTD 14:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- At the time I did the scheduling, it was. —howcheng {chat} 15:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well that explains it. –HTD 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- At the time I did the scheduling, it was. —howcheng {chat} 15:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- The article isn't tagged so it should've been fair game; more so on its 40th anniversary (since we're biased towards multiples of 10 anniversaries). –HTD 14:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Main Page → Wikipedia:Home – This is not a main page. It is by title and it is in the way that it has a load of content bundled together on it, but it is not very main for readers. The vast majority of articles are accessed by a search engine result to the article, not through other parts of wikipedia. Some readers are in fact not even aware of the existence of the main page. I am uncomfortable with it being named this but not used in that way enough. My proposed name is open for discussion, but I want something that defines it as a base page and center page, but not "main". That's too cold and hard. I think something with "home" in would work well. It fits in with 95% of other websites. It sounds recognisable and stands out as a place to start or explore articles. Do you see what I'm thinking here? It needs to look nice and friendly as a name, and perhaps more people will visit it.
Here's how the discussion will happen:
The community discuss the merits and demerits of renaming, and what new names would be suitable below.
After a week, an admin decides if consensus is to rename. If not, they will close this discussion. If it is, they shall start a vote on which names are most supported. The community places one vote on a potential new name in a period of five days. The most agreed upon name is taken and the Main page is moved. Rcsprinter (speak) @ 23:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Background
The current title, Main Page, in the main namespace, was created in the default namespace before pages were divided into "Wikipedia", "Portal" and so forth, and has continued there mainly due to historical inertia. Several previous proposals to move the page failed due to rejection or lack of consensus. See previous discussions in archives 67 (April 2006), 87 (January 2007), 89 (January 2007), 90 (February 2007), 114 (December 2007), 115 (December 2007), 123 (May 2008), 125 (July 2008), 128 (October 2008), 129 (October 2008) and 143 (August 2009).
In the February 2007 move discussion, one user created a list of the advantages and disadvantages of moving the Main Page out of the main article namespace, including various technical issues (including the numerous redirects and links that would have to be fixed). One point that is commonly raised in these previous discussions is the lack of clear evidence that a rename would necessarily encourage more people to visit it, especially when the Main Page is already the highest visited pages on Wikipedia.[1]
Several other Wikimedia projects also use "Main Page" as the default home page, like Meta-Wiki, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and Wikiquote. Some however do not: the default home page for Wiktionary is "Wiktionary:Main Page" and the one for MediaWiki is "MediaWiki". This issue varies in the Wikipedias in other languages. For example, the German Wikipedia's Main Page is in the Wikipedia namespace while the Italian Wikipedia's Main Page is still in the main namespace. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- If there is such consensus to rename the Main Page, a request will have to be made to the developers via Wikimedia's Bugzilla. To prevent the servers from locking up for over half an hour, the developers removed the technical ability from admins to delete or move pages that have more than 5000 revisions; the Main Page now exceeds that limit (see also Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page). Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Your background didn't go far enough. This was originally called HomePage. Until sometime in 2002. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about the renaming idea
- Support - It should be a friendlier name, but more for "us" than for "readers". I feel like people who take themselves too seriously here use the term "main page" to kinda sorta scare others and feel elite. Ie. If you're involved in the "main page" you're somehow doing something more prestigious than the rest of us, who are evidently doing peripheral non-main things. Just my take. I think "home" is a fine suggestion. equazcion (talk) 00:08, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I would like to note for the record that the main page got nearly 300 million hits in August 2013 alone. The idea that there are people out there that don't know the main page exists is a stretch. Harej (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure I read that somewhere. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 08:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Although that's out of about 11 billion page views (August enwiki pageviews, http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/), and I'm betting random logo clicks account for most of that. I think we all know how Wikipedia is generally used by the populace. Of course there logistically should be a good landing page with useful things on it, but that'll never be our main event. equazcion (talk) 00:30, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose "Main page" is a well established name for 11 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon my flip reaction to this, but, so what? equazcion (talk) 05:59, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if human history was filled with this attitude, there would never have been much progress. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is one of wikipedia's big problems. Editors all fear change. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 08:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon my flip reaction to this, but, so what? equazcion (talk) 05:59, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --Rschen7754 07:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- The editor who began this discussion pointed out some problems. In light of that, your post is actually a little insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be a Wikipedia discussion if someone didn't post that most trite of clichés. — Scott • talk 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of the things we've all come to rely on at Wikipedia were the result of improvements to things that nevertheless weren't broken. Just because something is working doesn't mean it can't be made better. equazcion (talk) 17:45, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
- The whole point is that to go to all the work to change something that's been in place for several years, there should be a pretty good reason. This isn't it. --Rschen7754 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- The editor who began this discussion pointed out some problems. In light of that, your post is actually a little insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support. Introducing readers to namespaces is perhaps a helpful way of demonstrating that Wikipedia's more than just the articles. I don't think putting the main page in projectspace would be a good idea, since projectspace is meant for developmental purposes: we encourage readers to be editors by including "Edit" links, by placing sitenotices and banners, etc., but we shouldn't start them off by introducing them to a namespace that's primarily for maintenance. However, putting it into portalspace would have the effect of demonstrating the concept of namespaces, as well as highlighting portals in general. I said "weak" because of my opposition to WP:HOME or whatever we'd call it: I'd prefer staying at the current title to a move to WP:space. Nyttend (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose No need to confuse casual readers with a random name space entry. Some don't even realise that there are talk pages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say take it out of article space, I just want to lose "main". WP:Home is just one I came up with and the section below is for discussing the new name. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 08:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- WP is a namespace alias for the Wikipedia namespace so WP:Home is actually Wikipedia:Home with url en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Home. That's definitely out of article space. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say take it out of article space, I just want to lose "main". WP:Home is just one I came up with and the section below is for discussing the new name. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 08:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support Consistency of namespace for editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose—I prefer the existing title. This is the main page of the website, so the name is appropriate. I do not agree that "Main" is a less friendly term. Imzadi 1979 → 10:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support Sensible. It's clearer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Thank you Zzyzx11. It's good to see this being discussed again; the extremely long period since it was last considered had led me to the conclusion that the inertia was terminal. I specifically support moving the main page into the Wikipedia namespace for reasons of consistency, whether it stays being called "Main Page" or is renamed to "Home" - although there are valid arguments being made that "Home" is clearer and friendlier. Really, "it's always been that way" and "it works fine" are reasoning mired in the mindset of accepting kludgy workarounds to legacy issues. We shouldn't do that. Moving this non-article page out of article space does not pose any serious technical issues (redirect and link fixing is trivial), and would resolve an inconsistency that has been nagging at people for years and years, as the old discussions linked above indicate. Likewise, the notion that the move might "confuse readers" is also bogus. Why would random readers be confused by the title of the page? Are they editing it, or linking to it? No. They're looking at the content, which is rich and varied. We should resist attempts to invent problems to which the answer is retaining the status quo. Regardless of the eventual conclusion on changing the page's title, we should fix the namespace either way. — Scott • talk 14:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Personally if there is to be a move I'd prefer something in Portal space. It fits the purpose of the main page better, and it would hopefully boost the visibility of our other, underused, portals. Also the current proposal would result in a url of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Home - which to anyone who doesn't understand our namespaces (i.e. the vast majority of readers) looks terribly redundant: two repetitions of "wikipedia" and three of "wiki". the wub "?!" 16:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'd just like to say again that I'm not proposing that it should be in wikipedia space, with the repetitive "wiki"s. That was one suggestion because I had to put something in the requested move heading template. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 18:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Rschen7754, who summarizes the situation accurately and gets badgered for his efforts... No actual problem being resolved here, just a matter of semantics. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't buy the argument that "Main Page" is an unfriendly title that, when used in a certain way, will scare away new users. Therefore, I see no reason to rename this page. TCN7JM 16:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support, good idea. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a !vote at this stage, it is a discussion. Although your support is noted, we are still thinking about the different aspects of a renaming. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 18:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for now at least. A problem with finding this page, as most searches go straight to articles, has been identified but there is no explanation of how changing the name is going to make it any easier to find. It seems a bit like deciding to respray your car a different colour because the engine is misfiring. Would it not be more effective to add a link or a caption under the puzzle logo to direct readers here. I see nothing cold hard or unfriendly about the name "main page". And why the indecent haste? Only one week to decide on changing something that has stood for over a decade?--Charles (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose changing from the already existing arbitrary name to another arbitrary name does not fix anything. Not that anything is broken that needs fixing, but the perceived problems noted above leading to this discussion exist regardless of what the name of this page actually is. --Jayron32 19:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I see no benefit. Before we change a feature of long standing, there should be a much better argument presented that the new version would be better. It seems like change for the sake of change. I do not agree that "Main page" is "cold" or that "Wikipedia:Home" is warm, fuzzy, and inviting. Edison (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support Because it is not a article so it should not be in the article space. The article Home page should have a redirect from Main page, be it can't because Main page is being used. I would be fine with either Wikipedia:Home, or Wikipedia:Main page, but not Main page. Ross Hill 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The main page gets roughly 10 million views a day on a routine basis. I can safely say that is not the result of accidental logo clicks or bots. Individual articles rarely break the million-view mark. People do use the main page for navigation and are not going to find it difficult to locate or use. It is true that the vast majority rely on search engines or a Wikipedia search bar on their browsers, but that is true for most sites nowadays. People do not often visit a site's home page.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not find the reasons put forth for this change at all compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose A solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place, per WP:TITLECHANGES. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Main page" is the Wikipedia name for that page, same as "Wikipedia" is the name for the project as a whole. It works. There's no reason to change it. Changing it involves unnecessary work and creates momentary confusion when people look for links to the "Main page" and find it gone, but "Welcome page" or some other such name instead. Also, the very act of discussing this is an unnecessary distraction from the real work of building the project. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Inertia, basically. I know, for example, "Main page" looks more correct, but there is just no compelling reason to change what is working. -- Taku (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. The naming as "Main page" reminds me of the practice in print newspapers of having a "Front page". It is not really "home"; it is the main or front page. Stylistically it reads thusly, with headlines of "In the news" and "On this day" and columns and pictures... Unless we are to call it our front page, I prefer to keep referring to it as our main page. Fylbecatulous talk 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Preliminarily, if this proposal gains enough traction that it's significantly likely to be implemented, this discussion will need further publicity. I realize it's been listed on all the required locations (such as RM), but for a change of this magnitude, more eyes would be needed. (Personally, I learned of this discussion from a thread on the critic site Wikipediocracy making fun of it, which is hardly a source we can rely on for community notifications.) Substantively, I oppose the change per several above, most recently SilkTork. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the name change. The reasons advanced aren't compelling at all in my eyes. If a user doesn't use the Main Page as an actual main page (and I'm not convinced there are many people who are unaware of the main page), it would be even less appropriate to call it a "home" for them. And while for the nominator "main page" might sound cold and artificial, for me it sounds straightforward and professional. That's a matter of taste and not a convincing basis for a policy change. I'm neutral on the namespace change, though it seems to be largely pedantic to me. --Nizolan (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. This has been discussed many times over the years. Yes, consensus can change, but only when something about the situation or context changes. It hasn't done so. There's simply no good reason to change this, it isn't broken, and tinkering around with one of the top home pages on the internet for no good reason is unproductive and pointless. WP:DONTFIXIT applies, in every way. Modest Genius talk 20:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, I'm confused as to why an RfC was opened without at least discussing the issue on this page beforehand. This came out of the blue, and smacks of heavy-handed intervention. Modest Genius talk 20:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- As with other rebrandings - will people actually notice? There are various ways of getting to WP - none of the obvious ones involve putting in 'main page' (or other term). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Don't care, but ... one very small thing I've noticed in the past is that it says "Main Page" on the tab but "Main page" in the list of links on the left of every page. Shouldn't the capitalisation be the same? 86.160.211.148 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose and Close There is no demonstrable good reason to change it and there are several good reasons for leaving it alone that have been pointed out (confusion, tradition, not broken so don't
fixbreak it, changing from one arbitrary name to another is not an improvement). Constructive change is great, but this seems only to be tying up productive editor's time. First Light (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC) - Oppose, the main page is, for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia's main page. The title is accurate, and while "Home" arguably is as well, I see no reason to make a move to such a widely-referenced page without an exceptionally compelling reason. I don't see that reason here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support - 'Home' would be a much nicer name for the navigator in the top left, and the 'Main Page' is actually Wikipedia's home page, but not necessarily the 'main' page given there are many different articles and portals. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 05:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Main page doesn't need renaming, it is what it says it is. "Home" is feel-good nonsense for social website computer users. The 'pedia ain't Facebook. Jusdafax 05:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Main page" is not perfect, but it is well-established, and moving it would be highly disruptive both within Wikipedia and for all those outside who link to it. I could support a change if there was an alternative which was clearly better, but as far as I can see every alternative has its own problems. For example, "home page" is widely-used terminology for the entry point to a website, but is also used to refer to a personal website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Not much I can add to the many well-reasoned opposes above. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose If even 0.1% of incoming links are broken by the change that's a lot of frustrated users, and for what? When those people complain the response will be "Sorry you were inconvenienced, but thanks to the change, we can now do [What Goes Here?] that will help a a lot of people use Wikipedia more easily." APL (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per RSChen7754 and BrownHairedGirl - both make substantive points. It works just fine, it is recognizable, and it would be disruptive to change something as central as this so we better have good reasons to do so (since it works just fine, there are no good reasons!). --regentspark (comment) 16:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support It seem this proposal is destined to failure which is unfortunate. IMO a mistake was made in not discussing possible titles first, while I appreciate the proposer has made clear the precise title is open, I think have a title that has some minor consens and in particular has received enough scrutiny to consider possible problems would help a great deal, even if the final title is still open. I suspect it was a further mistake in not discussing the proposal first. In particular, it seems to me the explaination is insufficient. For example people talk about breaking links, but it seems clear any change will initially result in a transparent redirect so no incoming links will be broken. A second common complaint is that there's no good reason for the change, and I agree the initial explaination doesn't seem to provide much (the primary reason seems to be that the proposer feels it isn't our main page which many people disagree with). A good reason IMO for the change is that while initially we may provide a transparent redirect depending on what happens in 5-10 years from now we could consider changing this. An occasional question we get on this talk page is where is our article on main pages. I AGF that these questions are serious and not trying to criticise the main page name. This is a problem which is basically unresovable as long as the Main Page is titled such as the small number of people looking for our article will always be seen as far less important than the large number of people looking for our Main Page. But if we do change the title, depending on what happens in 5-10 years (in particular how many incoming links still link to the older title), we can consider the alternative of making it a disambig page. Perhaps this will never be possible, but unless we try we will never know, and I haven't seen any compelling reason not to try since even if it doesn't work there will be no actual problem for people visiting the page (the only reason I've seen presented is that people will get confused by the change or the existance of name spaces but I haven't seen any evidence that many people will actually notice or care about any change). Note that this is all stuff which has breen discussed before in previous move discussions which is one reason why it seems to me unfortunate it wasn't raised in the initial proposal. While this is a discussion and not a vote, in discussions which needed as much participation in this one, there's a very good chance any key points raised later in support of the proposal will be missed by a substanial number of participants so it's important that they are raised initially. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- "An occasional question we get on this talk page is where is our article on main pages." - it's over at Home page, which would have to be changed if the most-supported title to move the current main page to (which is, of course, "Home page") were done. Ansh666 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- That question comes up, what, once or twice per year? Hardly a common query we should be worried about. Modest Genius talk 18:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- "An occasional question we get on this talk page is where is our article on main pages." - it's over at Home page, which would have to be changed if the most-supported title to move the current main page to (which is, of course, "Home page") were done. Ansh666 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose "Main Page" is by far and above the most established name for the page and its content. To change it would be disorientating, confusing and potentially misleading. Let us not get into the .com trick of thinking rebranding fixes everything. It often doesn't. "Main Page" should - must - remain. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per all sorts, including Silk Tork, Crisco, and, most especially, Rschen; the last-named's point that it's not broken (despite assertions to the contrary, which amount only to personal preference) seems quite strong to me. Kahtar 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per basically everyone above. I note that the most supported rename is Home page, but that's simply moving it to a synonym (I don't buy the "more warm and friendly" argument either, do people actually notice the title here?) and creates further problems with moving actual articles and redirects and such around. The only move I could somewhat support would be to project or portal namespace, but I understand that would be confusing to users that don't know much of the technical matters of how the site works. Ansh666 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anybody is suggesting moving it to replace the "Home page" in article space, that would be even more bizarre than keeping it in its current article space position. TheGrappler (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support - it would be far more consistent with how we do everything else - this isn't an article, it doesn't belong in article space, and this is a distinction that readers should probably be led to understand (so they know that e.g. if they see something in "Wikipedia" or "User" space, that it may not follow the same guidelines as article space content). Moreover there is a vulnerability in our inconsistency that might just be storing up trouble for later. If I was an evil publisher, for instance, and I wanted to publish a notable book that would have outrageous SEO, I might be tempted to retitle it "Main page". Then what would be done? Have a disambig notice at the top of the page? TheGrappler (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - A rose by any other name would smell as sweet; what-ifs and "it's wrong" arguments are not convincing. The "Main Page" has, AFAIK, been at "Main Page" since Wikipedia was founded; it hasn't been broken before and it isn't broken now. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose; don't see a real problem needing fixed here. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - if it ain't broke, .... -- KTC (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - it is part of the encyclopedia proper, which is why it is in the main namespace. Many people have it set as their browser's home page. If it gets replaced by a disambiguation page, or a redirect to the synonymous topic "home page", they may be in for a bit of a shock. A move could also affect the destinations of a great many links on the Web. The Transhumanist 06:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is content that is meant to be read by general readers, and so it belongs in mainspace. Analogous to a journal, it could have been called a "Front Page". As the top page of a website (it is usually discovered by going to en.wikipedia.org), it could be called a "Home Page", but it now doesn't function as a home page because you don't return to it as a matter of restarting navigation. It now has a history as "Main_Page", and a much better reason is needed to change. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. No need. Has always been this way, and doesn't cause a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose-If I could travel back in time and change the title from the start, would I? Maybe. But as it is, the gains from moving the page simply don't overcome the various problems that such a move would cause.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Rschen7754. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) (formerly Insulam Simia) 19:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about what it shall be called
- This is a portal, why move it to WP:space? Portal:Main Portal would seem to be it. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- How about simply Portal:Main or Portal:Home? Ross Hill22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- And you seriously think that's more friendly? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is a portal, why use WP-space? -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Home It's the site's home page. Call it that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Home seems obvious to me too. Awien (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Are you and Anthony suggesting Home or WP:Home? No objections to the latter (except the namespace issue that I mentioned above), but the former would cause problems with our current article on the concept of where you live. Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Both suggestions have issues. The former is the name of an article on the concept, and the latter is a shortcut in use for a extant WikiProject. IFF the page is retitled and moved, it should be put in the Portal space, perhaps as Portal:Home, however, I'm not convinced that it needs to be moved. (And even that idea would need work to implement because the Housing Portal already occupies that title.) Imzadi 1979 → 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- WT:HOME has had 4 edits in the last 2 years so I see no problem usurping that, if that's what this discussion decides. I don't care if it's WP:Home or Portal:Home. WP:Home is quicker to type. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'd be more concerned if a redirect had something like 20 edits. The vast majority of redirects don't attract more than an edit a year, if that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- WT:HOME has had 4 edits in the last 2 years so I see no problem usurping that, if that's what this discussion decides. I don't care if it's WP:Home or Portal:Home. WP:Home is quicker to type. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Both suggestions have issues. The former is the name of an article on the concept, and the latter is a shortcut in use for a extant WikiProject. IFF the page is retitled and moved, it should be put in the Portal space, perhaps as Portal:Home, however, I'm not convinced that it needs to be moved. (And even that idea would need work to implement because the Housing Portal already occupies that title.) Imzadi 1979 → 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- index.html is the universal name for all home pages. This is the only correct choice, obviously. — RockMFR 00:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- index.php works :P πr2 (t • c) 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can I support this seriously? This would make us more like every other website out there. ~Charmlet -talk- 03:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Technically impossible No. MediaWiki software uses the index.php file to do URL rewrites. Basically, every page on Wikipedia is actually index.php. However, everything after the / is converted passed to the index.php file and parsed to generate a page. We can't use that.--v/r - TP 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can I support this seriously? This would make us more like every other website out there. ~Charmlet -talk- 03:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- index.php works :P πr2 (t • c) 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- In my support I mentioned 'Home,' although 'Front Page' doesn't sound like a bad idea either. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 07:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think it should be moved to Wikipedia:Main Page. Main Page shouldn't be an article itself.--GZWDer (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you.I think Wikipedia:Main Page is where it should be moved to.Lsmll 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. It has been at Main Page for donkey's ages and from the beginning and everybody knows where it is. Leave well enough alone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't offer alternatives to the name, which is what this section is for. If you're opposing, it's confusing why you're in this section at all. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 17:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a true portal, because it doesn't cover a specific subject. But it doesn't really belong in Wikipedia: space either, because it's designed to be read by readers and not just editors. As a compromise, I suggest moving it to the main article space. As for 'Home', I don't really like this because you don't return to it again and again as part of browsing. Perhaps something that summarises its centrality without giving it undue importance. How about moving it to Main_Page? Oh wait. --86.181.17.180 (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
polski WP has passed the 1,000,000 articles mark
Please move polski up the list to the "More than 1,000,000 articles" group in the Wikipedia languages section.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 07:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Template talk:Wikipedialang, where this has already been raised. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)