Talk:Main Page

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 11:58 on 3 September 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(September 6)

Monday's FL

(September 9)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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

General discussion

Results of main page traffic experiment

For about two weeks this month, many of the links on the main page were changed to redirects following this discussion in order to figure out how the main page is actually used. Hits listed are for a period of approximately 7 days. During this time period, it seems there were about 60 million hits on the main page itself. --- RockMFR 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Page	Stats	Hits
Banner
Wikipedia	[1]	18436
Encyclopedia	[2]	6573
Wikipedia:Introduction	[3]	9478
English language (banner and bottom)	[4]	4817
Portal:Arts	[5]	25430
Portal:Biography	[6]	24239
Portal:Geography	[7]	19847
Portal:History	[8]	32150
Portal:Mathematics	[9]	19882
Portal:Science	[10]	34362
Portal:Society	[11]	10484
Portal:Technology and applied sciences	[12]	21641
Portal:Contents/Portals	[13]	34877
Below banner
Wikipedia:About	[14]	3411
Wikipedia:Tutorial	[15]	4155
Wikipedia:Questions	[16]	6993
Help:Contents	[17]	2361
Portal:Contents	[18]	3710
Portal:Contents/Categorical index	[19]	7268
Portal:Featured content	[20]	2876
Portal:Contents/Quick index	[21]	16807
Bottom
Wikipedia:Help desk	[22]	3387
Wikipedia:Reference desk	[23]	5626
Wikipedia:Village pump	[24]	1948
Wikipedia:Community Portal	[25]	1719
Wikipedia:News	[26]	1387
Wikipedia:Local Embassy	[27]	1515
Wikimedia Foundation	[28]	1331

The most surprising one there is Portal:Contents/Quick index, which is getting far more hits than those around it. It's also a bit surprising how lower the hits are for items below the banner than those in it, since they're separated by very little on the page. Modest Genius ^talk 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Seven days. Enough to decide what to keep, or what not to keep, in Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia traffic tends to roll on a weekly cycle, so a multiple of seven days is appropriate. Given the enormous sample size (60 million), I think the results can be considered statistically significant. Great work, RockMFR!! Happy‑melon 20:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work researching this. Conclusive indeed! Rudget 12:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of the most popular clicks, Portal:Arts, and Portal:Geography are lacking in content where I would think it would be most useful. Geography's picture this week is a redlink, and nothing is ready for the future. Same with the next months featured article. The arts portal is just a mess, the columns don't align, there is no "Featured article", and it's overall pretty useless. These types of links need to be fixed up, or taken off the main page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 13:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice work, impressive! ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 15:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to add about Portal:Geography...it had no selected article for about two weeks into July, until I happened to see there was none. Spencer^T♦C 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I'm kind of sad about the small number for Portal:Featured content, however... Teemu08 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that most people who visit the 'Featured content' page do so from the link in the sidebar. Note that according to this page it was the 64th most visited page on enWiki with an average of 20,752 viewers per day in the first 14 days of July... the various specific topic portals which scored well in the 'from the Main Page' stats above don't even make it onto that 'overall traffic' list. Portal:Contents also shows low usage in the stats above, but was the 38th most visited page on the other list... again likely because people get to it from the sidebar. This might argue for removing or reducing the prominence of things which are already in the sidebar... since that is effectively part of the Main Page, and every other page, they are already getting more significant promotion than most of the items on the Main Page proper and may not need a highly placed second link there. --CBD 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Great work. We still need to be careful not to conclude simply that things with less clicks shouldn't be on the main page. It's quite possible that it just means that the links need better names or that they should be positioned better. I'd say that the links in the "other areas of Wikipedia" are positioned way too low. Another idea could be renaming "Featured Content" (which sounds somewhat marketroidy) to something like "Best of Wikipedia". Zocky | picture popups 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, any redesign should place Wikipedia:Introduction and/or Wikipedia:Tutorial more prominently, or at least make the link text explicitly state what the links are. We also need to cut out pages that are not updated or have been abandoned (i.e., Wikipedia:Local Embassy). --- RockMFR 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a question about the counts ... according to that, Cristiano Ronaldo gets more visitors than does the Main Page? I'm lost about that... – 'Latics ^(talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cristiano_Ronaldo has been viewed 694377 times in 200806" → "Main_Page has been viewed 481086716 times in 200806" - The second number looks a lot bigger to me... Mr.Z-man 00:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Yeah ... I look stupid, don't I? :( I was looking at the graph rather than the numbers above it. – 'Latics ^(talk) 00:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep digging myself in a hole. Ha. I really didn't pay much attention before talking. Sorry. :D – 'Latics ^(talk) 06:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Two separate main pages - an Editor Main Page

Just a thought, we have a main-page that is dedicated to providing encyclopedic content to visitors and users but why not have a secondary main-page that is similar but more devoted to those who are more inclined to edit pages. So by-default the main-page is uncluttered and easy to navigate to different areas of reasearch, news etc. whilst a link is placed to the secondary main-page which is designed for regular editors with easy navigation to articles in need of attention and community areas. Just an idea. Lympathy ^Talk 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The ratio of regulars to visitors is severely unbalanced. We should direct the Main Page at our visitors, and not our regulars, because the vast majority of visitors won't have an interest in the stuff regulars get up to. Just my 2p. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the main page is completely designed for new people to wiki and the secondary page (linked to the main-page) is not as simple and is more powerful to an editor. Lympathy ^Talk 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what the Community portal is supposed to be. A rather unfortunate name, if you ask me. Zocky | picture popups 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew someone would bring that up. My vision of it would be that it is similarly gui friendly and not overly linked like the community portal and that it still contains ITN etc. Just a more advance version of the main userpage. Lympathy ^Talk 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What purpose would such a page serve that isn't already served by the community portal or the main page? J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A useful feature that we're failing to provide is a non-overwhelming portal for people who would like to become editors, or just find out about how Wikipedia works. I would personally prefer if things like NPOV, BLP, MOS, and some pages with advice for new editors were linked from the main page. IMO, that would save us a lot of pain. Zocky | picture popups 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We already link to Wikipedia:Overview, Wikipedia:Editing, Wikipedia:Questions and Wikipedia:Help- they cover absolutely everything you mentioned. I strongly oppose linking to specific policy pages. Not only will people not understand/not care what they are about, but, inevitably, people will choose to link to completely irrelevant pages- MOS? J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure they will understand. It's not exactly rocket science. The point is, the Main Page now tries to pretend that we're a finished encyclopedia, and works hard on not displaying "under construction" signs anywhere. IMO, that ensures that most of the new editors that we get are web-savvy teenagers. Zocky | picture popups 10:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• As a frequent editor, I like the Main Page because it lets me know what people are seeing when they come to Wikipedia. It displays the articles that we want to show to the non-editing public to get them involved in the project. You're welcome to make a new portal for editors, but honestly, I'll probably stick to the Main Page. Lovelac7 06:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that no Editor Main Page is needed; the Main Page is for readers (including editors in their capacity as readers), and the Community Portal for the community, namely editors new and old (and wannabes). If you'll look at the sidebar, the first box is purely for navigational purposes (which mostly pertains to reading) and the second one is for interaction (mostly editing). This is a good configuration, which is quite obvious to newcomers (it is also why I didn't want the search bar to move up, and why I have used a script to return it to where it's always been, but that's another issue entirely). And another thing: DYK, which is on the Main Page, does offer some insight into Wikipedia's nature as a project perpetually and by definition under construction. It presents new articles (emphasis on new), which are generally fertile ground for further expansion and improvement. Waltham, The Duke of 13:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • To further that point, ITN shows the way that we are constantly updating to reflect the goings-on in the world. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd note that you don't need approval of the denizen of "Talk:Main_Page" to start such a thing. I would recommend that a person so interested should first make a mock-up at a sub-page of their own user page, showing what they envision an "Editor's Main Page" to be. If others find that such a page would be useful, it can likely be moved to the Wikipedia: space as an "unofficial" resource. Once there, if there is wide consensus as to its usefulness (probably in several months time), someone can come back here ("Talk:Main_Page") and propose adding a link from the regular Main Page to the new "Editor's Main Page." Even if such official support never materializes, this "Wikipedia:Editor's Main Page" could still be an unofficial resource for its loyal followers, much like the other numerous project pages in the Wikipedia space. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well said. Lovelac7 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Main Page

{{Editprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub12718696 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Not done No reason given. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the template shows that there was a reason but it was a bad one: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stub12718696, this is not the first time you have made such a request. Please stop. If there are specific minor changes that need to be made on the main page, please use WP:ERRORS. --PFHLai (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Eyes on

Can I have a few eyes with a variety of browsers to make sure that Main Page/1 still looks right? As you can see, the only thing I'm trying to do is add ids for easy skinning... but I have too many (ie more than 0) trouts for screwing the Main Page :D Happy‑melon 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine in Firefox 3 on Windows XP. "More events" at the bottom of On This Day is indented on Main Page/1, and not Main Page. Main Page also seems to have a bit more whitespace than Main Page/1. But that's all. --Herald Alberich (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Barring the "This page was last modified on" bit at the bottom on Main Page/1 and the differences with the "Help us" tag at the top (both intentional?), looks good in FF3 on WinXP, IE7 on WinXP, and Safari 3.1.2 on WinXP. JPG-GR (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing other than that as far as I can see on IE7 and Firefox 3; just the time for On This Day and the article count are off, but I gather that's because you haven't used auto-updating templates? Is this subpage to be used as a copy of the current main page for the redesign process? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an exact clone of the Main Page, so anything that's different shouldn't be. I want to make these changes to the live page since they're trivial - they add hooks to allow customisation using personal css, which should have been done a long time ago - but wanted to make sure the changes wouldn't muck up in some obscure browser/OS/display combination. Happy‑melon 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes? Try Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. --74.13.127.194 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Main page

Wasn´t it going to change its name like two months ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.165.114 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been no discussion in favor of changing the name that I know of. From the discussions I've seen, there has either been no consensus or consensus against changing the name. Acalamari 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should call it 'Fred'. Less impersonal. :] --CBD 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a name we can all agree on. :D Acalamari 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No! I utterly dispute that, it would be far better as 'Nigel' Modest Genius ^talk 02:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's male? I always thought of the Main Page as a 'Bertha' or 'Mildred', with its soft pastels and constant fussiness to make sure everything is just right and in its right place. I'm pretty sure that the Main Page crochets in its free time. - BanyanTree 02:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just call it Pat. – 'Latics ^(talk) 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "Lady Paige Main"?  :-) --PFHLai (talk)03:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You Anglophiles. Why not Mustafa? 69.19.14.30 (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

YOU CAN NEVER HAZ TOO MANY

Less chit-chat about renaming the main page. Less food on the main page. MAOR KATZ! Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are hideous, I must say. –  LATICS  talk  04:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What?! How can you say that? They're so cute and snuggly looking. Ceiling Cat (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In the news

Shouldn't there be headlines covering the events in Turkey, that the AK Parti has survived from a ban by the constitutional court? M Miah (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:ITN/C instead of here? --74.13.127.194 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but please read the brief instructions at the top of that page before nominating a candidate. It will likely save you some time later on. - BanyanTree 22:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kadima leadership election, 2008

I think the words "primary election" in the news item regarding Olmert's decision not to run in the Kadima party primary election in September should link to that article. -- Nudve (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please post items like this to WP:ERRORS above, which theoretically has faster reactions. - BanyanTree 07:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)