Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 16:56 on 12 July 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

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

I've added "leading to seven years of peace" to the blurb. I hope the blurb is now not too long. Thanks for the suggestion. --PFHLai (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Another pic is now on SA/OTD. Thanks for pointing this problem out. --PFHLai (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 12, today)

Monday's FL

(July 15)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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

General discussion

Proposal to implement new framework for main page

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

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

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

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

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

Main page with new framework

Please state your opinion below.

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

   Sure, see [1]. The page is about a million miles wide, and most or all of the missing content appears way off to the right somewhere. 86.167.125.50 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Oppose - for now at least - because on Ipad each box (TFA, ITN and so) takes the whole screen in length, even though there's enough width on tablets to show two columns of items and it's how the current MP is displayed (with only one row, it's too much unnecessary scrolling down). For some reason, the second box is also DYK instead of ITN, and we've in all discussions wanted ITN to be the second most important item after TFA. All browsers are affected. Cenarium (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

   I've lowered the threshold for collapsing a bit. How does it look now? — Edokter (talk) — 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

   It's the same. Here's the suggested version, as you can see there's also an issue with the header box. And when you scroll down you see DYK first. The current main page is here for comparison, and it's almost identical to the PC version. Cenarium (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

   Reduced treshold to 800px screen width. I don't have an iPad to test, so I hope this should suffice. — Edokter (talk) — 22:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About ″Article in English″

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

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

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

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

Sahara desert sand in Britain

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

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

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

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

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

Lol that comment made me laugh--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Font of mainpage headers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original, classic font scheme can be seen at https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePage. I suspect that you don't actually want the original font scheme back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree this new typography is rather ugly, and makes reading more difficult. Please return to the old one. Thanks in advance and have a great weekend. --Maarten1963 (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I'm still using Monobook. The fonts on the MP (and every other page) look exactly the same as they always did. Another victory for consistency over flashy 'improvements'. Modest Genius ^talk 13:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Un-bold Main Page headers?

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

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

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

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

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

One of the annoying things one usually runs in to at some point is that English speakers will be given priority over speakers of other languages. This is because...well, a number of reasons, mainly that English seems to be the most widely spoken language, and in any case it's often unpleasant for other languages though I can't really say anyone's to blame, but still it would probably have been a good idea to test things with the other languages considering that wikipedia et al are in like 200 of them. I also got a complaint on my talk page that the Catalan middle dot had no italic version in Liberation Sans - just another example of this. Notice I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just floating this on the water of the talk page. Also I'm quite aware this should probably be going on mw:Talk:Typography refresh, though a more cynical mind than mine might suggest that people are being told to discuss things elsewhere so that they can be better obscured. Cathfolant (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Vote - Previous font discussion

Not sure where the previous font discussion has gone; at least leave the link to the vote here on the village pump. —Neotarf (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is where it went. While it may have been a bit angry and full of curse words, I disagree that it was 'crap'. It was feedback like any other, nothing particularly invalid about it, we're trying to make the user interface 'better' aren't we? Cathfolant (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyond the fact any discussion of this here is in the wrong place (even if you want to complain here on wikipedia, it's still the wrong place and always was and complaints here were never going to get much attention from anyone), you realise that removing that was beneficial to those opposed to the changes rights?

If the first thing someone sees are those dodgy posts, it's rather easy to assume most people complaining are of similar ilk and therefore not worthy of any attention. In reality some people concerned about the changes have some good points and can do without being associated with that poster.

Or to put it simply, if someone can't learn that shouting, a continual stream of curse words and bringing up the Nazis, Satan, Zionists and the CIA doesn't improve your feedback and can't even find the right place to complain, they shouldn't have any expectation their feedback will stay.

Besides all that, seeing the horror of the OPs complaint may be enough to make people think the problems with the changes are so minor in comparison perhaps it's not even worth commenting on.

In fact, reading their comments more closely are we even sure they are genuine? I'm starting to think it may have been trolling or mockery, perhaps even by someone who supported the changes (or more likely didn't give a damn).

Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

They are genuine and true. The forced font denies our freedom of font's choice.--FoureychEightess (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Here here, we want Comic sans!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

bring back the way it looked before the change.98.227.75.195 (talk)

I want to see the people who unilaterally decide on these changes sent on formal change management training, for several years. It's obvious that right now they have no idea how introduce even great new ideas. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the discussion goes here. (Unilateral??) Art LaPella (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious that most of the unhappy people were completely unaware of the proposed change. That, by definition, is bad change management. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I can't remember the last time a major website asked my opinion, or even warned be before a redesign. APL (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Most websites aren't user generated either. --Khajidha (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Offhand I can think of the Guardian and Facebook, both of which had prominent "Try out our new design" banners in the run up, allowing users to get used to the changes and to comment if they felt strongly. If the new design had been as poor as Wikipedia's was, they would certainly have realised very quickly from the feedback and been able to change it.

One of my trade papers has also recently changed its design - they started off with some of the sister titles that came within the main paper, and only after those had been running successfully with the new design for a few months did they do the same for the main paper. For a few weeks the old masthead was shown "peeling off" and the new masthead with more modern type was revealed underneath, which meant that the redesign didn't have any "shock" value and didn't induce an instinctive negative reaction.

So that's three examples of how to do it properly. I can't think of any websites that suddenly changed to a significantly inferior design without any warning at all, on the whim of a tiny minority of users. --93.152.83.69 (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's completely impossible to make everyone aware of a proposed change. Strangely, the number of people who complain about not having had advance notice doesn't really seem to change depending on whether it was advertised through repeated spamming sitenotices, central notices, watchlist notice, central discussion links, endless repeated village pump spam, direct user interface modification spam, mailing list spam, etc., or barely mentioned at all in advance. Even stranger, there are approximately the same amount of complaints even when the change was made by the community as a direct result of clear consensus. Strange. --Yair rand (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that. We all notice Wikipedia's requests for donations, and opportunities to vote. there was nothing of the kind about this. Have those responsible for introducing change here done formal change management training? HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New system for suggesting "Today's featured article"

WP:Today's featured article/requests is using a new system on an experimental basis. Firstly, the old requirement to calculate how many "points" the suggested article had has gone. Secondly, we are using a nomination template based on that used at DYK in the hope that this will make the process easier to complete. If you would like to nominate a featured article that has yet to appear on the main page – whether written by you or by others – please come along to WP:TFAR and give the new system a go. All feedback welcome. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sports

Why are three of the current news items sports events? 2 of which are only college level. Out of >7 billion people and +200 countries you're telling me that 2 elitist academic sporting events and a quick-fire cricket tournament are the most important things people can find to post on the main page? That's kind of pathetic, what about Crimea? Syria? Libya? Thailand? North Korea? Some of these articles have been up for days yet I never saw anything about the artillery duel between the 2 Koreas, you kidding me? 123.243.215.92 (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)