Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 110.227.70.112 (talk) at 02:17, 7 June 2018 (→‎Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Main Page error reports

Shortcuts

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 07:29 on 9 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)[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(September 13)

Monday's FL

(September 9, today)
Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

Turn default ==headings== into <div> styles, matching rest of page

I made a mockup of an alternate Main Page in my userspace: User:Nixinova/Main Page. This is what the bottom of the page looks like:

Extended content

Other areas of Wikipedia

  • Community portal – The central hub for editors, with resources, links, tasks, and announcements.
  • Village pump – Forum for discussions about Wikipedia itself, including policies and technical issues.
  • Site news – Sources of news about Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement.
  • Teahouse – Ask basic questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Help desk – Ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Reference desk – Ask research questions about encyclopedic topics.
  • Content portals – A unique way to navigate the encyclopedia.

Sister projects

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:

Wikipedia languages

This Wikipedia is written in English. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.

(I replaced the <h2/>s with <h3/>s so the contents won't get messed up)

I just used orange as an example (edit: please note I said *example*) but that could be any colour. I think that this looks much better than default ==headings== which have been on the main page for over almost two decades now. Wikipedia is now one of the biggest websites on the internet and it should look professional. Feel free to suggest any changes to this but I do think that this would be very beneficial.  Nixinova  T  C  05:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it looks worse, personally. The extra frame isn't needed and just causes color clashing. We're not making ourselves look more professional by doing this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I agree with the concept since the lower sections look like they were added as an afterthought rather than flowing with the design. That being said, I feel that it has been implemented in a way designed to bring out all its cons. I would prefer a simple #f6f6f6 background for the headings with out any border(not even the defaults)
Extended content

Other areas of Wikipedia

  • Community portal – The central hub for editors, with resources, links, tasks, and announcements.
  • Village pump – Forum for discussions about Wikipedia itself, including policies and technical issues.
  • Site news – Sources of news about Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement.
  • Teahouse – Ask basic questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Help desk – Ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Reference desk – Ask research questions about encyclopedic topics.
  • Content portals – A unique way to navigate the encyclopedia.

Sister projects

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:

Wikipedia languages

This Wikipedia is written in English. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.

103.215.54.53 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks nice too. I just want anything to replace what is currently on the Main Page. (and I changed the <h2/>s to <h3/>s to not mess up the contents.)  Nixinova  T  C  03:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second one fits much better with the first half of the current page too, there shouldn't be that style divide between them. --Jessietail (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually sceptical of attempts to redesign parts of the MP, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that this second example looks rather good and would fit with the existing design of other sections. Is the code behind it the same as the other section headings? That would ease compatibility/testing concerns. Modest Genius talk 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Modest Genius-Yes122.163.32.8 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the frame being there on the bottom, just like the other sections - don't really care for the orange-y color. — xaosflux Talk 15:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an implementation of the idea here.Nixinova, if you really want to change the main page you need to create (what you people all call a "Rfc") to generate consensus. Only then will the admins of the site change the main page.--103.215.54.53 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The spacing between boxes and the text style of the "headers" should match that of the other sections but otherwise yeah that looks like a good improvement so far. --Jessietail (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the spacing needs to be fixed, and the header fonts need to match the rest of the page, but I really like this proposal. I think that the current header style needs to be updated, and this idea is a really good one. --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I implemented the feedback here103.215.54.53 (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work! That looks a lot better. I hope someone with a better understanding of Wikipedia's processes and any historical discussions on this topic can bring this up for comment to help build consensus for a Main Page redesign.--haha169 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made a slight alteration to your second implementation by adding a border around the headers to match the one found around the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box. Sample here. --haha169 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that adding the frame at the bottom would make it look better. The use of headers right now just stands out from the rest of the page. SemiHypercube (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; the new design looks better; in the previous the bottom part just looks out of place Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.155.2 (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues at #Request for Comment.  Nixinova  T  C  22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page pictures

Four of men, and the painting mostly ditto (apart from the Virgin Mary).

Whatever the 'logic of the sections not working together' this does seem unbalanced - WP normally manages a more diverse range of images (allowing for 'themed days'). AL Pluribelle (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Main Page history shows it is unusual not to have any non-human pictures, although interproject monitoring for this "problem" would be a pain. 50% female (or 50% children, animals, aliens or robots) would be unusual. Art LaPella (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning it #because# it is so unusual not to have a collection of 'persons, animal, vegetable, mineral, constructed things.' (And not objecting to themed days - perhaps robots (generic name anyone?) for Isaac Asimov's 100th anniversary etc.) AL Pluribelle (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable criticism; that all-male image showcase did look rather bad. However a day later we have one male (who was also on yesterday), one female, and four inanimate objects. It's unfortunate those weren't mixed up a bit more over the two days, but hard to see these things coming when each section is scheduled separately. Modest Genius talk 12:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Logically a 'full house' will occur unintentionally on occasion (along with various other Main page 'hands') - and 'just mentioning it.' It is when such things occur regularly that there is 'an issue.' (Video games do seem to be rather less frequent than they were a while ago.)
What is the collective noun for robots - and should IA's centenary be so celebrated? AL Pluribelle (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "Cog", if Wiktionary is to be believed; (2) Definitely not; we don't even accord this treatment to the anniversaries of genuinely world-changing events like the centenary of the First World War, let alone to a relatively niche writer (albeit one with a disproportionate number of fans among the Wikipedia editor base). ‑ Iridescent 06:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, probably, 'an argument' of sentient computers. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of no confidence

One doesn't lose a vote of no confidence one loses to a vote of no confidence. Should be changed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

It appears you are wrong. The phrase lose a vote of no confidence seems common, while "lose to a vote of no confidence" is essentially unheard of. When a phrasing gets 2 google hits compared to 46,900, then you're wrong. --Jayron32 02:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'A vote of no confidence' is a process/activity rather than a noun (to which 'to' would apply). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A word for a process or activity is a noun, and can have "to" in front of it, as in "the days leading up to an election". However, the indirect object of "lose" identifies the winner, not the contest. "He will lose the game." "He will lose to John." Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the context is what is being discussed the analogue of 'Definite and indefinite conjugations' in Hungarian verbs? (I know languages do not always compare - and Latin infinitives are single words which cannot be split, but English equivalents can - besides 'to go boldly' sounds weak.)
So why does UK English have 'I will write to you' and US English 'I will write you' (which in UK English means writing the word "you")? 21:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Usually, differences between UK and US English are a result of either:
Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most languages (and regional versions thereof) will have their 'quirks, conventions, historical and other usages, and colloquial and formal versions' - and some alternative versions sound/read better than others.
There is a (probably apocryphal) story about a spy being caught because his English was 'too perfect.' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A lone gunman"

Perhaps we could change that line to say "a single gunman" to allow it to not dramatize murder? Thanks for the response. LordLimaBean (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to how swapping one exact synonym for another reduces drama. --Jayron32 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with a simple "A gunman"? Moriori (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article's lead says "a lone gunman", so it's consistent. But I'm with Moriori. I'd like to see the word "lone" removed from both. Singular usage of "gunman" tells us he was alone anyway. In fact, I'd probably prefer "shooter". It sounds less exciting. We shouldn't be glorifying killing people by using wild west style descriptors. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lone gunman is just fine, this is a lot of fuss about nothing. As for "shooter", you can keep that, an abhorrence of the English language. Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the common perception of these perpetrators, using 'single' might be seen as an allusion to their relationship status. Best to just use 'lone', or just don't use a qualifier. Oppose 'shooter' per above. Cesdeva (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also 'lone gunman' #is# a conventional term (and distinguishes 'person operating on their own' from 'the one person from a group who does the shooting' (eg Gavrilo Princip). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised this is being defended. "Lone gunman" is a very extreme romantification of shooters, and it should be done away with. It may be technically correct in definition, but it's horrible optics. WaltCip (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But nothing like as disgusting as "shooter", for the love of GOD!! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And we treat English as one language, eh! I prefer "shooter". HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never, ever, EVER, in BritEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In UK used for the computer game genre. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shooter states "A Shooter is someone who shoots something." So, an archer? Or slinger? Gunman gives the precision needed. Bazza (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no hint of romanticism at all in the phrase "lone gunman".--Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, If one word won't change much, why not change "gunman" to "wolf"?--Americanfreedom (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because two phrases use the same adjective does not mean that they will have similar connotations. A "lone gunman" is a statement of fact, a "lone wolf" is a metaphorical description (unless you are actually discussing a wolf). --Khajidha (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Lone gunman" has inextricable idiomatic ties in USEng to the Kennedy assassination and is used almost exclusively in connection with conspiracy theories (see also "hanging chad"), or those looking to throw shade on an opposing opinion by casting it in a similarly dubious light. ghost 11:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, because this American sees it used all the time as a simple description of a shooter who is acting alone. See: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2017-10/03/content_32785340.htm , https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html , https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/suspect-dallas-sniper-attacks-believed-be-lone-gunman-n606336 , https://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/03/01/lone-gunman-robs-gas-station/384591002/ , http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-police-shooting-live-shooter-was-the-lone-gunman-in-this-1468017544-htmlstory.html . It was used in descriptions of the Florida and Santa Fe school shootings earlier this year. --Khajidha (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on main page

I've nominated the image of Damien Chazelle appearing on the front page for deletion. Albeit, being on the front page, I can't add the deletion template on Commons.

This image is from https://www.flickr.com/photos/121941453@N02/32617148752/, which is within the folder https://www.flickr.com/photos/121941453@N02/albums/72157671680033042, which claims that screenshots from the film itself and various other films are public domain. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapped images

Perhaps it's my display scaling but the main images on the home page seem overlapped over the text etc. Anyone else see that? 2600:1702:1CD1:2CC0:AC3F:3E1B:FB50:B5D6 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop or mobile? What kind of device? What browser? Window size? Screenshot? Isa (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Front page representation for women

Just a note that at this time the front page has links to 23 biographical articles and every single one is male. There shouldn't be a need for a compulsory link to a woman in each section, but having no women mentioned in all sections should not really happen either. Possibilities are Kate Spade for recent deaths and born today Lisa Cholodenko (director/writer of an Academy Award-winning film). SFB 20:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By all means get involved with the various sections of the main page where items are selected for inclusion. As a regular reviewer at WP:Selected anniversaries, I frequently see three female births/deaths at OTD in a single day. RD operates via consensus and quality control at WP:ITNC, feel free to go there to vote for items you consider ready for inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, you can't say that "(t)here shouldn't be a need for a compulsory link to a woman in each section" and in the very same sentence also say that "having no women mentioned in all sections should not really happen either". The two statements are mutually exclusive.
Also, I see a link to Julie Andrews on the mainpage - and a link to the admittedly fictional and joint article of superhero Rogue & Gambit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no link to Julie Andrews – the link is to Star! (film). As for the logic, these are clearly not mutually exclusive statements: the first statement is saying we shouldn't have rules to always link to a female in each section. The second is saying it's not desirable to have an end result of no women across all sections. A healthy outcome would be for all section curators to keep in mind to regularly feature women and the statistical likelihood of having a page with 23 male biographies and zero female ones decreases dramatically. SFB 21:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, what happens is "curators" pick from what's available to them, and that's predominantly male-oriented right now. If you personally want to work to change that, please do so. The section "curators" have a hard enough time as it is getting reasonable quality onto the main page without trying to hamstring them with tokenism. We need a step change in content, not a rule to ensure that one item, no matter how crap, has to appear because it's about a woman. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sillyfolkboy, there is no conspiracy in the English Wikipedia against women. It's hard to find a work of reference for any period, including national collections of biographies, in which women aren't heavily outnumbered. Until less than a hundred years ago women had few opportunities for notability, it's just the way things are. As The Rambling Man says, do please get involved and do some work to promote links to more women, if you believe you can do better. Moonraker (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, as was said above 'particular over-representations of one topic' are more noticeable than 'the usual general mix.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

The above Main Page redesign proposal (previous discussion here, this is my first RfC so I don't know if the previous discussion will be transcluded) made by @Nixinova: with some adjustments by @103.215.54.53: and myself have generated a bit of traction. I'd like to post a formal RfC in order to gain some sort of consensus about whether or not this redesign proposal should be implemented, or at least generate some discussion on any possible alternatives. --haha169 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the proposed main page redesign: Permalink/843614703--haha169 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above but moved to its own page: User:Nixinova/Main Page.  Nixinova  T  C  22:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The redesign with just the changed sections: User:Nixinova/Main Page/Transclusion.  Nixinova  T  C  22:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is just changing the bottom of the main page from default headings to styled headings which match the rest of the page. And I used orange as an example; I think the grey would work better.  Nixinova  T  C  22:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I think Ahecht looked at the wrong link(the orange and purple one). The correct link is here or here(for only the redesigned sections). As far as I know grey does not affect the color-blind users or else most of the Wikimedia interface would have been unusable110.227.70.112 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • The current design of the main page looks as if the lower sections were added as an after-thought rather than flowing with the design. This change seeks to remedy exactly that. The default headers in the lower section have been replaced by grey headers and a border has been added around the lower sections. All this has been done keeping in mind the aesthetics of the design as a whole. The rest of the main page remains unaltered, untouched. Most of the code has been replicated from other parts of the main page and thus is proven to be compatible with a large number of devices. I believe this a small step towards making the Main Page of the world's fifth most busiest website better in terms of looks.122.163.11.63 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RfC would probably go more smoothly if the introductory paragraph gave a brief indication of what changed in the updated design and why, rather than hoping editors will go off and read the discussion from almost two weeks ago and which will archived imminently. Modest Genius talk 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a rundown somewhere of the changes, looks the same to me. Thanks, cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=844773346"