Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

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 06:26 on 6 November 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 "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Typhoon Thelma

... that 1977's Typhoon Thelma was the most destructive event in Taiwan since World War II?

This just seems to be one person's opinion and that's not definite enough for a superlative claim. Consider the 1964 Baihe earthquake, for example. That had more fatalities and thousands of buildings were destroyed, not just damaged. And there have been more natural disasters since 1977 so the opinion is dated. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Anywhere else on WP we'd expect WP:INTEXT attribution, but DYK I guess allows using a WP:WEASEL word or at least quoting the opinion. Anything but in WP voice. —Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tavantius, Oldelpaso, Hilst, and Crisco 1492: Courtesy ping to hook participants.—Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In the citation, I'm not sure how the text file relates to the pdf link. The relevant quote ("Thelma, the second typhoon of the 1977 season, brought more destruction on Taiwan than any event since World War II.") only seems to be in the text file.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The PDF URL is erroneous as it's the 1991 report not the 1977 report as the citation claims. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A quick search gave me the actual source of the text file, this 1980 NASA report. The relevant quote can be found on page 173. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's page 6.5-1 using the doc's internal numbering system. The confusing part is the WP article says the quote is from "a member of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center". Is it one person's opinion, or does it represent the organization as a whole? If the latter, is the hook OK in WP:WIKIVOICE. The complexity is that the hook is a paraphrase of what's in the source, so it's not as simple as the usual hook trick of just adding quotes. —Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait wait, I was wrong. Here is the actual 1977 report, with the World War II comment on page 29 (22 on internal numbering system). As far as I can tell, it doesn't say who wrote what bit, but the foreword does say that it is "prepared by the staff of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC)", which leads me to believe that the quote does represent the opinion of the entire organization. I'll update the article to fix the citations. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's sounding as if the WP article should strike "a member of" from the lead and body, i.e. ... prompting a member of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center to state ... Then it's a matter of whether the agency's statement can be reasonably contested and whether the hook should be in WP's voice or not. —Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Don Bragg

• ... that the Korean War allowed Don Bragg to set a UCLA basketball record for the most rebounds by a varsity freshman, which stood for almost 40 years?

This fact is not given in the article and is SYNTH. If you look at the nomination, source one says that due to the Korean War freshmen could play varsity sports and source two says Bragg's 1952 rebound record was broken in 1989. The causation presented here is completely OR. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• In addition, this blurb is incomprehensible to anyone unfamiliar with college basketball. At minimum, please link 'rebounds' to rebound (basketball) and link 'varsity freshman' to an article that explains that term (I couldn't find one). Modest Genius ^talk 13:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve taken care of wikilinking Rebound (basketball). Schwede66 14:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, some DYK copyeditors routinely remove links as "the details are in the bold link" (and entices a click), while at ERRORS complaints are that links should all be in the hook.—Bagumba (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Freshman refers to a student in their first year at college (university), while the varsity team is an institution's top sports tier. In those days, freshman were not allowed on the varsity basketball team, but an exception was made for the Korean War. —Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, "source one" explains the Korean War exception specifically w.r.t. Bragg. Still, DYK hooks are routinely sourced from multiple sources, where the entire hook is not explictly stated in one source. This higher bar for DYK "OR" would need wider consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What? This isn’t just two facts next to each other. It is wrongly asserting a causality not found in sources or the article. I’m shocked that the main page is exempt from OR. Regardless, this fails WP:DYKRULES #3. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"As a freshman for the Bruins in 1951–52, he played on the varsity team. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had temporarily permitted freshmen to play because many students were leaving college to serve in the Korean War...Bragg's 186 rebounds remained the UCLA varsity freshman season record until 1989" seems quite present in the article to me. As for the causality, us Wikipedia editors are supposed to have critical thinking skills of our own; if you construe and forbid this simplest, most unobjectionable of logical links as WP:SYNTH, you might as well ask us to edit blindfolded wearing donkey ears. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sammy Basso

... that Sammy Basso was the oldest known person with progeria?

This DYK parses strangely. It certainly doesn’t impart the information it’s supposed to impart. When you say somebody is the “oldest known person with” something, first, its normal idiomatic implication is that the person is living (‘’has’’ the disease), but more importantly, it doesn’t normally mean that the person ‘’lived’’ (survived) ‘’to the oldest age’’ with the affliction.

Accordingly, I suggest changing it to comport with the language actually used in the article: (which is still relatively short):

... that Sammy Basso is one of the oldest known survivors of the disease progeria?

There are some secondary issues. The current language is definitive—-he WAS THE OLDEST, whereas, the article says he’s “one of the oldest” survivors—-not the same thing at all. The suggested change would fix this.

However, the source actually indicates he was indeed the actual oldest know survivor—-‘’which the article doesn't’’. So the real fix is likely to confirm what I’m saying about the source’s content; change the article to match the source; and then remove the prase “one of the” from the DYK’s fix.

By the way, unless I missed it, the article only says the DYK fact in the lead section. I was under the impression that the lead was supposed to be only a summary of the body content, rather than a place for a first and only mention. —108.27.245.117 (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Next DYK

• Q1, 2nd hook "Ojców, a 1897 Polish adventure and travel novel" - pls tweak to 'an' 1897 JennyOz (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed – Schwede66 07:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

• ... that the lyrics of Gigi Perez's "Sailor Song" were criticized by far-right conservative Christian communities?

Two sources describing the critics. The Official Chart Company uses that language "Given its central queer love story, the release of Sailor Song drew criticism from some far-right, conservative Christian groups online for the line "I don't believe in God, but you're my saviour." [1] but Billboard says the critics were "religious tiktokers" [2]. I don't think objecting to that quote makes you far right, and isn't this really plagiarism? It's certainly a quote. Secretlondon (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer, Mrfoogles, MaranoFan, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: Courtesy notifiction to nom participants. —Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that while not all religious tiktokers are far-right, some certainly are. Objecting to someone essentially just saying they're an atheist is somewhat questionable, in my opinion. I agree with the other on the copyright basis and I think that the source is reliable for this on the factual basis. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LIMITED, I wouldn't regard this as plagiarism. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Precisely. I can't readily think of a ready way to express the concept succinctly without using those words, at least without changing the meaning.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What they both said.--Launchballer 16:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• Terribly sorry about this, but I may have made a slight whoopsie a few hours ago and used the recently-staged hook for Starship Troopers for tomorrow's OTD, not realising that Starship Troopers is tomorrow's featured article (and ofc it's now protected so yeah I gotta ask here instead of fixing it) Anyone mind swapping it out for me? Thanks 😅 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 00:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 8)

Monday's FL

(November 11)

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

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. Bencherlite^Talk 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)

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)

The discussion above 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.

Main page redesign

Link to page under discussion: Main Page working copy and associated CSS.

The discussion on the 2013 main page redesign proposal has completely died after the RFC. The RFC has provided many usefull ideas, but no one seems interested in continuing the process, and no one is stepping up as a 'manager'. It seems the collaborative model is has also been proven unsuccesfull. I have been working on a basic framework (and design) but I severely lack feedback, especially on the content. This is becoming a bit of a one-man show.

I might just be very bold and just put the thing up... Then discuss and tweak. This seems to work better then trying to pre-plan everying in advance (just look at Visual Editor). But I would really like to have some feedback and collaboration. So I'm calling for participants in this process. Without you, the Main Page may suddenly look like this. — Edokter (talk) — 13:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to express my interest in this. I have submitted my proposal before and it met with hearty discussion, but as yet, none of the proposals have been implemented. Can you please include the items listed in the below proposal?

A Proposal I believe the main page of Wikipedia could be make a great deal bolder with a couple of small changes. The top boxes (In the News) and (Today's Featured Article} are not bold enough - the headings should be in BOLD and ALL-CAPS and the typeface should be at least 2 points larger, with the blue news headlines possibly flashing or just scrolling along the top of the page in the manner of a news ticker, also there should be a much larger image on the page, and the font is a bit square, should be replaced for something a bit more fun. I think this would get more people keen to view more parts of the site.

Thank you, Horatio Snickers (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Flashing and scrolling headlines? You're joking, I take it? This is an encyclopaedia, not a 12 year-olds website.....82.21.7.184 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

How about the Commons main page design? It's a refreshment of what we have now, but I probably wouldn't include the lime green here. Cloudbound (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be very original, would it? Commons' design is bland at best. We need to be simple yet innovative and elegant. — Edokter (talk) — 18:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I for one would have no problem with the Main Page Edokter is proposing. I like the fact that it gives more prominence to the encyclopedic aspects of the encyclopedia and our best content, as well as to the nuts and bolts Other areas.

One nitpick. As was suggested some time ago, it seems to me more logical to reverse the titles of DYK: have From Wikipedia's newest content as the section heading outside the box, and Did you know... inside the box, directly preceding the hooks. (The overall structure of present order, Did you know...From Wikipedia's newest content...that the music video bla bla bla is simply incoherent).

And er, no flashing, scrolling or the like, please. Awien (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Another vote generally in favor of Edokter's proposal, for the same reasons Awien has given. I would also second Awien's proposal about DYK. Alternatively, the "from Wikipedia's newest content" blurb could be moved to the end of the list and rephrased as "...that all of the above were taken from Wikipedia's newest content?" Basically working the notice into the format of the section. Additionally, I would place OTD before ITN, it just seems more encyclopedic. Finally, another "no" to any flashing, scrolling, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Note I cannot change anything inside the boxes at this moment, as that content is transcluded from the respective projects. What I would like the change/replace is the Other areas... blurb, making it focus more on aspiring editors and pointing them to the appropriate pages. I could definitely use some input there. — Edokter (talk) — 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly should I go to propose my change to DYK? --Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WT:DYK. — Edokter (talk) — 14:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Make the pictures bigger than they presently are. Presently they are miserable little things; often you can hardly even see what they depict. I would also like to see the "picture of the day" more prominent, if the layout can bear it. 86.161.61.22 (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea. Currently the animated GIF is one of the most popular media formats on the Internet. I believe the front page would be more vibrant if an animated GIF of reasonable size (about 350-400px) was placed in a prominent position. These animations would illustrate some of the key topics of Wikipedia, and could possibly accompany the featured article. Also if music was mentioned on the Main Page it would be good if it could play that music when you view the main page. I can see some of your points about how the flashing and scrolling text may be a bit distracting but it would have the benefit of making the main page stand out and the content seem more enticing. Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite aside from rendering the page unprintable, substantially slowing the download speed, drawing attention away from more significant aspects of the page, and the general dislike many people have of intrusive animated elements, any animated GIF of over five seconds would break Wikipedia's own policy. What sort of a signal would it send out if our most visited page broke our own accessibility policy? Mogism (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That suggestion was obviously a joke. 86.161.61.22 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've thought this since Horatio Snickers's previous post in this thread. I certainly hope he is joking, as I see no benefit to making Wikipedia look like an old Geocities page. --Khajidha (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Snickers", i.e. "gives a half-suppressed secretive laugh", about says it all. Awien (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You know, I have never heard that definition before - I had always assumed it related to the chocolate bar. It is a family name and it is not meant to display any troublesome intent, and neither do I - I believe in being WP:Bold and I can see my suggestions may seem a bit surprising. It is a shame about the policy on five second gifs - I was not previously aware of it. Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's just put Edokter's version up and work from there, that's probably the best bet at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No. It's a shame that discussion died out, but suddenly introducing a redesigned main page without the consent of the community is not on. It would only result in an almighty drama followed by a return to the status quo in any case. Formerip (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure there will be dramah. But it's better then nothing happening at all. The process is dead, someone needs to step up and be bold. My feeling about all this: Input is welcome all the time, but don't complain afterward is you didn't have anything to say when you had the chance. — Edokter (talk) — 22:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's only better if it's an improvement. Which I'll reserve judgement on, but just point out that it hasn't been discussed or explained. Your design is basically made up of a series of more minor changes. Why not try a new tack and seek consensus for each one in turn. Propose changing the font, moving this, resizing that, each in turn.

Oh, and BTW, you've technically lost the ability to cite BOLD for the change by opening a discussion first... Formerip (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BOLD recommends this very thing. I am bold in not seeking consensus (because a !vote is guaranteed to fail), but looking for constructive feedback instead, working that in, and finally go ahead and replace this dinosaur. — Edokter (talk) — 20:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD depends on the ability of other editors to revert your work, and as you are an admin editing a protected page, this approach is not possible. I consider "boldly" editing the main page to be the equivalent of editing through protection. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Were the main page be protected due to an content dispute, you would have a point. But the main page protection is there only because of high visibility, to prevent vandalism. There are also over 1500 admins who can revert any change, so "not possible" does not apply. — Edokter (talk) — 21:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I like it; it looks fresh. I think you should go ahead. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not put up a formal proposal on here that we adopt the new design and then ask for comments on the proposal on the banner on the watchlist page. Then no one can say they didn't have the chance to discuss it. Richerman (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Lots and lots of white space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the thing most lacking is a call to action, inviting readers to become editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I want to replace the 'Other areas...' sections with something like 'Be an editor' wich links to the relevant introducory pages. — Edokter (talk) — 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now replaced {{Other areas of Wikipedia}} with {{Be an editor}}. The blurb is a draft, so comments/edits welcome. — Edokter (talk) — 09:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the text "Our goal is to build an encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of human knowledge" could be better honed. Arguably that goal has already been largely achieved. Often now it's more about the quality of information. 86.128.4.139 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember the maxim about a camel being a horse designed by a committee? Ever wonder what Fallingwater would have looked like designed by a committee? Or whether Picasso's Femme would exist if Picasso had had to work to orders from a committee? Never mind a committee of the whole, which is what we would get here if we were to throw the question open to the community. Just imagine the endless contradictory demands and incoherent design if we tried that! No, what we need is someone with vision looking at the big picture.

So what I say is, with firm opinions all being positive, and in the absence of any serious objections, put up Edokter's (imo well-thought-out) design, and tweak as necessary. That, after, all is the principle that has got WP to where it is today. Otherwise, the process is interminable, nobody knows what constitutes a consensus anyway . . . and yet again, nothing happens. Awien (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

With the greatest respect to those involved, you could scarcely say the new design has anything to do with "vision". It is mostly just a slightly less space-efficient rearrangement of the old design, with some cosmetic tweaks. 86.128.4.139 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It may look like a cosmetic tweak on the outside, and you are right that the content hasn't changed. But under the hood, the whole code base has been changed to allow a lot of flexibility in terms of content, layout and styling. None of the other proposals/designs have this flexibility. That framework serves as the basis. — Edokter (talk) — 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please suggest a better phrasing. Feedback is a good thing! And don't be afraid to edit it! I will make sure nothing breaks. — Edokter (talk) — 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been here since January 2006, the Main Page has pretty much remained the same since I joined, so I wouldn't mind a little spruce up, and I have no objections to using Edokter's proposal, but I will say is it possible for the DYK and Other areas of Wikipedia boxes to be aligned at the bottom, same goes for ITN and OTD? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not without some serious CSS hacking, I tried. I used divs to get away from tables. Divs have the annoying property of not allowing its height to be set. But it does add some 'looseness' to the layout, which I think is not a bad thing. — Edokter (talk) — 21:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks awesome and I would support a bold replacement of the Main Page. However, as a future change, I also would like to see the "Other Areas" space turned into some sort of "Become and Editor" section, I think that's a great idea. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I too support this refreshing change but would like to suggest some minor rearrangement of the boxes. For me, "In the news" is more 'encyclopaedic' than "Other areas of Wikipedia". I would swap these two over, bringing "Other areas..." lower down the page. I would then push "Other areas..." to the right, bringing "On this day..." to the left. Finally, I would move Today's featured picture" (always nice eye-candy) above "On this day..." and "Other areas...". As "Other areas..." is more about the maintenance of the project, rather than part of the encyclopaeic content, I feel it may be better situated nearer "Wikipedia's sister projects" and "Wikipedia languages", near the foot of the page. Would love to display graphically what I mean but do not have the technical knowhow or time - sorry. Also agree with Crisco that there's a bit more whitespace than perhaps is necessary. There was something else but I can't remember what it was... Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 08:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

While I slightly prefer the finessing of the slightly rounded corners and shadows and stuff of this, I really don't see any advantage in the rearrangements of the panels and other layout changes. In fact, in some cases I think the changes are detrimental. Perhaps the new "finishing touches" should just be applied to the existing layout? 86.160.87.209 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Everything else is fine except I don't fancy the arrangement of the sections. "In the news" and "On this day..." are too far down, they should be right below TFA. "Other areas of Wikipedia" should be at the bottom right above "Wikipedia's sister projects", like the way it was. Th4n3r (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Done so far

• Replaced 'Other areas...' with 'Be and editor'.
• Swapped DYK with OTD.
• Moved POTD up; Will move down on mondays to make space for TFL.

— Edokter (talk) — 19:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes in content

• I put up a draft blurb for 'Be an editor' (replacing 'Other areas...'). Any comments on wording welcome. This also goes for the blurb in the banner (Welcome to Wikipedia). — Edokter (talk) — 19:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• I would miss "In the News" appearing at the top without scrolling so much that I am opposed to the redesign as it currently stands. I think the community does a pretty good job of news curation. EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes in design

• Could we swap the DYK section on the design with the OTD section? I think that the OTD section will be able to make a much better use of that slot, and serve to promote the most relevant articles for the day to the reader, save the OTD section. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. It does imbalance the OTD/BAE row a bit, but that can be fixed. — Edokter (talk) — 19:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Hm, I'd actually disagree. I think DYK should be above the fold. DYK is usually more interesting and has better articles compared to OTD. Legoktm (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree here. DYK also fits better next to BAE. Swapping it back. — Edokter (talk) — 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• There seems to be a lot of space devoted to the featured picture description. I don't think so much will generally be needed. Only the first couple of lines of long descriptions are really needed on the main page, I think. I would roughly half the width of the featured pic box, float it right, and move "in the news" up to the left of it. Not sure what to replace the current "in the news" space with, but for the time being you could stretch "on this day" to 100% width. equazcion ^(talk) 22:14, 21 Sep 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• The proposed design is an improvement, but not by much. It still looks dated. I feel last year's redesign contest had some revolutionary ideas, and I'm intrigued that the Chinese Wikipedia was basically able to steal them and streamline them into a nice, modern front page. I feel we should steal that layout back. -- tariqabjotu 02:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It may work for the Chinese, but it would be way too minimal for here. I also aim for some originality. — Edokter (talk) — 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Huh? But it's quite obviously based off two of the most popular designs from last year's Main Page redesign attempt (Pretzels' design and rework of that design). Perhaps it is minimalist (and I think the Chinese minimalized it even more), but that appears to be something a good number of people like. I don't understand the attachment to the pastel colors and the restricting borders; are websites made that way anymore? -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Informal votes

• An enthusiastic Support for the design as proposed by Edokter. The new format looks well-thought out and chic enough to not be too 2000s. I suppose it's possible to iron out any minor issues, but I agree in principle with this new design. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support the proposed design; it's a step in the right direction, an upgrade that can be readily adapted to changing needs. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the layout changes (don't see any purpose to them; if there is, could it be explained here?). Support the cosmetic changes such as slightly rounded corners and shadows. Sorry, I am changing my opinion after seeing other suggestions linked below, which I was not previously aware of (this and this), which have greater potential IMO. Also, can someone add a more prominent link to what we're voting on and make sure it does not change while voting is in progress? (Alternative versions can be separately linked, so long as it is clear which version people's votes apply to.) 86.161.61.73 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Link added to the top. Currently there is only one version and it is constantly changing according to comments. This is not a formal vote, just collecting some opinions. — Edokter (talk) — 19:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with having any sort of vote on something that is constantly changing. How can you possibly tally the votes if people are voting for different things? And if you are not intending to tally votes then it should not be a vote. 86.161.61.73 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This !vote section wasn't my idea. I think gathering suggestions and working on a live version is the better method. But as Nick pointed out below, it is more the concept that is being opined. — Edokter (talk) — 21:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel the purpose of the "vote" should be more clearly explained at the top of the section then. For example, the comment below seems to be supporting invisible "behind-the-scenes" changes more than any specific implementation. Most ordinary punters will presumably be voting on exactly what they see at the linked page. If that changes significantly then the tally of votes just becomes meaningless. 86.161.61.73 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support The fundamental proposal is this: abandoning the rigid structure enforced by tables, and moving to this more flexible framework. This can be used to render the Main Page in exactly the same manner it is now. As I write this, I think that perhaps it should. When it is accepted and editors play with the framework, then we can play with layout and content. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Comes across as a small improvement, still quite dated. I would prefer jettisoning the pastel colors and restrictive borders, as in this design or this design from last year's redesign competition or the Chinese Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Pretzel's design is IMO the only viable option from last year's efforts. Technically, it fits very well in the framework (but has a rigid two-column structure). It could be a bit more daring in its use of colors. — Edokter (talk) — 21:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose due to suppression of "In the News" which I usually appreciate more than TFA. EllenCT (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Decision to place DYK next to static "Be an Editor" section either places a new and arbitrary requirement that DYK utilize the same amount of vertical space as this new section or will result in the introduction of a wasteful and ugly block of whitespace. Similar situation with ITN and SA/OTD section shows design has not considered the needs and normal operational patterns of these sections or an awareness of how balancing the the sizes of Main page sections is traditionally performed. --Allen3 ^talk 22:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Main Page → WP: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)