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 21:41 on 19 August 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)

Today's FA

• The surviving Scottish infantry surrendered either at Winwick church (pictured) or in nearby Warrington
• This construction seems to imply uncertainty but it shouldn't. Both the body and source say part of the infantry was captured/surrendered at the church and part surrendered after getting to Warrington. Suggest changing to surrended at Winwick church (pictured) and in nearby Warrington. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Having read the article (both the lead and the body), I agree that the suggested change removes ambiguity. @TFA coordinators: what do you think? Schwede66 01:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Gog's article so I defer to him. Sounds reasonable though Hameltion wrote "surrended" above where they meant "surrendered".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Headless priest

• ... that a headless priest is said to have cursed León Viejo with earthquakes?

User:Andrew Davidson believes this type of hooks is not a "definite fact", contradicting the requirements of WP:DYKHOOK (see that ongoing discussion), and should be pulled. Opinions on whether this hook should run are requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact hook, but a similar one was considered acceptable recently because the subject in question is a myth. SL93 (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a weasel. Who exactly says this?

As an example of how to do this properly, consider the similar article beheading game, which I started. When this appeared at DYK, the hook was

• ... that Laura Ashe believes the Gawain Poet used the beheading game to criticize the emptiness of chivalry?

This provides clear attribution to a specific authority and doesn't just recount the fiction/myth/legend in a credulous way. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Attribution has since been added to the article, and weasel has never applied to such hooks if it the article itself has attribution. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added according to a local myth to the hook. BorgQueen (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, but it wasn't needed. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@SL93 Whenever we feature beliefs that are unscientific, fringe, or possibly superstitious on Main Page, I think it's a good practice to make it clear that it's only a myth. BorgQueen (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious though. It's not helping our readers because they aren't that stupid. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This is now on the main page with the following hook:

• ... that, according to a local myth, a headless priest cursed León Viejo with earthquakes?

This doesn't tell the full story and elements seem to be quite historical. Here's how another source explains it

In 1550, a crime shook León Viejo and, according to beliefs at the time, made it the subject of a curse. This event was the murder of Antonio Valdivieso, a Franciscan monk thought to have played a central role in bringing Christianity to the country. From then on, Leon Viejo fell into decline and suffered high inflation. In 1578, the eruption of the nearby Momotombo volcano drove away many of its citizens (at its peak it had around 15,000 inhabitants), followed in 1610 by a major earthquake which destroyed much of the city’s infrastructure, and the remaining inhabitants decided to relocate the city in a referendum.

So, it wasn't just earthquakes but a variety of disasters which followed the killing of the priest. Note that we have an article about the him – Antonio de Valdivieso – which says that he was the bishop, has a picture of his head and tells the story differently. The Spanish Wikipedia has an article about him which contains a lot more detail. It indicates that he was assassinated by stabbing and doesn't say that he was beheaded. He was buried and his remains have been exhumed so perhaps his head has been accounted for. And there's now a campaign to have him beatified. And there's more details about the "punishment of heaven":

Since its founding, the city had been growing and becoming more opulent, and since the great sacrilege committed by Contreras in killing its prelate, it began to feel the punishment of heaven with great plagues and disastrous deaths: women did not give birth to their children, and those that were born were not conceived; the neighbouring volcano gave off great thunder and roars […] having the Holy Sacrament taken out into the middle of the square, asking God for mercy and to postpone his just wrath, and to appease it they would leave that cursed place, where such a great murder and sacrilege had been committed, violently killing their prelate and pastor.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice research, Andrew. The article certainly could use some of those details. BorgQueen (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure they fit well. The headless priest seems to be a generic trope but the article is written as if it's a specific spirit. The story of Valdivieso, León Viejo and the Momotombo volcano seems quite distinct and the headless aspect seems rather weak in that case. Another famous person who was actually decapitated in Leon Viejo was Cordoba but he was a conquistador, not a priest. I suppose their stories have been confused and conflated. Such creep is common in the case of myths and legends and this makes it difficult to present them as definite facts. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Late Bronze Age shipwreck

... that a shipwreck in the eastern Mediterranean, dating from the Late Bronze Age, is the earliest deep-sea shipwreck to be discovered?

Not an error per se, but an ambiguity. Is this wreck the oldest one found so far, or was it the first time a diver ever found a ship wreck?

I am easily confused, but I bet there may be others, too. Thank you. [Landlubber that I am, I forgots me tildes!] Wordreader (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the main author of the article, User:Owenglyndur, has been indefinitely blocked, so they can't help with that. BorgQueen (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked at this topic. The claim is that it's the earliest wreck to be found in such deep water. Note that it's so deep -- over 1 km -- that you can't reach it by diving and so the work has been done using remote-piloted submersibles. I'm not exactly sure what's ambiguous but perhaps saying "oldest" rather than "earliest" would help. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Next DYK

Cocoa smuggling

• ... that those found guilty of cocoa smuggling in Ghana face a sentence of five to ten years in prison?

Some might argue that this hook is not an "unlikely to change" fact, referring to laws that are easily remade. Opinions on whether this hook should run are requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yue BorgQueen (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue. I have only ever seen Andrew Davidson make such comments. SL93 (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Ghanaian cocoa laws have been pretty consistent over the past few decades, but if it's an issue then I think adding "as of 2024" would be a fine remedy. "... that, as of 2024, those found guilty of cocoa smuggling in Ghana face a sentence of five to ten years in prison?" If one wants to be really picky with the source, they can add "in 2023" instead, but the law hasn't changed since. Yue🌙 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be wider variation in the punishments. From the article, this case indicates that, while one person got a sentence of five years, the other was just fined. In another report, it says "Over the last four weeks, five persons have been sentenced to a total of 19 years imprisonment with hard labour, for their various roles in attempted smuggling of dried cocoa beans to neighbouring Togo." That's an average of less than four years each which doesn't fit what the hook says. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yue ping. BorgQueen (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Lesser penalties are for attempted cocoa smuggling, as in the case of the teacher who got fined, or assisting in it. Regardless, if further contention is with the minimum penalty, then perhaps the solution is to take the original hook and adjust it like so: "... that (, as of 2024 / in 2023,) cocoa smuggling in Ghana carries (carried) a maximum sentence of ten years in prison?" Yue🌙 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Víctimas del Vaciamiento

• "... that the thrash metal band Hermética received the gold certification for Víctimas del Vaciamiento on-stage during a concert?": the article doesn't say they actually received it on stage, rather that As the album was certified gold, they arranged to receive the award on-stage, during the concert. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that it didn't happen. Pinging Cambalachero. SL93 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see which is the conflict. "Arranged", as in "they organized everything for this event to take place". Which obviously is not completely up to the band, and requires the executives that take part in it to go and do it at a time and place of the band's choosing, rather than whatever is usually done in those cases. The way I read it, both say the same thing, just the DYK hook is more compact about it. Cambalachero (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

Jan Kryst

• ... that the terminally ill soldier Jan Kryst made a fatal assassination attempt on Gestapo members during the German occupation of Poland?

The wording "made a fatal assassination attempt on" is rather clumsy and confusing, why not simply say "assassinated"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is that he died, not that he killed them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the wording be "a suicidal assassination attempt" in that case? ENEvery (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It was more than an attempt as he killed several of them. It sounds quite cinematic, like a similar shootout in Inglourious Basterds. How about:

• ALT ... In revenge for the torture of Polish prisoners, the terminally-ill Jan Kryst walked into a restaurant and started shooting members of the Gestapo?

This creates some suspense as the reader will then want to know what happened next. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. What makes it even more cinematic is that the location was the Café Adria which was so glamorous that it was often used as a movie location. I've now started an article about the place so please could you link to it in the hook:

ALT ... In revenge for the torture of Polish prisoners, the terminally-ill Jan Kryst walked into the Café Adria and started shooting members of the Gestapo? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It would perhaps have been best, before proposing more drastic changes to hooks than a simple trim, to ping those involved with the nomination as a simple courtesy (@Marcelus, Piotrus, and CSJJ104:). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The hook is not live yet so it's all good. The Café Adria is coming along nicely but could probably use some help from Poles with a good command of the language and access to more sources. For an evocative video of the scene, please see Pre-war Warsaw in Colour. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The final @Andrew Davidson proposition sounds very good. Marcelus (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nature-positive

• ... that more than 90 world leaders have committed to nature-positive policies?

Some concerns have been raised with this hook at WT:DYK; opinions would be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Reworded. BorgQueen (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 23)

Monday's FL

(August 19, today)

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.

Today's POTD

• The last definite known individual died on Discovery Island in Walt Disney World in 1987, and the species was declared extinct in 1990. – Of course, it should say "subspecies", not "species". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oops, my fault -- you're completely right. Hopefully an admin will come along and fix the protected version soon. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   Done – Schwede66 18:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Stephen removed the query, possibly in error, along with a query from Sca "Explanation for fairly recent-looking photo?" TSventon (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

General 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)

Some thoughts:

• Why is the discussion taking place here? Why do we have to start with one editor's "single" proposal? (personally I don't like it.)
• More importantly, why is redesigning always about rearranging elements? Why can we try something totally new? (I don't understand for example why we must keep "Welcome to Wikipedia"; that's so 90s.)
• My personal proposal (which I suggested numerous times before) is to make the main page more like a newspaper without focusing on news: we need to have sections on politics, math, science, arts, sports, etc. Just like newspaper site, we can let a relevant Wikipedia project to manage a section; Wikipedia project math can decide what to put on the math section; maybe newly improved article.

-- Taku (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done so far

• Replaced 'Other areas...' with 'Be and editor'.
• 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)

Suggested changes in layout

• 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)
  • I will add my voice to the number of people who would like to see ITN remain towards the top as well. While I approve of the redesign in general, having the news so far down seems unfortunate. --Nizolan (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • The problem is that POTD will sometime feature a 'panoramic' image, taking the full width of the page, with the image on top and the description below. If that happens and and it only has half the space available, it may push the rest off the screen. — Edokter (talk) — 09:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am liking the look of the new layout, although I believe the featured picture should be pushed to the bottom, with In the news and On this day above it. Commons is more the place for photos, whereas the news, on this day, and DYK are all things on the Main Page which are all regularly updated, interesting, and encyclopaedic information, which is exactly what we'd want to be prominent on the homepage. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 05:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes in design

• It seems the pastel colors meet with some opposition. Please suggest alternatives here. — Edokter (talk) — 12:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
      • It is based on Pretzel's design, but virtually all origonal styling has been stripped to a few grey lines. I'm not attached to the pastel colors, but no one has yet put up an alternative, so by all means, suggest a different box style. The beauty of my framework is that it is now possible to do so without affecting layout and content. Not sure what to make of "restrictive" borders; they are always there, visible or not. — Edokter (talk) — 09:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

General Comments/Informal Votes

NOTE: This should not be considered a vote on the current design, but for opining on the framework.

• 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)
• Oppose - A terrible idea. This is change for the sake of change. Main page is fine just like it is. Jusdafax 05:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Nickpenguin. I would suggest putting an opt-in link for the Visual Editor in a prominent place near the top.—S Marshall T/C 20:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Win7, 1280x800, FF24 (with proper menus, address bars, tabs, title bar, aka not awful unusable Chrome look) the only thing visible without scrolling is the gigantic static banner and TFA. DYK requires scrolling, ITN and OTD require significant scrolling. If there is a great american Wikinick or some pledge drive running, that banner will push the dynamic content down even further! Rounded corners do not render in older versions of IE. Current Main Page on the same setup has TFA, ITN, OTD and DYK all fully or partially visible without scrolling. In fact, isn't Wikipedia well known enough that the huge banner with the 9 portal links and string "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." totally unnecessary? IMO ditch that banner all together, put the portal links and article count, and "be an editor" in the sidebar. All static content in the sidebar, all dynamic content in the main frame. --Robert.Labrie (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't see any rhyme or reason to the layout changes. I don't think many people would say that TFA is currently not dominant enough, that ITN and OTD need to be shoved as far out of view as possible, or that the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box needs to be made bigger. I quite like the headers with the serif font, so I would probably support that change if it was proposed as a standalone. Formerip (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Main Page → Wikipedia:Home – This is not a main page. It is by title and it is in the way that it has a load of content bundled together on it, but it is not very main for readers. The vast majority of articles are accessed by a search engine result to the article, not through other parts of wikipedia. Some readers are in fact not even aware of the existence of the main page. I am uncomfortable with it being named this but not used in that way enough. My proposed name is open for discussion, but I want something that defines it as a base page and center page, but not "main". That's too cold and hard. I think something with "home" in would work well. It fits in with 95% of other websites. It sounds recognisable and stands out as a place to start or explore articles. Do you see what I'm thinking here? It needs to look nice and friendly as a name, and perhaps more people will visit it.

Here's how the discussion will happen:
The community discuss the merits and demerits of renaming, and what new names would be suitable below.
After a week, an admin decides if consensus is to rename. If not, they will close this discussion. If it is, they shall start a vote on which names are most supported. The community places one vote on a potential new name in a period of five days. The most agreed upon name is taken and the Main page is moved. Rcsprinter (speak) @ 23:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Background

The current title, Main Page, in the main namespace, was created in the default namespace before pages were divided into "Wikipedia", "Portal" and so forth, and has continued there mainly due to historical inertia. Several previous proposals to move the page failed due to rejection or lack of consensus. See previous discussions in archives 67 (April 2006), 87 (January 2007), 89 (January 2007), 90 (February 2007), 114 (December 2007), 115 (December 2007), 123 (May 2008), 125 (July 2008), 128 (October 2008), 129 (October 2008) and 143 (August 2009).

In the February 2007 move discussion, one user created a list of the advantages and disadvantages of moving the Main Page out of the main article namespace, including various technical issues (including the numerous redirects and links that would have to be fixed). One point that is commonly raised in these previous discussions is the lack of clear evidence that a rename would necessarily encourage more people to visit it, especially when the Main Page is already the highest visited pages on Wikipedia.[1]

Several other Wikimedia projects also use "Main Page" as the default home page, like Meta-Wiki, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and Wikiquote. Some however do not: the default home page for Wiktionary is "Wiktionary:Main Page" and the one for MediaWiki is "MediaWiki". This issue varies in the Wikipedias in other languages. For example, the German Wikipedia's Main Page is in the Wikipedia namespace while the Italian Wikipedia's Main Page is still in the main namespace. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• If there is such consensus to rename the Main Page, a request will have to be made to the developers via Wikimedia's Bugzilla. To prevent the servers from locking up for over half an hour, the developers removed the technical ability from admins to delete or move pages that have more than 5000 revisions; the Main Page now exceeds that limit (see also Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page). Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Your background didn't go far enough. This was originally called HomePage. Until sometime in 2002. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about the renaming idea

• Support - It should be a friendlier name, but more for "us" than for "readers". I feel like people who take themselves too seriously here use the term "main page" to kinda sorta scare others and feel elite. Ie. If you're involved in the "main page" you're somehow doing something more prestigious than the rest of us, who are evidently doing peripheral non-main things. Just my take. I think "home" is a fine suggestion. equazcion ^(talk) 00:08, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to note for the record that the main page got nearly 300 million hits in August 2013 alone. The idea that there are people out there that don't know the main page exists is a stretch. Harej (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sure I read that somewhere. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 08:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Although that's out of about 11 billion page views (August enwiki pageviews, http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/), and I'm betting random logo clicks account for most of that. I think we all know how Wikipedia is generally used by the populace. Of course there logistically should be a good landing page with useful things on it, but that'll never be our main event. equazcion ^(talk) 00:30, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Main page" is a well established name for 11 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Pardon my flip reaction to this, but, so what? equazcion ^(talk) 05:59, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, if human history was filled with this attitude, there would never have been much progress. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • This is one of wikipedia's big problems. Editors all fear change. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 08:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --Rschen7754 07:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The editor who began this discussion pointed out some problems. In light of that, your post is actually a little insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't be a Wikipedia discussion if someone didn't post that most trite of clichés. — Scott • talk 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • A lot of the things we've all come to rely on at Wikipedia were the result of improvements to things that nevertheless weren't broken. Just because something is working doesn't mean it can't be made better. equazcion ^(talk) 17:45, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
    • The whole point is that to go to all the work to change something that's been in place for several years, there should be a pretty good reason. This isn't it. --Rschen7754 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support. Introducing readers to namespaces is perhaps a helpful way of demonstrating that Wikipedia's more than just the articles. I don't think putting the main page in projectspace would be a good idea, since projectspace is meant for developmental purposes: we encourage readers to be editors by including "Edit" links, by placing sitenotices and banners, etc., but we shouldn't start them off by introducing them to a namespace that's primarily for maintenance. However, putting it into portalspace would have the effect of demonstrating the concept of namespaces, as well as highlighting portals in general. I said "weak" because of my opposition to WP:HOME or whatever we'd call it: I'd prefer staying at the current title to a move to WP:space. Nyttend (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to confuse casual readers with a random name space entry. Some don't even realise that there are talk pages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't say take it out of article space, I just want to lose "main". WP:Home is just one I came up with and the section below is for discussing the new name. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 08:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • WP is a namespace alias for the Wikipedia namespace so WP:Home is actually Wikipedia:Home with url en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Home. That's definitely out of article space. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I think he knows that. He's saying WP:Home is just one possibility he thought of. His primary concern is getting away from the name "Main Page". It could be changed to something else in article space, or possibly to something in project or portal space. equazcion ^(talk) 10:02, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support Consistency of namespace for editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose—I prefer the existing title. This is the main page of the website, so the name is appropriate. I do not agree that "Main" is a less friendly term. Imzadi 1979 → 10:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sensible. It's clearer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Thank you Zzyzx11. It's good to see this being discussed again; the extremely long period since it was last considered had led me to the conclusion that the inertia was terminal. I specifically support moving the main page into the Wikipedia namespace for reasons of consistency, whether it stays being called "Main Page" or is renamed to "Home" - although there are valid arguments being made that "Home" is clearer and friendlier. Really, "it's always been that way" and "it works fine" are reasoning mired in the mindset of accepting kludgy workarounds to legacy issues. We shouldn't do that. Moving this non-article page out of article space does not pose any serious technical issues (redirect and link fixing is trivial), and would resolve an inconsistency that has been nagging at people for years and years, as the old discussions linked above indicate. Likewise, the notion that the move might "confuse readers" is also bogus. Why would random readers be confused by the title of the page? Are they editing it, or linking to it? No. They're looking at the content, which is rich and varied. We should resist attempts to invent problems to which the answer is retaining the status quo. Regardless of the eventual conclusion on changing the page's title, we should fix the namespace either way. — Scott • talk 14:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Personally if there is to be a move I'd prefer something in Portal space. It fits the purpose of the main page better, and it would hopefully boost the visibility of our other, underused, portals. Also the current proposal would result in a url of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Home - which to anyone who doesn't understand our namespaces (i.e. the vast majority of readers) looks terribly redundant: two repetitions of "wikipedia" and three of "wiki". the wub "?!" 16:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say again that I'm not proposing that it should be in wikipedia space, with the repetitive "wiki"s. That was one suggestion because I had to put something in the requested move heading template. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 18:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Rschen7754, who summarizes the situation accurately and gets badgered for his efforts... No actual problem being resolved here, just a matter of semantics. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't buy the argument that "Main Page" is an unfriendly title that, when used in a certain way, will scare away new users. Therefore, I see no reason to rename this page. TCN7JM 16:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, good idea. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't a !vote at this stage, it is a discussion. Although your support is noted, we are still thinking about the different aspects of a renaming. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 18:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now at least. A problem with finding this page, as most searches go straight to articles, has been identified but there is no explanation of how changing the name is going to make it any easier to find. It seems a bit like deciding to respray your car a different colour because the engine is misfiring. Would it not be more effective to add a link or a caption under the puzzle logo to direct readers here. I see nothing cold hard or unfriendly about the name "main page". And why the indecent haste? Only one week to decide on changing something that has stood for over a decade?--Charles (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose changing from the already existing arbitrary name to another arbitrary name does not fix anything. Not that anything is broken that needs fixing, but the perceived problems noted above leading to this discussion exist regardless of what the name of this page actually is. --Jayron32 19:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no benefit. Before we change a feature of long standing, there should be a much better argument presented that the new version would be better. It seems like change for the sake of change. I do not agree that "Main page" is "cold" or that "Wikipedia:Home" is warm, fuzzy, and inviting. Edison (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Because it is not a article so it should not be in the article space. The article Home page should have a redirect from Main page, be it can't because Main page is being used. I would be fine with either Wikipedia:Home, or Wikipedia:Main page, but not Main page. Ross Hill 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The main page gets roughly 10 million views a day on a routine basis. I can safely say that is not the result of accidental logo clicks or bots. Individual articles rarely break the million-view mark. People do use the main page for navigation and are not going to find it difficult to locate or use. It is true that the vast majority rely on search engines or a Wikipedia search bar on their browsers, but that is true for most sites nowadays. People do not often visit a site's home page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not find the reasons put forth for this change at all compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place, per WP:TITLECHANGES. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Main page" is the Wikipedia name for that page, same as "Wikipedia" is the name for the project as a whole. It works. There's no reason to change it. Changing it involves unnecessary work and creates momentary confusion when people look for links to the "Main page" and find it gone, but "Welcome page" or some other such name instead. Also, the very act of discussing this is an unnecessary distraction from the real work of building the project. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inertia, basically. I know, for example, "Main page" looks more correct, but there is just no compelling reason to change what is working. -- Taku (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The naming as "Main page" reminds me of the practice in print newspapers of having a "Front page". It is not really "home"; it is the main or front page. Stylistically it reads thusly, with headlines of "In the news" and "On this day" and columns and pictures... Unless we are to call it our front page, I prefer to keep referring to it as our main page. Fylbecatulous talk 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Preliminarily, if this proposal gains enough traction that it's significantly likely to be implemented, this discussion will need further publicity. I realize it's been listed on all the required locations (such as RM), but for a change of this magnitude, more eyes would be needed. (Personally, I learned of this discussion from a thread on the critic site Wikipediocracy making fun of it, which is hardly a source we can rely on for community notifications.) Substantively, I oppose the change per several above, most recently SilkTork. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the name change. The reasons advanced aren't compelling at all in my eyes. If a user doesn't use the Main Page as an actual main page (and I'm not convinced there are many people who are unaware of the main page), it would be even less appropriate to call it a "home" for them. And while for the nominator "main page" might sound cold and artificial, for me it sounds straightforward and professional. That's a matter of taste and not a convincing basis for a policy change. I'm neutral on the namespace change, though it seems to be largely pedantic to me. --Nizolan (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been discussed many times over the years. Yes, consensus can change, but only when something about the situation or context changes. It hasn't done so. There's simply no good reason to change this, it isn't broken, and tinkering around with one of the top home pages on the internet for no good reason is unproductive and pointless. WP:DONTFIXIT applies, in every way. Modest Genius ^talk 20:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I'm confused as to why an RfC was opened without at least discussing the issue on this page beforehand. This came out of the blue, and smacks of heavy-handed intervention. Modest Genius ^talk 20:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• As with other rebrandings - will people actually notice? There are various ways of getting to WP - none of the obvious ones involve putting in 'main page' (or other term). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Don't care, but ... one very small thing I've noticed in the past is that it says "Main Page" on the tab but "Main page" in the list of links on the left of every page. Shouldn't the capitalisation be the same? 86.160.211.148 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and Close There is no demonstrable good reason to change it and there are several good reasons for leaving it alone that have been pointed out (confusion, tradition, not broken so don't fix break it, changing from one arbitrary name to another is not an improvement). Constructive change is great, but this seems only to be tying up productive editor's time. First Light (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, the main page is, for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia's main page. The title is accurate, and while "Home" arguably is as well, I see no reason to make a move to such a widely-referenced page without an exceptionally compelling reason. I don't see that reason here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - 'Home' would be a much nicer name for the navigator in the top left, and the 'Main Page' is actually Wikipedia's home page, but not necessarily the 'main' page given there are many different articles and portals. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 05:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Main page doesn't need renaming, it is what it says it is. "Home" is feel-good nonsense for social website computer users. The 'pedia ain't Facebook. Jusdafax 05:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Main page" is not perfect, but it is well-established, and moving it would be highly disruptive both within Wikipedia and for all those outside who link to it. I could support a change if there was an alternative which was clearly better, but as far as I can see every alternative has its own problems. For example, "home page" is widely-used terminology for the entry point to a website, but is also used to refer to a personal website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not much I can add to the many well-reasoned opposes above. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If even 0.1% of incoming links are broken by the change that's a lot of frustrated users, and for what? When those people complain the response will be "Sorry you were inconvenienced, but thanks to the change, we can now do [What Goes Here?] that will help a a lot of people use Wikipedia more easily." APL (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per RSChen7754 and BrownHairedGirl - both make substantive points. It works just fine, it is recognizable, and it would be disruptive to change something as central as this so we better have good reasons to do so (since it works just fine, there are no good reasons!). --regentspark (comment) 16:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support It seem this proposal is destined to failure which is unfortunate. IMO a mistake was made in not discussing possible titles first, while I appreciate the proposer has made clear the precise title is open, I think have a title that has some minor consens and in particular has received enough scrutiny to consider possible problems would help a great deal, even if the final title is still open. I suspect it was a further mistake in not discussing the proposal first. In particular, it seems to me the explaination is insufficient. For example people talk about breaking links, but it seems clear any change will initially result in a transparent redirect so no incoming links will be broken. A second common complaint is that there's no good reason for the change, and I agree the initial explaination doesn't seem to provide much (the primary reason seems to be that the proposer feels it isn't our main page which many people disagree with). A good reason IMO for the change is that while initially we may provide a transparent redirect depending on what happens in 5-10 years from now we could consider changing this. An occasional question we get on this talk page is where is our article on main pages. I AGF that these questions are serious and not trying to criticise the main page name. This is a problem which is basically unresovable as long as the Main Page is titled such as the small number of people looking for our article will always be seen as far less important than the large number of people looking for our Main Page. But if we do change the title, depending on what happens in 5-10 years (in particular how many incoming links still link to the older title), we can consider the alternative of making it a disambig page. Perhaps this will never be possible, but unless we try we will never know, and I haven't seen any compelling reason not to try since even if it doesn't work there will be no actual problem for people visiting the page (the only reason I've seen presented is that people will get confused by the change or the existance of name spaces but I haven't seen any evidence that many people will actually notice or care about any change). Note that this is all stuff which has breen discussed before in previous move discussions which is one reason why it seems to me unfortunate it wasn't raised in the initial proposal. While this is a discussion and not a vote, in discussions which needed as much participation in this one, there's a very good chance any key points raised later in support of the proposal will be missed by a substanial number of participants so it's important that they are raised initially. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "An occasional question we get on this talk page is where is our article on main pages." - it's over at Home page, which would have to be changed if the most-supported title to move the current main page to (which is, of course, "Home page") were done. Ansh666 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Main Page" is by far and above the most established name for the page and its content. To change it would be disorientating, confusing and potentially misleading. Let us not get into the .com trick of thinking rebranding fixes everything. It often doesn't. "Main Page" should - must - remain. doktorb _words^deeds 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per all sorts, including Silk Tork, Crisco, and, most especially, Rschen; the last-named's point that it's not broken (despite assertions to the contrary, which amount only to personal preference) seems quite strong to me. Kahtar 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per basically everyone above. I note that the most supported rename is Home page, but that's simply moving it to a synonym (I don't buy the "more warm and friendly" argument either, do people actually notice the title here?) and creates further problems with moving actual articles and redirects and such around. The only move I could somewhat support would be to project or portal namespace, but I understand that would be confusing to users that don't know much of the technical matters of how the site works. Ansh666 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is suggesting moving it to replace the "Home page" in article space, that would be even more bizarre than keeping it in its current article space position. TheGrappler (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - it would be far more consistent with how we do everything else - this isn't an article, it doesn't belong in article space, and this is a distinction that readers should probably be led to understand (so they know that e.g. if they see something in "Wikipedia" or "User" space, that it may not follow the same guidelines as article space content). Moreover there is a vulnerability in our inconsistency that might just be storing up trouble for later. If I was an evil publisher, for instance, and I wanted to publish a notable book that would have outrageous SEO, I might be tempted to retitle it "Main page". Then what would be done? Have a disambig notice at the top of the page? TheGrappler (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about what it shall be called

• This is a portal, why move it to WP:space? Portal:Main Portal would seem to be it. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • How about simply Portal:Main or Portal:Home? Ross Hill22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And you seriously think that's more friendly? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It is a portal, why use WP-space? -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Home It's the site's home page. Call it that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Home seems obvious to me too. Awien (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you and Anthony suggesting Home or WP:Home? No objections to the latter (except the namespace issue that I mentioned above), but the former would cause problems with our current article on the concept of where you live. Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Both suggestions have issues. The former is the name of an article on the concept, and the latter is a shortcut in use for a extant WikiProject. IFF the page is retitled and moved, it should be put in the Portal space, perhaps as Portal:Home, however, I'm not convinced that it needs to be moved. (And even that idea would need work to implement because the Housing Portal already occupies that title.) Imzadi 1979 → 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WT:HOME has had 4 edits in the last 2 years so I see no problem usurping that, if that's what this discussion decides. I don't care if it's WP:Home or Portal:Home. WP:Home is quicker to type. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• index.html is the universal name for all home pages. This is the only correct choice, obviously. — RockMFR 00:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  index.php works :P πr² (t • c) 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  Can I support this seriously? This would make us more like every other website out there. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  Technically impossible No. MediaWiki software uses the index.php file to do URL rewrites. Basically, every page on Wikipedia is actually index.php. However, everything after the / is converted passed to the index.php file and parsed to generate a page. We can't use that.--v/r - TP 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• In my support I mentioned 'Home,' although 'Front Page' doesn't sound like a bad idea either. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 07:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)