Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main Page error reports[edit]

To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quote of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones: The current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (11:18 on 23 April 2018), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is with the content of an article linked from the main page, consider attempting to fix the problem rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article[edit]

TFA today[edit]

TFA tomorrow[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day[edit]

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the current or next Did you know...[edit]

DYK current[edit]

DYK next[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture[edit]

POTD today[edit]

POTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the summary of the current or next featured list[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Main Page redesign[edit]

The main page has looked the same for over 12 years and I think its overdue for a redesign. The main page is still using== Default Headings ==which looks quite ugly and unprofessional for use on the front page. I was thinking of something like the "executive" design (or even the "regal" design), in which everything has the coloured heading and text background.  Nixinova  T  C  19:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nixinova: Not to dampen your ideas, but dozens and dozens of people have come before you to propose redesigns of the Main Page. The problem is that while you could probably get consensus that a redesign is needed, you would not get consensus as to what the redesign should be exactly. I wish you luck, but this is a very steep hill for you to climb. You would probably need to start a formal Request for Comment or some form of very broad and publicized discussion, as well. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
You can use the textbox at the top of this page and search for 'redesign' for all the gory details. It took years of discussion to get a picture caption for ITN, so good luck with a redesign. Isa (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
And one could argue the reverse: the present design is the instantly recognisable Wikipedia 'brand' (see any number of contemporary-set TV programs and films where WP is used for research) - and we can all think of several cases where changing the design has been a marketing failure.
When, eventually, it becomes necessary to change the MP design (for whatever reasons) there will be (a) a long discussion involving wailing and teeth-gnashing on all sides on this talk page, (b) people become familiar with the new setting and wonder what all the fuss was about, and (c) several persons will suggest ways of improving the page again (none of the redesigns resembling each other). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:BROKEN.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Isanae (Isa): I know. But again: is there no support anyway anyhow to make this change? Some 'consensus construct'? How ever could this en:WP be taken hostage? - DePiep (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: What I remember from previous discussions is that there is a consensus that the design is outdated. The problem is what to replace it with. There were various alternate designs, mock ups, etc. that were done, but people have different tastes. My personal conclusion at the time was that unless there's some executive action from the WMF, a redesign won't happen. Still, it can't hurt to talk about it, so have at it. Isa (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"unprofessional", "ugly", and I'd also add drab and dated. It would look great if we were in 2006. Professional websites, especially ones with our readership do not look like an old geocities design. All signs it most definitely is broken. Aiken D 23:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

So do you support Nixinova's "executive design"? To repeat: "The problem is that while you could probably get consensus that a redesign is needed, you would not get consensus as to what the redesign should be exactly." Everyone expects everyone else to support their own particular redesign. Nothing will change unless enough people endorse someone else's. Art LaPella (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No I don’t as they are too similar to the current design. I’d overhaul completely and probably get rid of in the news and anniversaries and make it more like Google’s homepage. But as you say, just my opinion and as it’s so open to variation it’s going to be very difficult to change. Some people still think it’s fine and will oppose any change. Aiken D 10:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you're right about less on the Main Page. Editors want to be read, but readers come here for the search box to choose what they want to read about. If they wanted someone else to choose, they could go to any other website. Mainly it makes the search box harder to find. Art LaPella (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You mean like this? Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't looked at that lately! Looks good, but of course a version customized for English Wikipedia and versions for the alternatives would be better. Art LaPella (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Every redesign I've seen is at least as ugly as what we have now. And the 2 the original poster mentioned are especially hideous. My question iz, if you know about the alternatjve pages (as the OP obviously does) and like one of them, why not just set that as your home pasge? Or make your own and use that? That's what I do. --Khajidha (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

But - the main problem with ITN seems to be only 'why have we had image X/Y's ghastly face up for Z days now?' and for OTD 'Why was anniversary X missed out' - and one of the functions of the MP #is# to lead the reader to topics they did not know they wished to know more about.
Anyone care to design a 'customise your WP MP viewer experience' widget so anybody who does not care for the current design can change it to taste (on signing in)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think something like the executive is good. Something fresh yet familiar. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talkcontribs 15:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
But it's almost identical. There'd be no point in changing it to something so similar. I'll have to see if there's a suitable design from the alternatives or make my own. Aiken D 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the several sections could be made slightly more distinct?
If there was a grand poll of WP users on redesigning the MP there would (a) be only a fractional component responding, (b) a number who state that they are reasonably happy with the layout/want only minor rearrangements, and (c) a very large number of completely different alternative versions (many of which will be impractical to set up). There will be much discussion and disagreement (possibly enough to fill several archives pages) and we will be left with the MP as is/with minor tweaks, followed within a few months by the next proposal for reform. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, we’re stuck with it forever. Aiken D 18:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
It might be possible to have subtle changes over time so that people get used to them.
To what extent does the WP main page-as-is and its venerable age (in webpage design terms) provide part of WP's brand image? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The reason I chose the executive one is because it is similar to the current page and I thought it wouldn't need as much discussion as a complete overhaul.  Nixinova  T  C  20:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If the request for comments at the village pump about a proposal to end the system of portals goes through, that might be a good time to do a full main page redesign. See also section below on this ('Portals links on the main page'). Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I changed the Main Page! It can be done. Face-grin.svg. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I am creating a mockup here (It is constantly getting changed) but have not received a good response up-till now. I am just linking it here so that it can catalyze other people to have better ideas. One of the major advantages should be that it does not use tables but one of its drawbacks is that it mimics the current page too closely. — FR+ 11:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I find this new design largely inferior to the present one. In fact it is less a design than a list. I don't see how one could improve the present design in the first place, and changing for the sake of changing is irrational activism. But beside that you proposition seems to me to be a real worsening, with too much place assigned to any banality: here for example "in the news" and "on this day" are screaming for half so much width each. And when tables are the more flexible and powerful instrument for designing layouts so we should be using tables whatever our dear html5 fetishists could say. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
@FR30799386: I really, really like your design, although I would like the headers to be emphasized for easier navigation. Other than that I love it. EDIT: You know what I changed my mind I like it without the bold text. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talkcontribs 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
But it's so similar to the current design, there'd be no point in changing it. Aiken D 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Itsquietuptown:-Ill try to do it Face-smile.svg. I am currently working out a way to make the design responsive but am finding it difficult to implement it — FR+ 06:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't reinvent the wheel. The 2016 exercise, sadly abandoned, included a responsive layout without touching the visual design. It was excellent. I can't remember, offhand, who did the hard work on that; perhaps someone else can? Bazza (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Eureka! Done. Thanks for all the feedback@Bazza 7:-His name was User:Edokter as far as I can make out from the archives. Btw thanks for the inspiration.@Itsquietuptown:-I bolded the headers as per your advice — FR+ 11:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to confirm: let's not grave-dance this. Isa (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm still alive. And I occasinally check in. For the record: I'd be thrilled if anything form my design, styled or not, was incorporated to any redesign. The responsive layout is the biggest change. The problem was no-one had any idea for the styling, despite my continued calls for input. The whole plan fell apart not because of the design, but because of insistence on process, only ensuring that nothing would ever change. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I'm glad to see you're still around :) Isa (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@FR30799386: Why not add a faded wikipedia logo background on the background of the top box thing, like Edokter's top box? ITSQUIETUPTOWN talkcontribs 06:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Edokter:-I found the css file especially use full. Thanks for giving me more ideas.@Itsquietuptown:-I feel that keeping it simpler would help me if I had to build consensus. I personally don't like the faded logo, myself. — FR+ 11:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(reset) People are used to the existing set-up (though they may not notice/comment on minor changes), and probably collectively rather than individually find all the components useful. There will always be much discussion on changes to the MP that are actually noticeable to WP users even if three months later nobody will really remember how the Main Page used to look.

To what extent is 'being bold' in redesigning the MP likely to involve people not noticing the changes or responses to the effect 'I know you have changed something, but what is it?' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we do the same process as with the 5M Articles Logo discussion? ITSQUIETUPTOWN talkcontribs 06:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As there are now 5.6 million English WP articles - at what point should the '6th million article' debate begin? (My suggestion would be - just change the strap-colour and the number, ditto for 7-9 million: but have more 'bells and whistles' for 10 million (making due allowances for any redesigns in the intervening periods.) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that we keep looking at it AS a redesign. Maybe we should start with figuring out how we are going to do layout. Not what will be in that layout, but the actual mechanisms. This is where all that talk abut "default heading" and "tables" and such comes in. Think not of what we'll be putting on the page, only the mechanism of doing so. As an analogy, are we taping things to the wall, hanging them on nails, or using those detachable putty mounting things? Once we have that locked in, we need to ask about presentation. One column? Two columns? Three columns? Are the columns the same width? Do we have a mixed format of multiple columns with some items going all the way across? Again, not what those items are, just the pattern of dividing up the real estate. Then, we start thinking about "does X belong on the main page?" One item at a time. No "guaranteed" slots for anything. Every section has to fight for its life and right to be on the Main Page. And each item HAS to be agreed upon before the next one gets its shot. No bringing up "Featured Articles" if we are still debating "Portals". Once we have a final list of what we think belongs on the Main Page (which might be very different from what is now there), THEN we can say where each bit goes. Forget redesign, design from the ground up with no preconceptions. --Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

a suspected chemical weapons attack[edit]

I don't know who wrote this nonsense abour 'suspected'. There WAS a chemical weapons attack. There may be doubt only about who was responsible. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you supply us with reliable sources which state definitively that this was a chemical attack please? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The main page reflects what reliable sources say, and currently all of the reliable sources say "suspected" and "alleged". Pretty straightforward, really.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why does a STH game deserve to be on the Main Page?[edit]

Aiken D and PrimeHunter have answered this question sufficiently, and this is not Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
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.

I really think it doesn't deserve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuniorRocketScientist (talkcontribs) 19:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There are many Featured Articles on video games. Topics which are popular tend to attract a lot of editors to them. But you're welcome to find a topic that interests you and get it to FA status.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't care. Video games aren't encyclopedic. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:C3 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
According to this view, other works of popular culture created for the purpose of entertainment would also not be encyclopedic, for example the Iliad. That's silly. MPS1992 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
No, according to this view, video games aren't encyclopedic. How much more clear can you get? We're not making any comparisons to classical works that stand the test of time here. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:C3 (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Have you recited the Iliad in its original language to a large audience recently? 23 years is a long time in video game terms. The Seven Wonders of the World did not do very well in standing the test of time, but we still have articles on each of those. Anyway, the problem here is that it's your view that video games aren't encyclopedic. You haven't told us why. MPS1992 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article is picked from Wikipedia:Featured articles which are quality articles and not based on importance. If editors choose to spend their volunteer time on quality articles about video games then they can become featured just like any other article. Lots of video games satisfy Wikipedia:Notability and can get encyclopedic articles. We have five million articles and space is not an issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
To the OP, your view is irrelevant as Featured Articles are based on quality, not whether they will stand the test of time or not. Aiken D 20:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Featured articles reflect the amount of research, time, and loving concern 'person or persons' are prepared to work on particular topics on Wikipedia - and bear very little relation to the said topic/articles place in the grand scheme of things.
Anyone - newbie, expert, article-polisher... - can acquire the superpower of transforming an ordinary article into a FA. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2018 (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.

Update ZHwiki in footer template[edit]

It appears that ZHwiki has crossed the 1,000,000 article mark. Can an admin please update Template:Wikipedia languages accordingly? (Requested based on an edit request placed at Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors/footer). Thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sister page and gender neutral language[edit]

The sister page should be named sibling page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this pertains to the Main Page, but issues with the article title should be discussed at the article talk page, in this case Talk:Sister- though I think your proposal is extremely unlikely to succeed. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the IP may be referring to the "Wikipedia's sister projects" header. —Bruce1eetalk 11:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)