Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 177

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 170←Archive 175Archive 176Archive 177Archive 178Archive 179Archive 180

Recent deaths byline

Can we change that to someone far more famous like Elmore Leonard? I'm sure Hungarians all miss their water polo player, but...Peter Greenwell (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The recent deaths list is discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. On that page, I see that it's ready to post. Edgepedia (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of us have not heard of the first gentleman either.

The Main Page is a means of 'encountering topics one has not previously been aware of.' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How about adding little picture icons next to the portal links on the main page to make it more user savvy? Not sure if this needs its own category or if it can just stay in general discussion. To elaborate I mean like having a little picture of art with a paintbrush on it next to the Arts portal link, a little book with a persons picture on it next to the biography link, a picture of the Earth or a cartoon version of Earth next to the geography portal link and so on.

I could host a icon creation contest with voting to create the best suited icons for Wikipedia on a art forum. Albeit there might not be a prize for it as of this posting. If you have feedback or if this just cannot happen then please advise and I will remove this inquiry and revise my approach. Thank you for your time! Tech Crusher

Why? What would it add aside from a handful of tiny pictures that would tell you no more than the bare text link does? --Khajidha (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Norrmalmstorg robbery (on this day, 1973)

I don't think it has enough "citation needed" tags. Anyone disagree...? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know; I kind of think it has too many. It's not the bolded article, though, so it's not really an issue. -- tariqabjotu 18:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that any article with that many citation needed tags shouldn't be linked from the main page at all, bolded or not. --Khajidha (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but it is not a problem to link to an article requiring maintenance from the Main Page. It is, however, a requirement for ITN, DYK, and SA/OTD for the bold article to be free of maintenance tags. —howcheng {chat} 03:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I know that it is not currently considered a problem, but I feel that it should be. ANY link on the main page is high profile enough that we should not be using it to show off substandard work. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether it doesn't have enough I can't say. Tariqabjotu is right about one thing though, it did have too many. I removed one which was unneeded, already supported by the source used for the next sentence (which I would have thought obvious, you don't turn yourself in unless you believe someone believes you committed some crime). Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Serbian Wikipedia miscategorized

The Wikipedia in Serbian has well over 200000 articles, but it's listed in the "over 50000" category instead of the correct one for at least a few days now. Possibly the same goes for some of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spa (talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 August 2013‎

Hi Spa, please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. I've copied this to Template talk:Wikipedia languages where this sort of thing is handled, please discuss there. Edgepedia (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Spa (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert Bales main page picture now reached 5-6 days, will he pass Fernando Lugo record?

Hi again! All your Wiki are belong to us.

Robert Bales main page picture now reached 5-6 days, will he pass Fernando Lugo record?
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bale has got a long ways to go to seriously challenge Lugo's record. Lugo's 13-day run began on April 21, 2008 and did not end until May 4. Bales is only now approaching the half-way mark. --Allen3 talk 11:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
HODOR!...I mean, LUGO!...I hope not, that "smile" from a psychopathic murderer is a little disturbing. Right now ITN/C is very, very slow. This would be much nicer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Julie_Harris_1973.JPG sadly, she's only up for RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
LUGO!! My hero is back. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Luuuuuuuuugo. <3 --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Bales' run ended after 5 days and a couple of hours. Long live LUGO's record. --Allen3 talk 15:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
And before that it was Manning. That's what, like two weeks where the lead image was a US soldier who went rogue in some fashion? And what's weird is that this isn't ITN's doing, appears to be simple coincidence... or is it? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Make it 3 in a row, now its U.S. Army officer Nidal Malik Hasan. The ITN/R picture is now officaly a US court-martial mugshots place.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Not to ruin your conspiracy, but there was a brief period where there was a picture of WISE. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
ITN has become "US soldier goes rogue"-pedia. Somewhat amazing that all the news all over the world is about Syria and chemical weapons. I suppose it's all about idiotic and crazed assassins. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well that is how World War One started. GamerPro64 19:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Swahili?

From the "Did You Know?" section:

"...Swahili, the first language of fewer than 800,000 people"

...but Swahili has much more than this (see page). --MosheA (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no clash. Swahili is spoken by millions of people, but <800k as their first language. Adabow (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
@Adabow: The Swahili language article definitely says there are 15-25 million native speakers of Swahili. Even this page from Stanford's Swahili department says that, conservatively, there are just under two million native speakers. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The reference used in the Official language article is of poor quality (citing Wikipedia a number of times, for goodness sake), and the source that reference uses to get the < 800,000 number does not actually say that. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've reworded the blurb as ... that Swahili is the official language in more countries than Mandarin Chinese, the language with the most native speakers?. By the way, next time you see an error on the Main Page, please post it in the Errors section at the top of this page. While I addressed this rather quickly, you usually get a quicker response there. -- tariqabjotu 03:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Change the current WP:ITN image

Can't we get a picture of The Ashes instead of Nidal Malik Hasan. We've gone from one American military mass-murderer to another. See the edit summary. - hahnchen 12:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

While io agree that a change was needed, i would just point out that the first one, Manning, was not a mass murderer like the other two but rather a leaker of classified documents. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
And well we're at it, let's make sure that Mr. Heaney is there much longer than Lugo, as it would be a beautiful tribute. Plus I need an excuse to think of poetry more often and, sadly, a meme would do the trick. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(reset) Will David Frost displace Mr Heaney? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not. Haploidavey (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
And the great race between the iconic corpses of the two largest British Isles begins! 75.156.68.21 (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The point I was making :) Jackiespeel (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Right. Let's one half of us start digging potatoes and the other half start interview presidents and we'll see who wins ... er, somehow. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
DF should at least have a mention.

CS Lewis and Aldous Huxley also died on 22 November 1963 - which if WP had existed then would have generated much discussion. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

On this day

For the section on On this day where it talks about North Korea "launching" its first satellite, shouldn't North Korea be highlighted so you can be redirected to its page? Leoesb1032 (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS, please. --69.157.46.84 (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

About the system ssl

Unrelated to the main page. BencherliteTalk 19:17, 3 September 2013 (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.

It would be possible to move to the SGC system? João bonomo (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what? I don't understand the question. And what does this have to do with the Main Page? Modest Genius talk 11:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess this is about Secure Socket Layer versus Server gated cryptography, but you are in the wrong place. If the recent switch to https as default for logged in users is causing you problems then see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If your post is not about Wikipedia then you can post to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:44, 2 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.

Picture of the Day discussion

Mobile version

Why are DYK and OTD not in the mobile version of the front page? See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. SpinningSpark 09:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's an after effect of the 2007-2009 mobile efforts. It was done to make it a very lightweight page, and because the mainpage was not easy to 'reshape' over the past few years. This is why the main page is still 'hardcoded' to take certain small fragments of the main page, and not everything. There have been some improvements, and the current 'experimental/alpha/dragons'-mode of the mobile site shows you how it currently looks with all sections enabled. This is a one step at a time development process, if you want to contribute to it, please do so. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I might be underestimating the difficulties, but it seems to me a very simple thing to have a link at the bottom of the page linking to "main page sheet 2" or whatever. DYK, OTD and TFP are all transclusions. It can't be difficult to construct a page containing just those. It is a very sad state of affairs that users of the mobile site have no obvious way of getting to DYK. SpinningSpark 10:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Apparently it's even easier, you can just change it, because it's already configureable: Configuring the main page. Dze google be your friend. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that these sections should at least be linked from the mobile main page. I said so recently and note that my questions and suggestions there, addressed to @Maryana (WMF): (who doubt is busy; no criticism implied) weren't answered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Ping-summoned! Hi :)
With regard to why DYK, OTD, and TFP specifically aren't displayed, there's just limited screen real-estate on mobile devices, and something had to get cut. It would be useful to hold an RfC to gather more feedback on the mobile main page, because I'm guessing (based on the feedback we've received to date), for every user who wants one specific main page area displayed, there's another who doesn't (or wants something else in its place). Andy did indeed have some good ideas: Why could DYK etc not be "below the fold", or displayed as a link to a subpage? As for the formatting of "help" & "contents", why not create "mobile help" and "contents for mobile", and link to them? Replace "in the news" with a link to a sub-page, and you'd have more than enough room for links to the others mentioned. The mobile team has talked in the past about tinkering with the main page to surface featured content in a more modular way – it would require some design work, but if there were a list of links & information prioritized by the community, that would make it a whole lot easier :)
I would suggest talking about this with Kenan, who's in the process of taking over the product management duties on the mobile team. I'm actually switching over to working with the Flow team, which is part of the reason I'm being tardy in mobile-related queries. Apologies! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, everything that is available in the main Wikipedia should also be available, by some means, in the mobile version. I really don't understand why this is such a problem. How does mobile handle ordinary pages that are exceptionally long? The reader is just required to scroll down are they not? Why should the front page be any different? You already have to scroll down to see everything on main Wikipedia. That appears to be what "below the fold" means. Why make a big issue of it and use technical jargon to baffle everyone? I also don't understand why we are getting comments like "the community should hold a discussion" and "go and talk to X". A discussion on the main page talk page seems to me to be the ideal place to hold a discussion about the main page. What you are hearing hear is the community opinion.
By the way, another thing that is impossible to navigate to from the mobile version is this (or any) talk page (unless one understands how to modify the url). SpinningSpark 15:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the space, but as has been stated before if you want to have any chance of getting something done a well advertised RFC would be essential. Of course it would also be a mistake to rush in to something, a poorly designed RFC would also achieve nothing. (For example, any discussion that makes the assumption the mobile version is only going to be used by high end smartphones is likely flawed. Similarly having some idea of the possible problems including bandwidth related ones for the wide variety of devices and connections out there before an RFC would be ideal.) And since the WMF could obviously veto any changes if they conflict with their goals, discussing with the WMF people involved would also be wise. Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Obvious bias at ITN

Two items at once on geology? WTF!!! Obvious pro-science bias!!!!

Someone was bound to complain so I figured I'd just get the ball rolling... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just be happy no one's dying. And we have at least four good stories lined up at ITN/C (also with no death). This is actually -- I think there's a double meaning here -- good news. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, there's death in the Recent deaths line, but that doesn't count. -- tariqabjotu 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
IAS? Is that shorthand for Ignore All Sources? :p Modest Genius talk 15:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
oops. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Lugo! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You're still all missing the real bias problem: terracentrism. We've only got one item that's not entirely Earth related, and even that's just a launch from Earth to...you guessed it...Earth's moon.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, Vincent van Gogh always struck me as being on a different planet. SpinningSpark 00:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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. BencherliteTalk 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?

Now resolved, but in future please use WP:ERRORS to deal with this sort of issue, to avoid confusion/duplication etc. BencherliteTalk 17:11, 11 September 2013 (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.

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.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 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)
  • 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 wordsdeeds 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)
  • Oppose - A rose by any other name would smell as sweet; what-ifs and "it's wrong" arguments are not convincing. The "Main Page" has, AFAIK, been at "Main Page" since Wikipedia was founded; it hasn't been broken before and it isn't broken now. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; don't see a real problem needing fixed here. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if it ain't broke, .... -- KTC (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is part of the encyclopedia proper, which is why it is in the main namespace. Many people have it set as their browser's home page. If it gets replaced by a disambiguation page, or a redirect to the synonymous topic "home page", they may be in for a bit of a shock. A move could also affect the destinations of a great many links on the Web. The Transhumanist 06:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is content that is meant to be read by general readers, and so it belongs in mainspace. Analogous to a journal, it could have been called a "Front Page". As the top page of a website (it is usually discovered by going to en.wikipedia.org), it could be called a "Home Page", but it now doesn't function as a home page because you don't return to it as a matter of restarting navigation. It now has a history as "Main_Page", and a much better reason is needed to change. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No need. Has always been this way, and doesn't cause a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose-If I could travel back in time and change the title from the start, would I? Maybe. But as it is, the gains from moving the page simply don't overcome the various problems that such a move would cause.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rschen7754. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) (formerly Insulam Simia) 19:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about what it shall be called

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)
I agree with you.I think Wikipedia:Main Page is where it should be moved to.Lsmll 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It has been at Main Page for donkey's ages and from the beginning and everybody knows where it is. Leave well enough alone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    That doesn't offer alternatives to the name, which is what this section is for. If you're opposing, it's confusing why you're in this section at all. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 17:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not a true portal, because it doesn't cover a specific subject. But it doesn't really belong in Wikipedia: space either, because it's designed to be read by readers and not just editors. As a compromise, I suggest moving it to the main article space. As for 'Home', I don't really like this because you don't return to it again and again as part of browsing. Perhaps something that summarises its centrality without giving it undue importance. How about moving it to Main_Page? Oh wait. --86.181.17.180 (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

polski WP has passed the 1,000,000 articles mark

Please move polski up the list to the "More than 1,000,000 articles" group in the Wikipedia languages section.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 07:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Wikipedialang, where this has already been raised. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

An RfC on including featured portals on the Main Page.

Please see Wikipedia:VPR#Today.27s_featured_portal.

— Cirt (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK

All DYK hooks today struck me as very interesting. Nice variety from all over the world, as well as a broad range of fields. Good work DYK contributors! Seattle (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced photo -- again

This is not the first time that the photo for one of the "bullet" items in the "On this day..." section, has been placed as if it belonged to the entire section, instead of belonging to a certain "bulleted" item.

For example, when I looked recently at the Main Page, the photo of "John Logie Baird (bust pictured)" was at the top of the "On this day..." section, even though the item about John Logie Baird was actually the third bulleted item in the On this day..." section. This can cause confusion, especially for someone who is just browsing, and reads only the first bulleted item or two -- and never comes to the one that the photo really goes with. That's the one that contains a phrase such as "(bust pictured)" -- which is too late, since that phrase might never be read by the reader who is just browsing, and reads only the first bulleted item or two.

I don't read the main page very often -- but if I did, then maybe I would have some insight, into whether this "Misplaced photo" issue is one that occurs often. Even as an occasional visitor, I can tell you that, (to me), it is an issue that is mildly annoying.

Doesn't HTML or wiki markup (or both) contain some tech method of solving an issue like this? IMHO, if they don't, then they should. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ: Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? Modest Genius talk 11:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This question -- again? –HTD 02:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It keeps coming up because it looks so silly, yet the people who could do something about it (e.g. add a caption) don't seem to see it. 86.160.86.220 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have the relevant entry in eg a slightly different colour or bolded? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


Wilson Kipsang Kiprotich breaks world marathon record


1789: Parisian women march on Versailles.

Captions are the answer... even easier when the pictures aren't so stupidly small. (The line spacing in my examples looks off in IE, and I can't see how to fix it, but that shouldn't detract from the overall message). 86.161.61.174 (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
IMO, these images are far too small. I can't tell what the OTD or DYK image is of without the text support. Would there be opposition to increasing the size of these photos by 50px? Seattle (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The Main page is the most visited page on Wikipedia, so it should be the most web accessible. Not everybody using Wikipedia has the latest wide-screen monitor, and some are accessing via mobile or other similar devices with small screens, thus there has been no consensus yet to set a greater image width. There have been several proposals to highlight the relevant article entry (see discussion 1 and discussion 2) or to use a caption (see discussion). Bolding the pictured instead of italics was attempted but received complaints it was too distracting. So the current practice remains. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree with all of that, upping the picture size a bit (say to 120 or 140px) is a reasonable suggestion which should be seriously considered. It would improve the appearance of the page quite a lot, without making a major difference to even mobile browsers. Modest Genius talk 17:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Guys, there is a special mobile page. The whole point of having a special mobile page is so that the layout can be specially adjusted to suit small screens, so that these considerations need not constrain design decisions on the desktop version. 86.176.215.210 (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with how the Mobile version treats image sizes. Too me, it looks like whatever image size we set here, it will show up the same size on the Mobile version. It's reading from the same database -- all of the text and images seen on the Main page sections is generated from rotating transcluded templates. The only difference really from the Mobile version is the skin. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually the 'special' mobile page just grabs part of the code from the normal Main Page (there's a special <div> tag that decides which bits). That includes the image sizes. Modest Genius talk 18:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
For a simple person like me it seems absurd to have a separate page for mobile devices and yet still be in the position where the desktop layout is constrained by considerations of how it will appear on a small screen. Surely that defeats the entire point. 86.176.215.210 (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(reset) Discussions on this topic tend to involve as many words/lines as several main pages, whenever the topic arises.

Perhaps two boxes - picture box and text box - with specific (colour coded) formatingto draw attention to the link between them would solve one part of the problem. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds horrible. 86.160.218.148 (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the captions. I believe I suggested that in a previous discussion on this topic. —howcheng {chat} 16:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Simple solution: Put the pictured item first, regardless of any other concerns. Put a slight line under it to separate it visually if it really bugs you so much that it is out of chronological order. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This issue keeps resurfacing, for obvious reasons, but apparently never will be resolved. Sca (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why it can't be resolved by (i) making the pictures slightly bigger and (ii) adding captions. How hard can it be? If nobody at Wikipedia can make a separate mobile page work in tandem with this, given that, um, there is already a separate mobile page, then we may as well all give up and go home. 86.151.119.149 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Alas, it's all been said before. Sca (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just started noticing that a page protection lock of some kind of peeking out from under the search bar. Can only see the very bottom. Never saw this before. (Using Firefox but probably doesn't matter). Jason Quinn (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd, I'm seeing it too, despite never remembering seeing it. Looks like (I think) the full protection lock. I'm vector skin, XP, Chrome. I can see a small slice below the search bar. Chris857 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Zooming in to 250% or making the window really narrow forces the search bar onto a new line, revealing that there is in fact a gold lock there. - Evad37 (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved. One of the content sections that is transcluded onto the Main Page was bringing the protection icon with it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. m.o.p 01:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

For anyone wondering, admin:Crisco 1492 had a bit of a tussle with user:Amandajm, so he fully protected the POTD templates which in turn spawned the glorious golden lock. Th4n3r (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, user:Amandajm, being rather focussed on images, as an encyclopedic subject in their own right, suggested that the artist needed more credit, and produced the following alternative caption:
"This historic lithograph shows a bird's-eye view of the South Side of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Panoramic images such as this one, drawn from life and printed by Otto Krebs in 1871, were a popular form of topographic mapping from as early as the 17th century. The history of Pittsburgh's South Side begins with a grant of land in 1763. Krebs has depicted the area located at the confluence of the Monongahela (foreground) and Allegheny (background) Rivers, with what was then known as Birmingham in the right foreground and Allegheny in the distance on the left."
cheers! Amandajm (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Rainbow troutWhack! for me; sorry everyone! Re: article. Amanda, once again, please look at the standards for POTD and the conventions used. The image is not used in any of the links in the blurb you've suggested (you did not link any of the ones I linked in my version of the caption) and thus such a blurb would not pass muster. This makes it 3 times that I've asked that you look at precedent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Lê Quang Tung

Why isn't the picture for today's featured article, Lê Quang Tung, on the main page? The main page would look much nicer with it.

There was no free image image available when the FA came on. One was uploaded later to Commons, but I can't be sure if it is really free. — Edokter (talk) — 14:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

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 useful 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)

I don't understand what this is about Edwardnew (talk) 03:40, 3 October 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)
  • 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)
          • I'd also support DYK being in the second row rather than the third, as it features articles that editors have actively worked on recently, while OTD tends to cycle through articles that have not recently been improved. A big part of DYK is that editors can have their hard work rewarded by getting on the Main Page even in a small way, and putting DYK under the fold lessens that. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:48, 18 October 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. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 05:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • When the Main Page featured randomly rotating accompanying images to the featured article, that gave me an idea. Why should Today's Featured List/Picture always be below (and less visible than) TFA? Could the Main Page have the three current slots for TFA, TFL and POTD become randomised, such that the position of those three items on the Main Page becomes randomised? This would IMO give TFL and POTD more prominence. It Is Me Here t / c 10:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes in design

  • 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)
  • Support at least the move away from the adjoining, clunky, tabular design that the Main Page currently has. I'm not too fussed about any particular order or placement of content but Edokter's proposed page is far more pleasing on the eye. GizzaTalk © 08:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The current main page was put in place by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, in which the discussion was widely announced throughout the Wikipedia namespace, and for which around a thousand editors turned out to voice their support/opposition/comments. You can't trump that with a minor discussion amongst a few editors. A major overhaul of the main page, without bringing it to the whole community to reach a new consensus, would shock a lot of editors. It would certainly result in the page's speedy reversion followed by much drama. However, the current main page is subject to evolution, in which individual changes are discussed, adopted, and then implemented from this talk page one-change-at-a-time. Like the way Today's Featured List was added (appears Mondays). The Transhumanist 07:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the layout change. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The layout is essentially very similar to the current one, and the design is just terrible with all those rounded corners and fake shadows. I think if something need to change from the current layout is the size of images, which should be bigger. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - new layout/design seems much more inviting DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 13:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for the framework, and for iterating on a design. I like Edokter's layout, a nicely cleaned-up version of what we have now. I love [Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal/Pretzels|Pretzel's design]] from last year, and would enjoy seeing variations on those two designs, to choose among?
    Tariq makes a good point that the Chinese main page does an excellent job of limiting whitespace and reducing the total # of borders while maintaining a clean, elegant look... we can learn from that in updating those two designs.
    Support for having a small 'Be an editor' section. – SJ + 05:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support . A step in the right direction without being too radical change. It keeps the steady reliable brand feel of Wikipedia with just a little freshness. I believe people want and are reassured by , continuity and reliability in an encyclopedia, not a fashionable design which changes with the wind. Lumos3 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the rearrangement of material, which doesn't seem to have much logic behind it and puts everything except TFA below the fold. Neutral on the graphical tweaks, which look fine but don't seem any better or worse than what we have currently. Lose the serif font for titles though - that's not what it's designed for. Strong oppose the very concept of a 'be an editor' box. We shouldn't put that sort of material on the Main Page - it's supposed to be a resource of use to readers, not a recruitment advert. Modest Genius talk 17:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The last RFC has established that editor engagement is one of the primary objectives for the main page. Only catering to readers is not a consideration. — Edokter (talk) — 08:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Supportive I'm positive towards this. Not quite there, but very good so far. Keep it up! --Tóraí (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Formerip. I don't like having just one section (TFA) at the top of the page - fewer people will look at the others. Neljack (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The general layout is haphazard looking. I don't like the way that the gaps between the sections look, and I don't like that I have to scroll down even further to get to the picture of the day. It's already below the fold on my 1600x900 screen, but it's even further down in this proposal. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How would YOU organize a redesign?

I feel that any recent attempts to organize the redesign of the main page is doomed to fail; the community has simply gotten too big to gain some form of consensus. How would you go about organizing a process that resulted in a new main page?

  • For me, I think a small committee comprised of a selection of trusted community members with the relevant design and technical skills should be elected. That group can design the main page without haveing every step under scrutiny. There will be several community consultations before presenting the end result. That result will be put up for consideration, with the condition that any opposing voice must be well motivated, to prevent weeks or months of hard work to be for nothing, simply because of "I don't like it" comments. — Edokter (talk) — 11:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, when you're talking about design, "I don't like it" is really pretty valid. If you're looking for a process that will guarantee a front-page redesign regardless of whether the community wants it or likes it, I don't think you're going to get your wish. As I suggested above, it might be more realistic to propose incremental changes. Perhaps a competition could also work, although someone would need to be willing to put in a lot of effort to organise it. Formerip (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Looking at the past two years, competition or otherwise, no process based on consensus is ever going to change the main page. That has become very apparent. Incremental changes might work, but people will still complain. What works best is what worked for the Vector skin; just put it up, hear the roar and let it die out, and go on with our lives. — Edokter (talk) — 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I think you should give up all hope that no-one will ever complain. If you agree that incremental changes could work, then surely you have identified your best option? I would make each proposal as tiny as it possibly can be. So, with the headers, I would propose removing the boxes, then I would propose switching the font, then I would propose changing the font size. That way you have simple yes/no questions. By presenting a re-design in one go, you are giving people a hundred things to say no to, which is the root of your problem. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree that incremental change might be the best option. Implement the current design in proper css and get that fully debugged first, then replace the {{Other areas of Wikipedia}} with the {{Be an editor}} (once a more final content selection has been debated), then update the header bar. Defer any re-arrangements, or re-colourings, or font changes till the end (in the hopes that the official efforts towards researching and then proposing a change to the font stack moves forward, and because aesthetics and ordering are the 2 most subjective/contentious/divisive issues...); then once all the content and architecture changes are working, begin the process of iterating on alternate designs. –Quiddity (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose the first step should be to define what the redesign is intended to achieve. Or has that already been done? 81.159.107.100 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A belated comment on the above (partly joshing) discussion of featured-picture size: Today's photo of Abbotsbury (File:Abbotsbury, Dorset, UK - May 2012.jpg), however picturesque (it looks like a backdrop for Last of the Summer Wine), is a case in point. Even at full resolution it's impossible to make out much of the distant detail. Seems to me featured pics should be limited to subjects that can fit with decent resolution into the space available. Sca (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • FPs are already considerably larger than they were this time last year (50 to 60 percent, I believe). In the case of Abbotsbury, I could have gone with a scrolling bar allowing greater zoom levels. Maybe I will next time there is a panorama. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

As with all other pages on Wikipedia, the man page should be categorized. As this is formatted as a portal, it should be categorized into Category:Portals

-- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, all categories on the Main Page are usually hidden categories. There has been several discussions on this issue of categorizing (such as here and here), but current consensus is to leave the Main Page as "uncategorized". Basically, the two objections of having a category on the Main Page was that it spoils its appearance, and that no one needs help finding it because it is linked from every page via the left sidebar menu. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
"the man page"? Wikipedia is not Unix. Daniel Case (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
See here for categorising the main page, and here for tagging it as an uncategorised article; it was done completely without discussion! After finding them, I now see that Zzyzx11's links mention them. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Who decides what's on OTD?

Some odd choices of topics in OTD recently (and not so recently), for instance today, is a single murder (Yoshihiro Hattori) really noteworthy enough to put on OTD? I think not. Many better options for today. So what exactly is the process of deciding what goes on OTD? 131.251.254.110 (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's all explained at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries Edgepedia (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Several days late, but the Hattori shooting was a big international kerfluffle at the time. —howcheng {chat} 16:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

19th October TFA choice

Moved from WP:ERRORS
 – BencherliteTalk 23:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Another article about cricket? Pathetic. Who decides what articles to feature? And are they all obsessed with cricket? Pathetic! Autodidact1 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Autodidact. As it says at the top of Talk:Main Page, the place to nominate or discuss nominations for the TFA slot is WP:Today's featured article/requests. In default of nominations for a particular date, I make the decision, so the more nominations the better - at present, the community on average only nominates three articles per week so I'm choosing the remaining four and trying to achieve the impossible of keeping everyone happy.

I don't know whether your complaint is that there's too much sport chosen as TFA, or simply that too much of the sport chosen for TFA is cricket. If it's the first, 10.9% of featured articles yet to appear on the main page are sports articles (147 out of 1,349), which means that if each broad type of FA category was selected in strict proportion to its size, there'd be between 3 and 4 sports articles every month. In fact, today is only the 22nd day this year on which there's been a TFA from sports and recreation, so not much more than 2 per month. So if anything sport is underepresented in the TFA slot (compared to, say, historical/political articles or literature articles, which have done quite well so far this year).

If it's the latter complaint, please bear in mind that more than half of the FA sporting biographies yet to appear at TFA are cricket-related, so they will inevitably appear more often than, say, American football biographies (only 2 left) or basketball (only 2 left). As for today's TFA, I chose Bart King because it was the 140th anniversary of his birth and he is that rarity, a leading American in a game that is not traditionally associated with American achievement. I'm sorry you didn't find it interesting, but hope to see you contribute at WP:TFAR in future, or bringing an article to FA standard yourself to help widen the choices for TFA. BencherliteTalk 23:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, insulting editors contributions and hard work with "Pathetic!" doesn't seem to be conducive to improving the project. Perhaps a little civility and personal involvement would make a bigger difference. Robvanvee 06:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Today's Featured article should be chosen based on the date of the day. For example, historical events, anniversary celebrations etc. You should not keep selecting the TFA from the similar categories or else people may feel bored reading it.Newestcastleman (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • If you think so, please feel free to find anniversaries and nominate them at the requests page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
    1. Please be sure to tell me, Newestcastleman, when you find anniversaries for articles such as our many FAs on dinosaurs, birds, fungi, food and drink, people from the Middle Ages or earlier where we have no dates of birth or death, early literature or music without a date of publication, constellations and stars etc... Your "date of the day" approach is far too simplistic and would make TFA an offshoot of OTD, as not only would it exclude many articles without a date link but also doesn't help when there is no article with a link to a particular day. What do we do then - not have a TFA? Or re-run the same articles every year?
    2. Please tell me the categories from WP:FANMP from which I haven't been selecting enough articles. I'd love to know... Tell you what, check out this table of FAs in 2013 and tell me. BencherliteTalk 08:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you can use some articles related to food and drinks as you have not been using it for the year such as those food and drink companies. I suggest that tomorrow (October 22), Chandrayaan-1 can be used as the featured article since it is the 5th anniversary of the lauch of this unmanned nuclear mission in India.Newestcastleman (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The only FA-class food and drink article not to have been on the main page is Cabbage, which was promoted less than a week ago. But it seems that you don't understand the term "Today's featured article". When it becomes "Today's B-class article", then I'll use Chandrayaan-1. BencherliteTalk 09:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, it is not always that you follow the date, you can simply randomly select the featured article, such as those related to things or events that interest people.Newestcastleman (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I do already, then. Glad we've cleared that up... BencherliteTalk 09:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Frequent Appearances when Random Article selected

I sometimes click the Random Article option while waiting for Godot or something and noticed that the Main Page is displayed frequently - sometimes every fourth or sixth click. It's not an error exactly but does seem odd and something someone might want to look into. John C Kay (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's nothing to do with the Main Page, but the Random Page tool. I suggest you ask on WP:VP/T. Modest Genius talk 10:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have never seen the main page on "Random article". I suspect a problem on your end, for example clicks somehow being interpreted as clicking the logo. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

ITN picture size

Over and above the discussion in the errors section of the caption of the ITN image of the Harbin smog, I have to ask, why is it being displayed at a slightly larger size than any other Main Page thumbnail I can recall? It would seem that we think there's something so special about this we have to make a point.

I suppose it might be that the image would not be legible at the usual size, but a) that's never stopped us before, and b)if that's so then it shouldn't have been used at all. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we have future images displayed at this size instead of the current far too tiny size. --Khajidha (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I can (ahem) see where you're coming from, but that would come at the expense of text and would probably require a consensus in favor of that change. You're welcome to propose it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would it affect the amount of text? The layout of the text, the amount of wrapping, the amount of white space, how far down the page things extend, yes; but why would it require us to have less text? And if the answer involves the mobile version in any way, let me just say that the mobile version should be designed on its own and not be a limitation placed upon the normal main page. --Khajidha (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've shrunk the image a bit; it only makes the ITN section seem even more unbalanced size-wise, though. m.o.p 23:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The smallpox image (which will run on Saturday) will cause a significant amount of negative commentary. In generally, Wikipedia tends to keep certain content off of the main page because while it's not (and shouldn't be) policy, we do follow the principle of least astonishment. I'm just going to be direct here and say that running this image on the main page is a bad idea. It was significantly discomforting for me to look at, and I figure that I've got a higher tolerance than many. This image has a place on the project, but I don't think that it has a place on the main page.

I fully expect to be roughed up at least a little for saying this, so all I ask is that you be civil. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a little graphic, yes, but that also makes in poignant in some convoluted way of human psyche. Controversy sells.KonveyorBelt 04:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that featuring this image was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day, with notification on this page. That proposal followed a discussion at Talk:Main Page/Archive 175. - BanyanTree 04:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Graphic it very much is. I personally will refrain from scrolling down to that section on Saturday. But we do have many such "too-graphic" unused images which at a certain time have to come out. Although to debut from the list a lesser controversial one could be used, like maybe the lynching one, but lets go with a bang is also fine. We should definitely try it out. People have criticized for being too birdy and cute and hence lets try this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Less controversial is... quite subjective, to say the least. Having graphic images on the MP is not new. Lynching of Jesse Washington ran with a very poignant image of the young man's charred corpse last year. POTD has, until now, not partaken, but the both discussions clearly showed a consensus for running the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@Sven: As indicated above, I did not choose this image willy-nilly. There was discussion, and a clear consensus. That this may cause discomfort in some does not make the image any less encyclopedic or valuable to the encyclopedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an academic resource. The image is an unbiased, uncensored look at the effects of smallpox. Sure, it might look a bit 'icky', but are we really going to start applying "I don't like it" to featured images too?
While it is regrettable that this may cause some people personal discomfort, it's a very-real consequence of a very-real disease and gives significant weight. I, for one, think an image with such educational potential should be hidden because someone might find it gross. m.o.p 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me say, I have seen several far more disturbing medical images than the smallpox one (which is visually just a bunch of bumps on the skin). Chris857 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It's substantially less disturbing than say Noma or something of that nature. (Re Dharmadhyaksha above) I also find it odd that a candid shot of a skin disease is considered more graphic and controversial than one of murder. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I shall be interested to see what the reaction is. I refrained from using the image on the Viruses portal partly because of the shock value, and partly because I believe it's an inaccurate portrayal of the usual appearance of smallpox. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Want to suggest a more appropriate one? HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The one I've used is appended -- which I believe is more typical of the pock density & equally clear as to the characteristic central dimple. I tried it out on a non-medical Wikipedia user who found it less distressing. It isn't featured though. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
As the convenor of a community group interested in the conservation of a now heritage-listed former [Torrens Island|Quarantine Station] that was closed when smallpox was officially declared eradicated in 1979, I think that it is salutary for the public to be reminded from time to time, not just of the grim realities of life, but also of the continuing need for support of the medical community in preventing suffering from other existing diseases, or those that might emerge in the future. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(reset) I have suggested previously the possibility of 'vanilla' (ie workplace/school/library/'seen the much-MP talk page generating entry' once) and 'wider cover' MPs - and a 'converse of vanilla' (term anyone?) page. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Extremely bad judgement to feature this picture. Should be taken down immediately. 86.179.4.66 (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Any adult who can't handle a simple picture of a skin disease has problems that Wikipedia shouldn't have to worry about coddling and any child who is viewing this site without proper adult supervision is also not someone we need to be worrying about, so I fail to see what conceivable problem there might be. --Khajidha (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Main Page Controversy Talks
FA
FP
ITN
DYK

Since there always seems to be someone who starts a book-length discussion regarding a "shocking" or "should-be-censored" Main Page topic, I thought I might list the prominent dialogues I found to try and catalog them for reference and provide future readers with a source to see the most commonly-used (and, typically, the most common-failed) arguments against so-called shocking material. -- Veggies (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguments that "failed" in the opinion of people who disagreed, maybe. "succeeded but were ignored" would be another way of putting it. 86.151.118.118 (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Though I am viscerally opposed to censorship, I have to side with those who disapprove of this dreadful pic on the main page, where its only real function is shock value. Let it appear with the smallpox article, where those who are truly interested in the topic can be visually informed by it. Poor judgement, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Shock value? I don't disagree that it is shocking (for me, personally), but I also find it to be powerful, moving, and informative. In the discussion that led to the image being promoted to a Featured Picture, several editors noted that they considered it to be "powerful", "highly valuable", and "educati[onal]". One purpose of having a main page is to introduce readers to topics that they might not have known or thought about before; it would be a disservice, in my opinion, and quite contrary to the function of a general encyclopedia, if we were to expose our readers only to topics in which they are "truly interested". -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Like Black Falcon, I also find the image highly educational. None of us are going to see smallpox "in the flesh". The girl probably has a more extreme covering of pustules than the average case, but the image is powerful and thought provoking. Well done POTD contributors and Wikipedia for featuring this image. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
A minor point - the picture is down at the bottom of the page, so people have to scroll down to see it: which may be a suitable compromise for such debatable articles.

'And besides' - 'any display of popular magazines at the newsagent/store checkout' is likely to have at least one image that far worse (and which will be on display for a week): and the forthcoming commemoration of WWI is likely to produce a range of books with potentially disturbing covers, likely to be on display for far longer.

There will always be a debate on where the boundaries for what should appear on the MP (or eg a certain other well-known website) lie. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Re "popular magazines" cited by Jackiespeel, I had hoped Wikipedia was in a different category than the National Enquirer, Weekly World News and their ilk. Sca (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly support the decision to feature this image. I found it mildly unpleasant to look it, but it is a famous photo that I've seen many times and it is educational and relevant to the date. We should not refuse to feature images on the Main Page because they are unpleasant. Many unpleasant things have occurred and still occur, and we are here to record and represent the world warts and all. We do a disservice to our readers if we only present them with comfortable things. Neljack (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It's this bizarre idea again that forcing people to look at unpleasant pictures is good for them. Completely wrong. 86.160.87.239 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to some of the women's magazines: and there is a difference between 'slightly/somewhat disturbing' and 'deliberate (or seemingly so) unpleasantness for the sake of it.' This image falls into the first category.

Given the different presentation formats how easy is it to have certain parts of the main page that have to be scrolled to be looked at (thus catering for all tastes). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Why has this page been semi-protected for a week, by TParis (talk · contribs)? The reason given was persistent spam, but we only had 2 instances in the previous 24 hours, which is perfectly normal for this page. As one of the most likely pages for new editors to try to edit, we shouldn't be putting them off with a big protection notice. Traditionally we have avoided protecting this page, and I see no change in circumstances that should modify that policy. Modest Genius talk 10:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree. Unless this page is under a particular attack, I think protection is inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I also agree. The page is heavily watched, so any inappropriate content is reverted very quickly. If there was a persistent and rapid spam issue then a short term (hours) semi-protection may appropriate; but I don't see that here. Pedro :  Chat  11:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've unprotected the page; I must say, I'm not quite sure why the [[offending user was only blocked for three hours but the talk page received a week's worth of protection... *shrug* I assume TParis will let us know. m.o.p 13:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
He could have inadvertently clicked the wrong time in the drop-down menu (I know it would add another layer to the process, but maybe the block and protection pages should have some popup or something asking to confirm the time chosen? It's not the first time something like this has happened. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Because right after I blocked that user, a random IP appeared. I get this kind of spam on my user talk page a lot and it tends to disappear for awhile if I block my user talk page for a week. I was the first admin on the scene. So, instead of griping over it, ya'all can just take the advice I post on my edit notice or on this essay and just revert the protection next time. Is there any more snarky questions that deserve a snarky response? And Modest Genius, the next time you want to call someone out, do them the courtesy of discussing it with them on their talk page first or at least notifying them of the conversation. Thanks to Daniel for being the only kind user in this conversation.--v/r - TP 21:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The only snark round here is coming from you TParis. I'm not quite sure what prompted the outburst above, but I can assure you that I certainly wasn't "griping" - and I certainly don't read it that anyone else was either. Pedro :  Chat  12:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I criticised you at any point, so there was no 'calling out'. It's much more likely to get a fast response and third party opinion on this page, I did ping you using {{user}} (which I believe generated a notification, correct?), and it makes more sense to have a conversation about this talk page on the page itself. So sorry if you didn't like it, but I don't think I was discourteous. Modest Genius talk 22:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not receive a message through the notification system. J Milburn notified me. Try {{ping}} in the future.--v/r - TP 23:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Odd. That method worked fine for me a few days ago. Oh well. Modest Genius talk 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
So...now the page is fully protected. What was the reasoning for that?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's always been move-protected - there are no foreseeable conditions where a non-sysop would be moving the Main Page's talk. m.o.p 23:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problems main page image.

Today's ITN image has been nominated for deletion due to possible copyright infringement. Shouldn't it be removed from the main page until this has been resolved? Richerman (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The image linked to in the main page has an advertisement in it!

The main page has a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Front_View_of_George_Washington_Masonic_National_Memorial.jpg which has a commercial in it telling you where to buy it at! I tried to erase that part of it, but the image is currently protected. Dream Focus 03:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a problem, actually. Maybe it was just the wording of it, but it's not uncommon for uploaders to add a blurb in their own photos to say that if they want to obtain the photo under a different license to contact the user. —howcheng {chat} 17:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the OP's main issue was not the fact that such an image is for sale, it's that it was explicitly so (and linked to three commercial websites). I'm neutral on the matter, myself, though I recognise that the climate of Wikipedia today is... generally not in agreement with my views on this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue is in regards to the image description page directly on Commons, where the uploader of the original image added links to where copies of his work may be bought.[2] I'm not an expert on Creative Commons licenses, but it may become an issue if an uploader declares such links as part of the image's attribution statement(s) -- in which case, such links would have to remain. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What's up with all the Georges?

Is there a reason why every featured article on the main page for the past 4 days has been an article about someone named George and tomorrow's is someone named Georgette? Is this some sort of clandestine tribute to the new British royal baby Prince George? I swear, the main page is so UK centric. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the Georges (and the George Washington monument FP), but I assumed it was just coincidence that that bloody sprog was doing something or other; I figured this was like the week a few months back when various types of eagle-related articles were used, and was spurred by the existence of articles with such a demonstrative theme. I'll be very disappointed if I'm wrong. GRAPPLE X 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
2 articles named George in a row is a coincidence. 3 is suspicious. 4 is a conspiracy. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's even worse than that. A featured picture of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial yesterday and one of Saint George Palace today. Plus a featured article scheduled tomorrow about a Georgette. Someone or something is definitely coordinating this effort across multiple featured projects and I demand to know why! Is it a subliminal message to brainwash the American colonies into returning to the British Empire as I originally suspected??? It seems more and more likely. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:TFA#The week of George? (from a couple of a weeks ago) explains the real reason (which is nothing to do with Prince George, otherwise I would have scheduled a George (or a prince) on 23rd October, the day of his baptism); it is true that Crisco himself is part of the cabal, joining in the game with some POTD choices too; it is true that it took longer than I expected for someone to comment on this page about a run of Georges... (what's the collective noun for Georges? A madness of Georges, perhaps?) BencherliteTalk 08:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(reset) The point at which to become suspicious is when a fairly obscure given name (even if just for English language purposes) appears repeatedly. Anyone wish to take on the challenge? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't forget OTD! We had George III of the United Kingdom on the 25th, and George I of Greece is coming up on the 30th. Alas, that happens to be a happy coincidence, as I was left out of the conspiracy. I didn't want to play with you anyway. Screw you guys, I'm going home. —howcheng {chat} 16:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, Georgia just had a presidential election, and that might eventually crawl onto ITN. Chris857 (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
In part a case of 'once alerted to a name etc, one sees it everywhere', and the commonness of the name in the given language: if there were several cases of foreign names (or versions) and 'relatively rare' names then there might be something going on.

No prizes for anyone managing to get a collection of references to such names on the MP (beyond the pleasure of having improved Wikipedia) :) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Does the Georgian election score double points for being won by a guy named George? (okay, technically Giorgi, but it's the same root; like Peter and Piotr) --Khajidha (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
And there's another George in today's FP. Jinjibïar (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
<sarcasm> And now Georgia's got the top spot on ITN! Where will the madness end?! </sarcasm> OrganicsLRO 09:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I claim the prize for the most Georges linked in one item (three). Espresso Addict (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So how many of [3] can we get on the MP? :) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a variation: Æthelred the Unready, Æthelstan, followed by Ethel Merman? It looks like it wouldn't be too horrid to push all three to FA status. —howcheng {chat} 16:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

13 not 30 Billion

There is an error on this page. The newly discovered galaxy is 13, not 30, Billion light years away. Bearian (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

30 is correct. See the lead of z8_GND_5296. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
More specifically, the last sentence of that lead. It is misleading/confusing if you read only the first few sentences. OrganicsLRO 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Distances in cosmology are complicated. 30 billion ly is the comoving distance, whilst 13 billion ly is the light travel distance. See distance measures in cosmology. Modest Genius talk 14:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right! Stay calm and carry on. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

Hey front page kids at FA, DYK, FP, etc--great work today. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Going batty

Has anyone else noticed we have two bats on the Main Page? Sca (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Game 6 of the 2013 World Series is scheduled for tonight, so there is bound to be some batting going on. --Allen3 talk 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Happy Halloween! --PFHLai (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw this guy hanging around my house last night. OK, I'd had a couple drinks, but I swear I saw him lurking by the garage!

Sca (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Another thing, the Did you Knows are all kind of gruesome. except some random feminist movie, wonder why that was put in there... maybe it was the word "killing" yes... :p75.73.114.111 (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, feminists *are* pretty scary....... (bu dum chhhhh!) --Coin945 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

More Movies?

This is like the 5th day in a row where one of the "Did you know..." pieces has been some movie reference, its like the second in a week about Danny Trejo. Seriously, >7 billion people and >200 countries and SyFy movie trivia is consistently more pertinent? I can forgive one or two references in a short while but this is a little ridiculous. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Did You Know" items come only from very new articles. So there are often "Clumps" of a certain topic as the same editor creates a bunch of articles on a topic that interests him.
APL (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
You want something different in the DYK section, write it yourself. This is a volunteer project, and one which in no way needs "forgiveness". GRAPPLE X 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
See also this FAQ entry. Modest Genius talk 18:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god can you guys just stop rambling ona bout this topic!

Cluebot keeps reverting stuff that isn't vandalism

Follow the instructions at User talk:ClueBot Commons please. Or seek wider input at an appropriate place, which this isn't. BencherliteTalk 16:36, 5 November 2013 (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.

Is he acting up for anyone else? He keeps warning me when I revert minor vandalism, even though I'm fixing articles, which means I have to go back and revert his edits, because everyone else will think his edits are constructive! This is a huge time-drain for me and other editors. Something must be wrong with his programming.Ananagram (talk) 16:29, 5 November 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.

Dark-sided Thrush

Heat > light. BencherliteTalk 09:58, 12 November 2013 (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.

Yet another Asian bird. Yawn. Sca (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes 12 Asian bird pix in the last three months, plus a few non-Asian birds. What are we, a pictorial aviary? Sca (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That makes 11 unconstructive comments on bird FPs in the last three months, plus a few targeted at buildings. What are we, a moaning board? On a more serious note, read the FAQ, particularly the section which starts "I think that ...": that's what there is to choose from. If you want images on American birds, or Antarctic birds, or (gasp) even some reptiles, either find a high quality picture on Wikipedia/the internet (if it has a free license), or take one yourself, and try to take the image through WP:FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
That makes 11 unconstructive comments on bird FPs in the last three months...
— Malarkey. Sca (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
All these comments look like they're just made to prevent our minds from going blank. Nothing wrong with that. No comment here, mine included, with ever achieve making the slightest difference in the Main page. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sca is quite right. There are too many of these bird pictures. The response above is irrelevant as usual because, as I understand it, there are plenty of Featured Pictures available, but pictures are deployed in chronological order rather than in order of best variety. 86.171.42.77 (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems too much of an "attack" tone, Crisco, for just a point on birds. If you're getting worked up, I'd suggest a break. The point seems valid and I would like more diversity in main page FPs as well. Seattle (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Does nobody read the FAQ? It's linked in at least 3 places on this page. I didn't write the FAQ, and it has no "attack" tone whatsoever.
There is a run of birds (which are already being artificially spread out because people were complaining with three days between bird pictures) because one editor did a fantastic job, and POTD is run on a more-or-less first in, first out basis. Right now birds are running some 7 to 10 days apart (when, statistically, it should be closer to 4 days if birds are to run at the same rate as architecture photos and the like). As the FAQ makes patently clear: if you don't like what is on the MP, try and produce quality content on your own. For POTD it's even easier than TFA or TFL, because pictures nominated by persons who are not the main editor are much more likely to pass than articles or lists nominated by persons who are not the main contributor.
I've successfully nominated 100 pictures I didn't create or restore through FPC already, and only two were birds. I'm doing my share. Please do yours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

(reset) There are [4] and [5] if anyone is interested - and the frog today is cute. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Do I get good-behavior points for not railing against today's avian TFA about the Water Rail? And I do like today's frog. Très charmant!
Sca (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Normally on wikipedia we don't give people points for simply not bothering us about stuff they know the shouldn't complain about. But since I'm generous, I'll give you 1 point. Of course, asking for points and using that question to complain yet again, means you lose 100 points. This means you're on -10000 points (maybe, I think we all gave up counting a long time ago). Hope this helps. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Quatsch. Sca (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
How does one get points - and can I suggest that points be given for having the last 50 user contributions marked 'current' (because one has improved the articles). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:29, 11 November 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.

ITN picture

Can we have please a picture of Typhoon Haiyan instead of the one of a horse (which relates to the pre-last news item). --ELEKHHT 04:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. (I was working on it when you posted the request.) —David Levy 05:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Are we allowed to have animated gifs on the main page? I don't object, but I don't recall ever seeing one before. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that it be replaced with something static. It's a bit too distracting. wctaiwan (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
We have static satellite views of the typhoon, but such images don't result in the best thumbnails. Animation makes a tropical cyclone significantly more discernible at this scale. —David Levy 06:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
After poking around in the archives, I see that we have occasionally had them on the main page. Live and learn. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
From time to time, we've even had an animated image as today's featured picture. —David Levy 06:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, there it is. This might be the first instance in which we've had two unrelated animations on the main page simultaneously. —David Levy 00:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I liked the animated picture of the typhoon, the context of the picture was correct for the news story. CaptRik (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

On this day section - Nov 14

Could you please mention Ashura which will be observed by Shia Muslims worldwide?

Thank you.

Wikipedia's article on the Day of Ashura isn't currently well-developed enough to appear on the main page; it's in need of more citations and lots of cleanup. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths

Can we please add Sir John Tavener to the recent deaths? I'm not sure how/where to add it for it to show up.

Hi. Take a look at this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ha. Thanks for the pointer. GoldenRing (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI, it's now posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

school ranking

what is the ranking of pakturk international school in pakistan?

It's a position in a table, but that's not important right now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't Log In

I know this isn't the best place to go with this problem but I've been trying to fix it for months and haven't got anywhere.

I've been unable to log into my account for months. My password doesn't work. When I click on "forgot password" I get a message that a new password has been sent to my email, but nothing ever shows up in my email. I've had the same results on different machines, different browsers. I really, really miss being logged in as a full-fledged wikipedian, and I'd appreciate any help at getting my account back on track! user:PurpleChez 11/18/13

Well, this probably is not in fact the right place for this discussion, but wherever you take it I am afraid the answer is probably going to be the same: you will most likely not be able to recover your account and should probably just open a new one. The only possibility I can see here is that perhaps you were using a different email when you set up your account and it is getting all the password reset emails. If that isn't the answer them there is not going to be a way to verify that you are in fact the owner of the account. I will try pinging your email to see if you get that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

MP image protection

user:KrinkleBot hasn't edited since 9 November, meaning there is no autocascade protection on Commons. Promoting admins, please do check image protection status and upload a local protected copy if you can't protect on Commons - recent TFA and TFP images have not been protected. Materialscientist (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why I've argued against relying upon KrinkleBot as a first-line file protection measure. It's a useful fallback (its intended purpose), but this isn't the first outage that's occurred (and it probably won't be the last). —David Levy 04:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 57#Bot to upload main page images BencherliteTalk 23:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology.

Notifying you here, as this is the last submission as part of my initiative, the Main Page Featured Portal drive -- to get all those portals already linked from the top right of the Main Page to featured quality.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OTD: Nov 20, Transgender Day of Remembrance

Sorry if this is the wrong spot to request this - I know where to go for the FA, DYK and ITN sections, but didn't see anything for OTD.

Transgender Day of Remembrance is today. The article is short, but well-referenced. This day is a pretty big deal in the trans community, and if the article meets the standards for listing in OTD I would appreciate seeing it posted. Katie R (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

TFP

Today's show-offish Hyla intermedia isn't nearly as cute as last week's Ecnomiohyla rabborum. Sca (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ecnomiohyla rabborum was indeed super-cute (but we're off-topic). Awien (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Another 'theme' for article development? (Teams covering cute critters, decorative plants, weird creatures, strange plants - and whichever group manages to get the most on to the main page at the end of the set period wins). Back on topic. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Does Tregellasia capito make the Acutely Cute category? Sca (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Squirrels tend to be highly cute, and I see our article has been updated half a dozen times in November — including several pix. Sca (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the Main Page

There have been several 'cute beasties' lately, but nothing that causes 'wailing and gnashing of teeth on the talk page' recently. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sachin's pic is getting tiresome. Can we have MAVEN on ITN, pls? NASA pics are usually free. Thx. --70.31.9.174 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Being partly tongue in cheek - but nothing has really caused a stir lately. (The smallpox discussion was fairly civilised) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To balance out cuteness, a few links to Sloane's viperfish and the like? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

IMPORTANT. HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN RIGA, ADD TO NEWS.

There is a lot of casualties after the Maxima store collapse in Riga. Please add it to the front page IMMEDIATELY! Riga supermarket roof collapse EdwardRech (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is being discussed at WP:ITN/C#Latvian grocery store roof collapse. Looks to have decent support, so may well go up soon. Now, Wikipedia is not a news ticker, so we don't have to (and don't like to) rush immediately into things. Chris857 (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

JFK

I know a lot of people complain about what isn't on the main page (see above thread), so I wanted to say that I thought running the JFK portrait as the Nov. 22 featured picture was well done. Cheers. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! Sca (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Statehood day of Bosnia and Herzegovina

I'm rather surprised that on the main page, in the events section there is no mention of the fact that today is the official statehood day of Bosnia and Herzegovina. AnelZukic (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Statehood Day (Bosnia and Herzegovina) doesn't exist. –HTD 03:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, Bosnia and Herzegovina has a section that needs more references, so that's a double whammy. —howcheng {chat} 17:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

November 23rd Doctor Who article

I'm rather disappointed that the featured article for today is "The Stolen Earth" and not "An Unearthly Child", which today is the 50th anniversary of. My attemps to have it noted as an anniversary were removed with the comment that "Child" would be the featured article today; as such, I was dismayed to find "The Stolen Earth" in its place. I know a lot of work had been put into that article, but it's not that episode's anniversary, is it? Stolengood (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, being a featured article (FA) is a mark of quality, and takes work to reach. This is distinct from today's featured article (TFA), which picks from the available pool of FAs. "The Stolen Earth" is an FA, whereas "An Unearthly Child" appears to never have been an FA, and so couldn't be TFA. Also, the "This section needs additional citations for verification" tag in in the Pilot Episode section of "Child" would probably prevent it from appearing even in the "On This Day" section of the mainpage. Chris857 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
If I had the time and the energy, I would've had Child on the main page, but I didn't have either. Apologies. Sceptre (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This is why "featured article" isn't an ideal name for the distinction. Most readers assume that today's featured article is simply an article that we've decided to "feature" (i.e. excerpt and link to) on the main page that day. Without reading Wikipedia:Featured articles, the quality component is far from obvious.
I'd propose a name change if I didn't believe that the nomenclature is too firmly steeped in tradition for such consensus to be reached. Sadly, inertia is difficult to overcome around here. —David Levy 04:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the header could be changed from "From today's featured article" to "From today's featured article". Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Trescott. That would clarify the issue. 139.161.2.12 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The box already says "More featured articles...", linking as you suggest to WP:FA. Is a second link really necessary? Would someone be more likely to understand the concept if it comes before the blurb, rather than at the end? (Similar links exist in the "Today's featured list / picture" sections as well) BencherliteTalk 18:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
When I see a link to "More featured articles", I would expect to just be taken to a list of those articles that have been featured before. I would not expect a link to a discussion of what should be featured. Linking "featured article" in the header would at least have a chance of getting across the point that a "featured article" is not the same as an "article that is featured". Of course, the best solution is to change the name. --Khajidha (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "I would expect to just be taken to a list of those articles that have been featured before." This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the process... those are articles which are already featured, not those which have been on the main page. The terminology (of being a "featured" article despite not having been shown on the main page) is correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
That's just my point. A naive reader would have no reason to expect such a process. Without knowledge of the Wikipedia process and terminology, a "featured article" is most readily understood as simply one that is being featured (in the sense of excerpted from and linked to). The "Featured Article" name is poorly chosen as it does not convey the idea of the selection process and quality screening associated with being a featured article.--Khajidha (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Facelift

Problem: The main page is presented on three screens (pages). Big part of the first screen is the Welcome message with list of portals on its right. This list of portals make the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box quite large which has two consequences:

  1. unnecessarily large area of the first screen of the main page is covered with the list of portals which content is not frequently changed. Many of them were edited less than 50 times in past two or three years so I think they are given undue weight also.
  2. it makes Welcome message box unnecessarily big.
  3. DYK and "On this day..." sections with text which is daily changed are not fully visible so I have to hit page down key to see its content.

Proposal how to resolve the problem:

  • Present Welcome message (Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with 4,386,878 articles in English that anyone can edit.) within one row, which would leave more space for daily changed content of the main page.
  • There is large unused "white" area to the right of the "Other areas of Wikipedia". A box with list of portals would perfectly fit there.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Have you looked at Category:Main Page alternatives? Perhaps one of them would better fit your monitor? How about your switching to a bigger monitor? I did, and I see the TFA, ITN, DYK, OTD, and roughly the top third of TFI on my screen. No problems at all. To be honest, we have too much content on the main page, so it will be impossible to cater to all the different screen sizes and resolutions. --142.1.32.35 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Its not about me. I almost never look at main page. Its about readers who most probably don't know about Category:Main Page alternatives. I believe that "Lifting" the face of main page by moving relatively inactive portals to the empty area on the right of the "Other areas of Wikipedia" would be only beneficial even for readers with bigger screens.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, all portals at the top are FPO except for Portal:Technology, which is at FPOC; see Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Main Page Featured Portal drive. ~HueSatLum 03:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Most of them have less than 2,000 daily views, with history portal being most viewed with cca 3,500 views per day. I think that it is rather small number, taking in consideration the top page position of those portals. An average DYK article has similar number of views per hour while on the main page. Based on that I conclude that readers are more interested in other parts of the main page which position is much lower so many of them have to scroll down to see it. I think readers should have easier access to the content in which they have the bigger interest. Taking in consideration lack of support for my proposal I am probably wrong here. Thanks for your patience and all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Main page balance

The past few days there have been images of 'animal, vegetable, mineral' and today there are three pictures of chaps: could there be some of chapesses to balance out? (When categories of images over a period of a week or several give the impression of following the laws of chance there is no comment: when there is an actual or seeming run for 2-3 days or 'a full house' there is.) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Political news

Silvio Berlusconi was extradited (spelling?) from the Italian senate. Valdis Dombrovskis resigns as Prime Minister of Latvia. I would suggest the both for the main page, but of course I don't know how relevant it is for the EN readers. In DE Dombrovskis is on the main page but Berlusconi not. --Constructor 12:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as I wrote this, Dombrovskis also got to the main page here. --Constructor 12:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussions all take place here -> WP:ITN/C. CaptRik (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_177&oldid=1211052570"