This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just a thought: can we adopt the main page design of Chinese Wikipedia to the main page here in English Wikipedia? Why you ask? Because it looks cleaner and more modern than tired one here (no offense). As I understand the design is based on User:Pretzels's past design proposal. -- Taku (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would we want to put everything in Chinese? We're the English Wikipedia ... Sarcasm aside, this is better brought up wherever it is we deal with the perennial proposals (like, at least once a month) for main page redesign. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant we replace Chinese by English. I'm only talking about the "design". I thought we are "for" the redesign. Let me ask this way instead: why is the current English design better, given the two choices the Chinese design and the English design? -- Taku (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Chinese version is quite spartan, and the design that is there is rather incoherent. I have been (quietly) working on a new design (quick link) and have mentioned it several times in the past three years. However I'm afraid there will never be a consensus for a major change. I'm still planning to engineer a breakthrough somehow, I just don't know how yet. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 17:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like the Italian Wikipedia's main page, often pointed to as an example we should emulate, is now using the same general idea as the Chinese main page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Italian main page was introduced in January 2011. Many have since copied its style. However, it remains a rigid table-based design. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 10:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't regard the main page redesign in general as perennial... I'm not going to let the current design rock the main page until 2035! -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 17:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perennial only in the sense that it seems like someone proposes we change it, whether they have an idea to what or not, every two weeks or so, it seems. That doesn't mean we can't do it, ever—the fact that most of them don't even get to a serious vote doesn't mean that consensus can't change. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the Spanish Wikipedia's main page design, with the "Portals" section moved to the top right, the "Wikipedia in other languages" section moved to the section where "Portals" was, the "Featured picture" section expanded to full-screen, and the "Good article" section replaced with our "Did you know" section. Seattle (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. However, somehow no one has quite responded to my question. Why do we want to stick to the "almost-10 year old" design? If a redesign proposal feels "perennial", I would say it's an indication of desire for the change. The Chinese main page design may have a flaw but my question was if it is an improvement or not, over the current one. Also, I'm purposely ignoring any other option (which I'm aware of) in order to let us focus. So, if there is no serious opposition, I would like to suggest we conduct a poll on whether to adopt the Chinese design (which was really outs to begin with). Meta-discussion on the process is getting too tired. My hope is that some sort of success in redesign creats further interest in the incremental design improvement. - Taku (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The current design persists because every time a proposal is brought up, the discussion somehow eventually dies with no clear consensus (see also WP:MPRP for a list of these discussions). This especially happens when multiple people bring multiple ideas to the table, thus increasing the likelihood that nobody can agree. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we have a 'design a Main Page' competition. Then 'users in general' can vote on the various offerings, and the most successful can be used at least 'occasionally'. Thus everybody should be happy (including the people who wish to comment on this talk page). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You just described every failed attempt to redesign the main page. Some of us have repeatedly warned others that the "competition" approach never succeeds, but our advice is routinely ignored/dismissed (and sometimes even blamed as sabotage when the endeavor inevitably collapses, which is construed as evidence that we predicted that outcome because we set out to cause it). —David Levy 22:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The short answer is no :) The long answer has to do with the issue Zzyzx11 mentioned. We have already tried several times for years the design competitions. For whatever reasons, it didn't result in the firm consensus (in fact the process seems to always stall at some points). I once heard that the best way for failure is to try to be friends to everyone and the redesign efforts remind me of that. No design will please everyone. The simplest option I can think of is to adopt something that already exists and I think it's worth trying the option (i.e., conducting the poll I'm proposing.) -- Taku (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question when you ask "why is the current English design better?". If you want to make progress, you really need to flip that: "Why is the proposed "Chinese" design better?" The argument "many people think the old one is bad" isn't a compelling reason to support change. Not only do you need to make the case for why the old way is bad, but you also need to make the case as to why your proposed way is the way to fix it, out of the myriad of other ways that it might be fixed. ("We need to make a change. This is a change. Therefore, we must make it.") You're ignoring other options to focus, but it's not that easy: why is your preferred option the one which gets singled out? Why can't it be some other proposal that we focus on? Additionally, in supporting your proposed change, you need to convince others that your new way is better. "Well, I like it" normally isn't compelling enough to convince others - you have to make other people like it too, and that will take more effort than nebulous talk about being "cleaner" or "more modern". (Cleaner how? More modern how? Why is "more modern" a good thing?; Kandinsky is more modern than Dürer, but that doesn't mean Kandinsky's style is better for illustrating an anatomy textbook.) Absent any convincing rationale for making any particular change, social inertia prevails, and the status quo wins; this is a rule that's actually encoded in most forms of competitive debate. - So to answer your question, the reason we stick to a 10-year old design is that no one has been able to come up with a compelling argument to change it. Most of what gets posted boils down to "I just like it", or dressed up equivalents (e.g. the subjective "it's cleaner"). -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Flipping the argument again - should the main page be 'tweaked or even rearranged' just for the sake of change; 'because it has been like this for X years so we should rebrand' (or whatever the current buzzwords are); because 'some/many people' see certain aspects as not fit for purpose/'certain aspects need improving' or what?

The 'main or most discussed' problem with the layout seems to be the linking of the image and the ITN story - and 'the proverbial someone else' is always too busy to somehow highlight the relevant line.

There is always a balance between 'We have always done it this way' (right or wrong) and 'The present system works - convince me of the validity of the Keynes' quote about when the facts change.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually think the change for the sake of the change is a good thing; isn't that the basis for, say, the fashion industry? Wikipedia nowadays has this perception that it is something familiar, trustworthy (the survey has shown people trust Wikipedia more than the mainstream media) but is old (cf. wikiwand.) The "old" is not bad, of course. But sometimes media redesigns its website to get buzz, to get new readers, to image something that was not. When (not if, I hope) we redesign the main page, it's quite possible that we get some news coverage (not nytimes-type, but more like buzzfeed-type one), which is a good thing. Also, by showing the change is possible, we might be able to create some interest among editors in coming up with new designs or organizational ideas, which is again a good thing. So, no, there is no compelling reason for "a" new design, but there is also no compelling reason to stick to the same old design for years. This is wiki after all and things should be in a constant flux. In other words, the question comes down to what I like, what others like. (whence, my cheap very lazy proposal.) -- Taku (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Across the various attempts to redesign the main page, two strategies have failed time and again. One, as discussed above, is competition. The other is change for the sake of change.

As Edokter has explained, non-arbitrary reasons do exist, but the Chinese Wikipedia's main page doesn't contain the infrastructural improvements needed.

160.129.138.186's comments are spot-on. Your rationale boils down to "Considering multiple design proposals is never fruitful, so let's just vote on my personal favorite." —David Levy 17:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, we're getting somewhere. "We should redesign the site to attract new readers" is *not* change-for-change's-sake. It's change-for-attracting-new-readers-sake. Now all you need to do is flesh out your argument that attracting readers with buzz is something we want to do and that switching to the new version would be the best way to do it. Again, you'll have to convince others with your arguments, so "I have a gut feeling that this might be the case" probably isn't going to work too well: provide evidence and cite sources. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No compelling reason to change? Really? How about: The currect design is from the middle-ages of the internet. What were considered good design priciples then, are considered obsolete and even detrimental methods today. In 2006, we had no mobile devices... even the iPad didn't exist; we only had desktops and all was good. Our current main page is a dinosaur, both in structure and design; it relies on tables for layout (Bad™) and blocky-block-blocks designed to scream 'LOOK AT ME, I CAN DO BORDERS!'. ALL other project have newer page design, except us. If we want to present Wikipedia as a website that has any affinity with the present, it needs to look the part. I think mine does, and takes all modern design aspects to heart, which makes it very mobile/small-screen friendly. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 14:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WP users will range from 'keep the visual layout/format as it is ' to 'a new layout each day/month' with most people somewhere in the middle ('so long as it at least as user friendly as before, it can be got used to - and so long as they don't change it around as frequently as they do things in the supermarkets').

Should there be various different skins available (eg 'borrowing' Wikia's Monobook) - or should there be a 'customize your WP layout' setup (the equivalent of the screen-arrangement setup on a PC)?

To paraphrase the Delphic Oracle when asked for a prediction that would always be applicable and Abraham Lincoln - there will always be (calls for) changes to the WP layout - and you cannot please all the people all the time. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your argument would be bolstered by enumerating the design principles the current page employs that are now considered obsolete and detrimental - and providing concrete examples of why they are detrimental. Preferably with referenced support, rather than nebulous unsupported statements as to their badness. "Just trust me, I'm a random schlub on the internet who thinks he knows better than you" tends to fail as a persuasive argument. You start to go down that path by talking about mobile support, but expanding on that, explaining the issues and why your change fixes things would probably help. (Also, there's a mobile-specific version of the Main Page - you probably also want to explain why you need to alter the standard version of the Main Page for better mobile support, rather than just the mobile version.) -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And Edokter could you explain what makes your version different? To someone (like myself) who doesn't know ANYTHING about programming your version and the current one look pretty much the same. --Khajidha (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Just view it on a small screen, or resize the window on your desktop to 800 pixels or below. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 23:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Which of your redesigns are you promoting here? This one or this one? Because looking at the archives, you got quite a bit of support on the former [1], the only issue being that it needed to be tested on more platforms/browsers to make sure there aren't any hidden bugs. If it's the latter, I'm not sure that "just view it on a small screen" works as a convincing argument, especially since the former has the same/similar reflow behavior on small screens without (unrelated) stylistic changes. - That said, I personally wouldn't have any major objections to the latter, per se. However, the "It's better. Trust me. I don't need to explain why." type arguments don't endear it to me. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Who is 'you' in this case - and why 'he' (rather than 'I' or gender-neutral 'they')?

As this subject is 'raised on occasion' and does not have a long list of 'me toos'/a request every day the inertia-momentum is for 'more or less the same' rather than redesign.82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like someone recently created Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal, without actual specifying any new proposal for 2015. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  I think the idea is to solicit proposals from the editors. This made me think: is it meaning to create a new redesign page every year, like some sort of annual tradition? I think it would make more sense to create a subpage like Main Page/new design ideas to collect existing ideas, so that editirs don't need to resubmit their proposals every year. -- Taku (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested that the letters on the jigsaw ball could be rearranged? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata:

“Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change”

-Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount Falkland

--The Theosophist (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(That's a very beautiful quote.) I tend to see designs as something more like fashion. That "because I wore a blue shirt yesterday, I wear a red shirt today" would be a good enough reason for me for a change. I get that the others want to see more reason though. -- Taku (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: You see, my personal opinion is that the modern fashion industry is wrong, and this is why I disagree with this line of reasoning. Let me explain. In the old times, fashion would change for a variety of reasons. Some of them are a) because of need, b) because of scientific progress which would make some clothes look “old” and c) because the political progressives would create an atmosphere of “social change” that “needed” fashional change, too. Even the last reason may be considered acceptable. The modern fashion industry, however, has used a new reason: mutatio gratia mutationis. So, it is fine to change an ancient tradition. Why? Well, because we gotta change it. (Three months later). So, it is fine to change our version of this thing. Why? Well, it′ll be great fun to change it again. Etc etc etc. And all this without an actual reason for change, not even social urging (which, as I said, is not always a sufficient reason). Now, I hope you understand why I disagree with your proposal and why I posted this quote. Yours sincerely. --The Theosophist (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there are two questions "if change" and "change to what" (to Chinese, say, for instance). It is clear by now that the first "if" question is already not something we can pass through it. I get the "if it ain't broken, why fix" logic (another beautiful phrase), but I think or I thought that there is a consensus for "a" change. The main page design should be more than about the functionality. Maybe we should just have a poll on whether we think the main page looks old and needs a fresh-up, make-over (or any other cool marketing phrase an editor in advertisment knows.) -- Taku (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: Ah, so you have missed some of my point. My point includes aesthetics, you see. It is not only about the functionality (if it ain't broken, why fix) but also about the aesthetic value (if it ain't ugly, why "improve").--The Theosophist (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Technical Observations

• Edokter's MainPage1 is responsive till around 325px.
• Edokter's MainPage2 is responsive till around 230px.
• The Chinese MainPage is responsive till around 880px.
• The English MainPage is responsive till around 575px.

Now, the problem is that the editor interface isn't really responsive, so it looks like this: http://prntscr.com/6daedn on all the mainpages. Can we fix that? No.
My personal favorite is Edokter's MainPage 1, the flat background, solid colors with less opacity, the headers with the colour gradient. Looks nice to me.--QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 05:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@QEDK: I would be for serif headers (actually, I would be for a serif Wikipedia), if the blue frames were left as they are.--The Theosophist (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

We have made absolutely no headway in this field. xD I prefer though, something happens, since our design is quite old. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If "Edokter's MainPage 1" is this one, it's too text-heavy IMO. When the page first comes up, it is mostly a big slab of text. OK, there is more when you scroll down, but the initial impression is pretty uninviting. 81.132.192.120 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that's MainPage 1. My bad, fixed now. I don't know, probably they were moved or something. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing was moved. I made two pages: my initial design (1) and one based on the looks of the current page (2). Personally, I don't like (2) because some elements cannot be made to behave in the new framework, and even though it is fluid, I am quite bored with its design. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 13:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I have a question. Why is it that over 90% of the posted articles in every section on the main page is about an achievement or an event caused by a man or a group of men? Just take a look at "In the news" now and you'll see what I mean. Is it because women's achievements or events caused by them is not newsworthy? Or is it because they're just not doing anything at all? Or is it because nobody is submitting articles involving women? Has this subject been discussed before? It is strange because I see it in every section in Wikipedia and in every major news outlet as well.Berryblueberry (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your time.

Yes, I'd say it's been discussed a few times. There's no answer, short or long, that can really satisfy the question other than to say that there are a number of reasons why such content is underrepresented on Wikipedia. As for the major news outlets, that question would have to be taken up with them.-RHM22 (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to specify these reasons? Also is it not possible to place a quota on the number of articles about men and women? To be fair, say 50/50? Currently the main page seems kind of annoying and imbalanced. It looks like a page belonging to a men's club. I'm sure if all you saw was pictures of women and articles about women you'd be annoyed too.Berryblueberry (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring specifically to the 'In the news' section, then the answer would be because there are not currently any important news stories involving women. The stories there are chosen based upon newsworthiness, so it's not possible to enforce any sort of quota. The 'Did you know' section contains material from recently created or expanded articles, and anyone can nominate such an article to appear on the main page if it meets the criteria. The 'On this day' section covers historical events, and consideration is given to choosing different anniversaries each year so as to avoid repetition. The featured content process is a bit more involved than the others.-RHM22 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The answer is - develop the relevant articles yourself. 128.127.29.19 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. The main page is currently gender blind, which is a good thing. But now someone's upset and thinks it shouldn't be gender blind anymore? You cannot force things to be a certain way just because you don't like the current outcome.Correctron (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not really gender-blind. DYK is colored by the Wikipedia' existing systemic biases. TFA and the picture are also, if to a lesser extent. APL (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I think TFA may even be more influenced by Wikipedia's systemic biases. Have a look at all the featured biographies. What percentage are on women? And TFA has to be selected from that group of articles (not always biographies, but for this example it's simpler) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. Looking at a snapshot of the Main Page right now there are Six Sections: "From Today's Article List", "In the news", "Did you know...", "On this day..." , "From today's featured list", and "Today's featured picture". I see total 23 articles of which 8 articles are about eight different male individuals that have either accomplished something in the past or the present. Only one article mentions a woman's name as having done something worthwhile. When issues and articles pertaining to one gender are emphasized, over time the other gender will lose interest in referring to the page as a reader or an editor and the cycle will perpetuate the trend. The page ends up being of interest to one gender only as it has now. I am quite certain that most of the readers and editors of this page are men and therefore articles pertaining to female individuals are not published because they are not considered "news worthy". The current editors are free to continue as before but they can not claim that the main page is not gender biased. It is glaringly gender biased. Berryblueberry (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The good news is, unlike many sorts of problems in the world, you, at Wikipedia, have the power to fix this, all by yourself, in very simple ways. Just create and/or edit and/or improve articles about women and then nominate those articles (if they qualify based on the objective standards of each section) at the appropriate sections, and they will be posted. It's great that Wikipedia provides you this simple and easy-to-implement opportunity to overcome a major injustice all by yourself without having to involve anyone else. In many other places, there's no convenient outlet to fix a problem like this. Wikipedia's open editing model, however, let's you fix the problem without actually needed to get anyone else in any positions of power to do anything for you. You just do a few simple things yourself, and the problem goes away! So, just improve those articles, nominate them at DYK, ITN, etc, and watch the Main Page be transformed to exactly what you want it to be. --Jayron32 05:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! If you, personally, think that there is a problem, then you, personally, must go and try to fix it. And if you need more people, then you, personally, must go and find other volunteers (because you are a volunteer, and I am a volunteer, and everyone here is so). And if other people think that there is no problem, they will try to persuade you that there is not, and you, personally, must try to persuade them for the opposite, and eventually either you, or they, or neither will be persuaded. And work will continue.--The Theosophist (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Berryblueberry: If society does not let as many women achieve great things as it lets men, this is obviously a social problem. Wikipedia, however, works with what is at hand. And if society -for whatever foul reason- has allowed for less notable women, you cannot blame it on Wikipedia. Moreover, news is news. And the “In the news” section contains only the most important of the news. Again, society does not let women participate in the most important etc etc. When it does, however, Wikipedia is there. For example, when Malala Yousafzai was given the Nobel, it was mentioned. Let me go to the featured articles. Only for March, 4 of the featured articles are biographies of women (with one of them being a British politician of the early 20th century, one of the first female MPs and Ministers, politics aside), one is about the portrait of a woman, one is about a song of a female singer (and I put aesthetics aside, too, because this is not the point of the discussion) and one is about a film starring a woman and it has her photograph for the blurb′s picture. And there are 5 slots that have not yet been decided. What about featured picture? For March only, 3 of the featured pictures are pictures of women (one of them is a self-portrait of a pioneering female painter of the 17th century), one is a painting depicting a woman and a girl, and there is also a poster for a suffragist parade from the 1910s, with 3 slots having not been decided yet. I hope you reconsider.--The Theosophist (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

My friend, the problem is not in the lack of nominations of articles about women. The problem is in your statement: “(IF they qualify based on the objective STANDARDS of each section)…they will be posted”. I could nominate hundreds of articles about women but they would not QUALIFY based on the objective “MALE SOCIETY” standards and therefore will not be posted. Unless the STANDARDS are changed so that they reflect the values of the other half of the world population, Wikipedia Main Page and other mainstream news outlets will remain as is: a male dominated news source.

From my observations so far, I noticed roughly 10% of articles about individuals were representatives of women. March 8th is International Women’s day. If we’re lucky maybe we’ll get double that. Let’s see. :-) Berryblueberry (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Which standards are we referring to? Article quality standards? I mean, the OTD standards are about as straightforwards as they could possibly be. Make a new non-stub article and nominate it. Done. If it seems male-centric, then that reflects Wikipedia's overall bias that you could help address just like The Theosophist suggests.

In the news standards? If you feel like ITN's selection criteria is biased, you'd get better results proposing specific changes to those criteria, or creating and then nominating current event articles that you feel are being overlooked.

It's no secret that the project has biases. (There's even been a giant banner to that effect for the last couple of days!) Telling us how disappointed you are in general and making vague non-specific insinuations doesn't help, and isn't going to help. APL (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Berryblueberry: Well, you're wrong. If you write an article which meets the DYK criteria, for example, it will be posted ("male" is not a criterion). The assertion that there is some conspiracy to keep women-related articles off the main page is absurd.-RHM22 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, based on the current selection of ITN articles, you could make a fairly good argument that the reason women are underrepresented in ITN is because women are less destructive on a large scale. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was also worth mentioning that the lack of articles in DYK for the past week or so on women is actually because of women's history day/month - they've been saved up for today and to be slipped in for the rest of the month. Miyagawa (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's obvious that generally there will be more Wikipedia content about men than about women because men have "done more stuff". Some people may not like it, but it's a fact. 81.132.192.120 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Less than 12% of Wikipedians are female. There will always be a slight bias among a popularity majority. It's human nature. Now fixing the gender gap is something I am not qualified to do. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The destruction of the pre-Islamic cities of Hatra and Nimrud is hardly an "achievement". But I think it's unlikely that ISIS would be able to alow women to participate equally in such an event? World news as a whole may be male-dominated, but I'm not sure how the ITN nomination process could be changed to promote women more, or even if that is appropriate. I guess we should all be pleased that Today's Featured Article is about a whole family! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, as you can see the Macedonian wikipedia has reached over 80k pages. It should be linked on the home page. --Koyaanisqatsi9 (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Filed a request, Template talk:Wikipedia languages#Protected edit request on 15 March 2015. Many languages are missing. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As you've come to realize (by reading Template:Wikipedia languages/doc), "this is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted." That includes the Macedonian Wikipedia. —David Levy 14:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Does the current featured article 'balance out' the appearance of 'a person with stated decorative appeal' - and would matinee screen idols and similar provide the balance for 'chaps with decorative appeal'? ('As far as reasonably possible' there should be a wide mix of subjects on the MP - which will include the occasional 'topic causing much discussion on the talk page', and the occasional consideration of statistical flukes in types of entry.) Do the recent women appearing on the main page - notable for what they did, or appearing in paintings etc - 'balance out' the one noted for 'what is considered to be her decorative appeal' (And would 'matinee screen idols' provide the 'chaps with decorative appeal'?) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The content of Main Page is not the result of one brain, or even one process. There are different processes that derive the ITN, DYK and featured content. So it would be surprising if there was "balance", because you're looking for something that shouldn't be there. (NB by picking on paintings, you identify a hard-wired cause of imbalance; attractive paintings are often painted because they're attractive). --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Mainly a comment on the recent discussion - and referring to Margaret Bondfield.

The 'balancing out' can be the overall impression the MP gives - that 'over a period of time' (several days/weeks) there is a general mix of topics covered/a preference for 'and now for something completely different' (and why there are comments on 'statistical flukes' and occasional emphasis on particular areas in ITN). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, especially the words in parentheses, but human minds detect patterns where none exist. TFAR, for example, has complex rules specifically to ensure that "there is a general mix of topics covered". But even TFA will always fall foul of Wikipedia's Systemic bias. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I meant - things are likely to even out over the middling term. There is likely to be survivals benefit to 'spotting unusual patterns'/'creative misinterpretations.' Jackiespeel (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I am not sure that "creative misinterpretations" is what Wikipedians have posited about themselves recently (or perhaps that came from "on high") about systemic bias: ergo all the Wikipedia funded edit-a-thons focused on women and women's issues and minority issues and women and minority issues and so on. That would be some significant volunteer work by thousands of people all over the planet for a few "spotting unusual patterns" and "creative misinterpretations." Or, so it seems to me. But then I just a few days ago wrote the original entry on an award winning, best-selling, speculative fiction--Bailey's Cafe--by an acclaimed African American woman--Gloria Naylor--so, I suppose I have bias as well. Though I do adore my Robert Heinlein from the misogynistic teen teen stuff on up (all of which have pretty good articles). HullIntegrity^\ talk / 05:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Creative misinterpretation as a survival tactic (whether resulting in writing a best selling novel, starting off a piece of research, or 'confusing your opponent').

'The fact that' people do complain when the occasional 'statistical flukes and WPians responding to things in the real world by improving the relevant articles' etc shows that the underlying algorithms (or whatever) work as they should. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think editorial actions on Wikipedia, in the aggregate (and over time), might best be described as a complex dynamical system and less like an algorithm (like a complex search engine will use). I have seen that Wikipedia changes (and hopefully benefits in the long run) from the Butterfly Effect, which seems to me to be how it was designed. But we are probably on the wrong talk for that discussion. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I was making a passing observation - and noting that 'something that becomes a topic of discussion' is likely to be counterbalanced by 'another item on the MP' within a few days.

There should be 'a generic term for algorithms, TFAR rules and other computer processes which most of us find too technical to be interesting' :) Most people will accept that there will be the occasional 'clumping of related topics' on the MP and the occasional 'item that generates much discussion, not always of the "doesn't go with reading over hot drink and biscuits/one does not wish to discuss with young persons" categories.'

I like the phrase "clumping of related topics". The other effect might might be described as "posts (articles, images and etc.) that generate a spooky amount of discussion and spin-off". :) HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to developing WP/the wikiverse in general. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy travels! And thank you. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is there still no article on the Salvadoran legislative and local elections of March 1st? And do not direct me to the "request an article page" as it is incomprehensible.90.218.237.58 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be no article, because nobody has written one (or added the relevant content to the Elections in El Salvador article.). Wikipedia content is created by volunteers - and you are of course free to contribute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Click here and turn it blue: 2015 Legislative elections in El Salvador. But before you do that, read Wikipedia:Your first article. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

They'd have to create an account first, but that takes about 30 seconds. Here is the link to create an account. After they do that, they can create the article and then fix the problem themselves. --Jayron32 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please create a page on the Legislative and Local elections in El Salvador of March 1st 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.230.225 (talk • contribs)

See the discussion immediately above. You can either request the article be created for you at Wikipedia:Requested articles or you can simply create an account (see above for a link to do so) and create the article yourself. --Jayron32 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Of note: There have been multiple "requests" at Articles for Creation to make this page. The same suggestions have been provided, but no creation has occurred, nor has a Bounty been issued for this subject to be created. Hasteur (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured pictures is approaching 5,000 featured pictures. Maybe we could throw up a congratulatory/celebratory banner for a few days at the top of the Main Page after they hit the milestone. Maybe we could even move the Today's Featured Picture section up to the top of the Main Paige for a day or so to highlight the Featured Picture project and its achievement. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, the last time a celebratory banner was posted on Template:Main Page banner, marking the creation of 4,000,000 Wikipedia articles in 2012, opinions on the wording were mixed (see archived discussion). Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist attack, terrorist attack, terrorist attack, terrorist attack, terrorists, terrorists, terror, terror

and penis transplant.

Personally, I'm more interested in the penis transplant. When did Wikipedia's English front page news section become Fox or CNN? It used to be a variety of unknown, but important worldwide news. Now it's... mainstream media. Allen750 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There apparently has been an ongoing trend in recent years where more people who are nominating candidates for In the News are proposing those types of stories from mainstream media, and there are less people interested in researching/updating a variety of unknown. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I see 'solar eclipse, Likud, South Pacific.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

... and the event in Leicester will no doubt appear on ITN later today. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(... not unless it's nominated and the updated article is "top quality"). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly it'll need to be nominated, but one of the aims of ITN says it is "to showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events", no mention of "top quality" anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Thursday event will probably be notable enough :) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could have special a "Plant-a-Plantaganet" day? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Allen750: If you are dissatisfied with what is posted, I invite you to participate in nomination discussions or make your own nominations to improve what is posted. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did he declare it as the temporary capital? Makes no sense without an explanation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.8.114 (talk • contribs)

Yes, some sort of context needed please. JanderVK (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See the end of the sentence. Click on the bold wikilinked word and it will take you to our article Yemen. There's a brief explanation at the end of the lead (introduction). --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Would still be better with some context in the blurb. --Khajidha (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of the blurb is to get people to read the articles to learn more about it; the blurb isn't meant to provide every detail. That said, you are welcome to visit WP:ITNC and request an alteration to the blurb. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Didn't ask for every detail. You'll notice that we don't just say that "Former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed is sentenced to thirteen years in prison" or that "Gunmen kill 21 people in Tunis". --Khajidha (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the link from the Ongoing line to add some context. P.S. In the future, comments/errors like are better placed in the Errors section at the top of this page. -- tariqabjotu 20:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

When I first loaded the Main Page, the Did You Know image shown here appeared as a blue link to the image with the "Drawing by Moses Harris" caption. I couldn't see the actual image until I clicked the link. Refreshing the Main Page solved the problem temporarily. Temporarily because I had the same problem with the In the News image a day or two ago. This doesn't matter much unless others are having the same problem, so are you? Windows 8.1, Firefox 36.0.4 Art LaPella (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Didn't the Main Page use to have a clock displaying the UTC time? I know there is a note giving the day, but I would think a clock showing the current UTC time would be an improvement. --Khajidha (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed in the past. The problem is that the page's caching would cause incorrect times to be displayed frequently. —David Levy 21:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, @Khajidha:, there's a gadget you can enable in your preferences if you want a UTC clock: Special:Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance → Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Thank you. --Khajidha (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

i cant seem to edit the main page. why? please let me edit it to make it look better, thanks.Lakerfan45 (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, unfortunately only administrators are currently allowed to edit the main page, however if there is something you wish to change e.g. misspelling/add content/fix errors you can certainly suggest it HERE! Thank you, JohnGormleyJG (✉) 07:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Main Page lists the total number of articles on the English Wikipedia, and normally that increases by 1,000 articles a day, give or take a few hundred. However, between yesterday and today the article count jumped from about 4,753,000 to about 4,848,000. That's an increase of roughly 95,000 overnight. Either the counting methodology has been changed to include tens of thousands of articles that were simply being left out previously, or some software bug has started counting non-mainspace pages as articles. I know this talk page isn't really the best place to bring this up, but I'm not really sure what the proper forum for such a question is; for all I know the folks at WMF are responsible for the Statistics page, which even admins can't edit. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest bringing it up at the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The running tally is somewhat approximate. It attempts to increment / decrement the count every time an article is added / deleted. Occasionally though it gets confused and misses one. The fix is to periodically update the tally by counting every article in the database, which is more accurate but too slow to use routinely. My guess is that the jump was triggered by such an update, though I don't know that for sure. The more accurate offline stats have shown 4.8 million articles since December [2]. Dragons flight (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your suggestions. I've started a thread titled Article count jumps by 100,000 in a day... at the Village Pump if either of you is interested in following this matter further. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Just spotted this myself!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I have been busy... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedia users, for several years I have used Wikipedia's 'In the news' front page box for random, interesting news stories. The randomness was equal to 'On this day's' section. Now, that rainbow colored news box is a dark and boring grey. It's no different than mainstream news. Seriously, you can compared Google News to Wikipedia's 'In the news' front page box to Facebook's & Twitter's trending stats and find that, somehow, all the same things are being featured at the same time. Allen750 (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Allen750: If you are dissatisfied with what is posted to ITN, I invite you to participate in discussions at WP:ITNC as well as to make nominations of what you would like to see posted. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe not, since the ITN/C discussion process borderlines on incivility at times.--WaltCip (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither postings or incivility can be changed if there are not users to change them. If one does not like what is posted, they should work to change that. --331dot (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue of incivility there has been discussed before multiple times, and it's never been resolved. The outcome seems to be that as long as an individual makes reasonable points, they can be as incivil as they want. In general, ITN/C is not a welcoming environment for newcomers, and it's not just because of that incivility; there's a set of users who have been involved with the section for years that decide what makes it into that section. It's so difficult to penetrate the group, one can almost just post items without people commenting on nominations; you know the types of nominations that will and will not be posted to ITN, and any attempt to deviate from that is laughed out of the room. I would be loath to recommend that a newcomer enter that arena, as they may be discouraged by the response they get if they don't nominate one of the preordained types of topics we typically post to ITN or otherwise don't agree with regulars. -- tariqabjotu 03:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Things are improving however, with various editors who use completely off-topic and appalling comparisons pledging to avoid editing there in future. That can only be a good thing! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case.--WaltCip (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Me too, vile wasn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Can boiled sheet grained ? Anujdixit74.ad (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried the Science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this page is only for questions about the layout of Wikipedia's main page. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. --Jayron32 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Any idea what the question actually is? (I did read Finnegans Wake once.) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Even Finnegan had his off days. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the poster is asking "Can boiled wheat be ground". Richard Avery (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The poster asked the same question on the Francis Leke, 1st Earl of Scarsdale talk page.

Before this exchange disappears into the archives - should there be a MP spin-off page (or several - one for general topics that use the MP as a starting point and one for 'discussing statistical flukes and topics that do not go with hot-drink-and-biscuit-breaks' etc)? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:VPM. --Jayron32 16:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Should there be a 'decamp to Village Pump' signal? 'Earwigs' perhaps? (Bring your preferred drinks and nibbles.) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Just saying. ResMar 13:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

When I opened the main page this morning, I was expecting some humourous articles and DYKs, which I have no problem with whatsoever. However, I think that making light of the Battle of Five Forks and the Battle of Okinawa is in poor taste. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Too soon? JanderVK (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Amphibian Battle of Okinawa? JanderVK (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that making a joke like that about the Battle of Okinawa is a terrible idea. I suspect some veterans of that battle are still alive, and I very much doubt the island's inhabitants would find the joke very funny. The battle was a catastrophe for the island. Its inhabitants suffered horribly in the battle, and many who weren't killed outright were led to believe that the invading Americans were monsters and committed suicide rather than fall into their hands. It was a particularly horrific episode in a horrific war. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You are 100% correct Colin. In fact, many people consider that the battle against US occupation of Okinawa still continues today. Here is one example of the stories available. But of course, there are two sides to every story. In any event, it is definitely no laughing matter. There is still enough time for the entry to be changed and worded properly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the first time Wikipedia has upset me. I agree about Okinawa. Not funny, and definitely not something you mention in the same breath as foolish, as in April Fools Day.

I tend to agree and have posted in the On This Day section at WP:ERRORS. I'd welcome more views there, rather than here. --Dweller (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the Okinawa posting so I presume that one has been taken down. I have no problem with the Five Forks posting. It's far tamer than, say, Dr. Strangelove.--WaltCip (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think using "crossdressing" as a joke way to describe the chinese emperor is a bit offensive to the trans men and women on wiki.12.11.127.253 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

How so? It's not insulting in any way. —howcheng {chat} 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

He was not identified by a lack of tusks.—chbarts (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Did you click the link?--WaltCip (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

He still wasn't identified by a lack of tusks.—chbarts (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The article says he was. (With a citation.) Please correct article before reporting errors here. APL (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea where the Fool's Day DYKs go, it seems normal April 1s are filling up the DYK nomination. However, as joke DYKs don't need recent expansion or creation, since they aren't real, I though perhaps this should be added:

• Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright [3]

Mikebrown is named after Michael E. Brown, and the statement is about the asteroid, but appears to be connected to people called Mike Brown with a typo in their name.

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• • You can try WT:DYK for next year. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought they did need recent expansion or creation, it's just that they were allowed to sit in the backlog longer than normal entries so they could be "saved" for the special day? APL (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• They do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to stop this main page April 1 DYK nonsense once and for all. They are never funny or amusing and sometimes even offensive. And yes, before someone challenges it, I have a very good sense of humour.--ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And I disagree —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• As do I. They are downright tamer than last year, in general. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I say, replace all Main Page content for the day with an animated image of Jimbo Wales "giving the finger". At least there will be no doubt over this being offensive. I have a very good sense of humour. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Each year there is a 'why do we have an April 1 version of the Main Page Discussion]] Can I suggest Middlesex (disappeared 1965), to be replaced at some time during the day by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, every year! Eman235/talk 19:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been 'an excess emphasis on (theme X)' discussion lately. 'Reversing the polarities' - perhaps there should be more 'April Fools' Day puzzle-hook' type entries throughout the year instead. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

refreshed and rebooted but still no link to Deaths has a discussion to remove the link missed me completely. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 06:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That was accidental, presumably. I just restored the link. —David Levy 07:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The TFA archive link still points to March (Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/March_2015). Could someone update to April? Brandmeister^talk 20:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the image of the signing of the surrender is non-free, or should be presumed non-free - it appears to be a recent painting at a museum. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• ID of artist? Year of completion? Haven't been able to find this online. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Got it. Tom Lovell, died 1997. Yeah, it's an (unwitting) copyvio. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I just researched it. Artist is Tom Lovell. According to this and this and [4] The last link indicates it was commissioned for the National Geographic Society, a private organization, in 1965, for publication in their magazine. I would definitely agree there is NO presumption this is a free work, and it should be deleted post-haste. --Jayron32 00:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and taken it off the main page. I will also be nominating it for deletion. --Jayron32 00:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Urgh. I can't tag the Commons pic for deletion because it is Cascade protected. @David Levy: is a commons admin I think. Maybe he can look into this. --Jayron32 00:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedied on Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It can be replaced with File:Lee Surrenders to Grant at Appomattox.jpg Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree, but my connection's being stupid and I can't upload a local version (and I don't have the bit to protect that image on Commons). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  Added, though this image is too detailed to show it in a thumbnail. It might be better to show a fragment and link to a full image, like WP:ITN does, but I don't know the inner working of OTD. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's pretty much illegible on anything except a giant monitor. May I suggest perhaps File:Portrett av Vidkun Quisling i sivile klær, ukjent datering..jpg instead, as it's a solid picture of another subject? It doesn't have to be the surrender we picture here. There's also lots of good pics of the Boeing 737. --Jayron32 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  The Battle of Appomattox Court House is covered in the current TFA blurb, so I replaced that item with the one about Marian Anderson and substituted a photograph of her. —David Levy 03:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed Category:Protected main page images has a lot of images in it that were uploaded for use on the main page, in some cases years ago. Some of them (example: File:Wimbledon 2012 Day 10 Cropped Again.jpg) are used in a page under Wikipedia:Main Page history. Others (example: File:Václav Havel na Václavském náměstí 17. listopadu 2009 cropped.jpg) are completely orphaned. File:Sergio Mattarella 2015 cropped.jpg looks like a copyvio. File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped).jpg has an old version that is a completely different image and has no source.

I'm not hugely thrilled with retaining them locally permanently because it makes it virtually impossible that they will get deleted if it turns out that the Commons one is a copyvio or updated if someone updates the Commons description page. Doesn't Commons cascade protect main page images now? If we need to retain them permanently, can they be uploaded to Commons AND make use of the other_versions field to link the cropped version with the original so that if someone sees something to update in the original maybe they will do it in the cropped one too? --B (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag the images with ((C-uploaded)), which should have been done when the local copy was uploaded for use on the main page. If the local image is a crop or modification of the commons image, and thus is not identical, tag it with ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)). If the image is identical to the one on commons, and has been a VERY long time since the local upload (so C-uploaded would be inappropriate) tag it ((db-f8)). I think that covers all eventualities. --Jayron32 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no interwiki cascade protection. However a bot does generally add main page images to a protected page with cascade protection enabled on commons. But because this can and has failed in the past, an alternative is generally suggested. The lack of cross wiki admins, and problems convincing commons admins to protect images means that many feel uploading local copies is the best solution. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Images that appear to have been cropped just to post on the Main page should be tagged with ((M-cropped)), not ((C-uploaded)) or ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)). Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In the "On this day" section, it says that April 10 is Good Friday. That was last Friday, it's the day Jesus was crucified, the first Friday before Easter Sunday. --Morgenstern91 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

While this does concern the Main Page, you will get a faster response if you post things like this to WP:ERRORS. That said, I think it is different for Eastern Christianity, as the entry states. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The Eastern churches still use the Julian calendar to calculate the dates of holy days, accounting for the discrepancy; e.g. they celebrate Christmas on Gregorian January 7, which is the same as Julian December 25. 75.44.35.249 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As I type, 158th Boat Race is still the main page FA, with a picture of a shell in water. To its immediate right at the top of ITN is a blurb for the 161st Boat Race with a very similar picture.

Wow. It's like watching one of those once-in-a-millenium astronomical events. Good work if this was planned ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That was my fault; I didn't realize the image for the TFA was so similar to the one I swapped out at ITN when I did it. All solved now that the TFA is new, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think mention of [5] is appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to draw some attention to the Dutch Wikipedia main page which has recently undergone a complete redesign; I find the result looking very modern and refreshing (and a huge improvement over the previous design). I know there have been many previous discussions about a redesign of the main page here (which is long overdue imho), perhaps this successful redesign can inspire some discussion here. --WS (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Inspiration is not the problem. What is the problem is that these redesign discussions always end up dying with no broad consensus. Basically, nobody can really agree on what and how to change it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the NL Wikipedia Main Page looked like before but the current design is significantly worse than EN Wikipedia's. The immediately visible space displays significantly less information than on ENWiki - a large chunk of it is taken up by some puffery about Wikipedia which serves no useful purpose to 99.999% of visitors. On loading ENWiki I can immediately see the featured article, In The News, and a few lines of On This day and DYK. On NL I have to scroll down to see all that. NLWiki takes three screens to display what ENWiki does in one and a bit.

And it does so with no improvement in readability or attractiveness - the font is the same size and NLWiki is full of badly used space, e.g. the desolate space below the dates and years in the "On this day" and "In the news" section.

In short, it's an excellent example of why ENWiki is correct to resist the trend of websites making their designs worse for no reason other than to boost the egos of the redesigners (cf the BBC, the Guardian, the UK Government). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --93.152.83.69 (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

By today's standards, our current main page is horribly broken; it is a static table-based design, which is not responsive to any deviating screen size. It also looks pre-historic. I'll note that the new Dutch main page also uses tables, so there is absolutely no improvement there. Resistence is not always a good thing; if we wre so stubborn with everything, we'd still be stuck in 2001. Don't worry though... One day a rogue admin that has been tweaking on his own design (backlink) for two years now may just be bold enough and just replace our coveted dinosaur. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The new design is certainly clean and airy, with so much white space, but is that necessarily beneficial for a medium that depends on conveying information?

WS, perhaps you could supply a link to an archived old-style NL-WP main page for comparison? Dank je wel. Sca (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

[6] --WS (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If text is crammed together too much, that also hurts readability. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 13:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

True, but there are various schools of thought on that. Keep in mind we are allegedly an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine. Encyclopedia readers are presumed to be more motivated than general readers, not requiring so many 'entry points' to pull them into text. Sca (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• The current English WP main page is far superior to this new NL version. EEng (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

On my desktop, the new NL page has whitespace and unimportant info in top only (25% of height to state the number of articles?). This is getting out of hand. We're not the google homepage, for a reason. Doesn't that page need at least some sort of TOC? Their mobile view, OTOH, shows different [7] and there the whitespace-splashers were absent. -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

When all is said and done, it has to be said that this is better looking than this. Whether it's better that the enwiki main page is debatable.

My thoughts...this probably looks more consistent. If all the boxes on the main page got roundy and shaded (i.e. Vector) it would probably look better in vector. Eman235/talk 18:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)