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.

I know this will get shot down and will generate little to any concurrence with my view, but I find it extremely illogical putting up a note on the main page saying that today (Dec. 23) is Festivus, when next to nobody, I dare imagine (anyone got any hard statistics?), celebrates or observes this day, especially since its source is from an American sitcom that's been off the air for almost two decades. Anyway. Just my two cents. (LancasterII (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

OTD frequently includes non-serious observances, such as International Talk Like a Pirate Day, Star Wars Day, and yes, even Festivus. However, it should be noted that Festivus poles have been installed in a few state capitols in the US[1], so it's not completely fictional. —howcheng {chat} 17:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not fictional yes, but limited only to select regions of the U.S. in terms of its outreach.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that's my main "beef" as it were - the extremely limited outreach of this "festival." Who outside of the US and/or Seinfeld viewers would even be cognizant of this event? i.e. Relevance!! LancasterII (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll see your "Festivus" and I'll raise you "Deep coal mining ceases in the United Kingdom with the closure of Kellingley Colliery." I don't care about this supposedly newsworthy item, but it's inoffensive and I'm not telling the main page to remove it just because it doesn't interest me. Townlake (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Coal mining impacts everybody and contributes to air pollution and global warming. Festivus does not have that same level of global impact. Still, this is now a moot point since the item fell off the front page. Festivus is for the rest of us, I suppose.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I and most of my friends are aware of today's holiday and we jokingly celebrate it. This morning's radio news mentioned that Festivus is one of several holidays being celebrated by many in the US this week. I believe Festivus is relevant to more people than "next to nobody." Townlake (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

One function of the Main Page #is# to draw people's attention to things they would not otherwise be aware of. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, there's a chance everyone will think I'm a tool for even asking, but I've exhausted every other option, with zero success. I asked around for help writing a bot to ping me when the TFA section at ERRORS is edited, and I argued the case at meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey for watchable sections. I also asked for help at WP:BOTREQ#Pinging when a "task" section is edited, where the advice was given to break off the TFA section as a separate page and transclude it to either WT:MAIN or ERRORS, so that it can be watchlisted separately. That's what I'd like to do. I hesitate to ask; I'm concerned that people will misinterpret this as a request to distance TFA from other Main Page goings-on. Not true; I'd like a notice at ERRORS that anyone watchlisting is encouraged to also watchlist the transcluded TFA page. I've learned a lot from ERRORS, and I plan to keep on learning. All I'm saying is that it would be nice not to have to check all the ERRORS lines in my watchlist, all day long. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not a separate sub-page for each section? Eman235/talk 23:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about possible negative effects of this change. When I'm active one of the things I try to get around to doing is checking errors, but as I no longer use a watchlist, so I mainly use the transcluded version on main-page talk which I visit frequently; this often, I've found to my peril, lags behind errors itself, sometimes by hours, and so I fear if TfA errors were transcluded into main-page errors (and I assume additionally directly into main-page talk, not via a double transclusion?) the same would happen. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll confirm the lag in the transcluded errors section. I don't use it. Instead, I habitually click "Error reports" in the toolbox to see the real errors, not the sometimes-obsolete version of the errors. Art LaPella (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: clicking "Error reports" takes the reader to WP:Main Page/Errors aka WP:ERRORS aka ERRORS. And yes, transclusions take a while to transclude anywhere on WP, so people who want to read the most updated version of transcluded material generally either read the transcluded page directly or perform a purge (a link that will do that, called "Purge the Main Page", is above, or you can just add "?action=purge" to a url). - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't mean that anyone was unclear, I meant that some readers might not have understood some of the terms. HTH. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A fair number of admins have WP:ERRORS on their watchlist - Dank isn't the only one who can fix errors in, or make improvements/alterations to, the TFA blurb when appropriate. Dank's careful stewardship of the blurbs before they hit the main page means that there don't seem to be many changes needed anyway. Creating an extra transcluded subpage purely in reality for Dank's benefit isn't something for which I see a reasonable need. Bencherlite^Talk 08:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ... I think :/ Btw, this morning an ERROR report was moved into the TFA section without editing the TFA section directly. These days, I'm skimming my watchlist looking for "Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article", which stands out because it's so long. Please make at least one edit directly to the TFA section (or ping me) if there's something I need to deal with. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

[2] Looks like an error. sst✈^discuss 09:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: Was just about to bring that up here. I also left a message on Shirt58's talk page. CatcherStorm ^talk 10:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I just spotted that myself and came here to report it. Shirt58? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed by Materialscientist.

Resolved

 – Art LaPella (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"The first recorded performance of the play King Lear" sounds like it was recorded with a tape recorder. It should be worded "The first known performance of the play King Lear". Sundayclose (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's no longer on the Main Page. But by tomorrow or so, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 26 will be unprotected, and can be fixed or debated for December 26 of future years (although different events are selected for different years). Art LaPella (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@AKlapper (WMF): It seems pretty off-topic. Mobile displays a special main page which doesn't even have an edit option in my admin account. Did you mean to post this elsewhere or are you arbitrarily posting it here in hope of finding somebody who can reproduce the problem or guess what is going on? For the record, I don't have a mobile device and cannot reproduce it at https://en.m.wikipedia.org in a desktop browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I am unable to duplicate using Wikipedia for Android 2.1.136-r-2015-12-09. General Ization ^Talk 22:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Argh! I am very very sorry. PrimeHunter is of course right, I should have double-checked my browser tabs as this is the totally wrong place and I only realize now that I actually posted on the en.wp main talk page. :( --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Community feedback is requested in this discussion regarding a possible Picture of the Day for International Holocaust Remembrance Day. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

How dare Wikipedia put such unholy heresy on the front page! Have you no shame? Witchcraft is not needed in such a joyous occasion! I say we boycott this website! GamerPro64 00:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Right. Well, I'm spending this holiday season with my son gambling, drinking, and killing, so I don't have the time to get angry right now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, good, another snarky administrator.--Jim in Georgia ContribsTalk 03:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Poe's Law in action, eh User:GamerPro64? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I just like the fact people still think I'm an admin. GamerPro64 00:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I read that comment as directed at me, but it's even funnier your way. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• I didn't read the original story, but you're worrying about a old TV sitcom whose real message is about how one should treat their fellow man rather than being a recruiting tool for witchcraft? Someone needs to take their meds and get a grip on reality! What about the classic Twilight Zone episode with Art Carney as an alcoholic department store Santa, wishing only that people treat each other nicer and wishing for good things for the poor? If there's not magic in that, I don't know where it is. Sometimes things happen that seem like magic, like realizing that one is taking things too seriously. Love God, Love Your Neighbor As Yourself; the rest is just details of implementation. And your freedom to swing your fist stops at your neighbor's nose. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Stargzer (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an amazing resource. However it is deeply flawed in that searching for information is highly restrictive in that you need to KNOW what you're searching for, type the word in, and click search. For people that want to learn as much as possible in the most intuitive format the main page needs to be enhanced to include a globe and a slider bar (or bars). The user will be able to navigate the globe to any position and then use the slider bar to navigate through time which will allow Wikipedia articles to appear and disappear according to the time frames that they are relevant for. Further filtering can be provided such as just to include music history, wars, etc. Now that Wikipedia has grown to this level this enhancement will give it a much needed boost.63.224.126.130 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The geography portal has something like that. Portal:History might use it, but then again history can also be categorized by time and other ways besides geography. But not on the Main Page, unless you mean portals in general (and most people don't use the portals). If you click random page a few times, you'll find things like songs, athletes and scientists that are better known for content or achievements than for coming from a specific place. Art LaPella (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to get some feedback on "paid off" in the TFA section at WP:ERRORS (there or here). It's today's TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's been removed now ... FWIW, I agreed when Jenks changed the TFA to say "decommissioned". If anyone disagrees, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

For visitors with a German IP address, the campaign text is ungrammatical for (at least) the last two campaign days. It says "1 day days" or "0 day days" when it should say just "1 day" or "0 days". Perhaps it's just a missing slash. (There seem to be several alternative texts, so it is not always easy to reproduce this bug. I saw it yesterday. When it reappeared today, I made a screenshot. This is the full text: "Dear readers: I hope we’re not disturbing you. It is that time of year when we ask for your support. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We're sustained by donations averaging about €20. Now we are asking you in Germany to help out. If everyone currently reading this were to contribute a small amount, our fundraising campaign would be over in an hour. Our fundraising appeal is displayed over 7 million times a day, but currently only 421.327 people have donated. Today only 0 day days are left to reach our goal. So if you find Wikipedia useful, please take a minute out of your day this Thursday to donate and give something back to Wikipedia. Thank you!") --217.226.80.235 (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, 421.347 should be 421,347 in English (note comma). Art LaPella (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the decimal in 421.347 is correct for Germany. If we had fractional people it might read "421.347,45"--Jim in Georgia ContribsTalk 15:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"... nur 421.347 Leute haben gegeben ..." (or something like that) would be correct for Germany, but my point was it's 421,347 in English. Or maybe rewrite to avoid that ambiguity. Art LaPella (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Germans can use English as well. I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest whether the decimal mark should always be the dot. While it's true that the dot is most common by far in English; amongst second language speakers in places where the comma is used, there's AFAIK no clear cut consensus on what should be standard when the audience is primarily other second language speakers from the same country. There's a reason why our article barely mentions languages, Canada is basically one of the few places where the usage clearly varies by language. Having said that, I would agree that since we don't have a decimal mark, simply avoiding the usage of either the comman or space for digit groupin by using a space may be better. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If there were 0 days days left yesterday, then it's ended ended by now. Art LaPella (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, there was a bomb explosion in Istanbul, Turkey where 10+ people died and 15+ people are injured, mostly tourists. We should update the news page to add this event.

OnurRC (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Onur

Discussion about adding it is already underway at WP:ITN/C, where all additions to In the News begin. You're welcome to chime in and contribute your say there as well. GRAPPLE ^X 12:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Anita Krajnc case received 11974 hits[3], how to get it on the main page? It is a DYK article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe DYK articles need to be submitted within the first week, not 5 weeks. I don't like that rule, but here it is. Art LaPella (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The hook has appeared in DYK on 6th January, I wish to know about its appearing on the main page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It was showcased on the main page—in the DYK section underneath Today's Featured Article—for approximately 12 hours before the next set of DYK hooks replaced the batch the Anita Krajnc case was part of. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh thanks! Missed that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit is there URL to that version, I checked main page history - page versions don't show. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The main page is mostly comprised of templates that are edited separately so the history is stored a bit differently. A bot archives a single version of the main page, which are kept at Wikipedia:Main Page history. However, looking at the version for January 6 it seems that the DYK batch you're looking for was not up at the time. Only other way to see the blurb, that I'm aware of, is in the DYK archive that you linked earlier. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Cyclonebiskit Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

She is mentioned here also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It was added in [4]. http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page has more than 15000 Main Page snapshots. The Anita Krajnc case is here. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(We should have a better way of creating historical version of pages. Just saying. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC).)

Making the Privacy Policy link more prominent on our main page.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Putting an RFC on this matter was suggested at Jimbo's talk page. Some discussion is there concerning this idea. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason for singling out the Main Page to provide a prominent link. I don't have figures, but I suspect a large percentage of readers go straight to the article they're looking for, through Google or other search engines, so may not visit the main page anyway. Also the link is already provided in the footer of every page. Finally, I suspect that 99.9% of visitors couldn't care less about our policy anyway. Optimist on the run (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What Optimist on the run said. The overwhelming majority of readers don't give two hoots about Wikipedia's privacy policy, nor should they. For the few who do, it's linked on every page and there's no reason to make it more prominent on this one page just to appease a small clique of paranoid cranks who think the government finds them as interesting as they find themselves. ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should strongly urge all users to read the policy because its inherently stupid not to urge them to do so. For example, the policy says : "For the protection of the Wikimedia Foundation and other users, if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites." If the community does not expect the users to read it, as Optimist on the run and Iridescent so boldly proclaim, then Wikipedia is being stupid by stipulating that the users must "agree" with a policy they most likely have not read. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity do you read every single one of those Terms of Use agreements that every single app, website, and device has, in full, before clicking accept? Or do you just do what 99.9% of society does and scroll to the bottom and angrily click accept so you can get the thing you want working? Your insistence that the privacy policy link be so prominently displayed is not taking into account human nature which is to click through that legal jargon to get to the product they want to view anyways. Strongly urging people to read a 42,000+ byte legalize paper is nonsense. Stipulating that they have to agree to it is just more legalize designed to protect the Foundation. That same line is in every single Terms of Use agreement that has ever been published. The recording of readers IP address for statistical reasons is done by every single major website in the world. And most of those keep that information for much much longer than Wikipedia does and allow many more people access. If you want to browse the Internet anonymously use Tor. --Majora (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Per WP:MULTI, is the RFC being discussed here or on Jimbo's talk page, as you seem to be posting in both locations? Optimist on the run (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake, I will remove it over there. Thanks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Majora , I agree with everything you say. I think the legalize can be a problem for us the way it reads and I'm not sure it can not be improved so that it fits better and , as you say, at other sites users have to click "accept", which I think, although I hate it, is the worse alternative than a more prominently placed link on the main page. Mainly, I just think we should encourage our users to read the policy just as I would encourage my relatives to read or at least browse any terms and conditions they are deemed to have accepted. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The WMF consulted, I think, about the wording of the policy. Not sure they took all the good advice they were offered... It is a good question whether the Privacy Policy or indeed the ToS have any binding power on readers or editors, in various jurisdictions - or whether they provide any of the legal "outs" that they are designed to for the Foundation.
• Placing a bold link at the top of each page might strengthen the Foundation's hand. But since it would only do so in cases where the Foundation would have done something that without the policy would be regarded as wrong, I am not particularly bothered about that. I prefer that the Foundation behave well regardless.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC).

Oppose - this is already in the footer of every single page on Wikipedia. I see no reason to treat the Main Page differently. It's not hard to find for anyone who is interested. Modest Genius ^talk 12:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Indonesia Terror Attack has been listed.13:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)180.252.247.39 (talk)

How do I become an editor for the good. To help fix articles that were vandalized.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndogswim (talk • contribs)

This page is for discussing the content of the Main Page; you may wish to visit the help desk for help with using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, see the Help Out section of the community portal. CaptRik (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 has arrived! Is the draft still 2015 redesign or is it now 2016? -TheNewbster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.186.77 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2016

Perhaps for future WP birthdays there could be a 're-creation of the original WP main page'/links to the first articles created. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The original main page was just a brief statement and a list of articles on parent topics serving as pseudocategories. I'm not sure we really want to draw attention to our earliest articles, which are not exactly a great advert for the wisdom of the crowd. Only one of them—Donegal fiddle tradition—has GA status, and that was an ancient promotion which wouldn't have a chance of surviving a GA review (and has been disowned by the main author as "really an appalling article"); the others are all a mess, despite the 15 years of improvement that was meant to happen as a matter of course. (Those are the first 10 articles on Nupedia; "Wikipedia's first articles" is meaningless, since that just reflects the arbitrary order in which articles were ported across when Bomis/Nupedia handed its articles over to Wikipedia.) ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Though this is not the first I've seen of it, I think The Negro Motorist Green Book is an exceptionally interesting and important article to feature, and quite well written - it is not often, alas, that I feel like Wikipedia's choice of TFA really leaves people going away different than when they came. And in general, no matter how many times we are reminded, it seems impossible to really expect the banality of evil and, more appropriate to this case, the absurdity of heroism. Wnt (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"#" redirects here. For the number sign, see number sign. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See past discussion. This comes up occasionally, but doesn't lead to anything. Eman235/talk 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

What if we just put that up there without using the template? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That would fix the cascading protection problem, but in the linked discussion, 331dot said that it will be seen by millions who likely aren't searching for "#". It's just not that common of a search term. (Though -- does anyone have statistics for that?) Eman235/talk 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

As stated, I still don't feel such a notice is warranted(though I wouldn't mind seeing stats on that either); for what reason are you requesting it? 331dot (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What if we put it at, say, the bottom of the page somewhere instead of the very top? I suggest doing a different method than Template:technicalrestrictions would use, but to disambiguate at the bottom of the page. Like maybe: "By coming to the Main Page, did you mean to?: *list here of things to disambiguate to*" This way, millions of readers will not be confused who know nothing about Wikipedia's technical restrictions or disambiguation policies. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What about instead of posting it on the Main Page, posting a notice on this page instead? Then, the few people who might search for '#' would hopefully see it when they come here to post a question as to why they ended up here. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see evidence that this is an actual problem e.g. significant numbers of readers searching for #, before instituting any attempt at a solution.. WP:ABDF applies. Modest Genius ^talk 16:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would as well, though I was suggesting an alternative to the original proposal in the event there is such evidence. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What if there are other things that may accidentally redirect someone to the main page, even besides technical issues? If we listed all those here, don't all those added up count as a considerable amount of people? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

# may also be confused with the sharp sign (♯) in written music. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Mohéli. Smurrayinchester 14:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The japanese version of Wikipedia has now more than 1,000,000 artciles. Congratulations --Thomas Wozniak (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you inform Template talk:Wikipedialang which handles the languages section of the Main Page, as noted at the top of this page. Modest Genius ^talk 14:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi how can find place to chat about interesting articles and pages, and also art and personal publishing projects regarding this site? also user page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakecardwell (talk • contribs)

@Jakecardwell: I could be wrong but I don't really think there is a place to chat about 'art and personal publishing' here, as that doesn't have to do with building an encyclopedia. If you have comments about an article itself, they can go on the article's talk page. In the future, you can ask questions about how to use Wikipedia at the Help Desk, as this page is for discussing the contents of the Main Page only. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

How about WP:VP? --PFHLai (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A current DYK item seems to be a deceipt that just seems akin to a lie. The DYK is "... that the steeple of the Readington Reformed Church was blown over by a cyclone on January 3, 1913, and restored one hundred years later?" There were numerous tall steeples of churches in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, etc. that have been destroyed by hurricanes and never rebuilt, because the vulnerability became clear. This DYK seems interesting in giving a restoration of such a tall steeple (perhaps built stronger somehow?). But no, the recent picture shows a shortish steeple. That is a apparently a replacement of the short steeple that was put in place 100 years earlier. The DYK is misleading, not in any clever way. I think the DYK item ought to be removed. --doncram 09:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This DYK hook is already off MainPage. You may want to take this up with the contributors of the article. The lead contributor also nominated it for DYK. For next time, please be encouraged to report problems to WP:ERRORS. Response is general quicker there. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the view counter? It has been stuck on the 21st for a few days now. Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: Are you talking about stats.grok.se? This is managed by a community member, not one that frequents this page. There is a new pageview API that can be used instead, and is far far more accurate. — foxj 10:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Foxj: Thanks for your response, and yes, that's the one I meant. I could try that new one you mentioned, however, I'm partial to the one I've been looking at for so long, and it's been down for eight days now. Out of all the hundreds of administrators on Wikipedia, surely there must be someone else available who can fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 29 January 2016 UTC

Over the past few days I've noticed that when I visit WP:ERRORS it often contains content that has yet to appear on the transclusion here. Is that a problem at my end or at Wikipedia's, is it just affecting me, and what can be done to address it? --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussion Art LaPella (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So it seems I have to manually purge the page, or there's a delay. That means everyone who doesn't purge it, doesn't see the content. Is there a Bugzilla for this? --Dweller (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi I have created this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2016_main_page_redesign_proposal for the main page 2016 redesign. Paladox (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm wondering what about this design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page_(2015_redesign)?withCSS=MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage.css it is modern and looks better then it is now. Could do with some changes but overall it looks nice. Paladox (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi could we open a public vote with a deadline for Wikipedia:Main Page (2016 redesign) since it has been a while since the last redesign and it dosernt seem to be working by doing it this way so if we get the public to vote with a deadline. ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Main_Page_(2015_redesign)#When_is_this_going_to_be_released.3F

Maybe we could do a wikivoyage style voting since it got many users to create a new logo lets do that for a main page. Paladox (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Is someone changing the format of the Main Page as we speak? Because currently when I load the main page, it's only showing Today's featured article and In the news sections- tried it on 2 devices. Kind of annoying as I have an article on the DYK section that doesn't appear to be viewable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• There are no recent changes to it. No doubt it's one of the embedded templates. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Looks like it's been fixed now. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Good. Thanks to whoever fixed it--I'm wondering if they know they fixed it, whether this was just some accidental thing. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sections are missing again – only Today's featured article and In the news are showing. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Bruce1ee: Fixed with a purge. --Majora (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Majora: Thanks – should have thought of doing that myself :) —Bruce1ee^talk 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Great picture and caption. I like the explanatory contextual intro, which is needed. When showing this photograph, I would suggest it would be very helpful to lead the second paragraph with when the photo was taken, and by whom. I'm guessing this photo was taken by troops who liberated the camp. But maybe it was taken by the Germans during operations. I think it is important to know.

The Germans apparently covered their tracks a lot with the Holocaust. How does this evidence fit in? Thank you. As mentioned, great photo etc.Billyshiverstick (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC) PS: I couldn't find a tag for who posted the picture. That would have been handy, so I could leave this note on your talk page, and you'd get a note. cheers Ben

Pinging: Movieevery and Petrusbarbygere. Not sure how useful that'll be as neither is active and Movieevery doesn't even have a Wikipedia account. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say it is the rapid spread of Zika fever (the infection in humans) rather than the virus itself that is causing the greatest concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This should be addressed in the "errors" section above for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we reduce the number of Upanishand DYKs being posted on Main Page? We've had around 5 Upanishad DYKs in the past 10 days or so, and many more are currently on the nominations page. Posting them so frequently makes people, who are unfamiliar with the DYK system, think Wikipedia is advocating a particular religion. I'd like to see religion-related DYKs be scrapped altogether. 45.125.181.62 (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, DYK's are posted when articles are improved sufficiently to meet the criteria for posting, and no judgement about subject matter is made. Probably someone is working on articles in that subject area and nominating them, which is why so many in that area are being seen. Wikipedia is not censored by subject matter, so religion-based articles will not be censored just because you or any person do not want to see them. There is someone who is offended by or does not want to see virtually any subject here; very little would be posted if we censored every subject someone does not want to see. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be encouraged to work on articles on topics that interest you and nominate them for DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia must also really like Bach cantatas as well, because we've had those regularly appearing for a few years now. Seriously, like User:PFHLai said, if you want to see other subjects on the main page, then create or improve articles on that subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Or streams in Pennsylvania. Or extinct bees. &c. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors involved in the DYK? process try to spread out hooks of similar topics as much as possible. Jolly Ω Janner 19:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

And as Abraham Lincoln, Wikipedia editor would say - you can please all the MP users some of the time and annoy some of the MP users all the time: it is impossible to please all of them all of the time (and to annoy all of them much of the time is a Bad Thing in the 1066 and All That sense). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, eight TFA's from October 2015 to February 2016 have been video game related. That's a little under two per month, if we are concerned about topic diversity and systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should call the police. GamerPro64 18:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The TFA subject matter directly reflects the WP:FA subject pool availability. The way to fix that is to work on articles from other subjects and get more of those up to FA quality. Unless you're just not interested in taking an active role in improving Wikipedia article content on subjects you are interested in... --Jayron32 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Perish the thought. ‑ Iridescent 19:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What Jayron said. WP:FANMP shows us that 6% (72/1205) of FAs not to have run on the main page are related to video games. That means that if the TFA possibilities are selected in proportion then about 21 or 22 TFAs per year will be video games, so "a little under two per month" is actually about par for the course. Then look at all the empty sections in WP:FAMP where the TFA selectors (I am no longer one of them) have no options left - chemistry, computing, mathematics, philosophy, engineering, food and drink, geology, language and linguistics... The TFA selectors do their best, with the occasional help of the community at WP:TFAR, but with the best will in the world they cannot schedule articles that people haven't written at all, or haven't improved to FA status. Bencherlite^Talk 19:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, defensiveness and criticism of WaltCip really aren't called for here. I appreciate the explanation of why this condition exists and, apparently, will continue to exist, but I don't see that WaltCip criticized anyone or even complained. He just pointed out a potential problem that perhaps others weren't aware of. And by the way, it's a valid observation even in light of the explanation of why video games are so heavily represented. The reasons given only point to where the problem would have to be solved, if in fact it is a problem. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I make a simple observation and the criticism is immediately turned back upon me and my contributions. Jumpy are we?--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• There seems to be a suggestion above that the proportion of TFA articles on a particular topic ought to mirror the proportion of available articles on that topic. There is no reason at all why this should be the case. Indeed, if there is a disproportionate number of available articles on a trivial topic, such as video games, then it is not desirable. 109.153.236.235 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of video games at all, but I'd like to know what makes you think it's necessarily a trivial topic. Some of them have made significant cultural impacts. Besides, what is trivial to you may not be so to another person; it's fairly subjective after all. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The simple answer, as has often been said - develop more articles in other fields to TFA standard (and accept that topics in some areas will be promoted more often than the perceived significance of that field would warrant). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This answer, which is always the one trotted out, is totally bogus. 109.153.236.235 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How is "improving Wikipedia articles about underrepresented topics" bogus. Can you explain why that is something we want to NOT do? --Jayron32 22:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The bogus part is the idea that no one should be allowed to point out a problem unless they are willing and able to fix it themselves. Some people do not have the wherewithal to create featured articles. That does not mean that they are not allowed an opinion on TFA choices. 109.153.236.235 (talk)

So, why bother if all you want to do is tear down the work of others? There are only two solutions: write better articles in underrepresented areas, or refuse to post what we already have. Only one of those solutions fixes the bias problem at Wikipedia. The problem is not the existence of bias in favor of certain subjects. That's well known, and telling everyone it exists serves no useful purpose. Since you're interested in fixing the problem, the way to fix it is to deliberately work on improving underrepresented areas. Telling everyone what they already know is just talking to hear yourself talk. That helps nothing. --Jayron32 14:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What's bogus is the assumption that it's somehow wrong to run a specific article based on the sensitivities of those who refuse to participate. TFA needs featured articles. There are only so many featured articles. The only way to change what gets run is to write a new featured article, and anyone who complains about what is used yet refuses to take part in at least trying to offer something else is only making more noise than difference. GRAPPLE ^X 01:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What other solution is there? Can you offer an alternative instead of just rejecting these suggestions? We cannot and should not disparage improving any article to FA status regardless of what it's about. Scarlettail (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The more featured articles the better, of course. However, if there are a disproportionate number of TFAs on a particular subject area, then the solution is to feature fewer of them, not to require that more be produced on other subjects. 109.153.236.235 (talk)

All you end up doing in that case is creating a bottleneck for the future that'll result in a greater density of similar subjects being run together later; spreading them out now stops them from making up a larger percentage of WP:FANMP than they already do. GRAPPLE ^X 09:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If I'm reading the numbers right (and I might not be) it looks like Featured Articles are being promoted at less than the replacement rate. So probably every FA will get it's day onWaltCip the main page. Best to spread them out evenly. Otherwise at some point in the future they'd have to schedule a Video Game Month or some such nonsense. I assume that 109.153 would be even more irritated by that. ApLundell (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@WaltCip: What nobody seems to have mentioned, is that this issue (with varying subjects), comes up very very very frequently. (See the sections on "Cricket", "It has happened.", and "Outrageous US centrism on the main page again" at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_176 for example). It's an in-joke amongst many editors, and a sore-point for many other editors (who might perhaps overreact... >.> ).

This type of thread would perhaps be better off, if immediately wrapped in archive top/bottom tags, with result= See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful and much more important articles should be there instead. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it?

HTH. ;-) Quiddity (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

FAQs should be linked immediately. If the response to that link isn't covered by the FAQ answer, I would hate to hat (archive) it; if the response isn't The Solution, at least it shows we need a longer FAQ answer. Art LaPella (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.Stadt 20:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

IP - I resent you calling my answer bogus (and it is 'a statement of fact and so cannot be insolent' besides).

What criteria would #you# use to define articles/fields that are suitably worthy to appear on the MP? What are you doing to improve articles in those fields? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps this'll be interesting for the readers of this thread: according to our count, we actually scheduled one fewer video game article than we should have in 2015. Military history was also underrepresented last year (based on simple percentages) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The ITN image has now changed. Modest Genius ^talk 13:03, 18 February 2016 (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.

---

Can we please finally get rid of the Superbowl player image? He's been staring at us for pretty much a whole week, is he going to be the new Morales? There are two perfectly nice images to use in the graviational waves article alone. It would be great to actually have the scientific data as the ITN image. Fgf10 (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Options

• 
  LIGO detector
• 
  Gravitational wave data

Morales? Or do you mean Lugo (pictured right)? Anyway, please propose new ITN images on WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, got my South American leaders mixed up. Discussion was long finished at ITN/C, so posting about it there was pointless. Hence the post here. Fgf10 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugo or LIGO, let's go to WT:ITN instead. Proper place, IMO, after ITN/C. --PFHLai (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see WT:ITN#ITN image. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• (ec)As stated, this should be discussed at WT:ITN; but the best way to get a new image up is to nominate new events to push it off. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

7 days so far. Not quite pushing Lugo-ness but getting close.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

All hail Lugo! The first of those LIGO images would be OK, but neither is particularly striking. We have good images of both the pope and patriarch, but nothing showing them both together and only showing one would be rather jarring. File:Northern leg of LIGO interferometer on Hanford Reservation.JPG seems the least-bad option. Modest Genius ^talk 13:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugo!! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:LUGO. Bencherlite^Talk 17:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha, brilliant! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

He's going to be booted off soon by the Grammys which are in ITN/R. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

the BAFTAs got there first --70.51.53.87 (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2016 (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.

The last comment on the MP was the now 'archived text' entry of 17 February. Is this a record length of general acceptance of what has appeared on the MP? (Allowing the bot to archive the previous section.) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

more like indifference or apathy

Is there a reason why the new-style Main Page design for logged-in users still does not appear for non-logged-in users? 81.152.224.85 (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This link works for all users 59.88.207.28 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, but no one knows that, or would want to remember it. Why is the new design not the default? 81.152.224.85 (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, consensus for replacing the current main page with it has not been asked for, or reached. CaptRik (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth, I'm always logged in and it (thankfully) never displays like that for me either. GRAPPLE ^X 12:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nor me. As far as I'm aware it's just a proposal at present. Modest Genius ^talk 13:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm logged in to, so I'm alright. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's an option in Preferences > Gadgets > Testing and development. Eman235/talk 18:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh ... do you mean it's not the default for logged-in users either? 81.152.224.85 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not. Eman235/talk 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I am getting mixed up then.

I have argued before that the look and feel of the design linked above is a worthwhile improvement over what we currently have, and that it should be applied to the existing panel layout. I don't really understand why there are objections to doing this. I note that there were also endless objections to adding captions to pictures, which I advocated on and off for years. How much better the Main Page is for that change. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from that exercise. 81.152.224.85 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We've celebrated this day in our little nation for the least 800 years. Not even a mention of it on en-Wikipedia. Please add. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to fix the issues with the page. We don't post sub-standard articles (especially with maintenance tags that have been there for two years) to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Three, even. GRAPPLE ^X 12:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In case the comment above is unclear: we can't feature the event on the Main Page because the article on St David's Day is of poor quality (specifically it needs additional citations). That needs to be improved before we can even consider putting it in the On This Day section. Modest Genius ^talk 12:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an article. Google global main page, even, has graphic relevant to Wales. Suggest: OTD / TFP / DYK. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Then please contribute to the appropriate areas of Wikipedia, i.e. WP:OTD, WP:DYK or WP:TFP. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In order to mention this, you need an article of some kind. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The Main Page of Wikipedia is not designed to be a comprehensive overview of news and information. What the main page is supposed to to is highlight quality Wikipedia content which may be relevant for any of a variety of reasons. If the specific article is not of good enough standards, we cannot highlight it on the main page. All problems one finds with Wikipedia regarding holes in our coverage of any event or topic can only be fixed when people who care about a topic fix the articles so they are of the highest standards of writing and referencing. If you care about the topic at hand, then you should also care enough to fix the article up. If you had already done that, it would have already been on the main page. --Jayron32 12:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you care about... If you had... - this tone is not really nice and does not help. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a bad tone in what Jayron has said; they have simply stated the facts. I don't believe any offense was intended. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Please add." This does not help either. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is - we can only see what has been written as it is, not the intonation/body language of conversation or the cultural assumptions/linguistic overtones of the various users (from around the world) - and thus things get misunderstood/appear to be stronger than the author intends.

Are there any decorative pictures of daffodils perhaps? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also comment that last year's "Today's featured article" and the one in 2013, were both Welsh-related articles to mark St David's Day - in one case it was an article that I wrote and nominated, and in the other case it was an article that I selected directly when I was TFA coordinator. (In neither case do I recall receiving any appreciative comments from fellow members of WP:WALES, but does dim ots as we say (it doesn't matter)). TFA has a very limited stock of potential articles in the first place, and few of them are Welsh-themed. The only two relevant featured pictures that I can find with "Wales" or "Welsh" in the title (which are also the only two tagged by WP:WALES) have already appeared on the main page - there may be others of relevance but it's too late for today of course. Category:Featured pictures of Wales has only one entry. Where are our Welsh photographers?! DYK can only produce what people write and nominate, which takes advance planning. OTD looks for events that have happened on this day in history - leaving aside the sorry state of the Saint David's Day article, what in history has happened in Wales on 1st March about which we have a decent article? In short, unless someone does something in advance to prepare Wales-related material (getting an article or picture to featured status, writing or improving new articles and taking them through the DYK process, cleaning up the St David's Day article) then it's impossible for those who help to prepare/assemble the various sections of the main page to do anything about it when someone complains on the day. If WP:WALES wants to take a more active role in preparing content for 1st March, or indeed any day, then that would be useful, but it needs to happen in advance of the target date to be useful. Dydd Gwyl Dewi Sant hapus i chi i gyd [Happy St David's Day to you all]. Yn gynnes, Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 14:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest to Llywelyn2000 that, if a modest proposal had been made a few weeks in advance at, say, WT:WALES, along the lines of: "The article at Saint David's Day is not in good shape - can some of us get together to improve it, so it can be highlighted on the front page on March 1st?" - some of us might have been willing to do something to help. Maybe that can be done next year. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Have leprechauns ever appeared on the Main Page? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

By the looks of it, no, but it's not tagged with any maintenance tags so should it become viable for inclusion (DYK, perhaps, if it becomes a good article, or TFA if it ever gets there) then it would grand. But it's not material to the discussion if any other article ever has appeared or will appear. GRAPPLE ^X 16:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason the album cover for Master is not displayed? Robvanvee 16:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a longstanding convention (policy?) of avoiding non-free content on the Main Page. wctaiwan (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, in case anyone asks, I did look through commons for an appropriate picture of the entire band with the personnel when the album was made. We only have pictures with Robert Trujilo as bassist; there are no free pics with all four members from the Cliff Burton era. --Jayron32 18:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Rob - the FAQ gives a bit more detail. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The main page obviously has a feminist bias and needs to be fixed.

I've removed the template as the main page is not an article. It's International Women's Day today and yes we therefore have greater coverage of female-related articles. Look over a larger period of time though and we arguably have a bigger problem with male systematic bias. CaptRik (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're mentioning women, so, y'know, bias. freshacconci talk to me 14:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There are too many humans and not enough atom bombs on the main page, I am being triggered. GRAPPLE ^X 14:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I can confidently predict that in 3 weeks and 3 days there will be too many articles of a mis-directing nature, and in 4 months less 4 days there will be too many US-themed entries on the main page.

Generally, I am in favour of '(at least) occasional themed Main Pages' Jackiespeel (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they are a good way of providing direction for the main page. I might like to see a header pointing it out. Halcyonforever (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In some cases a variant of the 'On this day' header could be used: or would a 'Main Page Flash Mob/Happening' be appropriate? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or have there been quite a number of American coin TFAs over the past months? —  AjaxSmack  01:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many TFAs on subjects like coins, mushrooms, and hurricanes, discussed here. Art LaPella (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

...because, there are many coins, mushrooms, and hurricanes to write about. When you think about it, there have been quite a number of biography TFAs over the past few months as well! Eman235/talk 06:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want a subject you are interested in featured at TFA, bring an article on that subject up to FA status. Mjroots (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

New main page layout currently inflicted on logged in users only looks worse than the current one. Feels like change for change sake. Current one is far from perfect. Neither looks like a modern, responsive, rich experience like users have come to expect. Switching the headings to a serif font ... LOL ... made it worse. The fact is, web design by community consensus is doomed to fail. You'll need the foundation to impose something by fiat. Seriously, the mobile site looks better. --107.77.232.41 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"modern, responsive, rich experience like users have come to expect." - I don't know what world you live in, but when I come to this website, I come to expect an encyclopedia.--WaltCip (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with WaltCip. Instead of a "modern, responsive, rich experience", the front page design should serve the needs of the target audience. The Drudge Report has a design that is ugly, extremely simple, and almost two decades old but it is still considered one of the best designs on the web.[6][7] We do not need to make changes just for the sake of making changes. --Allen3 ^talk 23:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And The Times (London) made do with Times New Roman for decades.

I prefer serif fonts because there are certain situations where it is unclear whether I am looking at an l or an I in non-serif fonts. --Khajidha (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The typeface is legible on all the computers I have used, and 'those who use WP know what it offers (and what it does not).'

There are various wiki-platforms available - and to paraphrase the cartoon 'If you know (how to design) a better (w)hole(,) go to it.' 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What new layout are you referring to? Logged in users get the same main page as everyone else (on desktop). -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 20:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would assume it's your layout, Edokter -- the OP may be another confused person. Eman235/talk 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, mine isn't inflicted on anyone; you have to turn on a gadget. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what I said, in the discussion I linked. Eman235/talk 19:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Could I get an admin to change the picture shown in todays TFA (added without consultation) to the image that was proposed in the TFA blurb (:File:Sarcoscypha coccinea 74716.jpg). Thanks, Sasata (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sasata: Done. I've uploaded the image locally so that it's protected by the cascading protection feature (do we still need to do that? I forget)- the local version can be deleted once it's off the MP. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn: Yes, the local upload remains necessary (unless the image is protected at Commons).

For the record, I don't object to the reversion itself, but the appropriate rationale is WP:BOLD. It shouldn't matter that the request came from the article's author, who apparently believes that he/she possesses special authority to approve or reject any changes. —David Levy 22:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@David Levy: That's completely unwarranted. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I don't think Sasata is suggesting that he has any kind of special authority. That said, you did make use of your special authority in making a change (without offering any explanation, which could rub salt into the wound) using your admin powers. Had you done this before the blurb appeared on the MP, it could have been discussed/reverted as appropriate, but because you did it while the image was on the MP, Sasata, who does not have admin powers, was left unable to change the image back- no matter how inappropriate the edit. I imagine I'd be very frustrated if faced with this- wouldn't you? Did you not think, especially given that the image was not used in the article, that it may be inappropriate in some way? Had you asked Sasata (you could put this in terms of etiquette if you like, but maybe recognition of familiarity with the subject would be another way of thinking about it), perhaps he could have explained why the original image was chosen rather the one you used. I suspect that we should be conservative when updating the main page, given that content goes through various reviews before appearing and because inappropriate edits may be seen by many people. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's completely unwarranted. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I don't think Sasata is suggesting that he has any kind of special authority.

On my talk page (which you've since visited), Sasata inquired as to why I made the change "without first consulting the article author". No flaws, apart from the lack of approval by him/her, were cited.

That said, you did make use of your special authority in making a change (without offering any explanation, which could rub salt into the wound) using your admin powers.

I neither possess special authority nor claim to. I've simply been asked by Dank (one of the TFA coordinators) to handle the section's images.

Most of the issues that I address relate to size constraints. (In this instance, I switched to a close-up shot to improve the amount of detail visible in the small thumbnail.)

Regarding the absence of an explanation, point taken. My edits are seen primarily by the TFA coordinators, but I'll keep in mind that such changes might be less self-explanatory to others (and formulate my summaries accordingly).

Had you done this before the blurb appeared on the MP, it could have been discussed/reverted as appropriate, but because you did it while the image was on the MP, Sasata, who does not have admin powers, was left unable to change the image back- no matter how inappropriate the edit.

I performed the edit almost two days before the blurb appeared on the main page.

Did you not think, especially given that the image was not used in the article, that it may be inappropriate in some way?

Given that I'd just uploaded image to Commons, no, that wasn't a consideration. I found it on the Mushroom Observer website, where an experienced contributor verified its quality. (The image from the article was taken from the same source, where its quality was assessed only by an anonymous user.) —David Levy 23:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for the "edited while on the MP" part of my comment (and the corresponding part of my comment on your talk page)- I was clearly mistaken about that. The (I suspect) last thing I have to say: If you do (or are going to) make a habit of "handl[ing] the section's images", perhaps you should also make a habit of consulting with article authors about image choice. That may be a way to avoid frustration of this sort in the future. As I suspect you know, a lot of people find being the author of a TFA a frustrating experience; the possibility of a less-than-ideal image being used in the blurb is one thing we can hopefully avoid. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, by "handle the section's images", I'm referring strictly to an editing task, not to the assumption of any sort of special authority.

When in doubt, I do look to an article's contributors for advice. Said doubt is more likely to arise in some subject areas than in others.

When illustrating an organism, the overriding consideration is factual accuracy (i.e., that the photograph depicts the relevant species). This is especially important when visually similar species exist and sometimes are mistaken for each other – a situation that I saw mentioned in the article. That's why I went to the effort of finding a verified Sarcoscypha coccinea photograph on the Mushroom Observer website (where it received more vetting than the image that I replaced) instead of using one of multiple close-up shots previously uploaded to Commons.

The other consideration is visual quality. On the Mushroom Observer website, both photographs are labeled "good enough for a field guide". The key difference is their composition, which is unrelated to the subject matter. What's most appropriate for use in an article often differs from what works best in a TFA blurb (because of the aforementioned size constraints).

In many cases, I simply crop an image to make its subject more easily recognizable in the thumbnail. This is a longstanding practice, the template for which dates back to 2005. In this instance, the fruit bodies' proximity to each other makes cropping less than ideal, but I consider the image replacement functionally equivalent (assuming that the factual accuracy has not been compromised).

Nonetheless, WP:BRD applied, regardless of whether the reversion request came from the article's main author or from another Wikipedia user in good standing. —David Levy 00:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a first? (I also don't think it should be bulleted, but whatever) Nohomersryan (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Having been involved with DYK for almost a decade (aaaaah, just what you want to think about on your birthday :-/), I do believe this is a first. Something to note in the Signpost, perhaps. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Mr Case. Cheers! --70.51.53.87 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, a discussion about this version of DYK. Bencherlite^Talk 22:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Now there's another DYK correction. I really hope this doesn't become a regular thing. If it must happen again, I think the word "We" should be avoided, just as for an article. Instead, it would be better to say something like "It was previously reported, but...." and avoid first person. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Jim Hazelton correction, it may itself be in error. The claim is "Jim Hazelton was the first Australian to fly a single-engine aircraft across the Pacific". The 1928 (not 1934) Sir Charles Kingsford Smith crossing was achieved in a three-engine aircraft (the Southern Cross (aircraft)) as was reported on the ARCHIELUXURY YouTube channel three and a half months ago. Oops, it's the single-engine Lady Southern Cross vs. the original three-engine Southern Cross (aircraft). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lee Sedol is not "one of the best Go players", he is the best Go player and I would add the information that this event is a milestone in the development of artificial intelligence. Greets from Germany --93.215.150.222 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The articles claims he "Ranks #3 in total amount of titles in Korea and #2 in international titles", so it seems rather subjective to call him the best Go player. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have started an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Corrections on Main Page?. Fram (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What happened the 2015 redesign version of the main page? →The Pancake of Heaven! (T  • C  • E) 13:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It was temorarily deleted to purge an old revision of the gadget stylesheet out of the system. It has been restored now. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 14:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

April 1 is April Fools, and perhaps nobody does not know it. The main page's DYK section appears to be fooling the readers on John Cena and other things. Isn't it that we should know and apply the limits between where and when to make jokes and not? Ain't funny jokes on the Main Page please. 49.148.79.46 (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's time to dispense with the "tradition" of having joke items on April 1. They are not funny, they are sophomoric, they are juvenile. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's fine if the hooks are funny, but some of them are quite questionable!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The way I see it is that there were some funny hooks suggested however many people kept interfering with reviews that had already been passed. The Royal C (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Examples, please. —David Levy 07:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The answer is to get involved at WP:DYKAPRIL. You've got a whole year until AFD2017! Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The answer is not to try and improve things for next year, but to face the possibility that it might be best to end this tradition and mark the process historical. Even if that succeeded, though, someone would doubtless try and start it up again. Carcharoth (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

All that is needed at DYK is for people not to stick their oar in when hooks have been approved and been held for 3 months, then a week or so before suddenly come in and propose a lesser hook as well as pooh-poohing the original funnier hook. It seems this year there was more of a no-fun police around taking out all the good hooks and having them replaced with ones that weren't as good. Frankly I think we were lucky to get "a British giant swallowed a little red virgin?" on the main page without getting raided by the vice squad. That's why I feel that there has been less fun and funny things on AFD this year compared with other years. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If outright falsehoods like that made it through, I'm curious as to what didn't. (Please provide some examples of "the good hooks" that were cut.)

Our 1 April main page items are supposed to be 100% accurate. If a joke requires rearranging the words in a proper name and dropping capitalization therefrom, it doesn't comply with this criterion. That's a type of lying. —David Levy 07:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That's utterly stupid. If a person of reasonable intelligence, having clicked, will see what's going on, it's fine. EEng 16:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion that our longstanding, consensus-backed approach is "utterly stupid", but I'm curious as to whether you're familiar with its history (including the underlying reasoning and the issues that inspired it). —David Levy 18:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for stating the obvious i.e. that I'm entitled to my opinion. I know a good deal of the history of April Fools on WP, DYK, etc. There should be some interpretation of the hook under which it's a true statement, but it need not be the obvious one, and it's even OK if it's a bit strained. If that's not allowed it's because the generally poor level of quality control at DYK has led ot overreaction. EEng 19:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for stating the obvious i.e. that I'm entitled to my opinion.

My apologies for attempting to set a respectful tone (despite your dismissal of my remarks as "utterly stupid").

There should be some interpretation of the hook under which it's a true statement, but it need not be the obvious one,

Are you under the impression that I've asserted otherwise?

and it's even OK if it's a bit strained.

I don't disagree (unless your concept of "a bit strained" differs from mine to a great extent). —David Levy 20:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh goody. Let's leave it at that. EEng 21:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

We were going to have ...that the United States sued a Tyrannosaurus for being an illegal immigrant? But people kept popping their opinions in and argued against the original hook which was based on the precedence of a hook that was similarly titled and we ended up with something of lesser quality. And even when I tried at a last minute to get a slightly better hook on there, it was removed for the same reason of people enforcing their opinions on it. That was where the problem was on AFD this year, it was the Too Many Cooks analogy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the original hook (for April Fools, anyway), though it might have been better as sued a Tyrannosaurus for entering the country illegally? And David Levy's fussing below shows his misunderstanding of "legal nomenclature" (though that's not what this is) -- in in rem cases the object at issue is, itself, indeed "being sued". A further modification, to that in United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton, a dinosaur was accused of entering the country illegally? Shame. There's almost always a way out via careful wording, and this could have brought a smile to millions (though a few frowns to grumps). EEng 16:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the original hook (for April Fools, anyway)

The community disagrees.

And David Levy's fussing below shows his misunderstanding of "legal nomenclature" (though that's not what this is) -- in in rem cases the object at issue is, itself, indeed "being sued"

Did you read the nomination's discussion? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm inclined to believe the one who commented therein, whose work has been published in law journals. —David Levy 18:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer either, but I've been a technical consultant in scores of exactly this kind of case, and I know what I'm talking about. (And BTW, I know plenty of lawyers who don't know what they're talking about -- amazingly common in the legal profession.) The concern that readers might actually think that a dinosaur is expected to show up and argue in court, or retain an attorney to argue for him (or her, I guess), is absurd. EEng 19:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer either, but I've been a technical consultant in scores of exactly this kind of case, and I know what I'm talking about.

Do you understand why I regard a published legal scholar's claims on the subject as more credible than yours?

The concern that readers might actually think that a dinosaur is expected to show up and argue in court, or retain an attorney to argue for him (or her, I guess), is absurd.

It's also a straw man. —David Levy 20:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Do I understand why? Sure, but it's a commonplace for me to know more than people who ought to know based on their credentials. I've made quite a career of it, in fact, having been a consulting expert on [name of case-you-absolutely-know-about redacted] and [name of case-you-never-heard-of-but-which-materially-changed-the-way-you-use-technology-every-day redacted – US v. [certain inanimate objects], BTW] (just to name two). As to "straw man": no, it's a visualization of the feared misapprehension i.e. that a dinosaur is literally a litigant. EEng 21:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No one expressed a concern "that readers might actually think that a dinosaur is expected to show up and argue in court, or retain an attorney to argue for [it]", even if it technically is "being sued".

Likewise, I'm not worried that Wikipedia's readers might now believe that "a British giant swallowed a little red virgin"; I'm embarrassed that we placed this nonsensical claim on the main page. —David Levy 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

April Fools is supposed to be about a little nonsense. I think we should stop now. EEng 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You acknowledged that "there should be some interpretation of the hook under which it's a true statement". If you believe that to be so in this case, you and I must have very different ideas of what constitutes "a bit strained". —David Levy 22:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Straining at gnats and swallowing horses", as my great-grandmother used to say. I really think we should stop. EEng 22:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

We were going to have ...that the United States sued a Tyrannosaurus for being an illegal immigrant?

That hook contains a double lie. The case pertained to the smuggling of a dinosaur skeleton. It had absolutely nothing to do with immigration, and the claim that the dinosaur was sued reflects a misunderstanding of legal nomenclature. (The latter is especially troubling, as it would have left visitors misinformed even after reading the article.)

But people kept popping their opinions in

You seem resentful of this interference, which occurred after a single editor reviewed your submission and approved it for 1 April.

and argued against the original hook which was based on the precedence of a hook that was similarly titled

Having just read the discussion, I see that you argued this repeatedly. "Precedent" usually is weak rationale at Wikipedia, particularly at DYK (which has had more than its share of regrettable material).

Multiple editors objected to the hook on the basis that it was factually inaccurate. Your position was that they were "thinking too much into this for what is meant to be something funny". You even argued that your wording was ideal because it exploited the aforementioned misconception that "_____ v. _____"-formatted case names always refer to a plaintiff and a defendant.

and we ended up with something of lesser quality.

We ended up with something more or less accurate

And even when I tried at a last minute to get a slightly better hook on there

You unilaterally swapped in another falsehood proposed during the nomination phase. (At no point was the dinosaur skeleton taken to court.)

it was removed for the same reason of people enforcing their opinions on it.

Do you believe that your assessment constitutes something other than an opinion? What type of process do you expect?

That was where the problem was on AFD this year, it was the Too Many Cooks analogy.

How dare other users participate in the process by conveying their concerns and ideas?! —David Levy 12:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So do you think that around a week before AFD, when hooks have been held for months, that it is helpful to have people expressing what they thought would be right, not based on WP policy but on personal opinions and despite it being cleared and approved in accordance with the policies. What I felt is that people were forcing their opinions onto it especially when more than one had actually supported the original review the fact that many people suggested several different hooks diluted what could have been a good hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So do you think that around a week before AFD, when hooks have been held for months,

In the example that you provided, concerns regarding factual inaccuracies were expressed beginning on 9 March (less than six days after your original submission). I'd be happy to examine other instances if you wish to cite them.

Of course, the matter of timing has no bearing on such a criticism's validity (or lack thereof). While it's best to catch problems as soon as possible, even material on the main page right now is subject to immediate modification or removal if and when it's determined to be inappropriate, regardless of how long it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."

that it is helpful to have people expressing what they thought would be right, not based on WP policy but on personal opinions

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability (a policy) and Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know (containing a description of DYK's 1 April conventions) – particularly the part about hooks being "completely truthful".

Links to both pages appeared in the aforementioned discussion (wherein you claim that arguments were made "not based on WP policy but on personal opinions") on 9 March.

and despite it being cleared and approved in accordance with the policies.

What policies permit the inclusion of outright fabrications in DYK or elsewhere on the main page? And are you under the impression that approval by a reviewer (before anyone else has commented, no less) locks in an entry, thereby prohibiting additional input? —David Levy 07:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to agree that this year was not handled well. The featured picture was good, the featured list seemed like a fun one (though I can't say I know or, dare I admit, care much about baseball) but much of DYK is/was puerile and the TFA blurb, as discussed above, was deceptive. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with those who would favour doing away with April Fools on the Main Page. The misleading DYK hooks are quite fun, but the FA blurb is totally unfunny. Time to drop the foolery. Awien (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

But the real joke is to see people's reactions... No, this isn't going away anytime soon! -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you. You didn't see me laugh when I got to the DYK articles, so apparently you find it funny that I don't find the FA blurb clever or amusing? Awien (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I find it funny that you complain about it not being funny. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 21:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere along the way, the goal of crafting hooks that are ambiguously worded but 100% true and fully compliant with out normal editorial standards (apart from the aforementioned ambiguity) seems to have been forgotten. Flat-out lies and all-caps exclamations (in Wikipedia's voice) are unacceptable, as is demanding that others participate in the April foolery if they wish to prevent a recurrence of this embarrassing nonsense next year. —David Levy 07:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The best jokes were when we weren't joking. Look at 2011, for instance. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@David Levy: - I thought I had achieved that with my April Fool's DYK this year. Although it wasn't as good as the Titanic one a few years back. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes you did, Mjroots, and it worked because I followed up on all of them. I still have reservations about using the Main Page of Wikipedia to fool people, though. But as for achieving the same thing with the extended blurb for the Featured Article, it's hard to see how that can be done without, as David Levy says, telling flat-out lies. So if people are wedded to the idea of doing something for April Fools, maybe the answer would be to limit it to just DYK. Awien (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If we want people to take this product seriously, we have to stop trying to be funny once a year. There are too many really good comedians out there.--Jim in Georgia ContribsTalk 13:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I realize that a kind of sophomoric, juvenile bonhomie permeates the project on April 1, as evidenced by a particularly moronic "joke close" I saw at ANI, so perhaps this is spitting into a hurricane. I don't think I'd mind if the attempts at humor were genuinely funny, but they just aren't. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I must express my disappointment with this blurb, which presents a historical hoax as the truth. I regret ignoring its development (which I assumed would occur in accordance with the longstanding consensus that our April Fools' Day material should contain claims that are 100% factual despite seeming implausible, not the inverse) and accept responsibility for failing to speak up sooner.

It's especially unfortunate that we're making light of a situation that resulted in a large number of deaths.

The actual series of events is strange and interesting, making the article an ideal choice for the 1 April TFA. I'm baffled as to why it's been placed behind a layer of deception that downplays these qualities. —David Levy 00:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It was first nominated at TFAR on 24 February so you've had a whole lot of time to express your opinion and see if consensus agreed with you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hence my above statement that I "regret ignoring its development" and "accept responsibility for failing to speak up sooner".

The discussion (participation in which was disappointingly low) provides some insight into the lapse that occurred. Cliftonian (the nominator), unquestionably acting in good faith, disagreed with Nick-D's suggestion that the word "fictional" be added, noting that "a not insignificant number of readers will genuinely be taken in" by a blurb written as "the Cazique himself would have done it at the height of the con".

This appears to reflect a mistaken impression that our 1 April TFA blurb is intended to trick readers with falsehoods. The consensus-backed practice is to present wholly truthful statements in a manner that makes them seem fabricated; the "joke" is that the write-up isn't a joke, but readers might be "fooled" into believing that it is (and then pleasantly surprised to learn otherwise when they click through to the article and take in the full context).

Most of the current blurb consists of outright lies. It is, however, true that "fewer than 50 ever returned from Poyais to Britain", a statement meant to make light of the others' deaths.

In the aforementioned discussion, Cliftonian expressed a willingness to "run it straight", per Nick-D's observation that the actual events were sufficiently bizarre on their own. Unfortunately, this option wasn't pursued, perhaps because the disparity between the blurb's tone and our longstanding "strange but true" 1 April format wasn't made clear. I acknowledge, without reservation, that I could (and should) have been the person to do that. I'm not here to blame you or anyone else for the outcome of a discussion from which I was absent. I'm simply pointing out an issue that I hope we can address going forward. —David Levy 10:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that in my unreferenced opinion, we found it really difficult to find an appropriate article for April 1's TFA this year. For next year, I'd suggest we choose an appropriate article asap and work it up to FA in time, rather than scrabbling around for something in the last couple of months. I'd be happy to help with this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article was a fine choice, given the ridiculousness of the real-life events described therein. As Nick-D and I noted independently, authoring the blurb as an extension of the hoax actually resulted in a set of lies that seems more mundane than the truth (as though the subject is simply a historical figure of notable background and accomplishments). —David Levy 10:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I would have preferred telling this straight(er) given that the events were bizarre enough, but would have opposed the nomination if I felt that the blurb was unacceptable. It's in line with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2011, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The distinction may be subtle, but it's important. It's a matter of purposely ambiguous wording vs. outright falsehoods. It's "Oh, that's what they meant." vs. "Oh, that isn't true."

Incidentally, 2011 wasn't exactly our shining moment. Raul (the featured article director at the time) was unaware that the word "fanny" refers to female genitalia in some English varieties. The blurb's British authors knew perfectly well, but they regarded this as appropriate. —David Levy 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps, just change "first" to "pretend"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologise to anyone who feels the blurb as I drew it up is inappropriate or disrespectful. As David Levy acknowledges I was acting in good faith after I was asked to nominate the article for TFA on April Fools' Day. Having never been involved in an April Fool's TFA (so far as I remember) I am not well-versed in how these things customarily operate and I went with my own judgement that writing the blurb as if MacGregor and Poyais were genuine would be "taking the joke one step further", in line with the spirit of April Fools' Day. I'm now not totally convinced this was the right choice. I agree with David that the discussion was not well attended, and perhaps had more people taken part a consensus might have been reached to run the article straight, which I would happily have gone along with. If there's anything I can do to help the situation just let me know and I'll do my best. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I quite like the blurb. I don't think "first Cazique of the Principality of Poyais" is objectionable on purely factual grounds; even if it's a made-up title he's still its first bearer, and since it's April 1 we can be flexible on this as an editorial judgement rather than a factual matter. My only suggestion would be to change "Descended from..." to "Claiming descent from..." since that seems like the only (probable) factual error. I agree that it's not warranted to criticise people for only bringing up concerns now; not a lot of people keep tabs on FA discussions, but obviously many people see the Main Page. I'm not seeing the other inaccuracies that David Levy is concerned about though: the military service information appears to be correct and the Venezuelan President did indeed march behind his coffin, etc. Could you be more specific David? —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't regard the "Gregor I" label or "first Cazique of the Principality of Poyais" and "Many have tried to emulate the policies he initiated as leader of Poyais" claims as truthful. I like your "Claiming descent from..." suggestion, however. Similarly, "Gregor died a hero" could be changed to "Gregor was hailed as a hero" or similar. —David Levy 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Something like "Gregor MacGregor was, by his own proclamation, first Cazique of the Principality of Poyais"? I took the "emulation" point as a joke about other hoax micronations following in his path, but I can see the concern. No objection to the "hailed as a hero" change. —Nizolan ^(talk) 11:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I just made these changes, including the addition of "by his own proclamation". I share your interpretation of the emulation wording, but I wonder whether we could make it a bit more vague (to refer to MacGregor's approach in general instead of claiming that he actually instituted policies as the leader of a territory). —David Levy 12:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I find no fault in your actions. The natural assumption is that an April Fools' Day blurb should constitute a hoax, and information to the contrary simply wasn't conveyed adequately. I didn't even participate in the discussion, so far be it from me to cast blame on those who did. —David Levy 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks David. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It is still too easy to believe the blurb. Many will not read the article, will only read the blurb, and will not realise that MacGregor was a confidence trickster. That should be put in the blurb, plus the fact that the 'Poyais' was a fiction. At the moment, the blurb was and still is violating WP:NPOV (I too should have realised this earlier and participated in the earlier discussion). Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be very good judgement to add "fool" (it's the day after all)), "trick", "lie", link to "confidence game" or some such form of one of those words/concepts into the blurb. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this, as I'm one of many people who watch TFA processes, but not everything on Main Page talk. I guess my first question is: does anyone believe that anything here in the current thread has relevance to any day of the year other than April 1? If TFA, and discussions about TFA, only fail one day a year, then I can think of some quick fixes that will have no negative effects on the process as a whole. If some bigger issues are looming here, I'd like to know about it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement that "Many have tried to emulate the policies he initiated as leader of Poyais, but few have come close to matching his success" is completely true. If we agree that Gregor MacGregor's "policies" were those of a con man, many people have indeed tried to emulate them and not been able to match MacGregor's success, let alone his ability to get away with it even after he was caught, and end up being buried as a hero, with the President of his adopted country walking in his funeral. The sentence is more than a little facetious, but it's also absolutely true. Jsc1973 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If we agree that Gregor MacGregor's "policies" were those of a con man

In other words, if we agree that they pertained to something entirely different from what was stated in the blurb.

MacGregor was not the leader of Poyais. Poyais did not exist. The statement that "many have tried to emulate the policies he initiated as a confidence trickster" is completely true. The statement that "many have tried to emulate the policies he initiated as leader of Poyais" is not. —David Levy 07:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it's off the Main Page of course, and there's no reply so far to my question about whether there are indications of problems with TFA that go beyond April 1, which is a relief. My fellow TFA coords and I are largely agreed about what to do about April 1, so I'll move over to the discussion that's just getting started over at WT:TFAR to get more input from TFA participants. Brian has a specific proposal, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Each year there are discussions on whether the April 1 Main Page presentation is A Good Thing, or subtracts from what WP is trying to be. Newspapers and other providers of information have entries which are actually false - so 'mere misdirection' can be seen as a lesser wrong.

Each year there are also a number of items appearing on the Main Page which generate much discussion on various grounds (not to be read while consuming drink of choice and biscuits, children etc). There are probably also 'a number' which are not to various readers' tastes on a range of grounds.

But - the Main Page changes so the problem goes.

The questions are - how can entries on the MP be presented in such a way that they puzzle and intrigue people enough to read the articles and how puzzling can the hooks be? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of this. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/Server_switch_2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.222.200 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Who's "you"? —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

So I saw in the "In The News" section that the Prime Minister of Iceland had resigned. I'm just curious as to why it was changed to "steps aside". Uvinno (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Uvinno: He suspended himself, he didn't step down for good —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do we not just say "resigned temporarily"? "Step aside" is idiomatic and colloquial.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to "resign temporarily?" If there's a common usage in the news, we should use it.--Jim in Georgia ContribsTalk 15:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly use "Steps down for an undefined amount of time" ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussions like this belong at WP:ERRORS. The small group of editors and admins who look after Main Page will see it [faster]. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It left the main page some time ago so the debate is somewhat moot. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

why sinhala new year not on the list("On this day")

Because our article on Sinhalese New Year has insufficient references to verify all the facts. If you improve it, it could be on the list next year. Stephen 00:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Planned Parenthood was conceived 100 years ago" really? Thanks for making my day.--131.156.156.255 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably not intentional. --70.48.151.163 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The addition of an audio file to the Für Elise blurb for April 27 was a nice touch – thanks! Sca (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It does hammer home the loss of potential when featured sounds were phased out. Though I'm 99% sure there have been sounds used instead of images in TFA before too. I would like to see it happen more too. GRAPPLE ^X

Any chance of getting a link to Antidisestablishmentarianism in the Welsh bishop DYK? Greenshed (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I cant edit this home page. just wanted to let you know it cant be edited for some reason. maybe a serve glitch? - Prateek Kaushik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateek M. Kaushik (talk • contribs) 20:44, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

@Prateek M. Kaushik: Some pages are protected so only certain individuals can edit them. This is primarily to protect the page from vandalism. The main page is one of these protected pages and can only be edited by administrators. This is by design and is not a glitch. --Majora (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

See this FAQ entry. Modest Genius ^talk 12:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, EgyptAir flight 804 which missing today. 05:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)CPAT (talk)

Yes, it's being discussed at WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

--Leon (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. WP:ERRORS is where this stuff should go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting today, even the DYK which has been pretty weak lately, well done everyone. 106.68.196.157 (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider participating in editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.173.214 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 25 May 2016 UTC

23 May 2016 Syrian bombings, also this article should be improved upon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs)

Please nominate it at WP:ITNC. Thanks. --Jayron32 03:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved to WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to comment on the RfC: Should the criteria for "recent deaths" listings on the "In the news" section of the main page be changed?.Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

From today's (that's 8 June 2016) featured article Paul McCartney: "the top-selling band of all time." Since time hasn't yet come to an end, no one can know that. What is meant is "the top-selling band so far." 86.132.222.245 (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Future sales of everything are zero until they happen, so "of all time" is technically correct even if you don't credit our readers with enough intelligence to figure out what "of all time" means. ‑ Iridescent 16:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

See the definition for all-time, which is the adjectival version of the idiom. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And remember, "time is an ocean, but it ends at the shore." [8] – Sca (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"But remember, what I tell you, In time you’re gonna pay…." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Penguins won the Stanley Cup after the Orlando shooting; therefore its blurb should be above the Orlando shooting in the tradition NPOV way we've handled events that are newsworthy. Newest on the top, regardless of which is more "newsy" than the next... Please correct that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, be our guest. You have the tools. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This issue is actually mentioned in the ITN Candidates discussion. The actually guideline on WP:ITN/A#Blurb states that the blurbs are "ordered chronologically by date of occurrence (but not necessarily chronologically within that date)" (emphasis added). Both events happened on the same day, 12-June, U.S. Eastern Time (the shooting began around 2:15 am, while the Stanley Cup game ended before 11pm). Because they occurred on the same day, there is admin discretion on which one to put first. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think 21 hours is a big enough gap that it should count as more recent. They occurred on separate nights after all. Modest Genius ^talk 12:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we are following the guideline and that is that. No need to waste more effort on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you at least try to pretend that you aren't trying to WP:OWN ITN by seeking to shut down any discussion you don't like? Resolute 00:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you grow up and stop stalking my edits? We're following the guideline. If you have some pertinent to add to this discussion, please do so, otherwise take your vendetta somewhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that the blurb about the shooting has been displaced from the top of ITN, perhaps the blurb about the NHL finals concluding should be positioned above it. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that now that further news stories are coming out, it isn't about whether one story is above the other or not, it's about which story gets dropped first. In which case, I completly feel that the stories are in the correct order as at present, with the hockey dropping off the list once the next ITN story is added. Miyagawa (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to include that Cleveland won their first ever championship in the news item mentioning their win? 71.183.244.136 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

When it was discussed at WP:ITNC consensus was that particular fact was trivial and not necessary to mention. If you have additional comments to make, and would like to see it added, perhaps you could discuss it there with others. --Jayron32 23:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it customary to promote an article on the front page twice in as many days? Mortara case was just the front page Featured Article yesterday. Now it is being promoted in OTD. Just wondering. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Mortara case is still listed at the end of today's featured article. There are several other candidates eligible for OTD, as listed here at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 23. Hopefully one can be switched in. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The History page for this page starts with (that is, the most recent change listed is)

(cur | prev) 10:03, 26 December 2015‎ Materialscientist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,470 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (Undid revision 696846306 by Shirt58 (talk)) (thank)

Oh, really? --Thnidu (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's because the page is relatively stable; it's the templates that are edited.--Jim in Georgia ContribsTalk 00:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Click here for a more complete explanation. Art LaPella (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a suggestion at MediaWiki talk:Histlegend#Link to Wikipedia:Main Page history on the Main Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The Mobile version of the Main Page is displaying the full version instead of the usual mobile version. Did someone break something?? - Samuel Wiki (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I only see Today's featured article and In the news. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's fixed now. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This was due to a bug which has now been resolved (phab:T138578). Note that there is also a desire in the longer term to stop special casing the Main Page on mobile, and have it use the same content as desktop, but this will require more work (phab:T138622). the wub "?!" 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Resolved at Template_talk:Wikipedia_languages#Euskara_passes_250.2C000 — xaosflux ^Talk 17:25, 25 June 2016 (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.

---

Hi everyone. I'm a basque wikipedian and I just saw on the panel "Wikipedia languages" that Basque Wikipedia (Euskara) is listed on the "More than 50,000 articles" section. I'm congratulated to tell you that yesterday Basque Wikipedia completed its 250.000 article so I think it should be now on the "More than 250,000 articles" section. Thanks. Euskaldunaa (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Posted where it belongs: Template talk:Wikipedia languages#Euskara passes 250,000. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2016 (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.

On the Main Page's leftmost side, between "Print/export" and "Languages", it has an "In other projects" section listing almost all of Wikipedia's sister projects, except for MediaWiki and Wiktionary. (However, those two are included at the bottom of the Main Page under "Wikipedia's sister projects", with all the others.)

I think I understand why MediaWiki is not listed on the left panel's "In other projects", but why is Wiktionary not listed there, even though it also has a "Main Page"?

Just curious, I'm not really suggesting any changes. Thank you:) Zeniff (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think those links are handled on Wikidata, so you could add it over there. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 10:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to do so there. Thank you:) Zeniff (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, the DYK queues (the sets prepared to go to the Main Page, which are automatically put on the Mai nPage by a bot) are fully protected. This was done years ago, since with only semi-protection it was way too easy for a vandal to vandalize the main page by timing an edit to the queues just right.

We have on the one hand a shortage of admins willing to fill the queues, and on the other hand a relatively new protection level called Template Protection. This is still a very restricted level (not many editors have it), but it is open to experienced, trusted non-admins and will be hard to reach for vandals. As the queues are template pages, the proposal has been discussed (a little bit) at WT:DYK to lower the protection of the queues to Template Editor level. This proposal is for Template:Did you know/Queue/1 to Template:Did you know/Queue/6, but explicitly not for Template:Did you know, which must stay at admin-only level. ~The template editor right would then be granted (through normal processes) to a handful of DYK regulars.

Can everybody live with this, or is a formal RfC needed? Fram (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I would want to see buy in from @Shubinator: who operates an adminbot using these pages. The prior bot approval included having these pages fully protected. I'm not steadfastly opposed to this - but bot edits are the responsibility of the bot operator, so he would need to trust that his mainpage updates can be impacted by the additional 188 template editors. On a technical note, these pages would also need to be removed from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items to allow editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The removal from cascade-protection may be a bigger issue, as that could perhaps open an unwanted way for vandals. If so, a solution might be that we add we add a second full-protected queue, let's call it Template:Did you know/Next: the bot moves the queue from next to the main page, and the next numbered queue to next (which is cascade-protected): this would mean that some non-amins can fill queues, but we still would have an 8 or 12 hour delay between the last possible non-admin edit and the time they hit the main page. But perhaps this isn't needed (or is too similar to the prep-queue situation we already have?). Fram (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

With the bot, the queues essentially are the Main Page - it's possible that no human being will look at a set once it's placed in one of the queues. As such, the question essentially becomes "are we willing to let non-admins edit the Main Page?" The second full-protected queue gets around this question, but there's added overhead and the benefit is unclear since we'd still need admins to promote sets from queue to Next. Shubinator (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The specific cascade protection that is there now is not coming from the main page, just from the page Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items and can be removed by itself - it is a "backup" protection for the individual page protections, the queues could be removed from that page without impacting other pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please feature the news about the death of Italian actor Carlo Pedersoli (Bud Spencer) on the main page. He was an extremely popular actor in many countries throughout Europe (Italy, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, etc.) It's just disturbing that a person who had created so many cult movies, does not even get a one line notice on the Main Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.64.22‎ (talk • contribs) 08:37, 28 June 2016‎

It's under discussion at WP:ITNC. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As few computer screens are 60" wide, there will always be omissions. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Pedersoli/Spencer also an Olympic athleteBillbambam (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Time for our yearly discussion :) Before november, on our current main page's 10th birthday, or at least before the year is out, I would like to introduce the new Main Page (talk). There have been many discussions, but no concrete plans as of yet. So I plan to take action myself. While I am not that good at organizing discussions or RfCs, I do want input, so I am asking the community for a consult.

I will say this upfront: There will be a new Main Page this year. There can no longer be a question if the Main Page needs to be renewed; past RfC have made that clear. I have looked at them and tried to best implement their outcome. I have repeatedly asked for improvements, and while I have had some valuable input, most discussion revolved around process instead. So I will have none of that.

So this is the final round. There is no "if", only "how". There is no process, only progress. This is your final change to vent your ideas. I will try to work them in as best I can. Some pointers though: Forget process, forget the old page; Wikilawyering and comparing old stuff are the surest ways to grind any progress to a halt, so I will basically ignore such. The Main Page is basically just the same as an article, which happens to be a lot more visible. I can understand any restraint for change, but also know that the current page design is becomeing a laughing stock fo web designers.

In light of this, I invite anyone to step up as moderator. I would like to discuss on the new page's talk page, or on Draft talk:Main Page for that matter. You can read the background for the new design there, and adress any specifics that come to mind. I also propose to add a permanent link the discussion page, so it does not die out again. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 20:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with your sentiments. Please just do it, but please make it good. 31.49.181.129 (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Surely it's up to the community to decide whether any given proposal for a front page redesign is preferable to no change? You saying that you will "ignore such" doesn't change that; the community can decide whatever it likes. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Who says we even have to change the main page? What's wrong with the current one? Just because it's been there for ten years doesn't mean it can't be our main page for the next ten years. There's certainly no reason to force something on the community if there's no consensus to do so. WP:NOTBROKEN applies amply here. For the record I've seen the proposed design and while I thank those who've designed it, I personally prefer the current one. The TfA text looks too wide, and other sections, especially "On this day" end up too low. The four coloured box layout of the current main page is good because all can be clearly zoned in on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. You can do whatever you want to the MP, but you will never get consensus for it; I would wonder if there is even consensus that the page needs to be changed period, let alone on the design. Saying that you will proceed regardless of input is, given how Wikipedia works, frankly disturbing. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Guys, the community has already agreed that it must be changed, look up the old discussions and RfCs. The only thing it hasn't agreed upon, it on how to change it. That is where I'm stepping in. I asked for input but if the community will not respond, I just have to it myself. Notice any overwhelming opposition? -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 19:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, so far there are 3 against and only 1 in favour of your proposed course of action. That is the opposite of a consensus - although of course that may change once an RfC or whatever is started. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Make that 4 against; the solution to a page being cluttered and ugly and hard to read is not to add more clutter and make it even uglier. Just because there's an arguable consensus that the main page is due a redesign, doesn't mean there's any significant support for your redesign. ‑ Iridescent 19:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) This isn't a vote, and I pointed you toward the relevant consensus that was reached already. I am merely implementing that consensus. Everyone is welcome to colaborate and participate, and some have; it made the new page what it is today. But I will state again: any voices stating that the page shouldn't be changed will be ignored, as there is already a consensus to change it. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 19:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What a ridiculous attitude. You've appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner despite clear objections to that course of action. If the consensus to change is to clear then that will come out when you put this out to consultation. If the community don't like the alternative then they will stick with the status quo. But saying there is some nebulous "consensus for change" and translating that to a carte blanche to change to anything of your choosing is simply unacceptable. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have put this out to consuntation... multiple times. Each time, few gave valuable input, while ohter started whining about process. I'm just done with that, as it is obvious those people have no interest in change. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 20:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's see... Have I ever "started whining about process". Nope. Shown any indication that I "have no interest in change"? Nope again. Let me check your answer in the section below again. Oh. Right. My proposal "has not gained any significant traction". Which is unlike all of the other proposals, not a single one of which has not gained any significant traction...how? And my proposal "would only attract active opposition". Which is unlike all of the other proposals, every single one of which attracted active opposition...how?

You do realize that this is going to blow up in your face, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

While I applaud your concept, Guy, I don't think it is appropriate for our main page and I for one would be opposed to instating it. That said, I'm not really sure how Edokter's new proposal is any better than our current layout. Please bear in mind that this layout was designed for maximum backwards-compatibility (with, e.g. old versions of IE) and very low resolutions; though, since mobile use is rising all the time, perhaps we ought to look at improving that instead. — foxj 23:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter: I prefer your design to the current one and have participated in its development, but I'll revert an attempt to implement it without consensus.

Like others, I find your tone problematic. I understand your frustration, but your current attitude will only impede progress. I agree that consensus to modernize the main page's design has been established, but you've incorporated many changes not directly related to this goal. I personally like these elements, but others have raised non-trivial concerns that mustn't be dismissed.

As someone who wants to see your efforts bear fruit, I implore you to reconsider your approach. —David Levy 22:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: I echo this attitude. Process is important here. In particular, I suggest separating the modernization into five parts:

1. A procedural agreement for settling the remaining items. No consensus = no change, so agreeing on a process is the first part. Following that…
2. A technical upgrade, incorporating the structural changes and layout-specific CSS upgrades, but no unnecessary visual or content changes. This would be agreed upon by a simple support/oppose poll; failure to reach consensus on the technical changes nixes the rest of the process. Therefore, seriously, make a version with the new layout that uses more or less the tired 2006 look for each box, and no changes in included content. It'll be temporary, and as a first agreed-upon change it'll strongly help precipitate others.
3. A visual upgrade, incorporating whatever gradients, background images, borders, etc., to be the subject of its own RfC and ultimately settled through one or more ranked-voting polls (we could ask the Foundation to set that up for us), to get us past the bikeshed problem.
4. A content upgrade, with an RfC for the addition, removal, or relocation of specific boxes of content. The RfC would be in two parts: suggesting changes, and then voting on them (with, perhaps, 60% approval to change the status quo, or simple majority for mutually-exclusive suggestions).
5. Implementation of all the agreed-upon changes in a single update to the Main Page. We don't want to needlessly taunt readers with incremental updates.

I'm suggesting this strategy because a) it carefully gathers consensus (with some concessions to democracy as a means of making the debate manageable), b) it separates the changes into somewhat more atomic, more binary choices, and c) it reduces the impression of you (Edokter) trying to unilaterally make decisions for the whole wiki. That last item is clearly unacceptable and is a stain on the merit of the rest of these changes. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 23:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the most unrealistic proposal so far. This is what we have been trying for 10 years now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@TheDJ: Previous redesign attempts have been monolithic: a whole Main Page draft or nothing. That leads to a mishmash of parallel alterations and we don't get any sort of consensus because people can simultaneously support and oppose different changes within the same draft. My suggestion is new in that it separates design elements into individual categories: technical layout, aesthetic, and content. I believe that we could have a more productive debate if it were better structured from the start. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 17:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, someone tell me what to do to make ANY progress at all! I have tried everything! What else can I do? Yet another RFC? What good is that? We've had them, but no one is acting on them. Reading through all the replies, it is clear to me no one wants change whatsoever. Process is only abused to stall, and no one seems willing to even participate. So here it is: I WANT ACTION!. Whatever it is! If there is no genuine step forward to change anything, I will delete the whole proposal and let the main page rot in HTML hell where it will remain the laughing stock of the web until the end of time. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 10:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Until this website is called "Edokter's Wikipedia" or you are hired by the Foundation to impose a redesign, there is little that you can do other than what has been suggested to you. What you are suggesting is simply not how things are meant to work around here. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The only things having been suggested is more process, and not a single step forward. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 15:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think that if you went and imposed a resdesign right now, that it wouldn't get reverted in five seconds? 331dot (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All your variations of "whatever I propose gets opposed" are a concession on your part that your proposal isn't supported. You can WANT ACTION! as much as you like, but just because you want something doesn't anyone else does; all you're going to get if you edit-war to try to unilaterally change Wikipedia's most-viewed page without anything remotely approaching a consensus (and the only way you'll see it live for more than a couple of minutes will be by persistent editwarring, since any change you make unilaterally will be immediately reverted) is at best a desysopping, and at worst a community ban. Has it genuinely not occurred to you that there's a reason you've been unable to gain any significant support for your proposal and are having to resort to threats and bluster? ‑ Iridescent 15:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A concrete proposal

The claim "There have been many discussions, but no concrete plans as of yet" appears to be factually incorrect. I have had a concrete plan at User:Guy Macon/Simple Main Page since 2013. What I lack is any way to get anyone who has the power to change the main page to consider it. I could get a thousand or so signatures on a petition to get it considered, but I have no confidence that that the result would reach anyone who has the power to change the main page.

I have also proposed that we replace the current main page with User:Guy Macon/Simple Main Page for 1% (randomly chosen) of our visitors for a week, followed by 10% of our visitors for a week if there are no obvious problems. The statistics on that would give us a solid answer to the question "does all of this DYK, OTD, etc. material really need to clutter the main page, or would having it as subpages linked from the main page work just as well?" --Guy Macon (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant plans by the community. And I don't want to be blunt, but your proposal has not gained any significant traction. In fact, I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) such a plan to make a minimalist main page the default would only attract active opposition. Any admin has the technical ability to change the main page, but the people who have the "power" to change the main page is the community; if you actually were to get a 1000 signatures, no doubt it would seriously be considered.

However, I am pushing this forward as no previous method or process in the past ten years has actually worked. There is not ever going to be a single proposal that will gain consensus; the community has gotten far too big for that. So it is time to leave it to someone (or few) who take(s) direction, just like all the individual section on the main page are governed right now. That means input is always considered, but that input will not be able to block progress anymore. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 15:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

With respect, you seem mightily positive that changing the layout is necessary for "progress", a statement which I'm not sure I agree with. That said, please do launch an official RfC on this design and I'll happily make my comments more eloquently and in more detail. — foxj 23:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There have been RfCs already, and none are conclusive. Haven't we learned from the past five years? -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 15:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Forward

This weekend, I will be moving the page to Draft:Main Page and adapt the gadget. I'm also thinking about putting up a message on top of this talk page to alert people to its existence, and propose a link on WP:CENT. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a note

I'm just noting here that Wikipedia:2016 main page redesign proposal exists. It currently has one draft subpage that could possibly be considered in regards to this proposal (Wikipedia:2016 main page redesign proposal/draft/JKDw.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No one actually organized a 2016 proposal. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 10:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to delete it if you feel that it is uncontroversial. I just created the pages since the aforementioned subpage already existed. Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)