Talk:Main Page/Archive 207

Archive 200

←

Archive 205

Archive 206

Archive 207

Mobile app still displaying Lisa Nowak as today's featured article?

This isn't really an issue with the Main Page itself, but I'm not quite sure where else it should be brought up. I just noticed that on the Wikipedia mobile app, Lisa Nowak is still listed as today's featured article, even though the blurb was replaced with tomorrow's scheduled article some hours ago. Can others confirm this is indeed happening and not just some glitch on my end? Shells-shells (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I personally didn't have that issue. I was trying to figure out why Lisa Nowak got bumped for Taylor Swift. Frank12 (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

See the discussion found here Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The apps seem to take snapshots of the main page sections for their equivalent versions and process them further. For example, the ITN entries don't update daily and so there's different logic for them. So I suppose that there's some buffer storage for this and the abnormal bumping of Lisa Nowak didn't register immediately. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

New layout

This hasn’t been discussed before because the main page layout is new today. I find the new layout less readable than the previous one on my iPad. The previous layout, a single column with the sections stacked, was better for me. Basically, the new layout is putsier — I have to increase the size of each section to read them & move the page around to see each section. Before I only had to raise the page in my screen. The previous layout was easier to read, with less information on the screen, the type seemed larger. From a distance the new layout looks like you’re competing with a newspaper, but you’re not a newspaper and you don’t need to compete. Wis2fan (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wis2fan: The layout hasn't changed in over a year, so it might be an issue with your device? casualdejekyll 21:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wis2fan: What changed may be Wikipedia:Vector 2022. You can go back to the old layout using Special:Preferences -> Appearance -> Vector legacy. —Kusma (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@:@Kusma: out of interest, has vector 2022 changed how the main page looks in mobile view? I never use that myself, so I wouldn't really know what's going on.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it is possible that what the OP uses on their iPad is the desktop version (the old desktop version adaptively changed between single and double column layout). Personally, I use Monobook and User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/unmobilePlus.js so I am safe from changes to Vector 2022 or to the official mobile skin. —Kusma (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation hatnote?

As the concept of "Main Page" obviously transcends Wikipedia, and we already have Main page (disambiguation), wouldn't it make sense (and be less self-centered) to have a hatnote to guide users to the possible disambiguation? After all, we wouldn't want anyone to look for something very important like William Main Page, only to be teleported back to where they started with no explanation given.

Plus, we already have this to some extent, with sections providing disambiguation if you're not sure to be on the right project or in the right language, so why not fully commit to it instead of leaving a half-finished main page to the confused and bewildered reader unfamiliar with such a concept?

Here is a model of what it could be made to look like. Much more intuitive and welcoming! Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt but that looks like an absolute waste of prime real estate to me. Schwede66 03:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I’d like to think the OP was being tongue in cheek. There is a plague of hatnotes at the top of articles. Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm still hoping that one day there will be a major Hollywood movie or rock band called "Main Page" and the stupidity of having our Main Page in article space instead of at Wikipedia:Main Page or Portal:Main Page will finally be exposed. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Main Page is in mainspace? Good lord, you're right. Why? Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a leftover from the old pre-namespaces days of 20+ years ago, solidified by the consensus of a couple of RMs. For international context, about half of the largest Wikipedias and the vast majority of small Wikipedias do the same, most of the rest have their main page in project space and there are just one or two portal space Main Pages. See d:Q5296. —Kusma (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I can sort of see the logic, but it also creates a messy looking URL. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_principal for example... I think the optimum would be to have the Main Page hosted in Wikipedia space, but not to have it render under a normal page URL. The URL should just remain in the browser as the base name https://enbaike.710302.xyz. Not sure if there would be technical problems with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree that it would be the cleanest way. As a French speaker myself I'm used to how it's done on French wikipedia, but the clumsy URL is complicated by the fact that accents in the Wikipédia: space don't render well. Really, having the main page at the base name, hosted in project space, would be the most sensible issue. No clumsy URL, and no project page in article space. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If it wasn't clear: yes it was absolutely very tongue-in-cheek, nearly hesitated to put it there but I figured out it's a talk page and wouldn't really hurt Chaotic Enby (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And yes the "grain of truth" that led to that suggestion was both the often questionable use of hatnotes and the confusing fact that the Main Page is in article space, as Kusma pointed out Chaotic Enby (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding some more hatnotes, to clear up any further potential confusion. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest that Main Page should actually redirect here. However April is over 6 months away. — Voice of Clam (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

William Main Page as a FA (or as a GA at DYK) could be fun to have on the 1 April Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Random page link?

This post at the Teahouse reminded me that, thanks to (gratuitous epithet removed) Vector 2022, readers don't have a random page link on most pages except for one hidden behind some bloody drop down menu. Can this at least be fixed here, as that IP mentioned? Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's possible to keep the menu displayed on the left if you click on the icon in the top-left corner then click Move to sidebar. I imagine this is only lasting for registered accounts, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Anglocentrism in the OTD

Apologies if this isn't the correct place for this, I've never contributed to the Main Page Talk Page before. The OTD for October 1st is, in my opinion, pretty anglocentrist. I do understand that this is the English language Wikipedia and so there is going to be a natural skew towards articles that have to do with English, but October 1st's is the worst I've seen in quite some time.

The first entry relates to the succession of Edgar to the English throne, the second relates to the English parliament, the third relates to John Muir (a Scot, sort of a reach but I figured I'd mention it), the fourth relates to British troops in the First World War. The fifth, the Hong Kong foreign domestic workers one, is related to England via Hong Kong's former status as a colony but it's a tangential relationship and not one that I think constitutes an issue in and of itself.

JBrahms (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Issues with that specific OTD (Oct 1) can be brought up here: Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/October 1 Leventio (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to add Wikifunctions at main page

I have just seen Wikifunctions at wikimedia.org, so I feel curious whether it's possible to add this link as well at main page here. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would provide a link so that some of us (who don't follow wikimedia) would have a clue. What is a "wikifunction" and how do you want the thing added? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume the OP is referring to meta:Wikifunctions ([1]). Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects#Add Wikifunctions or not? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hide "In the news"

Hey,

I'd like to protect myself from the negativity of general news. I don't consume general news articles anywhere else and wonder they are displayed on the homepage of an online encyclopedia. Is it possible to hide the tab "In the news"? WikiPate (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@WikiPate: yes, on your personal css page, Special:MyPage/common.css put this code snippet:

#mp-itn-h2, #mp-itn {
	display:none;
}

— xaosflux ^Talk 13:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

As to your other question, many readers that hear about subjects in the news come to Wikipedia to learn more about the background of the subjects. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you so much! It worked!

>>many readers that hear about subjects in the news come to Wikipedia to learn more about the background of the subjects.

Yes that's true. I do that rarely and appreciate WP's fewer negativity, scaremongering, emotionalising and scandalising in the coverage.

Still I want to come to WP with topics by myself and not my attention and focus on the homepage being drawn to bad news. WikiPate (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Sir_Winston_Churchill_-_19086236948.jpg

Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg, is there any reason why this shouldn't be on the main page? It looks like it's out of copyright in Canada, and, because of the URAA date, out of copyright in the US too. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 05:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Overabundance of Olivia Rodrigo content

Is it just me, or is there some sort of bizzare overabundance of DYKs related to Olivia Rodrigo? I looked through the DYK archives and found seven DYKs about this one single person within about four months -- a little much? (She also had one TFA in that timeframe) JM (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There might have been a lot of Olivia Rodrigo content recently, but there is nothing bizarre about this. When a prolific DYK contributor is interested in a particular artist or topic, this usually leads to a string of related DYKs. —Kusma (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Right sidebar with links to Commons/Wikiquotes, etc.

Where did that go? Did I accidentally make that disappear, or was that an admin decision? If so, is there an option to toggle it back? I liked having it visible when looking at actors/film pages. Sorry if this is the wrong place to inquire. Please let me know where to go, to ask such questions in the future. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 15:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk. (I don't see those links either.) Art LaPella (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Seemed so simpleWould that it were so simple! Thank you, Art. And okay, so it's not just me. Must be a layout overhaul, I suppose. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 11:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Art LaPella In case you were curious, we have to click the drop-down menu of "Tools" up top right hand corner, next to "View history" and the watchlist star, then move to the right (or side). --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

November 22 double up

I've just noticed that we have two items scheduled that cover the same topic and use the same image:

• TFA (scheduled by Gog the Mild in September 2023)
• POTD (scheduled by Ahecht in June 2022)

My guess is that we'd want to bump one of those items. Or at least use a different photo for the TFA. Schwede66 02:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the 60th anniversary of the event so I don't see anything inherently wrong with it being in both TFA and the POTD. I'd recommend changing the TFA picture to something like the Mary Moorman photograph which better depicts the event but isn't high quality enough to be POTD. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't see any reason why both shouldn't run as is, since TFA focuses on the event and POTD discusses the picture. In fact, they could be said to complement each other, and there's the potential in the POTD blurb to focus more on the picture since TFA describes the event. So I would suggest looking at this as a feature, not a bug, and making the most of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

But if the same picture runs in two places, we're going to hear about it on this page on that day, which will just be a hassle. Figure out which one to switch out (I'm not impressed with the image for either case, and surely we have something better than can be used in one instance or the other?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point, Sandy. A lot of people look at the main page as a single entity. So if we swapped images, what possibilities are there beyond what has been offered? I don't necessarily think it has to be presently used in the article. Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I might suggest the Croft photo, taken just before the shooting, then the Moorman one suggested above, which, though indistinctly, shows a fatally wounded Kennedy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've made that substitution, but it's all rather small. Could someone do an ideal crop that would do well at thumbnail size?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This was brought up by me around 15 days ago, and had suggested using simple JFK portrait, like this, or this. In my opinion, the Croft photo isn't the best possible choice. I'd be more inclined to have this pic instead, if the portraits don't work for all. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Go with the portrait. It will work better because of the size. POTD has more space available so one can better see what is depicted. Tone 17:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Of Kennedy? I don't really like to use the one of Oswald. Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It is Kennedy who we want to commemorate. Schwede66 20:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, done. Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree re using JFK pic. A watershed event internationally that is still remembered by many. (This user was in HS – the event & its immediate aftermath is engraved on his memory.) -- Sca (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that people do view the Main Page as a singular entity makes me wonder why we don't consider having some type of Main Page coordinator role. Without factoring in how frequently or infrequently they actually occur, we've had a decent number of complaints over the years - from both editors and readers - about the semblance of systemic bias anytime we have two Final Fantasy entries on the main page at the same time. Having someone to at least look at the planned runs for that day and determine if a slight nudge here or there is needed might preempt that, and realistically would call for very little change being required.

Of course, no matter how many people complain, we will always get the WP:AINTBROKE counter-argument to the above role suggestion. So perhaps it's just untenable in this current editing environment. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a centralized page where, at a glance, the upcoming articles/topics planned to be covered by the different sections of the main page can be found for any given day. I don't mean for the next day or so but for at least two months ahead, which is the sort of time frame we deal with. Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I’d find that useful. I scan upcoming TFA, POTD, and sometimes FL. Having that displayed via a centralised page would be good. There’s a maximum of 13 days of DYK that you can get, but it’s fine to leave those components blank that don’t exist yet. DYKs run for 12 or 24 hours, as set by this page, and I would show both sets when it’s on the faster rotation. Looking up to 60 days ahead seems about right. Schwede66 16:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The task of populating such a page when POTD or TFA are scheduled is something that I suspect could be done via bot. Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the discussion earlier. I have WP:BOLDly replaced the POTD lead article with John F. Kennedy so we don't have two blurbs repeating the same facts. Unfortunately I didn't substitute the protected version correctly, so this needs to be re-created by an admin (for convenience, copy and paste the code at User:Ravenpuff/sandbox/POTD). By the way, a page does exist (sort of) for looking at Main Page content ahead: see WP:MPQ, which displays upcoming content for a week in advance but can easily be extended to other time spans. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page history

I like using Wikipedia:Main Page history, but it has not been written for a number of days now, look at Wikipedia:Main Page history/2023 November 20. The bot owner made only few edits, one saying that the bot can't do it in retrospect (which I sort of thought anyway). What can we do? Once I'm hear: could a bot perhaps change earlier renditions which look strange, due to changes in the presentation, compare Wikipedia:Main Page history/2018 November 23 (look at the "Recents") and Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 November 20? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It can be done manually fairly easily for the current main page, using special:ExpandTemplates with {{:Main Page}} in the input wikitext box, then copy-pasting the output into the relevant history page. I've done that for Wikipedia:Main Page history/2023 November 24, and happy to do it for a few days, until the bot starts running again. It is possible to do it retrospectively by rebuilding a copy of the main page in a sandbox, transcluding older templates (ITN needs to be done manually), but it is a time-consuming task. — Voice of Clam (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added an alert template to this page which should produce a warning with instructions, if the MPH page is not produced by 18:00 UTC. — Voice of Clam (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Portals on the main page, which is of interest to this page. Cremastra (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

which is within the scope of this WikiProject What do you mean? The Main Page is not a WikiProject. Can you clarify? RudolfRed (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I used the {{Wikiproject please see}} notice instead. I'll fix it right now. Cremastra (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Eustace Tilley DYK in 3 days plus 2 hours

I stumbled across what seems to be a non-WP:RS (here) that notes Eustace Tilley has been updated since May 22, 2017 in the masthead per a rendering by Christoph Niemann. I have been digging for an WP:RS for this fact. I am unable to, so I left it on the talk. If anyone can find an RS for this fact or convince me that the source I have is one, that would be great.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Michaelmaslin.com, I have updated the Tilley article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request to (hopefully) unbreak the video on the Main Page

On Line 129, please replace:

		display: table;

with:

		/* display: table; */

Reason: This CSS declaration is currently preventing people viewing the Main Page on a mobile device from playing the Steamboat Willie video (currently the POTD). See WP:ERRORS § Today's POTD.

I'm relatively confident that the only thing this change will affect is the 'play' button on the video player - that's the only element that document.querySelectorAll("#mp-tfp tr:first-child td:first-child a") returns in my browser's console, as far as I can see. In any event, hopefully this will only need to be an immediate-term fix. (And if it somehow breaks anything, it can always be reverted.)

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi a smart kitten, I implemented your suggested changed, and the error seems to be fixed. You may have to purge the Main Page caching with ?action=purge to see the update. Thank you! Maxim (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie - proposal for IAR main page listing at POTD on 1 Jan

Hi main page people

Just a heads up that there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Steamboat Willie regarding a proposed listing of the video Steamboat Willie on 1 Jan, to coincide with its inaugural day in the public domain. There are some procedural issues with this, but a realisation of the encyclopedic value and there seems to be a willingness to invoke IAR on this. Just seeking to get as many voices into the conversation as possible, so please do go and give your two cents worth if you are interested to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support It looks like there's going to be a tricky upload window, but honestly we should invoke the IAR (it's historic footage, and successfully posting it on the inaugural day of public domain would be a good look for Wikipedia). Worst case scenario, we post it on the 2nd. Bremps... 21:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• The video that has been posted has a 1929 (not 1928) copyright claim on it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Best I can tell every version on the web is MCMXXIX rather than MCMXXVIII and I can't find any references to a MCMXXVIII version. However unlike Plane Crazy there doesn't appear to have been a second version in quick succession.©Geni (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  The article says "Steamboat Willie premiered at Universal's Colony Theater in New York City on November 18, 1928" and a there is a reference to a November 1928 film publication that verifies that it was shown to the public that month. It used to be common for magazines to be released with a cover date a month or two after the magazine hit the news stands. Same thing here. Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Possible but there are a few reasons to think otherwise. The title card is gloved Mickey which is a slightly later art style (we don't see it until The Karnival Kid). Also the The Haunted House (1929 film) which was released December 1929 is MCMXXIX so stuff doesn't appear to have been post dated. Given all the early shorts have the same style of titlecard my standing suspicion is that there was some kind of re-release (we know there was with Plane Crazy) which is the point where the titlecards we currently see were added. This shouldn't impact the rest of the film.©Geni (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - Less of a short-term solution

Please replace lines 127-131 of Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css with the following:

	#mp-tfp tr:first-child td:first-child a.mw-file-description {
		text-align: center;
		display: table;
		margin: 0 auto;
	}

Reason: Earlier today, the display: table declaration was commented out, as this was preventing mobile viewers from playing the Steamboat Willie video. Looking at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow on a landscape-oriented mobile device, it appears that this CSS block was responsible for horizontally centering the image on the screen. I therefore propose reinstating the declaration, but changing the selector to be more specific - targeting a.mw-file-description rather than just a. (Image <a> tags generated by MediaWiki appear to have this class, while video <a> tags appear to instead have .mw-tmh-play.)

As with last time, if this breaks anything, the change can always be reverted (and/or the styles.css file restored to the version before today's change, provided the video is no longer on the Main Page at that point). The proposed changes are currently live in my sandbox (with my sandboxed TemplateStyles) with tomorrow's POTD.

This isn't a permanent solution, as it doesn't solve the fact that (when the POTD is a video) the video is also not centred on mobile landscape (at a glance, this appears to be something that could be fixed via span.mw-tmh-player, although I'd want to do more checks to be sure of that). However, it's intended to be less of a short-term fix than the change made earlier, while reinstating the image centering.

Pinging Maxim for information, as you responded to the last edit request (though don't feel obliged to also answer this one!). Also pinging Izno, as you've made a lot of the past changes to the Main Page's styles.

Let me know if there are any queries. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This area needs fixing anyway, so this change effectively restores the hack but slightly more selective to imagery rather than video, as mentioned above. Izno (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Today's main page balance

On a wide screen, the main page is perfectly balanced. On a narrow screen, it's totally out of kilter. On my phone, the ODT footer lines up with bottom of the fourth DYK hook, i.e. there are four more DYKs below that. Anyone got an idea what to do about it? Schwede66 08:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, is this using the Vector 2022 skin? My assumption is that we should always optimise for that rather than legacy Vector, because it's the reader default, even if many editors have switched back. And secondly, I'm not sure it's possible to optimise the main page desktop view for display on a phone - there are so many different screen widths out there and mobile browsers probably make different decisions about how to render the page in a very narrow form factor. On my phone, the bottom of OTD is currently lined up with the penultimate DYK hook, which is OK given that I don't particularly expect it to render accurately on the phone...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Vector 2022. Schwede66 14:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't help that ITN and OTD are rendered on mobile with a smaller font size than TFA and DYK. Not sure where that was decided? Stephen 09:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If we just went with a single column Main Page (like every other page), this would instantly cease to ever be a problem. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A certain monotony of links

I feel that certain articles get linked to far too often on the Main Page. Some examples; main articles on sports, US Presidents, and wars such as World Wars I and II. I think it might be better, where possible, to link to articles on subtopics such as History of the National Football League, Presidency of Richard Nixon, Western theater of the American Civil War, or Aftermath of World War II. I recall reading a long time ago that one of the purposes of the Main Page was to drive traffic to a variety of articles so that readers might be inclined to spot something that needed expansion or improvement, and to showcase less-well known articles. Any thoughts? Abductive (reasoning) 14:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of the theme areas that make up the main page have little scope to do any different. For example, DYK provides the links to new or improved content. ITN picks the items where editors form consensus that something is newsworthy. The one area that has a lot of scope for individual editors to make choices is OTD. You could consider joining the team. There is a list of ineligible articles for each day where some improvements would make them eligible. You could hunt around and add new articles to the list for each day. And then there’s the job of compiling each daily set. If that sounds interesting enough, have a chat with Amakuru, who does most of the OTD work. Schwede66 16:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear: I want to reduce WP:OVERLINKING to tired old topics that get linked to nearly every day. Abductive (reasoning) 20:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You did make yourself clear. Schwede66's first sentence specifically answered that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

According to MOS:OVERLINK, there should be not unthinking linking to:

• Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river, animation)
• Common occupations (e.g., accountant, politician, actor)
• The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of:
  • countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese)
  • geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America)
  • locations (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia)
  • languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish)
  • nationalities, ethnicities or descent (e.g., British, Japanese, Turkish, African American, Nigerian)
  • religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)

And yet this is seemingly encouraged on the Main Page, which inexperienced readers and editors then might take as an endorsement for overlinking elsewhere. Abductive (reasoning) 20:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that overlinking is really a big problem. When I look at the current homepage, the only link that could arguably be omitted is "Andes". Or are there more in your view? Schwede66 22:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing too much overlink on the current page either.

• Top banner, with Wikipedia, Free content, Encyclopedia, Help:Introduction to Wikipedia, Special:Statistics, and English language. English language is probably the most pointless there, followed closely by Encyclopedia, but they seem minor issues at best and maybe it's an exempt area.
• TFA: links to The Firebird, all other links are to specific people, specific companies, other plays, and Slavic folklore, nothing that seems everyday or generic. (Communication is generic perhaps, but it's the title of a previous TFA!)
• DYK: Of the non-bold links, Nazi Germany is potentially a location/country that doesn't need a link, aside from that, maybe Roman script (although people may not know what that is), St. Bernard (dog) (maybe some are unfamiliar), Obedience school (might be an everyday word situation), and List of Super Bowl champions (maybe also obvious from the words)? Nothing plainly obvious.
• ITN: Perhaps Darts is a generic sport, Islamic State not needed as a separate link to the bombing article, and assassination is perhaps another point where two separate links are not needed.
• OTD: Perhaps steamship, and Mississippi River, and New Orleans are not needed for understanding, but we'd have those in article wikitext. Same with Extratropical cyclone.
• TFP: All links are to specific places/people/institutions except Monument historique, which seems a very needed wikilink, and Keep, which is perhaps most will know but the link is not risking anything close to a sea of blue.

A few edge cases here and there, but I wouldn't say it deviates far from our overlink expectations. CMD (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Today there are links to Catholic Church, English language, and French language. The French language one could be piped to French language in Lebanon. Abductive (reasoning) 11:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve edited the links and they now point to English language in Lebanon and French language in Lebanon. Schwede66 15:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Those links should just be nixed. I don't see how linking to English language in Lebanon offers anything not already found by following the bold link to the actual article we're highlighting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Today's feature picture

Does not work... Template:POTD protected/2024-01-11 Might need a lower resolution version such as this [2]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• That version is... far... from being an accurate representation of the featured picture. I have uploaded a reduced resolution version of the featured image to File:KlimtDieJungfrau_reduced.jpg. Would it be possible to replace the current alternative? The one being used now is warped, includes elements of the frame, and is covered in part by the shadow of the frame.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It could be coded something like this, to link to the correct image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Tagging @Amakuru, as I see you are actively working on this.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: apologies, I logged off shortly after swapping the faulty image, given that it was already after 1am here... FYI I did swap the poor-quality image with borders for File:KlimtPanna.jpg before doing so, which seems to be a reasonable resolution version of the same. In fact, I'm not sure most FPs are of greater resolution than around 4k x 4k pixels as we see there, and there might be a case for assigning the FP tag instead to the lower resolution version. A 20k x 20k image or even your 10k x 10k version IMHO isn't of much use for most readers, especially if the file size is huge and it breaks things. But that's one for the FP community to determine by consensus I guess. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. The second alternative was a good choice, at least for the main page display. I'm not sure how I feel about setting a maximum size limit - when I downloaded the actual FP and saw the level of detail, I was absolutely amazed. I will tag the downsampled version for deletion on Commons, as it meets the speedy criteria and is not being used.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nix that. I've used a "link" parameter to have the downsampled version act as a thumbnail, with clicking on it going directly to the full-size image. I could have sworn that MediaWiki was able to generate thumbnails from images of this size, but I guess I was wrong.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Bradley Cooper TFA for March 11

A tentative TFA schedule for March 2024 has just been released, here. I have tentatively scheduled Bradley Cooper for its second TFA run for March 11, Oscar night. If this runs, it would be advisable to have draft language, perhaps even an alternate blurb[s], to change to in the event Cooper wins one or both of the Oscars he has been nominated for, for Maestro. I can certainly draft alternate blurbs but I wanted to sound the community out as to its thoughts, both as to the advisability of running that article on Oscar night, and on the implementation of what I propose. I don't think we've ever done anything quite like this before, and I wanted to brainstorm this. Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there any precedent to an article being run on TFA twice? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been happening regularly since a discussion in 2017, MSGJ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. The recent swap in of Steamboat Willie to the main page shows that we're capable of swapping in appropriate content at the right time. An alternate blurb would be good to have, and there would be no issues with the article being updated in time either. Stephen 22:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I fully support having two drafts sitting there and swapping in the appropriate one depending on external circumstances. Schwede66 04:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've prepared the blurb, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 11, 2024. To simplify matters, all that will be required is a change to the final sentence of the blurb and I've prepared drafts of each possible permutation, that can be changed as awards are presented, as hidden comments following the blurb. All keep the blurb within 1,025 characters which is our usual limit.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Invisible header?

I cannot see the header bar in the main page when i scroll down it (it's visible on other pages). I wrote some CSS to fix this but it covered the close button of the media viewer and i had to remove it. Is this the intended behavior or some kind of bug? RuzDD (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it time for a new design for the main page?

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, Wikipedians,

I believe it's time to consider updating the design of the main page. I'm not certain when the current style was implemented, but it seems to date back to 2006 or even earlier. Nowadays, there are numerous modern and colorful box templates available that could give the page a more contemporary look. What are your thoughts on starting this initiative? After all, the main page represents our entire community. I understand that changing a familiar style can be challenging for many users, but it's part of the natural cycle of updates.

Best regards, Riad Salih (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think these colorful boxes would be a good thing? Sounds hideous and childish to me. Not at all the sort of look for an encyclopedia.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Khajidha,

I haven't provided any details about their appearance, and we haven't discussed the style yet, so it's unclear how you determined that they might sound hideous and childish. I'm just starting the initiative, and it's worth noting that the existing boxes are also colorful too. Riad Salih (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This sort of discussion is best done at the Village Pump where you already started one. You can certainly provide a link here to there. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Because I find most modern, colorful web designs hideous and childish. That's why my personal Main Page looks like this. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

With the continuing battle between the ever dwindling number of editors and the fight between various shades of Wikipedia purity, the last thing we need is a battle of the Main Page. It'd make the "...on wheels!" battle look like a nursery rhyme. doktorb _words^deeds 12:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What's the on wheels battle? Zanahary (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the simplicity of it makes it easy to navigate. A bunch of colors would (at least for me) make it too difficult to focus on the text. It also depends on the colors, a partially transparent light blue would look great, but neon pink would be hideous. 𝔐𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔊𝔬𝔡27 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting adding a bunch of colors, but a quick redesign to give it a fresh look would be nice to see. The current design already uses a lot of colors! Riad Salih (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: My thought is that a more contemporary look (whatever that means) is not needed. Bazza (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend that you read Wikipedia:Main Page design as you will find that your concern regarding the Main Page's dated design is not a lonely one -- but as with all design aspects of Wikipedia, if it works, it works. And since we're not a commercial website subject to the whims and pressures of stockholders purchasing publicly-traded shares, it's highly unlikely there will be any substantive changes to the Main Page, let alone superficial purely cosmetic changes. Personally, I'd also argue that part of the natural cycle of updates is a thought-terminating cliche. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the trend-setter. There is no need for us to follow the trend of redesigning webpages all the time. Twenty-three years into our project, we define what people expect from an informational website - which is why so many other wikis specifically run on MediaWiki, explicitly to look more like Wikipedia itself. It is what our readers expect to see. Changing the style would mean us dictating what our readers should adapt to, not the other way round. If the "dated" look is really so bothersome, one could always go to Special:Preferences and switch to Timeless. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 07:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing the UI doesn't change the main page. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• 2 points First, as noted above, any serious discussion about changing the layout/design of the main page would need to be made at the Village Pump. Secondly, if it aint broke, don't fix it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Ad Orientem User did post at the village pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Is it time for a new design for the main page? ‍ Relativity 04:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Relativity Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we should be having this discussion in two different places. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If we redesign, I recommend the eswiki look. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2024 (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.

Order of Brothelyngham

This is the only article proposed so far (it's at it was at WP:TFAP) for April Fool's Day. From its Featured Article nomination page: "A bunch of men pretending to be actors? Check. A bunch of men actually indulging in "games, madness [and] obscene debauchery"? Check. Men beaten, goods stolen, a town terrorised? Check. A hapless bishop writing letters but achieving little else? Check. Welcome to 14th-century England". It's been less than a year since it was promoted to WP:FA, and it seems fine to me. Any objections? Other ideas? @Serial Number 54129. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sheila1988. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Weird side question: How does one pretend to be an actor? Acting is pretending. By pretending to be an actor, you are an actor. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Schroedinger's actors?  ;) to be fair, that's just my tic-tac speel to lure in the punters; it don't necessarily have to be accurate, just interesting  :) ——Serial 14:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Any objections? Only the usual bellyaching and moaning from me as to whether or not this is something we want our schoolchildren - you know, the ones who do nothing at school all day except stare at the Wikipedia Main Page and then report back to their outraged parents - to be seeing. But I think we should be okay given that there isn't any actual explicit imagery/content on the hook itself. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That is actually an amazing, entertaining, and informative article all at once. Any chance we could just use its FAC nom statement as the TFA blurb? AryKun (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The ITN box

Typographically, it would be reader-friendly to add a (thin?) line of blank space between Ongoing and Recent deaths, which tend to blend together to the roving eye. – Sca (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sca: I initially liked the idea until I looked at the main page, where the bold text which you have duplicated above is enough of a cue that these are two separate sections. So I think more furniture will be a distraction rather than an aid. Bazza (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Special period advertising sister projects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Special period advertising sister projects. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Addition of WikiFunctions to the heading "Wikipedia's sister projects"

Hey everyone , While I was scrolling through the main page, I noticed that the projects mentioned under Wikipedia's sister projects did not include WikiFunctions. WikiFunctions is owned by the WikiMedia Foundation and was officially launched in July 2023. I think WikiFunctions should definitely be included. Harvici (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Harvici, have a look at the item immediately above your comment. Schwede66 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but what item ? I can't understand perhaps you could leave a link. Thanks Harvici (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The talk page item titled "Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Special period advertising sister projects". Schwede66 22:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

See /Archive_207#Is_it_possible_to_add_Wikifunctions_at_main_page and the linked discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Missing item for March 21

Today's Mother's Day. Why is it not in On This Day? Even a Google Doodle is celebrating it. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at the "Dates around the world" section. Stephen 09:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

... in the article: Mother's Day#Dates around the world. There is no such section on the Main Page – I got confused, so here's clarification for other people like myself.

As for Google Doodle: judging by the map on the page of the Doodle "Mother's Day 2024 (Mar 21)", it has appeared only in some countries in North Africa and the Middle East —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit: It's been (10 March in 2024) and gone where I live. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia might not do it because the multiple mothers day if so then there would be one on the 10th, 21st and etc and would confuse people all over the world, easier if left. Infomanfromearth (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the mention of Aaron Bushnell quote in DYK of 27/3/2024

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.

---

Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy against the encouragement and glorification of suicide and self-harm? Vegan416 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. We do have a policy of WP:NOTCENSORED RudolfRed (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed

Yes, but we also have policies of WP:NOTANARCHY and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. The policy of WP:NOTCENSORED means that the true factual content of Wikipedia articles should not be censored. So it's perfectly right to mention this troubled and hateful guy's opinions and sayings in the article about his suicide. But It is an altogether different thing to put it in the DYK section in a way that looks like glorifying his action. Vegan416 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You significantly detract from your argument by calling the guy "hateful"; that's a rather loaded view. Schwede66 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66

1. I don't understand what you mean by "loaded view". The definition of hateful is "full of hate : MALICIOUS", and it is a fact that Bushnell was full of hate and malicious intent towards Israel and all Israelis. He said that Israel has no right to exist, that there are no innocent Israeli civilians, and he justified the October 7 massacre. See here, here and here.
2. At any rate even if you think this is a "loaded view", let me remind you that we are now talking on a TALK page. It is forbidden to express views in the "Wikipedia voice" in the main-space, inside articles or on the main page, but the TALK page is precisely the place to discuss views. There is no problem in expressing "loaded views" in a talk page.
3. In any case, what you and I think about the personality of Bushnell is completely irrelevant to my argument here, and was not part of it. I would argue exactly the same even if Bushnell was a saint, hating nobody and full of love for every living creature (as perhaps was Thích Quảng Đức). I just think that it is socially irresponsible to glorify any suicide, under any circumstance. And this is definitely not the job of Wikipedia to do that on the main page.

Vegan416 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view. Schwede66 08:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66

And what is your view on this question? You think that it is the job of Wikipedia to glorify suicide on the main page? Vegan416 (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have concerns about that hook. Schwede66 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Nah, our job is the same as it always is, to reflect reliable sources. The point of DYK is to highlight the recent contributions of editors. Remsense诉 14:09, 28 March 2024 (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.

April 10 OTD

I just want to say I appreciate that the April 10 OTD has a couple of "lighter" items (The Great Gatsby being published and Beatles breaking up). It's nice to see that it's not all doom and gloom. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jessintime. To some, the Beatles breaking up might have been the worst news of 1970. Appreciate your feedback, though. Schwede66 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Capitalisation: "Main Page" vs "Main page"

Hello. I haven't done an exhaustive search of the archives so I apologise if this has been asked before. I did find a question from 2004 suggesting that the "P" in "Main Page" should be decapitalised; although I support that suggestion, that is not what I wish to discuss here.

My issue is with the inconsistency of the capitalisation. Whereas in most places, including the page's title, it is referred to with the capital "P" ("Main Page"), the link on the sidebar has a lowercase "p" ("Main page").

Is there a reason for this difference? With my current knowledge of the situation, I would suggest decapitalising this title everywhere; or, at least, capitalising the title in the sidebar to maintain consistency.

Thank you for your consideration. – Alisperic (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

See also related discussion links at Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why is the Main Page in the main (article) namespace? —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your recommendation. I have had a closer look at all of these discussions but I have not been able to find a satisfying answer to the question I posed here about capitalisation and the sidebar. Alisperic (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

For previous attempt to capitalize the link in the sidebar, see MediaWiki talk:Mainpage-description. Page MediaWiki:Mainpage-description controls the text in the sidebar, as can be see from debug locale. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. Thanks for your help. Alisperic (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Where can I see previous versions of the front page for each day?

Hi all

Can someone tell me how to see previous versions of the front page for different days? Also can I suggest that that link is added at the top of this talk page somewhere since it's very unusual for the History tab for a Wikipedia page to not show previous versions of the page.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Previous versions of the front page can be found at Wikipedia:Main Page history.

It is linked at the top of this talk page in a navbox. Unfortunately, navboxes are not visible in mobile version. You can see how the navbox looks in a desktop skin. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's why I missed it :) John Cummings (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Featured

Any thoughts on renaming "From today's featured list" to "Today's featured list", as well as "From today's featured article" to "Today's featured article"? It would be much simpler and easier to understand what we're talking about. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you know that only summaries (blurbs) of the Featured List and Featured Article are on the Main Page? For example, today's Featured Article is Inaccessible Island rail, but the Main Page blurb is just this. The word "From" is intended to tell you it isn't the Featured Article, it's just a blurb FROM the Featured Article. Art LaPella (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's self-evident that blurbs aren't the full article. That's true for everything on the Main Page yet we only add 'from' in the two cases of TFA and TFL. We could drop those 'from's without any risk of confusion. Modest Genius ^talk 11:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought; better make the titles more concise by removing an extra word, also matching "Today's featured picture" Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That's the way it used to be until 2012, when a discussion and consensus updated the language to add the "From". The apprehension at the time appears to have been that readers wouldn't know that what was on the main page wasn't the full article and the From was a helpful clue in that direction. —⁠Collin^{t c} 02:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I demonstrated at that time, what's evident to editors isn't always evident to readers, although a bigger survey would be helpful. Art LaPella (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts on conducting a new RfC? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 10:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

An RfC seems like a waste of effort to me. Why should the consensus have changed in the meantime? My own opinion is that the "From" is helpful in clarifying that what follows is an edited extract whereas the extra 5 characters required are a trivial cost. JMCHutchinson (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see the use of the "from" now Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"Головна сторінка" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Головна сторінка has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 3 § Головна сторінка until a consensus is reached. Fork99 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

POTD

The second sentence says "window wearing a red cape." That is a dangling modifier. It should read "wife, (name), wearing a red cape, passing . . ." Wis2fan (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wis2fan, you need to post these reports at WP:ERRORS. Schwede66 04:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Voice of Clam (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Dark mode is coming!

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T365623

If you haven't seen the news, natively-supported dark mode is coming. I think if you want to try it without opting in etc. this is a link you can try (it worked for me in private mode of Firefox).

This means the main page needs some styles. Previously it was basically how any old page in the main space looks (e.g. Facebook: just a black background and borders). I took an hour or two to give it a color theme reminiscent of light mode with some use of this web theme maker (I got the "value" for the light mode colors in the spectrum, then flipped them relative to 1000) and then made a single tweak (the purple used for TFP). Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css has the colors (which are duplicated for the "OS" selection) if you want a readable summary.

Visited links are not necessarily accessible currently, but they aren't accessible on the current dark mode either (contrast of 3.5), so I don't think it's worth spending a ton of time on that.

If anyone thinks things aren't ideal (and I suspect they aren't), feel free to nudge things in the relevant style sheet with an admin request (who has to nudge them twice). Ignoring the link accessibility, I think right now the border for section headers on the blue side and TFP aren't great, and the TFP header background is too bright. Also, bullets aren't visible but that's going to be fixed in the next deployment. Izno (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the tools that's essential for my main page work is User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js (documentation) and it's important that with coloured backgrounds, this still works. Schwede66 00:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Not directly relevant to this section, but if you want to ensure that looks some reasonable way, you should discuss with Anomie. All the link colors are the default here. Izno (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Finally. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the literal SEAOFBLUE on the right side, maybe the colors need to be a bit muted (especially for the background)? Sohom (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to implement suggestions. I thought it was good enough. Izno (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Izno I've created a alternate colorscheme (it's effectively the same colors, but very very muted) at Template:TemplateStyles sandbox/Sohom Datta/styles.css, let me know if that works. Sohom (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The homepage updates look like they're coming along really well. It's great to see all those bright white outlines gone. If it would be helpful, I could help out with a design and send the spec to you for implementation. :-) JScherer-WMF (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful. Our current "featured list pink" is uh... iiiinteresting. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 02:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok! I'd love to help. I filed a ticket on the web backlog to continue the discussion about design specifics so as to not clutter this space. I'd love to hear more about folks' goals for a design—a design brief, essentially. Thanks! JScherer-WMF (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Picture of how the page should look

Per above. Please replace the contents of WP:Main Page/styles.css with Template:TemplateStyles sandbox/Sohom Datta/styles.css. Thanks. Sohom (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Did this a couple hours ago. Izno (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah shoot, looks like I did not WP:BYPASS :( Sohom (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Will this dark mode work in Monobook, or is it only for Vector? Modest Genius ^talk 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Only Vector and Minerva (the mobile skin). Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 14:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Only Vector22 right? Is is supposed to come to Vector legacy? Sohom (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Only Vector 2022. Izno (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Changing the 'Did you know...' section title

I have notice that in the did you know section all bullet points start with '...that', and I personally think that the 'that should be moved to the section title, making the title 'Did you know that...' and remove the 'that's from the bullet points, streamlining the page by a slight bit and making things a tad bit less redundant. Gantnitsa (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but first of all, four-letter abbreviations which lack the potential to double as easy-to-pronounce acronyms are awkward at best. There's also the issue of the need for consensus-building as to how to handle it in the uncommon-but-far-from-unheard-of cases in which "that" would be less than ideal to serve as the otherwise-initial word of a hook. Again, while admittedly uncommon, it hardly seems unlikely to an extent in which consensus-building would be best addressed on a case-by-case basis. This proposal seems like a creepy, albeit well-intentioned solution in search of a problem. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is something to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 23:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

See this discussion in August 2020, which produced some consensus against this very proposal. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

header broken in monobook

Resolved

 – Primary issue resolved, minor tweaks may be possible still. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T363597

2024-05-23 problems

Haven't been able to check this yet, possible WP:THURSDAY issue? In monobook, the page layout is broken now, see example - with the "welcome to wikipedia" being moved, a "," on a line by itself, bad font/size as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Izno: just in case you are working on this via Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the comma break by moving the comma in to the h1 element; not seeing that causing breaks on vector or vector22. The h1 styling here seem to be the primary problem now. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be styles associated with the mw-heading1 div around that h1.. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same issue - it looks very ugly. Thanks for looking into this! Modest Genius ^talk 11:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The gap between Welcome to Wikipedia and "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." is too big on Monobook. The line at the top cuts off the bottom of the P. I suggest you do "Welcome to" in smaller letters at the top and then just Wikipedia in large. "Welcome" looks a bit silly being that big.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Getting these reset may be enough:

body.page-Main_Page #mw-heading1
border-bottom: none;
margin-bottom: none;
font-size: 100%;

— xaosflux ^Talk 12:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... font size fix first, waiting for sync. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done font size fixed in MediaWiki:Monobook.css; margin/border to do. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... border/margin - waiting for sync. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done I'm not sure I love these CSS hacks though. Suggestions for improvement (here or upstream) are more than welcome. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifically I'm not liking that the parser is building the ID from the content and including "," in the element id now. (That is the one thing that will affect all skins). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Xaosflux Fixing this in Monobook.css was not appropriate (fixing it in WP:Main Page/styles.css is sufficient), nor was I believe moving the comma necessary. The relevant change is phab:T363597. It will be coming to the other skins Soon so we will need to fix it for all skins. Please remove the Monobook.css styles and revert your main page change so we can fix this correctly. Monobook being broken for a day or two is not a reason to... hack. Izno (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Izno looks like phab:T363597 is going to be 2 weeks out? Do you have a fix for /styles.css ready to go, in which case certainly we can pull this out of monobook.css. Also, do you know what the "breaking" change # is for reference? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not have such a change. I'm not going to work on it until you revert yourself. It's a pain to sort things out when you're starting from the wrong state. Izno (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

And no, it is definitely live in Monobook. Izno (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Izno OK, I've restored the broken version - we certainly shouldn't leave this broken for weeks though. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I will take care of it today. :) Izno (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Semantically, not sure about that comma - it is floating between the header and the end of a div that encompasses the header - certainly not a big deal other than the header handling breaking it there. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is fixed. Padding/margin between the top of the box and the welcome line looks off so that needs some investigation. I'll take a look later to see if that's just my imagination.

The comma is outside for the same reason you felt gross about it being on the inside earlier, except it matters for screen readers. IDK how the comma inside would even sound but it would probably be awkward. Izno (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I got here from T363597 – looks like this was resolved in this edit: [3]. Thanks for fixing it. Matma Rex talk 18:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Lets redesign the home page!

Recently, with the new GUI update, I reccomend we should update the Main page to suit this! Snipertron12 [|User|Talk|Cont|] 09:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Snipertron12 this was more of a bug rather than an update, see WP:VPT#Thursday 13 June style changes. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it's not clear which of the recent GUI updates you're talking about, see also Talk:Main Page/Archive 207#Dark mode is coming! – the previous discussion related to mw:Reading/Web/Accessibility for reading/Updates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

is it me or does the infobox now looks like the mobile version infobox of the website? Abo Yemen✉ 16:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen, if you're interested in details about these changes, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Thursday 13 June style changes. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Straw poll

Would most people be willing to entertain a weekly article for improvement on the main page? Several kinks must be worked out, but I think it would be a great idea (well duh, I'm the guy bringing it up...) Bremps... 03:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd be open to exploring that. Schwede66 04:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Some previous discussion here and here Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It's nice that there's been some precedent. Do you know if that ever panned out? Bremps... 06:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There was a "Today's Article for Improvement" section added to the main page for a few weeks in 2013. It didn't last long and was pulled in May 2013. The subsequent discussion is here. Stephen 07:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea, but it's possible that it would draw more vandalism to the chosen article and do more harm than good. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

We have long-established processes of dealing with vandalism, like WP:SEMI. Therefore, I don't think that this worry should stop us. And if it were a real concern, why would the same not also apply to the rest of the main page? Schwede66 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 01:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, but the distinction is we're explicitly (or nearly so) asking people to come help out. If we do that and they can't, that would look a bit silly. Remsense诉 09:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support in principle. But let's see the details. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think this could work out if we're clever; I'll offer the following points:

  • Maybe the pool should be restricted to Vital articles or some other deliberately collated set: articles should be prioritized that people are likely to feel are both important, and that they might already feel they can help with.
  • We should absolutely go out of our way to grease the wheels with the articles: perhaps a AFI coordinator who volunteers their particular attention to editors engaging with them? Definitely helpful and specific maintenance tags and banners, and maybe even a short write-up on each talk page providing concrete ideas for every level of improvement.
  • I actually think leaning towards thematically relevant articles would be huge for engagement. If we did this yesterday, we should've had John F. Kennedy up there.

  Remsense诉 10:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Another idea I perennially tinker with, though it's tangential, basically amounts to "organized gnoming drives"? We pick a few concrete but discretizable tasks for some set of articles: my favorite is Copyedit the lead of every Vital Level-2 article. I think it'll attract a different crowd than existing drives do because it's communal and we can have a fun progress bar that fills up for each task. Remsense诉 14:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think it would be a great idea. Encourages contribution because it appears on the main page, i.e. visibility! SWinxy (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Example If you wonder how this looked back in 2013, here's an example. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support in principle. I suppose the caveat is that we expect everything on the Main Page to be "presentable", so there would have to be a good vetting process to make sure that the articles were fine enough to put in front of non-Wikipedians while also weak enough to justify asking for help with them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, a direct link to an article without any comment on what is wrong with it is unlikely to help much (and seemed not to attract many edits in the examples given by Andrew). I am happy for us to have a flashing "Get involved!" section of the Main Page to attract people into editing (for example, we could make the Community Portal more prominent), but just a few links to articles in need of improvements will not do that. Random drive-by newbies usually "help" by overlinking, removing valid redlinks or by violating ENGVAR; if we want actual improvement from people who are not already Wikipedians, we need to do more than just say "hey, edit this article". If we want Wikipedians to help, perhaps the Main Page isn't the greatest place for this. —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment this went very badly in 2013, so what makes you think it would work now? How would it be organised, where would it go on the Main Page etc.? Why weekly? There's far too little information to make an informed !vote. Modest Genius ^talk 13:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Reviewing the discussion following the 2013 trial, there does not appear to be anything near a consensus that it "went very badly". People seem to have thought that it went well but needed adjustment. Here are some representative views from editors that are still active:

  • I would suggest that if it be reinstated, we have some blurbs about what those articles are about and what needs to be done with them – Daniel Case
  • Wouldn't it be better to try and improve this from where it is rather than starting over again? – Kvng
  • [...] many articles received noticeable increased contributions during the time they were listed on Main page. I agree with the notion of moving forward, and reinstating TAFI on Main page would be a great way of doing so. – Northamerica1000
  • I would like to see TAI return to the main page, but like others I did not find the way it was being presented to be very engaging. – Just Step Sideways

  In fact as far as I can tell, the only reason that TAFI didn't become a permanent feature was that one single admin blocked it. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I barely remember this, but I think it may have been yet another case where we decided to try something new without determining how we would evaluate whether it was actually working, so instead of data, we got opinions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  For better or worse, that's kind of what happens with English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, where it's hard to get editors to focus on one question at a time (such as the goal of a proposal) and supporters of a proposal almost always span a wide range of views on why they support the proposal. The articles for improvement section was removed by one of the admins involved with the initiative because there was a process problem in keeping the queue filled. It was never restored as the viewpoint that prevailed in the subsequent discussion was that for a main page section to be warranted, the section should be attracting new editors, instead of just having the same participants from the articles for improvement project being involved in making improvements. However the articles for improvement project continued, since the participants found it useful, whether or not there was a corresponding main page section. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support in principle, I've always supported this and I brought up shutting down AFI a couple years ago here in village pump because of its inactivity, and I don't think they've made any more progress up bringing it back since then. I think this would be a nice way to help bring back AFI. Lallint 00:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. That's one of the intended functions of the DYK section, though it's been a bit obscured by the incorporation of new GAs with the new articles and new expansions. Unless specifically protected, nothing linked from the Main Page is excluded from editing—I've made copyedit and clarificatory changes to TFA a couple of times, some of them are a bit dusty when they run—but the new articles at DYK are particularly an invitation to tweakage, intentionally so. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would go farther to say it is not really communicated at all to the average reader that they are encouraged to any special extent to help out with the articles listed at DYK. Remsense诉 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir For what it's worth, I had no idea that DYK mostly consisted of scrappy articles that needed additional editing until I became a better established 'pedian. Bremps... 11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've mentioned several times in the past that this needs to be made clearer. As I've said before, we could do this by adding a final blurb saying "...that the above facts were taken from new or improved Wikipedia articles?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I 've been as critical as anyone of the WMF's various projects that have been imposed on us, but newcomer tasks actually seems to work, I've seen newbies pop up on obscure articles within hours of them being tagged for various issues. I think this is a better tool than inviting the whole world to focus on one crappy article. Perhaps we should add links to that on the main page? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think putting newcomer tasks on the main page would risk splitting focus from the personal newcomer home pages. The WMF growth team has been investing effort into making them the starting point for newcomers, so I'd prefer to get more new users looking at their home page than the main page for suggestions on what to do. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  One distinction I'd make clear is: I don't think this only has to be something meant for new editors. I for one would be interested in a daily list of pages that I may find engaging to hop into collaborating with others on. Remsense诉 23:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone can opt into having a home page and thus have a list of suggested tasks shown. (Not everyone gets a mentor displayed on their home page due to a shortage of mentors). I just call it a newcomer home page to try to clarify that it's the one developed by the WMF growth team. isaacl (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but we usually don't. There's a special centrality to the Main Page. Remsense诉 02:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think many editors never visit the main page. If we're trying to build up new habits, personally I feel it's better to unify the initiative and encourage users of all tenures to use their home page. isaacl (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry to be a dinosaur, but... what the hell is a home page? – Joe (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Homepage. Described on enwiki and on mediawiki.org. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I think it is a very good idea to highlight that Wikipedia is a work in progress on our most visible page and the last time this was tried it seems to have worked quite well. Learning from that trial, we should probably a) focus on one article and b) include a blurb and/or explanation that gives newbies tasks that they can do. But as always the format can be refined as we go and doesn't need to be fixed here. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support the AFI feature was abruptly pulled over concerns that the WP:TAFI project would not reliably deliver content. I believe this is no longer a concern. Other concerns exist but can be addressed as we go. The featured content on the main page deserves to have something to help with editor engagement and collaboration as this is the lifeblood of the project. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support investigating this idea further per my musings above, in hopes of hitting on a design that could really improve the Main Page and better facilitate our project and community goals. Remsense诉 14:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support as I feel that this would be a great idea for engagement and show folks what pages that need improvement look like. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Don't see why not. Give it a go, see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Always wondered why we didn't have something like this on the main page. Everything is about articles that have already been improved. C F A 💬 00:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If any one wants a mockup, please see User:Bremps/This week's article for improvement. Input on design welcome! Bremps... 21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the problem. What you've presented is a block of article text, that looks a bit similar to a TFA. But it gives no clue as to what to do. It's an article for improvement, but what improvements does it need? As a new editor looking at this what can they do to help? If I know nothing about applied science then I'll just continue scrolling. Stephen 01:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I added a little box with tasks, to try and make it more clear what needs to be improved. Feel free to edit the page. Bremps... 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to get at before: if we want this to work, we have to really try something new design-wise. Remsense诉 01:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It should also link to the relevant policy and help pages.

How about:

Tasks: Cite unreferenced material (Learn more | Help!)

Cremastra (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the call to collaborate on improving specific articles should be placed on Wikipedia:Community portal, not MainPage, where the product of such collaborative efforts may be featured, perhaps with a slot on DYK (like recent GAs). --PFHLai (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  This would unfortunately seem to negate the core motivation for this exercise: the Main Page receives hundreds of millions of page views per month, while Wikipedia:Community portal receives tens of thousands. Remsense诉 21:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't think very many people, including experienced editors, visit the community portal very often. It's really quite useless. It only receives around 1500 views a day compared to the Main Page's 5-6 million. The point of this (I thought), was to get new editors or casual readers into editing (similar to what the Homepage does) because they might see an article that actually needs work on the front page; it's much harder to do that with only articles that are already in good shape. New editors are certainly not the type to visit the community portal: I didn't even know of its existence until earlier this year. C F A 💬 00:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose We should be putting our best work on the front page, not our worst. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Presumably there can be no form of protection on the article, as that would negate the point of the exercise. The inevitable result: in 9/10 cases, reverting the article back to a previous revision. Seems a waste of community time, but still WP:CRYSTALBALL, eh? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose you can reject the premise of the exercise, but 40–75% of newbie edits should probably be reverted: the point is largely to structuralize and centralize onboarding. Remsense诉 21:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Bremps' mockup features a link to a page with a three-word task mentioned. That is not structuralising and centralising onboarding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Remsense诉 02:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• I see the likelihood of lots of edit conflicts as everyone piles into editing that day's chosen article. That is a confusing and demoralising experience for a new editor. My suggestion would be to have a list of several articles to work on, and leave that list up for a few days or a week. Another issue is that at some stage all the highlighted jobs to do on an article may have been done and then the list of jobs will be out of date and confusing; so someone needs to be continuously curating this list. I am rather pessimistic how it will work out. JMCHutchinson (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not opposed to the idea, but I think there needs to be more work done on how it would look and be handled on the main page. I appreciate the intention, but I am not confident that the proposed mock-up would work out. That being said, I think that the main page is quite opaque to most readers (like "featured articles" not really being defined and it can come across more like random articles on the front page). I believe there is potential to this idea, but a lot more work will need to put into it first. Aoba47 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a nice idea, but functionally would not work well. Likely to involve significant number of edit conflicts, which would frustrate newer users and make actually crafting any serious content extremely difficult. The only way I would support this would be if the articles are randomized and each reader would see a different list each time the Main Page is loaded. Maybe compile a large list of articles from some clean-up category and write code to randomize. Would functions something like Special:Random. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Have you looked at the edit history of those articles that were featured on the main page in 2013? Or are you just making this problem up without any evidence? I find it hard to believe that we would manage to attract that much attention that edit conflicts would be common. Schwede66 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m a newbie but I think that sounds cool. I’d imagine it would be more interesting for people to edit than the random flagged articles in the little portal we have. It would also be in a place for more experienced Wikipedia’s to view that way any issue or mistake would be noticed, rather than hoping someone looks at an obscure article. ChocolateCharcuterieBoard (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Bug in the link to the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia

Currently the link to the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia that is in the "Wikipedia languages" section of the main page is bugged. It seems that for some reason, the area where you can click that actually takes you to the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia is far too small. I'm currently using a Chromebook and I am in desktop view if that info helps. Gaismagorm (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

actually, I decided to move this discussion to Template talk:Wikipedia languages since that is where the bug is occurring I believe. Also I forgot to mention this, but I have brought up this bug in the past, nothing was done however. Gaismagorm (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"メインページ" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect メインページ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § メインページ until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"首页" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 首页 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § 首页 until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4 Why did you list the redirect discussion notifications here? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a default Twinkle feature, but these redirects point at the Main Page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

A newish editor with no experience with WP:TFA (that I know of) decided to schedule all the November TFAs; see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2024. In the process, they signed another person's name to their own WP:TFAR request, and scheduled some articles that aren't Featured Articles. This is about the time when we usually do the November scheduling, so we need to get this fixed sooner rather than later. I think we've handled the occasional random drive-by scheduling with a speedy deletion per WP:G6 ("housekeeping") in the past. If we don't delete, then some incorrect info is displayed on at least one TFA-related page, and bots may get confused, and sometimes people who keep an eye on the blurbs get confused by the blurb history. But, for all I know, the rules on G6 have tightened up and we can't use G6 for this any more ... opinions would be appreciated. A few days from now, if there haven't been any objections, I'd appreciate it if an admin would delete every page from the November 2 TFA to the end of that month. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No trouble with using G6 as far as I'm concerned. Schwede66 18:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Dank, from experience, G6 is regularly used at FAC for malformed or outright 'wrong' nominations (indeed, most other projects, too), so dust down your tool kit and get to it! SerialNumber54129 18:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I've done it in the past and there were no WP:INVOLVED objections, but I just felt like being careful this time. If no one else does it, I'll do it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Dank, yes I guess better safe than sorry when it's more than just the occasional one. Btw, who was the editor in question? SerialNumber54129 20:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Dunkybrown. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll give it another couple of days (to see if there are objections or questions) before I delete these pages (but someone else may beat me to it). If there's any text that anyone would like to save from these blurbs, go ahead and save the text now somewhere in your own userspace. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

The list of Wikipedias in other languages at the bottom of the page is outdated, as the Slovak Wikipedia reached 250k articles in August (source). Could it be updated and moved to the 250k group in the list? Thanks. Matroxko (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The place to discuss changing the language lists is Template talk:Wikipedia languages. Art LaPella (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)