Talk:Main Page

Today is Sunday, June 1, 2025; it is now 22:14 (UTC)

See Wikipedia FAQ for general questions about Wikipedia; you can ask questions at the Village pump. See talk:Wikipedia category schemes for general discussion of the category scheme on Wikipedia's Main Page.

Subsections of the page have been moved into the MediaWiki namespace to make them editable:

See Main Page/Old for the old Main Page design.

Post a comment

Older talk

Some older talk has been archived to

The layout of the Main Page underwent a significant redesign, implemented on 23 Feb 2004. Talk archives 1-12 relate to the old design.

Talk about the layout and colour design of the Main Page
- talk:Main Page/Temp
- talk:Main Page/Temp2
- talk:Main Page/Temp3
- talk:Main Page/Temp5 (previously Temp4)
- talk:Main Page/Temp6

Rename HTML title

I think it's bad practice for this page to have the HTML title "Main Page - Wikipedia." It should instead be "Wikipedia - Main Page", "Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia" or simply "Wikipedia." Kent Wang 18:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Every other page on the wiki is like that ("Talk:Main Page - Wikipedia"). Is it better to keep it consistent? alerante 22:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand the importance of consistency, but I think in the case of the home page, the value of a prettier title outweighs. Kent Wang 08:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kent, Why? —Noldoaran (Talk) 04:32, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to phrase it is that when I'm looking at my Windows taskbar, I would not think that a browser window entitled "Main Page..." is my Wikipedia window. Kent Wang 08:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia - [article title]" then? I do see the advantages of a wiki-wide change. alerante 18:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think a site wide change would be bad...if you have multiple windows or tabs, tehy would all say "wikipedia". Just changing the main page woudl be good.--Mishac 21:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. +sj+ 23:02, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Agreed. Kent Wang 22:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Slovenian

Should the link to the Slovenian Wikipedia be labeled "Slovensko" in keeping with using the local name for the language? "Slovensko" is how it appears in other interwiki links (e.g. see Paul Dirac). --Minesweeper 13:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is that correct? I keep getting Slovenian and Slovakian mixed up, especially as "Czechoslovakia" was "Ceskoslovensko"! Judging from some of the "other language" links, "Slovenian" should be "Slovensko" while "Slovakian" should be "Slovenčina". I await correction! -- Arwel 13:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From 1993 here exist two states: Czech republic and Slovak Republic - called Slovensko. But language is called Sloven?ina.

Can be a link to Slovak Wikipedia added to english main page? -- Valasek 08:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) - Native Slovak speaker but not a liguist

Ivrit/Hebrew

The right English name for the language עברית is Hebrew, not Ivrit (which is how the name of the language sounds like in Hebrew) -- Max Timchenko

Agreed and implimented. →Raul654 18:12, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

On the same basis, however, we should therefore also change

Araby --> Arabic
Hangukeo --> Korean
Nihongo --> Japanese
Russkiy --> Russian
Srpski --> Serbian

Does anyone recall why transliterations of the local names were used originally? -- Arwel 20:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

N, but I agree. I think the accepted names are a much better idea than the transliterations. →Raul654 20:34, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

They should match the interwiki strings for starters. And the interwiki strings have to have that language's name for itself, not the local language's name for it. If I'm on the japanese wikipedia checking interwikis, the backlink to the english page has to say "english" and not be written as the japanese characters for english. Do I disagree with this change, as whatever the "right english name for hebrew" is irrelevant - it needs to be the right hebrew name for hebrew. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:35, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not altogether convinced of your logic, Finlay. We're talking about the "other languages" part of the Main Page, not the interwiki links. The languages in question already appear in their own language/alphabet/characters, and it's not proposed to change them, just the latin-alphabet equivalents... and since this is the English Wikipedia it's logical that the names should appear there in English. Arwel 21:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create an accurate and comprehensive free-content encyclopedia. We started in January 2001 and are currently working on 206513 articles in the English version

Can I suggest changing to:

Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create an accurate and comprehensive free-content encyclopedia. We started in January 2001 and we currently have 206513 articles in the English version

→Raul654 19:21, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would argue against this change, on the grounds that Wikipedia is an evolving resource, and the text "are currently working on" reflects this fact. It reflects the fact that no article is considered complete or final, and that every article has room for improvement. Also, many of the articles included in that count are stubs or sub-stubs; the revised langauge could be interpreted to suggest that the Wikipedia community views those articles as satisfactory. I would, however, be curious to hear Raul's justification for the proposed change. - Seth Ilys 21:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No special reason other than (IMHO) my version sounds better. →Raul654 21:45, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I too think it's better the way it is. The rough "well, we're working on it" pages far outnumber the number of ones where we could reasonably say "Yeah, we've got an article on that subject". -- Infrogmation 21:23, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another vote for the opposition. I like "are currently working on" because it suggests bustling activity on every article (wishful thinking, I know). --Michael Snow 18:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New page moved from User space not on newpages

Hm. I moved New Orleans Mardi Gras into the article space this morning, at about 13:50 UTC. I had created a rough draft of it in my user space at User:Infrogmation/New Orleans Mardi Gras back on the 14th. It appears on Special:Newpages not at all, at either time or title. Should it have? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 18:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All main pages seem ugly to me

See Wikipedia talk:Main Page. Optim 02:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plain vanilla main page

See Wikipedia:Plain vanilla main page. Optim 02:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Colosio

We've jumped the gun (sorry) on this one, to the tune of a month. The shooting was 23.Mar.1994. However, 23.Feb.1993 was the Billionaires' Banquet -- which is probably worth an article of its own (and ψ5 from my account to anyone who does). –Hajor 18:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like the new front page!

Congrats on the new-look main page - much more professional looking! dramatic 20:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good. I was afraid to be de-sysadmined when I brought it live! -- Kaihsu 20:13, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

In which case, I would have strongly defended your actions as "being bold" →Raul654 20:26, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Bravo all. Query: Any reason "A day in history" is not "Today in history"? jengod 20:28, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Mav thinks we might be unable to keep this reasonably up to date.—Eloquence

We can't do any worse than other encyclopedias. -- Kaihsu 20:34, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

I think mav has a point. I hate to say I told you so, but 2 days ago on the village pump I said this was gonig to be high maintence. →Raul654 20:35, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. You will see.—Eloquence

We have a lot of sysops, right? Some of all those can easily fix & update the mainpage at times they just feel like it. —Sverdrup (talk) 21:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The new colors totally suck!!! I like the old ones better.

The new colors are much betta, imho. jengod 20:37, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

New colors are much better! Perl 21:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. The division into a normal and a community main page is also a good step towards a more "professional" look. Thanks. DrZ 20:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't like it. Maybe I'm just too used to the old one, but somehow I can't say I'm too fond of the new one. PMC 21:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's a lot clearer. Much less busy. And with pictures. Ooooh. And spaces between lines. Aaaah. It might be good to have an in-depth front page, too. Good work overall, IMO. Mr. Jones 21:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Congrats on the new main page, it's looking fab! -- Graham :) 21:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree - it looks fantastic. Keeping it up to date might be a challenge, but I think it can be done. Ambivalenthysteria

Date Standard

[[23 February]] or February 23--obits has the former, the rest has the latter. What do we do? jengod 20:37, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why not just wikify the obituary dates, so that the users' preferences will make them all look the same? Arwel 21:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I see, although the dates in MediaWiki:Holidays are wikified, they're not formatted as dates are in ordinary articles. Something for the developers to look at! Arwel 21:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected MediaWiki Messages

I protected the 6 embedded {{msg:xxx}} tags of the new page design, assuming that not protecting them was an oversight. Maximus Rex 20:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I assume one rationale for moving it in the first place was to make these sections editable while reducing the risk of vandalism.—Eloquence 20:47, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think having the content in the mediawiki namespace will discourage casual vandals, so it might be ok to leave these unprotected. I think it's worth trying anyway, particularly while it's new and a lot of people are wanting to make edits. Angela . 22:05, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

In the news

I'd just like to say that I really like having full sentences for "In the news" - as it was before, it was like solving a mystery to figure out *why* something was in the news. →Raul654 20:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest rewording the request for comments slightly

Since this page will be seen by large numbers of complete newcomers, it might be better to say

Please let us know what you think about our new Main Page on its discussion page!

rather than the discussion page. Otherwise people might think the link goes to a general discussion page, and we'll get things posted here that should be on the Pump, at the Desk, or somewhere completely different. - IMSoP 21:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you, Kaihsu - IMSoP 21:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More info!

The new mainpage lacks these things:

A larger number of selected articles
More info in the first paragraph! State our goal right there! (as it was) (our aim is to create a comprehensive and free encyclopedia-ish)
More text, on all issues.

We could however skip the obituaries. I can't see why they are not news like the rest.

I confess that the I liked the old layout, but we'll see what I say in a 3 days when I've accustomated mystelf to the new MP. It looks fresh, at the least. —Sverdrup (talk) 21:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More links do not mean more information. This Main Page his fewer links, but much more context for the individual pages, which increases the incentive to actually follow the links. I have rarely ever followed a link from the old Main Page, to be honest. We may add more to the individual sections, but this should not be at the expense of the length of the summaries.—Eloquence 21:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we don't use the wiki in the same way. I hardly ever clicked the categorizing links formerly to the left (no critisim against their being in the new MP), but often followed links in Featured articles - New articles - in the news and Anniversiaries.

You have a point, on that we should be clear with what we wish to present, and keep the info volume of the MP low to keep usability at high - but I have a simple adjustment I'd like to be done: why not move anniversiaries to the right, and make the left section be 3-4 items like the current featured article and did you know. That'd look good to me, also if the almanac-like info we want to keep in the main page is slightly shrunk in text size.

Note: the split of 'cyclopedia and community main page is a great move, a Win-win.

—Sverdrup (talk) 22:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since January 2001 we have been working on 212954 articles in the English version. -- This is not true. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Argh, your right. I don't see how anyone could have missed that. This needs to be fixed immediately!!! Perl 21:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We've started in January 2001 -- this is bad grammar. Perhaps we need more sysops? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I nominate Lir! Perl 21:55, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One of your existing admins just fixed the grammar problem. :-) Hopefully that's fast enough for you, Lir. Jwrosenzweig 21:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In reality, this should probably just be changed to a msg. Perl 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New layout

It's nice that the new layout has more details, but it seems a little too slick - makes it look kind of corporate, if you know what I mean. The old way looked more "folksy" somehow.

Is "We've started in January 2001" correct grammar? Doesn't sound right.

Tualha 21:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I most definitely like this new layout, it doesn't seem "corporate" to me, but just "modern" and oriented a little more towards quick facts. But I think there need to be more of the old links to policy pages, FAQ pages, and those kinds of things. Those seem to be missing from the current version. -- Dan Carlson 22:00, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Main Page?—Eloquence

Reworking intro paragraph

Welcome to Wikipedia, a multilingual, free-content encyclopedia being written collaboratively by thousands of Internet users since January 2001. We're currently working on xxxxxx articles in the English version, and you can help, too. Visit the Community Main Page to find out how.

Comments? I think something more like that would be much more welcoming, a deficiency of the current text, IMHO. -- Seth Ilys 21:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

January 2001 is kind of a sacred date - I'd like to keep it in there. Also one of the first questions many journalists ask.—Eloquence

Makes sense. -- Seth Ilys 22:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that keeping the date in is a good idea. Angela . 22:05, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)~

I like it. -- James Anatidae @965, 23 Feb, 2004

Just want to say the new layout looks more modern and much nicer than the previous cluttering one. Particularly pictures are eye-catching. It's very good. -- Taku 22:15, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Seductive layout...

It works like the glossy paper wrapper on a book. It's much more accessible to a first-time user. Wetman 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Kent Wang 22:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I really like the new layout. Nice work! Tannin

Question

I wanted to change the gutenberg bible image to the one I uploaded and put into the article yesterday (it's a lot better than the current one), but the messages used on the main page don't show up on Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages. Where do I go to change them? →Raul654 22:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind - they aren't linked from the custom messages page, but I guessed the URL(s). →Raul654 22:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Table Borders

I've noticed the large table cells containting "Featured Articles" and "In The News" look different in Mozilla Firefox (0.8 Windows) and IE6. They have black borders in Firefox and light gray borders in IE. You can make them look the same by adding "border:lightgray" to the style attributes of these two TD elements. New look is great, by the way. User:Farmerchris 22:41, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

This applies to the two large cells at the bottom of the page too ("Browse Wikipedia by topic" and "Wikipedia in other languages"). Farmerchris 22:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maintenance needs

The new design looks great! In following its development as a test page, I didn't think it was ready yet, but I've definitely reconsidered. I like the commitment to Today in history. We also need to do more to keep our news section up-to-date, with heavier turnover than we had under the old design. All this means we need quite a few sysops working on it regularly. The design change has generated some enthusiasm, now we need sustained interest. --Michael Snow 23:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

At least for now, you don't need to be a sysop to edit the various components at the page (see links at the top of this page).—Eloquence 23:13, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I would like a link to the Wikipedia:Announcements page. Modster 23:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would like it to always be editable by non sysops. (i'm not a sysop) Perl 23:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I second. I'm not interested in being a sysop, but I think that, with the sections as mediawiki messages, they're sufficiently protected from vandalism and straightforward in their layout that there's no need to restrict them. - Seth Ilys 23:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, there's no link to edit the Obituaries section! --Michael Snow 00:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very Good

I like the new main page a lot. It looks better, it's more categorized, and easier to access for first time users. The pictures of the featured articles, news, etc makes it much more professional. It does not have some of the categories the old one does eg: Welcome, newcomers however I don't mind. The only thing I think would be nice is have an old version main page at least temporarily until people get used to the new one. ZackDude 23:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like it, but i'm still divided on it.

--Saint-Paddy 23:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The welcome newcomers type of stuff is on the new community main page (Wikipedia:Main Page). I believe an old version of the main page is at Main Page/Old. Gentgeen

Did You Know...

That it wasn't Eqbal Ahmad's brother Daniel at all, it was Philip Berrigan's brother. Please read the article more carefully before putting that on the main page! I'm a sysop and I'd change it but I don't know how, it uses a message for that now and I have no idea how to change those. Sarge Baldy 23:44, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

In general, just edit [[MediaWiki:messagename]]. In this case, the actual links are at the top of this talk page. Dori | Talk 23:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed the section doesn't refresh until the main page is updated again, that seems kind of bothersome. Sarge Baldy 23:56, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Much better

I'm very happy overall with the new front page. Although total information content has dropped (with the movement of many things to the Community Main Page), it really grabs your attention with the photographs and immediately relevent facts.

If I had to note a disadvantage, it would be that this page encourages reading above writing of articles; this may not even be a disadvantage.

Derrick Coetzee 00:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's Great!

Simply put: nice job guys.

Spectacular!

I really enjoy the look, though I'd shave a bit off the top (ie, move the Welcome to Wiki to a sidebar) and reduce the size of the topic boxes just a bit if I could get four boxes showing instead of just two (on my 17" monitor). Keep working on it! Denni 00:41, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

Beautiful

The main page is lovely. The pictures are especially nice although maybe a little bit much. However, I have a question about the Did you know... section - what exactly is it's purpose, and what kinds of articles go there? How is it different from the Featured article? -Alex S 01:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's the new incarnation of "new pages", but the name is obviously confusing. Unless someone objects, I'm going to change it shortly. →Raul654 01:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Propose an alternative heading, then I can tell you if I have objections.—Eloquence

Just to throw out a few ideas:

"Featured new article"
"New article du jour"
"New article spotlight" Voting: Jengod
"New article"
"Did you know..." Voting: Kingturtle, Perl

→Raul654 02:07, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I like none of these. I find "Did you know" generally more appealing.—Eloquence

Creates a much better first impression. Looks more professional and modern. Well done guys. Splitting the community from encyclopedia elements is retrospectively a rather sensible move. ChrisG 01:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Disasterous

Cluttered with excessive information, the layout stretches far too low. No one wants to scroll that much. In short, it's a complete disaster. I would reccomend immediate reversion to the former format until a better idea surfaces. And by 'better idea' I mean just about any idea in the entire world. 172.171.61.76 01:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually the old page was cluttered with excessive information. Much material has been removed for this version. I suspect you are browsing at a very low resolution, may I ask which?—Eloquence

vertical space preservation ideas

In order to allow more information density on the new page, I suggest putting the "More ..." links on the same line as the section captions. Right now there is plenty of vacant space to the right of the caption. Let the fonts stay as they are, just move the links like "More featured articles..." upwards. Bevo 02:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think having a little whitespace is a good idea. We need to stop trying to push too much information into the Main Page. This makes it hard to read and causes fewer people to actually follow the links.—Eloquence