Comment in this section on the contents of the main page.

Content with it exactly the way it is

Satisfied in general, but willing to consider some minor changes of content

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Basically... although, I'm leaning more towards "in need of a comprehensive review" than "content with it". — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Satisfied in general, but consider some changes of content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Good enough for now Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Within reason its good enough, maybe some of the stuff at the bottom could be trimmed, but for now the content at the top should stay. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Content is reasonable. GAs on the main page would be nice from time to time, if nothing else but to motivate/reward the editors of the GA process. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 08:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. The reason the main page has remained largely unchanged is that every time we try to discuss a radical visual change, it is derailed by an insistence on simultaneously discussing content. The concept is perfectly sound, and what we need is an aesthetic overhaul. Some sections are problematic in particular DYK (by problematic, I'm talking about quality control; the purpose itself is entirely sound), but those are separate issues IMO. —WFC— 15:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The only problem with discussing a purely aesthetic overhaul is you're gonna have a dozen or so hotshot web designers, each with their own ideas of how things should look, fighting with each other to get an opportunity to showcase their own design on one of the top traffic'd pages on the web. That may sound kind of harsh because we're supposed to assume they have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, but I just think we should also consider giving the job to the Foundation, for them maybe to hire some outside company, the way they did with the Vector skin (which turned out alright I should add). -- œ^™ 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. I came to this RfC following a link on WP:CENT, and I can't tell what problem it is trying to solve. (If it ain't broken, etc.) “[It] dates from 2006”, by itself, it's hardly a reason to do away with it. I'm not saying that the current layout and contents of the main page are the best possible, only that I'm no fan of change for the sake of change. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 17:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Fine for now, in terms of major sections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)
10. Has served us well so far.  Sandstein  06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. There's no problem to solve here. It's efficient, stable, and people are used to it. -- œ^™ 08:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. We haven't received any criticism from the media about the Main Page, its factuality etc. etc. so why fix what isn't broken? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:49am • 01:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. There's room for improvement but overall it works pretty well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Per Marek etc. Changes should be slow and cautious. Johnbod (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. One or two of the sections could be improved or replaced, but it mostly gets the job done. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Not exactly broken. ... (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. The current format seems fine. Warden (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel it is in need of a comprehensive review of all contents

1. We know what we are, but without a clear idea as to who are our readers and what hey want, it is difficult to say whether it is working "as desired" or not. Therefore a comprehensive review would appear to be the best way forward. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Entire sections currently on the page need to be scraped, in my opinion. Finding things to replace the scrapped sections is a natural extension of that. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Basically, I voted for a lot of what's already on the main page to stay on the main page, but with some changes. hare j 07:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Needs a radical overhaul. AD 10:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Needs a radical overhaul. Please see my comment under "Discussion" below. Tony (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Is there anything wrong with a little discussion after five years? Hot Stop (t) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. There's just way too much! The main page should be a jumping point to deeper within the site, not an end in itself. Text should be a fraction of the amount it is now. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. It's bloated. It's yahoo, not google, and I quit using yahoo in years ago. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree with Peregrine Fisher. It's too busy. We don't know enough about the reader needs. Lightmouse (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Rd232 ^talk 20:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Jeandré, 2011-07-19t10:56z
12. Sure, let's talk about it Jebus989^✰ 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Our main page design should be completely rethinked—it's quite cluttered, and TFP cannot be seen without scrolling. —mc10 (t/c) 15:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Even though not in immediate need, it surely could use some redesign. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied in general, but major changes in content needed

1. Scrap DYK; replace it with featured content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. agree with Sandy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. While nicely laid out and appealing to look at, the main page seems busy; in general I prefer a leaner look (like Google). The news I don't really need; I can get that elsewhere. Likewise, sections like DYK and OTD seem fluffy. Both of those could be replaced by icons to dedicated pages. For the most part I could live with just the Featured Article, the Featured Picture and the links to related projects. Likewise, the nine portal links at the top could be replaced by a singly, graphically-appealing icon/link to a more developed and visually stimulating topic/catalog tree. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with a couple others, remove DYK and replace it with more mature content. RxS (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mostly good, many changes could be positive. – Quadell ^(talk) 10:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• It's hard to dissociate content from layout, since taking advantage of widely available web-design to modernise the layout of the main page will have a bearing on what content can be highlighted. The good news is that less can be much more; in other words, less text crammed into the page, and possibly mostly displayed via mouse-over, could mean a whole lot more forums can be accommodated via single clicks. This is commonplace in the design of home pages. Tony (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the main page should be for the readers, not the editors. Why not get visitors to the main page to decide what they want to see, or is that too radical an idea? Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• http://www.wikipedia.org/ is the real main page of Wikipedia. Go overhaul that, leave this one alone. -- œ^™ 08:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So what? The one we're discussing is the main page of the English Wikipedia, though. A discussion about that other one doesn't even belong here, but on meta or somewhere. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I just feel that this whole discussion is unnecessary. I don't believe the main page can be any 'better' than it already is, all it can be is redesigned and stuff moved around and repositioned because some people feel 'bored' with the current look, since it's been in place since 2006. That's not a good enough reason for me. If I can be proven wrong and it can somehow be better and not just shuffled around then that's great and I'll be surprised, but I'm happy with the way it is. If we want to improve upon it first we need to figure out what the problem is, otherwise what does 'better' mean? Is it not doing it's job? Is it ugly? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and its been its job just fine since 2006, what else does it need to be? There's no problem here to solve. -- œ^™ 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many items on main page

1. There are too many. Instead of having a ton to read, I'd like it to point me in a few directions that might be good for me. Right now it's like reading a book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Far too busy. Just look at good websites, they are well organised but have a fraction of the words and links. Lightmouse (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Definitely too much content on the main page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of items on main page about right

1. Looking at foreign language wikipedias, I don't see any issue with the number of items we have, nor would an extra section be unworkable in future. For those reasons I'm borderline between this and too few. —WFC— 18:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Number of major sections is fine and might increase. Think we are way too busy with sidebar text, too many hooks in the multihook areas, and way too much text in the TFA (in single 1200, columned, para...grr!)
3. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:49am • 01:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. At least as far as the aesthetics of the layout are concerned, not a problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. It does look rather busy already, but there's a lot to summarize here. Johnbod (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. The featured picture unfortunately falls below the fold, otherwise it's about right. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. I think that the volume of content at the moment is about right. It might be worth considering changes to layout or to the specific content put within that layout, but I'd oppose a large increase (or large reduction) of how much stuff is put on the front page. bobrayner (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. It's fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 10:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Number of items feels fine. —mc10 (t/c) 15:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Not generally too much, just a lot of boring stuff that should be replaced with better items. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too few items on main page

Satisfied with layout and design exactly the way it is[edit]

Satisfied in general, but willing to consider some minor changes of design[edit]

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Again, leaning more toward "comprehensive review" than "satisfied". — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Good enough, although some minor changes would be okay Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. What I said above. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Why mess with a winning formula. -- œ^™ 08:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:50am • 01:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. We should be cautious about major changes. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Could use an update in visual design, much like the recent new MediaWiki skin. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Not exactly broken. ... (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. No big design issues AFAICS (though I admit I'm certainly not the design guy). --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel it is in need of a comprehensive review[edit]

1. If we change anything, it needs to be reviewed. If images outside of FP are made larger, the two column setup needs examining. If sections are swapped out, left-right or even top-down size and visual balance issues come into play. For main page changes to be successful, there must be no sacred cows. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Definitely. There aren't enough pictures for starters. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I was the first one to bring up that we need to reconsider our text-to-image ratio. (At least recently, anyway. Not that I'm claiming a monopoly on the idea.) hare j 07:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'd like to stress quality over quantity and make a more streamline appearance by removing article stats, portals, amending "Welcome to Wikipedia" section into one line and by condensing the "Other areas of Wikipedia"/"Wikipedia's sister projects"/"Wikipedia languages" sections on the layout. I'm open to more ambiguous ideas, like amending the background, adding more colours, increasing image size or adding more images et cetera to change the look and feel of the main page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Needs a radical overhaul. AD 10:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Breaks so many basic design principles it's disrespectful — Pretzels ^Hii! 14:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Needs a radical overhaul. Please see my comments under "Discussion" below. Tony (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Layout is in more need of a change than the content. Hot Stop (t) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yes, the layout us outdated, bland; the content is fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree word for word with Fetchcomms. The reason the Main Page has remained largely unchanged since 2006 is that even now it does its job. It just looks mediocre. —WFC— 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Yep. Rip it up. We are in Rumseldian unknown-unknown world. I don't know the exact best way, but I know we don't know it either. And is fundamental. Down with Pangloss.TCO (reviews needed) 20:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Needs a fresh look; at the moment it feels tired. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Big changes are needed. Can we implement them?- Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Too many 'calls to action'. Lightmouse (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Review, definitely. Our design is getting outdated. —mc10 (t/c) 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Needs some review. Right now the main page is comprised of competing fiefdoms representing different content areas and philosophies. We need some unification on the main page. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The main page has become a contest of directly opposed forces that end up serving no one well and making the product look grey and distinctly old-fashioned. The clash of these forces creates an impossible situation:

1. Everyone wants their piece of what is very limited real-estate, and the presence of only a few forums is possible and has come to be defined by their claims to a quantity of static, fixed text.
2. The total area is too large—and Google labs' research has found that website visitors often don't scroll down or across much (try pasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page into the box; although the mobile version of the main page will skew this better, it's food for thought).
3. The page is crammed with fixed, static text.
4. Image use is seriously underwhelming—one inescapable corollary of the double-column 55/45% split is that images have to be tiny, with little impact and sometimes little comprehensibility.
5. Many high-quality aspects of the project are underplayed or not represented at all.
6. There's low-value clutter, particularly towards the bottom and in a number of linked sections at the top.

I strongly favour a mouse-over image-based layout in which an in-browser (as opposed to second-window) pop-up of the image floats out with accompanying judiciously short and clickable text. This would need to be professionally designed to a brief determined by the community and the final product approved by consensus. The community might also consider that more centralised coordination of images and other content would benefit a professional product. This RfC may be the start of developing such a brief. Let's not be complacent: if we're to remain the world's fifth- or sixth-most popular site, the home page needs to be designed with panache—you know: confidence, self-assurance, style, flair, and zing. And I mean panache that would gain international news coverage when launched. Tony (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to note the Google Browser Size diagram doesn't show regions of the page viewed overall (eg including user scrolling), only what is "above the fold" - visible at once in the window on pageload. I don't think slidey mouseover animations or similar would suit the general feel of Wikipedia and are likely to scare a lot of editors off this idea completely! — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Of note I've made some suggestions on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I try to be open-minded about things, but I have to admit that my first reaction to reading your idea here Tony is something along the lines of "hell no!". Pretzels hits on the high points of criticism, I think. I'm generally satisfied with our "look and feel", so I think things like animations and mouseovers are generally unwanted (certainly by me, and I believe that most others feel the same). Most reviews complement Wikipedia for not trying to be flashy, and I think that's a well founded complement of our design. Anyway, I'll see what Eraserhead has said on the talk page and go from there.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• People come to the Main Page looking for information, and lots of choices of places to learn more – "What is interesting and what is new?" Very few are thinking: "I want to read an ad for an encyclopedia article on a totally random topic, selected for me solely on the basis that it is well copy-edited." I'd like to see a three-column setup tested with the three columns "above the fold" being DYK, ITN, and OTD. Put FA and FP below the fold and rotate other Featured Content types in the third slot. Sharktopus ^talk 02:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weird mouse over stuff isn't the way to go. But, we should combine modern web design knowledge with the fact that wiki does't have a bunch of flashy ads. Simple, but functional. Right now we have 7 pages of simple stacked on top of each other. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Just keep accessibility in mind. Don't get too carried away with flashy stuff. Remember the KISS principle. -- œ^™ 08:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I can live with show/hide buttons and scrolling bars, but any more interactivity would make me miss the current state of WP being one of the few websites left (along with Google) which still remember the KISS principle. (Also, some browsers limit the content of tooltips to a few dozen characters.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the calls for accessibility and simplicity. Keep it simple, do it well. Think of this use case: "Bob and Jane are in a foreign country and want to check Wikipedia on their 3G phone." Lightmouse (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone on a 3G phone is likely to get the dire phone design skin which is a different problem entirely. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out. "Bob and Jane tried Wikipedia mobile but it didn't provide what they need so like many other small-device users, they use the main WP site" Lightmouse (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, we should sort out the shower of shit that is the mobile version, rather attack sections which are in no way responsible for said shower of shit. —WFC— 22:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate mouseovers. Mouseovers require you to use a mouse, which means that it requires you to be the lucky kind of person whose joints don't scream if you use a mouse a lot. Also, I have Javascript turned off by default on one computer, although I've re-enabled it for Wikipedia. I hate script-y websites: the eye candy isn't worth the slowness, clunkiness, increased incidence of failure, and reduced functionality. I suspect that there are a lot of casual readers—especially people on the other side of the digital divide—with scripts turned off who haven't had any reason to re-enable it for Wikipedia. It would be good to keep us "luddite" readers in mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mouseovers require you to use a mouse" - no they don't (I use a trackball). More seriously, I support exploring possibilities for good use of scripts, but anything in that direction would have to make sure it degrades well for people without scripts (eg to be no worse than what we have now). Most script-heavy websites can't be bothered to do this and basically throw up their hands and say "you ought to enable scripts" - that's not an option for us. Rd232 ^talk 09:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with everything Tony says up to the end of the bullet points. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note this refers to how it looks before any potential pop-outs or other features are discussed or viewed:

Needs to be simpler

1. Definitely, its currently far too cluttered. A 5% click-through rate (as discussed on talk I think?) is rubbish. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. 5% clickthrough (if true) is pretty terrible. IMO one look at the main page shows that we don't have clear priorities. Figure out what we want a reader to see first and get them there. Everything else can be put someplace else. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can remain at similar level of complexity and detail in number of elements

1. Just the right amount of elements in a nice neat package, and accessible to all. This already is the way an encyclopedia front page should look and feel. -- œ^™ 09:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The number of major elements is fine, but we need to get rid of some extraneous detail that doesn't add much and is easily lost in the crowd. hare j 02:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. The four-quadrant layout for the above-the-fold material is great and should be kept. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. It is an encyclopedia's front page after all. ... (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. It seems fine as our front page. —mc10 (t/c) 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Never had any problems with it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity and detail can be increased

Discussion[edit]

This section appears dead. What is its purpose and who added it and when? Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it, late in the peace - just answer the damn questions Carch ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. Obviously the first priority Hot Stop (t) 15:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. We want to wow people with the best stuff Wikipedia has to offer. hare j 18:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. yes. first impressions are important. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yeah. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Obvious. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Secondary purpose.  Sandstein  07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Duh! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:54am • 01:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. "Showcase" needn't mean "present in great detail" though (a point primarily an issue for expanding featured content showcasing beyond articles and images). Rd232 ^talk 20:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yes, and in a couple sections it's failing this big time. RxS (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. What Sandstein said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Yup. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Absolutely. ... (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Yes. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Definitely. —mc10 (t/c) 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Forget that. It should be a starting point for learning about what the reader wants to know. I guess that's my point, reader first, FA writer second (even though I am an FA writer). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. It may be a shop window for a selection of good content. But think of any other website:
   • you expect to find out it is (not everybody knows)
   • you are exposed to the brand
   • you expect to see how to navigate to all the sections (not just content)
   • you expect contact details for press/HQ etc. Lightmouse (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Of all the aims mentioned in this RfC, I think this is the lowest priority. I'm not opposed to some use of the Main Page as a carrot to reward editors (with increased visibility) for producing top-notch work, but I think this is less important than other uses of the Main Page. cmadler (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Does a print encyclopaedia place it's best articles on the first page? No, they're all designed to aid the reader find exactly what there looking for as efficiently as possible, not giving a pat on the back to their best writers. Wholly agree with PF Jebus989^✰ 09:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree with PF, generally. The front page should serve the reader first and editors second. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agreed with PF. Also, three of the four sections above the fold - ITN, DYK and OTD - are not necessarily reflective of our best work. They are reflective of what is topical, whether it be externally (recent news, date anniversaries) or internally (recently created or updated articles). If this were the true aim of the main page, it would require a radical redesign. Resolute 04:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Even though I appreciate the work behind our featured articles, I want to be frank and say that I have never read any of them. As Sandstein pointed out, this should be the secondary purpose of the main page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The primary purpose of the front page should be to explain the overall nature of the site and to provide a variety of navigational cues so that the reader knows what to do next and is encouraged to go deeper. Warden (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Is anyone likely to oppose this? Getting people to support this option misses the point. It is not whether the page should be doing this (among other things), but how. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They might. The main page could be reworked as a portal, without highlighing particular articles. After all, most people come to Wikipedia to look up a particular topic, rather than just looking at the first thing that's there. AD 23:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed before I read this comment. I think we almost need to think about and have a crazy paradigm shift where the reader comes first. It's only even mentioned halfway down this survey, so we won't even know if people really care about the reader or not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose this the place to mention that I have become seriously concerned that both DYK and TFA, and possibly other Main Page elements, have negative distorting effects on the project in the way they encourage the diversion of the efforts of what are often our best and most active editors into articles that have small and discrete subjects, especially those that are biographies and articles on things - whether ships, works of art or species. While the breadth of our coverage of such things is one of the glories of WP, our glaring weakness in most areas is our coverage of articles on broader topics, which is traditionally what most encyclopedias concentrate on. It is now clear that such articles are failing to improve anything like fast enough, and when you look at where editor effort goes one reason is clear. More on this in a talk I gave to the UK chapter conference. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, having lots of Vital articles of C class and lower is disappointing, but removing all featured content from the Main Page altogether would be too drastic a measure IMO. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 14:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't proposing that, indeed I don't have a clear idea how to solve the problem. But it is a problem. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. I think this would be a massive improvement. Not in the form of DYK, but a clear intro and link to Help:Getting started. It's difficult to imagine as editors, but put yourself in the mindset of someone who has never contributed to Wikipedia before but is curious... where do you go from the Main page? The current access for this information is the small "anyone can edit" link in the slogan, or About Wikipedia > Getting started hatnote in the left sidebar. Not good enough IMO. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Somehow yes, there has to be some pathway concerning this on the mainpage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with Pretzels Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I completely agree. One of the reasons I think Wikipedia is not getting so much closer to perfection in the last coupla years is that the community has not grown as fast as the encyclopaedia. In May 2011 the number of Wikipedians with at least 5 edits in the month was 1/100th of the number of the articles, whereas in May 2006 it was 1/33rd. Hence, Linus' Law doesn't apply. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC) BTW, this is what I'm thinking of. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Should be priority #1 in terms of a redesign. Showcasing content should be on an equal footing with good ways to entice readers to try editing. It's been said that other pages do this (like WP:Community portal), but (a) a gentler intro curve is needed (b) putting it properly on the Main Page is a philosophical statement that we should be making. Rd232 ^talk 23:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Secondary purpose.  Sandstein  07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. I rate this secondary behind the search function ("help readers find specific articles"), in that finding specific articles aligns with what (I believe) most readers want and are actually doing, while enticing them to become editors aligns with what we hope to get from them. All the other Main Page functions rank so far beneath these two that they're barely worth discussing. cmadler (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes, the way things are going we will be doing banner advertising on this one day. Anecdotal evidence suggests that basic awareness that WP can be edited by anyone has fallen among younger people, probably because now much media coverage doesn't stress this fact with wonderment in the way it did a few years ago. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   1. It doesn't help that on protected articles (and many high traffic articles are semi-protected) the "edit" tab says "view source". Really not helpful for the uninitiated. After adding the "edit request" system to the "view source" tab I tried to get this changed, but it didn't fly. Rd232 ^talk 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yes, but we shouldn't be overly blatant about it. "Entice" is the effective word here; the idea is to impress people enough with the idea that they can accomplish something by editing. A small blurb of a few sentences would be warranted but not more than that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. If Wikipedia is, at its heart, a collaborative project, then the Main Page must contain content that encourages that fundamental identity. The Main page absolutely must provide an opportunity to convert a person who just showed up to look something up into an editor. Any other outcome is a tragedy. VI_WS ^talk 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. This should not be the main or purpose of the main page, but if the main page entices a bored person into some obscure corner of Wikipedia where they suddenly realize they can make an improvement, and they then act upon that realization, it may be the first step toward becoming a more regular contributor. --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. If possible. Though I'm not sure there's much the main page can do in that regard. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. If we can utilize the main page to entice more readers to become editors, that would be beneficial to our project. —mc10 (t/c) 15:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. If possible, this would be very beneficial. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. 99% of the articles on Wikipedia are less than GA/FA in quality and so there is still lots of work to be done. Encouragement of this should get more prominence. Warden (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Why would we want to do this to people? That's mean.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Most folks just want to read stuff. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Secondary to the showcasing part. I'd put "that anyone can edit" in the logo or something, but the primary concern is the showcasing part. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably more discussion needed over how new editors are greeted and guided and both defended from WP:BITE and the existing community copes with new editors that 'don't get it', before something like this is done. Also, how much effect would this have? If the number of new editors jumped tenfold because of some change to the main page, would we be able to cope? Having said that, I am surprised at the number of people I talk to who say that editing Wikipedia is something they haven't tried because they think they don't have anything to contribute. They seem to think that "anyone" doesn't mean them. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relevant — Pretzels ^Hii! 01:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• One reason why I contribute content to DYK is my observation that the articles linked in DYK sometimes get improved as a result of getting main-page attention. --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. I actually think this is important. In my experience at least, people who go to Wikipedia are looking up something specific (at least that's how they start). This is why we improved our search features and it's why we should put a great emphasis on search. hare j 18:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think this is massively overlooked. Visitors generally will be either searching for specific info or browsing recreationally; our current main page provides masses to browse through but almost nothing in the way of clear links to indexes, topics, portals, search tools, etc. This is more important than ever now we have over 3m articles. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Obvious. People come to wikipedia to look up things. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, a prominent search section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Primary purpose. We are here to provide information. The main page exists so that this information is accessible. Although the search box will do that for 90% of our readers.  Sandstein  07:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Most of the time readers enter via a search engine pointing them at the page they want. But the Main Page should still be concerned with showing how to search (brief search tips?) and especially browsing tools (most obviously Portals). Rd232 ^talk 20:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Without any of the in-depth analysis of traffic and debate that I think is truly needed, I would guess that the vast majority (easily more than 95%) of Main Page hits just use the search box and proceed on to the article they're really interested in. We should probably consider a Google-like emphasis on the search box. cmadler (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree. Not sure how to do it, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. What Sandstein said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. OK, a big fat search box with a bold "Search Wikipedia here" smack in the centre of the top box section, which is the least useful area of the page imo. The portal links don't really help, as they just take you to another complicated & far too general page. Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Most important thing. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I think. What "specific articles" does this concern? Those that happen to be highlighted on a particular day? How would the reader know beforehand? The main page contains a search box, if you haven't arrived at WP through a google search. Aside from this, the MP is not a good place per se from which to find specific articles. It's a showcase of the whole project. Tony (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It's concerning specific information the reader is already looking for, and has visited the Wikipedia website to find it. — Pretzels ^Hii! 22:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Tony1's excellent points. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. They're just going to use the search box, or bypass the Main Page entirely through using an outside search engine, if they're looking for something specific. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. That's what the search box is for, not the main page. VI_WS ^talk 21:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Isn't this why the search box was moved to upper right? ... (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. We had a design overhaul (known as Vector) for a reason—to improve usability. Our search bar is conveniently found in the top-right corner. What else do we need? —mc10 (t/c) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Tony's excellent points. Also, I would say that 95% of people looking for info who come to Wikipedia get here via a search engine, not accessing Wikipedia directly. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Apart from a more sensible search box, how is this suggestion actionable? We've moved beyond the "googleify everything" paradigm in website design. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. The best feature for this is the search box, which we already have. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The title is ambiguously worded. The main page should help people interested in a specific field to navigate towards that field, which is why the portals at the top (Mathematics, History, Science etc) are such a good idea. Beyond fulfilling that function, I agree with Tony. —WFC— 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That was the intended meaning, I'm sorry it isn't very clear. You are of course welcome to suitably amend it, or add more headings! — Pretzels ^Hii! 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I suspect that the vast majority of hits on the main page are people coming here to use the search box, and briefly looking at the content of the page to see if there is anything interesting, with a few getting diverted by something that catches their attention. I do that as well (and rarely scroll below the fold), though I know I should really bookmark the search page separately and put the featured picture on my user page if I want to see it every day without fail. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that the wording is ambiguous - we should help them find what specific stuff they are looking for, not what "we" want them to see, beyond the selections on offer. But an extra bigger search box here would be good. We all know where it lives on every page, but new people may not. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. I'd say our ability to rapidly update articles sets us apart from other Encyclopedias like Britannica. Hot Stop (t) 15:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, and here's why. We have statistical evidence that suggests that when a current event happens, people go to Wikipedia and look up relevant articles. A notable example of this was when Michael Jackson passed away (may he rest in peace) and the readership of his article exploded. I think it even crashed Wikipedia. That being said, we should put it right on the main page so people can take a look immediately. In fact, we could automate this with a sort of "trending articles" feature. Important though is that the emphasis is on articles that suddenly have an uptick in readership, not articles that always get a lot of traffic. (I believe Twitter does similar filtering, which is why Justin Bieber isn't a trending topic anymore.) I guess you could make In The News obsolete this way—we'd be crowdsourcing it to the readers. hare j 18:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Current events on mainpage (a) help give page a 'current' look, and (b) promote polishing of highly-trending articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kind-of agree, but remember WP:RECENCY. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Also, it should be accompanied by a prominent link to Wikinews, where readers who are most interested in that kind of stuff can go where they primarily belong to. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Whilst WP:Recentism is a perennial problem, articles on big news events are actually something WP does fairly well, and it makes sense to showcase that on the Main Page. Equally, other news items attract reader interest, and it may help improve those articles. Rd232 ^talk 23:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Harej brings up an interesting idea. I would definitely support a 'trending topics' feature to help readers navigate to the info they want quickly, and that would also lack the politics, endless arguing and hooplah of ITN. The only issue I can see is the method of execution. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yes, this is one of our particular strengths.  Sandstein  07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. If ITN can be made to understand what newsworthy means then that's the way to do this, but maybe it has to be bypassed and "trending topics" done instead. There's been shockingly little progress on opening ITN items up to new areas - case in point the failure to post the final Harry Potter even though there were 32000 Google news hits as well as enormous hit counts on our articles (over 200k). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:55am • 01:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Trending topics is a great idea, and would be a great replacement for ITN. ITN is not fulfilling this, you'd think it would be but it's not. RxS (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Love it. Let the readers decide, not yet another space mission per ITN. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. I very rarely look at it, but our ability to cover major fast-moving crises & events is one of our great strengths. Perhaps a bit too long, the last bits with headlines to longer-term stories and recent deaths might be given a line each instead. Yes to a link on trending topics, which should be sorted in some way - biogs, films etc, or by topic to highlight non-popular culture stuff. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Useful and showcases Wikipedia's timeliness, and its comprehensiveness (I often see things in ITN that I don't see covered in mainstream news). Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. The ability to draw attention to timely content is perhaps the single best reason even to have a main page. --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. What sets Wikipedia apart. ... (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. One of wikipedia's biggest strengths is that content is rapidly created and updated (it's also a weakness, but hey...). Current-affairs / recently updated content should not dominate the front page, as this isn't primarily a news site (in building an encyclopædia, we need to be wary of an overall bias towards recent events); but it's certainly worth using part of the main page for this content. bobrayner (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. As dangerous as it is, people love it. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Fairly useful for new readers. —mc10 (t/c) 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Absolutely. ITN can sometimes be a terrific mess (when politics and meta-politics enter in to the discussion) but new articles on newsworthy subjects drive active traffic. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Even though we're not Wikinews, this is de facto what people care for. When they hear of something in the news and don't know about it, one checks out Wikipedia. I myself have already used the "In the news" section to browse articles (and sometimes correct them ;-)). --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. No. If it can be done, maybe it's worth doing. It is most certainly not, however, the primary objective. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm supportive of ITN as a concept, but see it as a promotional tool, rather than part of our core objective. Displaying timely content in other sections is something that the likes of Raul, Dabomb, The Rambling Man and equally prominent editors from other sections already do and will undoubtedly continue to do. —WFC— 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Partially. Why does the front page have to have a single purpose? ITN serves this function, but there's no reason why other aspects need to do. Tertiary purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I like the idea of a 'trending' articles feature. Maybe with some editorial input. The big thing would be for editors to work on trending articles and improve them enough to feature on the main page. That would be a really good result. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. Curb Chain (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Especially for more obviously complementary projects like Commons, Wiktionary and WikiQuote. Remember users may actually be looking for things which they won't find on Wikipedia, but on other projects. Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes, but not too blatantly. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. At the bottom, yes. ... (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Tripledot. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Absolutely not. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. What's there should be removed. They can have one link. No one clicks on them anyways. They are basically ad clutter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   1. How do you know no-one clicks them? Besides, if they get little traffic, it's surely because they're not presented very attractively. Feature some content from the sister projects where possible (eg Quote of the Day, Word of the Day would be pretty easy) and I'm sure traffic would go up. Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Huh? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. No. Wikimedia is a multi-language, multi-focused project but the home page of the english wikipedia should be about the english wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Undecided. I initially thought 'yes', but question how high the priority is if we are trying to simplify the page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This heading refers primarily to items such as the languages list and sister projects — Pretzels ^Hii! 20:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think mentioning them is enough. Promoting them gets into the tricky issue of some being (frankly) a bit poor. And you can't promote some and not others. This sort of thing is better handled by editorials in internal newsletters that introduces Wikipedia editors to the potential of the work being done on other projects. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. Some of them are poor? Yes, but how are they going to get better? And "you can't promote some and not others" - I don't see why. As long as you don't completely ignore the others (provide at least a link and mini description as now), you can promote some in more detail, especially if you can make a case that they're more relevant in terms of supplementing Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 00:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In principle "yes", but I'm not sure exactly how, beyond the status quo. I mean, in principle we could have, say, Commons' Picture of the Day, Wikiquote Quote of the Day, Wiktionary Word of the Day, etc - and that would boost those projects, and help people understand more easily (intuitively) what those projects are about. But do we really want to use the space that would need? Perhaps, given that we have the language links on the left, we could free up space by dumping the "Wikipedia languages" section (demote it to a link elsewhere, perhaps with an exception for Simple English). We could use that space for WP, or for promoting other projects. (It's worth bearing in mind that to some extent, most obviously in the case of Commons, the health of these projects does impact Wikipedia.) Rd232 ^talk 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. This is the goal of the DYK section and I believe it is still vitally important to Wikipedia. Sharktopus ^talk 19:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes to some extent. Like it or not, people respond to incentives. We just have to make sure that good incentives (getting featured) are aligned with good behavior (quality work).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely. Getting a DYK or FA featured on the Main Page is a wonderful incentive/reward for all the hard work editors do. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. A little encouragement goes a long way, and this can help minimize attrition by giving exhausted editors new focus and purpose. People like creating content, but you can get bogged down in the behind-the-scenes stuff, and a little motivation can be just the kick one needs. VI_WS ^talk 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I would re-spin this to say "motivate editors to create new content that passes certain thresholds of quality." The possibility of main-space display does appear to be an effective motivator for many participants. There are multiple thresholds to consider. The possibility of being listed or DYK or ITN or OTD can motivate people to expand their new stubs to achieve at least start quality status, to find reliable sources, to provide good reference citations, and to make other valuable contributions that don't always get made without some sort of motivation. At a higher level, the possibility of being featured on the main page can motivate users to contribute the kind of new quality content that eventually becomes a featured picture or that is needed to bring an article to FA or FL status. --Orlady (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes, but I'm not sure we can get to a good route forward. Ideally we should showcase unfinished articles on the main page but I can't see how that would work, politically. Some of the opposing comments are depressing. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Showcasing unfinished work and inviting the readership to step up and improve it seems to be a higher priority than showcasing work in which the i's are all dotted and the t's are all crossed. An easy way to select candidates for this fixer-upper slot would be to have a shortlist of articles which have been rated by projects as high priority but which are still stubs. Warden (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Existing editors should be using the Wikipedia:Community portal. Main Page appearances should not be tokenised as a reward for contributions. — Pretzels ^Hii! 20:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Put that bluntly: no. The motivation for creating new content is largely intrinsic; and to the extent that it is extrinsic, it leads to cookie-cutter low-quality content by people chasing badges (quantity over quality). I'd have more time for the goal of "motivating editors" in general (particularly for creating high-quality content that's gone through reasonably rigorous review like Featured), but I'd still put that some way down the list of priorities (though happily, that goal coincides pretty well with the goal of showing off our best content). Rd232 ^talk 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. As by new content we usually mean just new articles. That is what we do now. What we should try to do is to motivate editors to improve existing articles. See mini-rant in discussion at the top section of this header above. Johnbod (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. What Johnbod said. We definitely already have enough articles, but we don't have enough good articles on important topics. When there are lots of C-class, start-class and stub-class vital articles, creating more stubs about obscure villages or whatnot isn't the best use of time. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 14:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Broke the quantity record already. ... (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. No longer a primary aim. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree with Quadell: we have 3.8 million articles, so improving them is more important than creating new articles. For this reason, DYK needs a re-think. Tony (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. No, let them improve existing ones instead. They'll just put more pressure on NPP. —mc10 (t/c) 16:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. It's not as if we didn't have enough trouble with new creations already... --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Clarifying: This item is about creating new content, not about creating new articles. Creating new content would definitely include expanding existing articles with improved content. Sharktopus ^talk 13:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharktopus makes an excellent point. Not all new content consists of new pages. The possibility of mainpage display also can motivate contributors to add quality new content to existing articles to bring them to FA class or to allow them to be linked on WP:OTD, submit high-quality images that could become featured images, etc. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. Semel in anno licet insanire. Also, those pranks are usually so silly I don't think it is possible for anyone to seriously believe them (for more than 500 milliseconds, at least). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC) But, as James (User:M.O.X) says, I'd make the jokes more obvious by using standard capitalization and italics. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 14:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. They're all factual, just with a humourous spin. No need to be so cynical about it and it certainly hasn't attracted much bad press. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:57am • 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, but not where the attempt to mislead includes deliberate inaccuracy either in spelling and grammar (as it did this year[1]) or factual. The "one section per year" as suggested by Dabomb87 may be an improvement. Peter E. James (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I always thought Wikipedia had the right approach to April Fools: weird and funny content, but nonetheless completely factual. hare j 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think it's fun and good for the community. (If we don't have a community, we eventually won't have an encyclopedia.) I also agree that the goal ought to be things that are a bit weird, quirky, funny, or silly rather than misleading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sure, why not?Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. One day a year. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Of course, and the RFC statemenent is written falsely. IF DYK misled, then DYK (per multiple reasons) should no longer be on the mainpage at all, but we don't need to stop mainpage one-day-a-year tradition because someone goofed on one section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. It's an expected tradition that most major websites engage in. Neelix (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. All it does is promote already suitable content in a whimsical way. It draws a ridiculous number of viewers to obscure (mostly) well-written articles. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. I love the unique Wikipedia take on it; it subverts the expectations for April Fool's Day in a wonderful way. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. I like the April Fools' Day page, but I wouldn't object to keeping it to one section. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. At least the TFA. This is a tradition among sites like ours, Google's, etc. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Keep it, but restrict the strangely-worded things and the like to DYK and not TFA/TFP/ITN/OTD/etc. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. It's funny. Google does it too. --Σ ^talk_contribs 02:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Wikipedians and its readers are entitled to engage in a little frivolity once in a while. Notions that April Fools Day is antithetical to policy might be true, but it also renders Wikipedia all that more sterile. Also, this seems one of the few occasions where ignoring all rules is appropriate. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Great fun. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. It's a funny joke and differentiates the day from a normal day; friends that do not edit Wikipedia also find the April Fools' Day jokes funny. —mc10 (t/c) 17:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Yes. We aren't a bunch of stuffed shirts (appearances to the contrary). Protonk (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Everybody and his grandma make an April Fools' joke. So should we. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Great idea Bulwersator (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. One of the most enjoyable aspects of Wikipedia. It is also a fun creative challenge for editors to try to find articles that are accurate but can have a humorous spin to them. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Although some newspapers decide to lower their standards of truth (well, those papers that have such a thing) for one or two silly stories, they do not normally rededicate their entire front page to utter nonsense. Neither should we. We are not a paper, our style is not journalistic, and our motivation is not to maximise sales. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to mislead Kevin McE (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with above. Although it's a longterm tradition, I think it's had its time and is no longer interesting or good for the main page. AD 12:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think most of us can agree that jokes in ITN are inappropriate. The practice has waned in recent years resulting in an odd mix of true and fallacious items. Without April Fools ITN, the Main Page just falls all over itself. I did enjoy it while it lasted. Marcus Qwertyus 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've seen the April Fool's main pages, and they're just not funny. Hot Stop (t) 14:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose, overdone, and the jokes aren't funny anymore. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree with above. Don't see any value added. --Elekhh (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Not funny. Lightmouse (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Misleading and usually not even funny. If it can be toned down a bit, I might endorse it. I like Dabomb's idea to have one silly MP feature; that way we can put more work into it and make it clever-funny and not push the truth so much. —Andrew_stalk 22:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Kevin McE. -- Jeandré, 2011-07-17t22:46z
10. I like to see unusual topics on the Main Page, but the jokey writing style falls flat. Zagalejo^^^ 02:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Thankfully we had a modicum of common sense at ITN this year not to go ahead with this crap. It's unbecoming of an encyclopaedia. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. I think when TFA feels that it needs to resort to penis gags to fill the slot, they're sending a clear message that they can't do this annually. I'm not opposed to any sort of April fool's reference on the main page, but nigh on every section every year is too much. I'd restrict it to one section plus the first or last DYK per year. —WFC— 14:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Why the special treatment? ... (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong oppose. Forcing jokes into a ritual structure makes them even less funny, and "april fools day" is hardly a universal and homogenous phenomenon among our readership. It does nothing to help wikipedia build a serious encyclopædic reputation. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong oppose - This would put us at the risk of getting bad press and lowering our already poor credibility (in terms of public opinion). — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. Every joke stops being funny after a while. Wikipedia's April Fool's Main Pages were cute at first, but it's been going long enough that now they just feel tired and desperate. Robofish (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong oppose How can vandalism be prohibited if we fill the front page with half-truths, double entendres and deliberate ambiguities? Even if it is just for one day. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• I agree that the April Fool's feature is a bit tired, but at the same time I wouldn't want to see it go away entirely. Perhaps we could reduce the frequency at which we do April Fool's MPs (every 2 or 3 years instead of every year)? Or, we could limit the "joke" slots to one feature every year and have them rotate (TFA this year, DYK the next, ITN in 2013, etc.). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we could limit it to just a quirky Today's Featured Article. I say this because there would be no opportunity to put a humorous spin—you'd have to reproduce the opening of the featured article faithfully if not verbatim. Other features such as DYK and ITN are prone to spin on AF Day which I feel is inappropriate. hare j 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• INVALID commentary, leading to invalid conclusions-- take note now-- TFA is *never* written "misleadingly"-- it is always factual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. Would like to see this expanded/turned into a "How you can contribute" section. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Maybe. It's not much use as it currently is, but I agree with MOP that we need more on getting people contributing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Endorse. I agree with master of puppets that the introduction should be reworked into a "how you can contribute" section. It should also be made more prominent, I personally didn't know it existed until now. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sure, why not. hare j 00:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. endorse but not strongly opposed to review which might include removal, restructure or rewording - the page hits seem to average 1.4 to 2000 hits a day, which suggests it gets a fair bit of traffic from the mainpage and is helpful....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. As MoP, I'd even turn it into something more, e.g. this. Readers know we're an encyclopaedia, but I think in this context a sizeable fraction of them have at best a vague (if any) idea of what free and that anyone can edit exactly mean (in terms of what exactly a person has to do in order to edit, etc.). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Absolutely, it's a good starting point. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:58am • 01:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per MOP - needs expanding into its own section. Not sure how useful this is at present, especially with the somewhat deceptive link, and it's important. Rd232 ^talk 20:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Keep, it's just a link. Obviously none of us use it, but as Casliber says, others do. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. It's helpful for people finding out the basics. Neelix (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Needs to be more prominent. I agree with other editors in expaning it, but I think a two- or three-sentence blurb rather than a whole section would be more appropriate. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Good idea, useful for newcomers who wish to learn about editing. —mc10 (t/c) 16:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. TCO (reviews needed) 09:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC). Low value filler text in a very prominent area. People know who we are (Google does not need to say "a search engine"). Also, icon to the far left already has this info/words. Further, the writing has two MOS link errors: blue next to blue, and then wikilinking to free, encyclopedia, and English are a waste (well known terms). Wikilinking to intro and the site statistics is OK though.[reply]
3. Reduce to one line without deceptive link. As TCO points out "Google does not need to say they are a search engine", we don't need to say we are an encylopedia. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I didn't even know this link was on the main page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree with TCO. Doesn't add much value and seems redundant. The adage "Show don't tell" seems apt. The main page should be showing that we're an encyclopedia instead of us needing to waste space talking about it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• never noticed it before. Hidden behind the text "anyone can edit". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, deceptive link.

Agreed, most inappropriate. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, deceptive link. This might be going way off-topic, and might create a labour-availability crisis, but if we really want to draw in good editors a help-desk or, better, a selection of areas they're interested in, with a one-to-one (anonymity) email button. Don't underestimate the value of personal contact .... Want to become a regular editor? Talk to one of our friendly volunteers. Tony (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The number is downright impressive. Marcus Qwertyus 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. yes, agree on the number - great advertising. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. One of Wikipedia's most salient features, and a snappy bit of advertising. I find the opposes per SunCreator bizarre - they would only make sense if quantity was something to be ashamed of. It's not, and denigrating new articles won't magically make quality elsewhere rise, since Wikipedia is a volunteer project. SnowFire (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Cas, 'tis impressive and good PR, but (1) when the main page is completely redesigned I'd be willing to dispense with it if it doesn't fit well visually; and (2) I oppose it if "English" (language) is still linked. You might link to the native language on the Armenian WP, but not English, please. Tony (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Very tight way of making a big point. Link works (not deceptive). Would not kill me if this died in a super minimalist layout, but otherwise, keep it.TCO (reviews needed) 09:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'd describe it as optional. I like it, but accept that that's a very weak rationale. As Tony1 says, whether it should stay depends what the new page looks like. —WFC— 11:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. One of the main things I look for when I'm visiting other language versions of Wikipedia is the number of articles. This is an important and useful part of the main page and shouldn't go. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Should find space for this somewhere on the Main Page. Needn't necessarily be so prominent though (which becomes a particular issue if we want to expand by including FAs, GAs and perhaps other site stats, which is broadly a good idea I think). Rd232 ^talk 00:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. We need to publicize just how big we are. This is perhaps the only statistic we need on the front page, but it's an important one. ThemFromSpace 05:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Harmless and interesting to some.  Sandstein  07:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. It's one miniscule line! Get over it already! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:59am • 01:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. It's mildly interesting to some. Plus, removing the line would have no effect on the quality of our articles. Zagalejo^^^ 02:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Quick access to some site info lots of people do care about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Even as an editor involved in multiple featured content processes, I have to admit that more people probably care about our article count than our FA/GA/FL count. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. A lot of casual users find these statistics interesting. Neelix (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Simple and eye-catching. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Free publicity, even if it isn't a good indicator of quality. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. It's just an interesting fact that readers may find interesting. —mc10 (t/c) 16:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose, figure is useful but not on front page. It speaks of quantity rather then quality. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, per SunCreator, also everybody knows that wikipedia is comprehensive, no need to show off. bamse (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Also per SunCreator. AD 21:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Article number is meaningless when we're seeking quality. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. per SunCreator. — Dispenser 00:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. per above, also, the exact number of articles seems much less important as the project matures. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. At one point, Google used to release how many web pages they have in their index. Then they stopped, saying that it's more than anyone else will ever have and we should take for granted it's some unholy number. Wikipedia has also reached that point. People take for granted that Wikipedia has an article on just about everything they're interested in, and the 3.5 million figure may give the impression that we have 3.5 million articles of equal length, weight, and stature, when at least a third of them are "East St. Thermodeaux is a village in central France. The population is 12." or "Gabor is the goalkeeper for Great People's Czech F.C. This article is a stub." We should stop counting total articles, and start counting decent articles. hare j 01:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per SunCreator and Harej. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose as I did in the past years, I think is time to focus more on quality and a bit less on quantity. --Elekhh (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. per RadManCF. The number is not so important anymore. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. I think Harej makes a good point. A raw count of all articles doesn't really achieve much; people already know that we have a very large number of articles of which many are mass-produced stubs, and what else is it going to be compared to? I'd be happy to see some other statistic which put more emphasis on quality or collaboration or "anyone can edit!". bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Marginal. I don't think it is necessary to get into philosophical debates about the value of certain metrics (character counts, skeumorphic comparisons, etc.) in order to make the claim that # of articles isn't a core feature the main page needs to showcase. For each of these elements we should feel free to ask whether or not we would include it on the main page were we to build it from scratch. If the answer is no or maybe, it should be left off to respect readers' time and attention. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. It's not such a vital thing, but on the other hand it doesn't take up that much space. If it's kept, I'd agree to tell the number of FAs as well. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Nice idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd agree too. ... (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Meh, don't know if it really matters. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Site statistics. Would like to see, in addition, quality measures. eg Number (or percentage) that are FAs, GAs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those percentages would contain an unsightly number of 0s Jebus989^✰ 09:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems like an interesting subject. I'd be all for changing the article count to something like a "Featured article" count.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely add just the total number (the % is still too small), but having a link to WP:FA and our best articles is a really good idea. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Broadly, I'd agree - maybe cover GAs as well as FAs? bobrayner (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A selected few portals, and as link to all of them.

Endorse

1. Weak endorse, linking to a list of portals may be helpful, but links to individual portals seems excessive. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Only if we link to portals that have the same appeal as the re-designed Main Page hopefully will have. hare j 01:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think I endorse a link to some - have a look at the pageviews - for July thus far, Portal:history averages 3.5-5k, Portal:Science 3.3-4.8k, Portal:Arts 2.2-3.0k, Portal:Biography 2.9-3.7k, Portal:Geography 1.8-2.2k, Portal:Mathematics 2.6-3.7k, Portal:Society 1-1.6k, 1.9-3.3k, and Portal:Contents/Portals gets 4.5-6.2k daily. These are massive figures and much higher than say Portal:medicine which gets 216-330 daily. I think this can be rejigged however, maybe a rotating roster of Featured Portals here occupying a slot. I think the pagviews suggest a lot of readers use them, even if most editors don't have them on the radar.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. By default. While I agree that some of them are not that great, we must have a gateway to fundamental topic areas on the main page. If portals are removed, something else should fulfil the same purpose. —WFC— 11:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not great, but usable as a "top level index" of contents. Courcelles 13:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. What we have now is OK, and so would a ‘Featured portal of the day/week/month’ section, but anything more would be too much. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per A. di M. The current eight portals are fine, but I would also support a 'Featured portal of the [time period]'. Portals are dying, but I think that they are a great feature and need to be more accessible. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. If they "frequently fall into disrepair" a TFP section would encourage active maintenance and more contributions... —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:01pm • 02:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. At least the major portals ought to be useful for readers. I think they currently are (lesser ones do get very neglected), and they're hardly going to get improved if dropped from the Main Page. If anything, I'd suggest greater prominence, because readers looking for specific things will tend to be dumped at the right page (or near it in the topic) by a search engine, whereas those coming to the Main Page are more likely looking for an overview. And the current prominence is relatively low: they may be above the fold, but they're small and unexplained, and I think probably missed by many visitors. Rd232 ^talk 21:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Generally, yes, even though most portals unfortunately aren't particularly good. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. bamse (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not relevant to most visitors. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think most editors, never mind visitors, would struggle to define what a portal is or how it contributes to an understanding of our articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Portals are usually a waste of time and don't need to be promoted on the main page. Fram (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Waste of time, variable quality, frequently fall into disrepair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Most portals are not very useful or well-maintained.  Sandstein  07:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Waste of space as it is. Possibly ok if collapsed into a linked something like "Portals by subject area" leading to a page showing a rather longer list (which probably already exists somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Not showcasing the best of Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. I honestly didn't realize those were even there. I don't think it's useful to link to just the braodest couple of portals, but I would be amenable to rotating featured portals as part of some new featured-non-article-content section. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per Sandy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Portals have been over-rated, IMO. As SandyGeorgia notes, they have a tendency to fall into disrepair -- I suggest that is largely because they don't generate very much traffic, so they don't get a lot of attention. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Eh, I rarely come upon portals, and the concept of a "portal" is fairly difficult to explain to newcomers. —mc10 (t/c) 17:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. I question the value of the entire Portal system. This wasn't a triumph. I'm making a note here, "little success". --Cybercobra (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. We shouldn't be in the business of sending readers to rabbit holes. If the portals aren't active areas of wikipedia, they shouldn't be featured prominently on the main page. Protonk (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Ideally, could be useful. In current state of practice, not so much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Should we work on some kind of standard on how to make portals useful and something we would want to brag about to the public? Kind of like this RFC we're having now regarding the Main Page? hare j 01:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are Portals useful? Have readers, as opposed to editors, been surveyed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could be useful, as they facilitate topic based browsing as any index in a book. They have been neglected however in the past two years, and the number of viewers has been accordingly stagnating/decreasing. In contrast better maintained portal systems on other language Wikis had increasing number of viewers (last time I checked). Better exposure would lead to improvements I think. --Elekhh (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What I'd be intrigued with is rotating some featured portals through, say, in a fourth column for a couple of months, and monitoring pageviews and thence pageviews for Featured Content off that portal, and see the results. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I proposed earlier today that we include Featured portals. Any old portal, however, won't do. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A click-on image and title for a featured portal / featured topic (in rotation, perhaps) would be great. A lot of work goes into topics and portals, and I feel they're under-recognised and underused but of powerful attractive value to visitors. I presume the 200 featured portals are all well-maintained ... are they? Tony (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put money on it. Is there a "Featured Portals Review" page anywhere? Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured portal review. If you see a FPo that needs delisting, nominate it and it will either be improved or de-featured. Some of the older ones do need some attention to bring them up to the standards of the more recent ones, but once a good portal is up and running with plenty of quality content displayed on a randomised basis, they don't really need much maintenance. Bencherlite^Talk 11:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - the page could clearly use the publicity! I see the current 2 noms include things like "main image not updated since 2009". Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This section is a prime example of a piecemeal, democratic RfC on main page design simply won't work.
  • If the general subject areas of Arts, Biography, Geography, History, Mathematics, Science, Society and Technology are not relevant to most visitors, I'd like someone to tell me what is.
  • The purpose of a portal is to act as a main page for the given subject. For instance, Portal:Mathematics should function as the main page for mathematics-related content, broadly construed.
  • Portals are often a waste of time because they do not fulfil the previous purpose. For that reason I would be opposed to having a dedicated featured portals section.
• I believe that's 100% of the above rationales refuted. The votes on this page will no doubt continue though. —WFC— 18:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WFC, re your first point: those eight portals are relevant, and all supporters agree. This straw poll is simply whether we should have portals on the MP or not, not whether we should have more or not. Re #2: Should the MP not link to the subjects' main pages/portals? Re #3: Well, it is sad that you think that. While a lot of them are crap, many of them are well-loved and in great condition. If we support portals on the MP, we may see an increase in the editing activity of portals, and the general quality of portals elevated. —Andrew_stalk 07:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With a blurb and a picture.

Endorse

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Blurbs could be tighter though. Hot Stop (t) 20:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Include. Some discussion below on sometimes putting the TFL in the TFA slot, very much oppose that.
6. bamse (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Classic mainstay. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oh definitely. Writing an FA is the ultimate achievement for a Wikipedian and is one of, if not the, most difficult feats one can undertake. We should recognise that at the same time as showing off our very best content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Endorse. Prominently displaying examples of our best content in a heavily trafficked area seems like a PR no-brainer. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. The shining star of the Main Page is indeed the featured article. hare j 01:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. 'nuff said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. The best, and nearly the only, reason to go to the main page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Easily the best way to draw attention to an article that might otherwise be missed; a good addition and hook for visitors, both new and old. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Yes. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Yes. High quality content well-reviewed. Shows 'the best that Wikipedia has to offer'. Lightmouse (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. The one thing that definitely needs to stay. Fram (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Almost didn't need to be discussed. Courcelles 13:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Of course. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Of course, it should be a centrepiece, but (1) click-on-image based, (2) shorter "dynamic" flout-out blurb, (3) more emphasis on polishing up the article before the day. Tony (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. — Dispenser 15:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. the only problem is the (sometimes) high vandalism...--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 10:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. So far, it has worked. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Maybe the length of the blurb can be reduced, though. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Duh. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. of course ThemFromSpace 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Agree with the above.  Sandstein  07:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. œ^™ 09:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:03pm • 02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. I can't picture the main page without one. Zagalejo^^^ 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. I love TFA. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Definitely. This is the highlight of the main page for a lot of people. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. Of course! Theking17825 06:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. No reason not to showcase the best of Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. Of course. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. This is really the only section I regularly pay attention to. Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. Per Neelix and Karanacs. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. Yes. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. A no-brainer. —mc10 (t/c) 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. How do we know it's a good thing? We don't. Convince me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. As stated above, never read one. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. The idea seems good but some recent examples have been dire. Today's for example: "John C. W. Beckham (1869–1940) was the 35th Governor of Kentucky...". I'd sooner read List of bus routes in Basingstoke. Warden (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• My endorsement would be provisional on an enhanced FA procedure: the blurbs are frequently full of errors, poor grammar, inconsistent capitalisation, incorrect or [un]sourced claims, breaches of MoS etc. This is not Raul's responsibility, it is either insufficient scrutiny at FA stage, or subsequent sub-standard edits. Kevin McE (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, see the recent and appalling Somerset. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These whinges don't make good cases for their respective authors as grammar monitors! TFA blurbs also face risks from the muggers who hang around the next days main page, with little supervision. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? Whinges? These are valid comments from editors who have seen crap TFA blurbs placed on the main page that are neither interesting nor well written. Take a look at the criticisms being hurled at WP:TFL (without justification mainly, other than personal preference), at least they comply with MOS, are grammatically correct and have decent blurbs that are scrutinised for some time before being queued up and protected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly comments. Whether they are "valid" or "whinges" is subjective. Blurbs do need more attention, but at an earlier stage (but not FAC, for reasons that are surely obvious), and where they will be seen by more editors. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Correct. So where does the "grammar monitor" comment come from? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - "incorrect or sourced claims", "recently appalling". Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You're really here to correct grammar in our comments rather than talk about the "blurb crap" that gets shifted onto Main Page as our best work? Really? Wow. Pathetic. [Oh, you are being ironic, look: "the next days [sic] main page"!!!!!!!!! Tee hee...] The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muphry's Law, anyone? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. But see my comment below Hot Stop (t) 19:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It should stay for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Retracting due to the inability of a large number of the contributors to understand what a significant event is. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Endorse, Wikipedia is good at news content. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse. ITN is the most topical section of the MP.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. ITN isn't meant to be a bleeding-edge list of headlines, but offer congregated information about unfolding events. And it does its job well. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Though the items take days to get consensus, I think the ITN process is getting more and more refined and more and more people are taking part in the process. Marcus Qwertyus 22:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. We have many articles on current events, often events of great importance and sometimes events that people might not otherwise read about. It's good to showcase such articles, especially since this is one of the areas where we do best against more traditional encyclopaedias. ITN is flawed, but so are TFA, DYK and OTD. The solution is to improve them, not abolish them—Wikipedia is, after all, a work in progress. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse, It's a nice means of doing background research about current events, go to an article on a current event, and follow the links, you come out with a much more thorough understanding of the issue than you would from watching TV news. A link to wikinews may be useful, however. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes, but not in its current format - especially when we have "Current events" so prominently in the global navigation. — Pretzels ^Hii! 01:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. endorse but openminded to other approaches - I do think it gives the page a feel that it is current and cutting-edge, which is nice, and if it promotes polished editing and rigorous review of current event articles, all the better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. In general I support this, but some fine-tuning of the process would do some good. hare j 02:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. To be quite honest, it is the only way I get to read the news. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. as the main page section with highest viewership i think it does a great job. and ITN follows WP:NOTNEWS so opposes based on that seem to be rather misinformed. -- Ashish-g55 03:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Very, very, weakly. If we had a really good idea of something to do with that space, present it, but as it stands, it works, and directs readers to the content they're apparently looking for. Courcelles 13:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. What we have now is OK, but I'd oppose anything more per WP:NOT#NEWS. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. We are not a news site, but people come to us looking for the background to what they see on TV.  Sandstein  07:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. The first thing I read when my browser starts up with the Main Page is the ITN headlines, and if there's something interesting going on in the world I'm only 1 click away from the article where I can read all about it. I'm sure I'm not alone.
17. Endorse. Spencer^T♦C 15:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:03pm • 02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. At this point, it's something the general public expects to see. It's not perfect in its current form, but it's something worth fixing.Zagalejo^^^ 03:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you suggest doing to fix it? I've put vast amounts of effort into it, and we are still failing to post stories which attract millions of article views and tens of thousands of Google News hits and to avoid essentially voting on every item. I have retracted my vote here on the grounds that I don't actually think its fixable even after putting in huge amounts of effort to make it work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    *shrugs* I don't have any specific ideas in mind. I'm just being idealistic. Zagalejo^^^ 00:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20. Raise standards for featuring, but keep as it is useful. Also I notice that some of the arguments in the "Oppose" section are just simply not grounded in reality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Switching to oppose.[reply]
21. This is an opinion strictly based on principle. The idea of having important news on the main page is what I'm supporting. Unfortunately, it too often takes far too long to get something up. Shouldn't be taking hours to post The Open Championship, to name one recent example. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. This section is integral to the main page; many people use our main page as their home page specifically because of this section. Neelix (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23. Showcases Wikipedia's timeliness and comprehensiveness. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Especially excellent for background reading of current events. ... (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Endorse. While I am uncomfortable with the quality of some of the items that have reached ITN, I think we generally have an acceptable standard. And, while I feel strongly about WP:NOTNEWS, I don't think making it harder for readers to find articles about current events is going to make Wikipedia less "newsy". The problem is with the editors, not the readers. JimSukwutput 23:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Weak endorse. It's dangerous, and it will likely get us in trouble. But people love it. It's worth it. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Although we have WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is still a nice place to glance at the current news, and articles usually have fairly useful and accurate content. —mc10 (t/c) 17:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Showcases one of our strengths. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Yes. ITN has serious problems, but the main page should be about readers, not editors. Likewise the comments below suggesting we are not a news site are aspirational, not empirical. Some of our most trafficked (non-celeb) articles are on current or recent news subjects and many of them are of very high quality. Not only that but our ability to create, source and trim those kinds of articles is what distinguishes us from traditional encyclopedias and reference works. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Its unreformable though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31. An important section that drives many editors to Wikipedia. Anytime a significant event happens, like the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, the Wikipedia article becomes a go-to page because it often has the most up to date and comprehensive coverage. It needs reforms and a stronger push towards better articles and less celebrity deaths and sporting events but that is not a reason to scrap one of the Main Page's best features. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. We aren't a news site and the articles are usually about out of date events anyway. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not that useful, why are we trying to invent ourselves into a news site when we do so many other things so well?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per AD and Wehwalt. bamse (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. WP:NOTNEWS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Being an encyclopaedia means we don't have to be topical. We often say "Wikipedia is not the news"; we also say "there is no deadline". Yet in this fast-moving world, should we continue down this route, there is often no event article, thus creating pressure to start and list articles whose quality cannot be adequately monitored in the short time of the news cycle. In addition and in any event, one of my main gripes is the chronic overlinking which folks at ITN seem to adore – almost to the extent of eschewing one link when two (or, even better, three) will do. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Regardless of whether people get to them via ITN, or directly current events articles get massive hit counts. South Sudan got 260k hits on the 10th July. With regards to over-linking I agree, but that isn't a reason to remove the section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. If we consistently did a good job, I'd support this. We do not consistently do a good job with this section. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   We have actually managed to improve it so far this year, maybe not enough, but it is working significantly better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Retracting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. NotNews, frequently POV and poor quality. The mainpage should be reserved for vetted content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Incapable of deciding what a significant event is without the page descending into a farce. A million article hits isn't enough for some people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Definitely get rid of this. Ends up polluting the main page with junk, and it's a breeding ground for biases of all sorts. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Actually, seeing what goes on with these articles and the sensitive/controversial nature of them, I'd rather see this gone. Actually Wikipedia probably shouldn't have articles on anything that's less than two years old.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If we didn't cover anything less than two years old we may as well give up. There is massive interest in current events. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. Per Sandy and the massive problems with the project. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• I find ITN to be useful, but it needs to be changed. Content needs to get posted more frequently. I'd also prefer a separate recent deaths section as seen on the German and Spanish wikipedias, among others. Hot Stop (t) 19:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN does need to continue to be improved, and I have been pushing hard for progress to continue in this regard at WT:ITN. If you don't believe ITN posts enough new content fucking tell us at WT:ITN. At a certain point I'm sure I will lose patience with it, but we should remember that it started the year posting one story every 20 hours, and in June it managed one every 13 hours, which is a big improvement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was active at ITNC, but some recent events have turned me off there. Hot Stop (t) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't blame you for that, sorry if I had any part in it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, it wasn't you though. Sometimes it's like bashing your head into a wall when you try to get something include. All the hyperbole and false comparisons don't help either. Hot Stop (t) 20:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed, and possibly ultimately the right answer is to remove it, but I think we should make a good effort to make it work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are sections for deaths, sectioning other items by type would be nice if our cookies remember which sections we've collapsed - I'd like to not see sport and celebrity gossip type items. -- Jeandré, 2011-07-17t23:18z
• Maybe we could change the format? Perhaps a scrolling ticker type thing over the top of the page? I know it's very newsy, and we don't like that, but it would free up a good bit of space to do something else if we wanted to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favour of this. It would allow us to put more content into the ticker too. —WFC— 11:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, please no scrolling tickers! God help us if we start to emulate CNN. -- œ^™ 09:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeeeww! People had realized how hideous <marquee> was by the early 2000s. C'mon, this is not 1999. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't oppose because there is a place for it, but the selection process needs wholesale reform so that it is possible to update promptly. If the community view is that we are not a news service, I would suggest that we stop calling the section In The News. —WFC— 11:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked by Tony to explain how ITN has improved this year. Firstly the headline figure, in June we made 54 postings, compared to 100 in the three months earlier around Christmas, this means we've improved from posting every 20 hours to posting about every 13 hours (I can link the sources if required). Secondly we've introduced a template for posting articles {{ITN Candidate}} - and we've been marking items that are ready to be posted with [Ready] in their subject - this then gets replaced with [Posted] once an item has been posted, which also has the side affect of allowing you to see how much content we've posted at a glance and allows admins to post content more quickly. We have also created a purpose for the section for the first time, and introduced minority topics so that things we post less often are recognised. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we co-ordinate with WikiNews and link to a few of their headlines? That could tie in with the promotion of sister projects. Mind you, that kinda navigates readers away from WP. Just thinking out loud.... —Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of ITN is to link to our WP articles on people and topics currently in the news, not provide actual news stories. — Pretzels ^Hii! 02:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikinews is rather poor quality, I think they need to work much harder to earn links from our main page. --Elekhh (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ITN does well when it provides information which slips below the radar of the main news outlets and features stories notable for their worldwide scope, academic importance, etc. When it simply acts as a slow echo of major news sites, or links to articles that are only summaries of news content, it is not valuable. Counting page hits is not a useful way of marking the suitability of an item for ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For that to happen the discussions participants need to be capable of judging the significance of an event quickly - even when it isn't a bomb going off, and disappointingly that seems to be rather more of an issue than I thought given the total inability to post the new Potter movie even though its the biggest selling book series ever. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kevin McE I strongly disagree with the idea that major events aren't useful on ITN. ITN allows users to access background information on major events, for more comprehensively than major news outlets often do.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, but to do that you have to actually post those items in good time. And the contributors to the candidates page need to be able to do a vaguely acceptable job of balancing stories of different types. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing that occurred to me later when I wondered why I personally find ITN useful sometimes, compared to traditional media sources - because we do have a pretty diverse body of editors, from all kinds of international backgrounds, ITN does tend to highlight many important but lesser known stories that you generally don't get from (at least American) news sources. Of course I could go read FT or the Economist (and I do) but sometimes I just want to see headlines and catch up quickly on a story and having ITN on Wikipedia does that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I rarely look at it, and take on board your criticisms (elsewhere) of article standards, but I do think that when there is a really big, complex and fast-moving story, such as recently the Japanese tsunami power station fiaso (2.6 million views since March, just on the main article), or the Chilean mine rescue, a heavily edited WP article will beat traditional media hands down, because it keeps it all as one story, not treating it in little driblets as traditional media do. We get massive hits on these stories, and I think in the early days our coverage of 9/11 was an important part of Wikipedia's Rise to Power. I think news deserves a place on the Main Page, and if that works to increase general scrutiny of these articles, as has finally happened at DYK, so much the better. Perhaps fewer stories. Johnbod (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But then it also misses things like the Death of Caylee Anthony which got 2.6 million views in three days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse as it prommotes article creation. Would also tend to somewhat older (more than the 5 day maximum) and longer articles. bamse (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Older article allowance would be nice. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. You gotta love DYK. It pumps 24 hooks a day. That's plenty of opportunity for the average contributor to get something on the main page. Marcus Qwertyus 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Like ITN. Room for improvement, but it has value and is worth keeping. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Endorse, just so long as we're careful about what articles are used. Linking to a poorly referenced, poorly written article from the main page doesn't seem like a good idea to me. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. It's a nice eclectic feature, and it gives people an incentive to improve articles. However, I think we should consider restricting DYK entries to good articles, or at least incorporating them more. hare j 02:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Also thinking about extending criteria to "Good Articles that have been listed within the previous five days" much like 5x expansion etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I love helping with DYK, and our visitors get to learn about otherwise obscure topics that aren't recent enough for In the News. If we were to include GAs as well, that would be interesting too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. but not in its current guise, and with a lower rotation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. A nice way to encourage article creators, and to get a wide variety of articles on the main page Fram (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. It is a pleasure to see that many DYK critics have joined the reviews and are helping to improve the nominations. DYK is as imperfect as wikipedia, and will always be. I believe the hard-core critics are missing the main benefit of T:TDYK nomination page - unique collaborative atmosphere where any editors can walk in and work together. This atmosphere is different from FAC (where excessive scrutiny is a norm) and from GAN or PR (where the review is slower and more individual); it is crucial for improving WP as a whole and should be cherished and preserved. Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. DYK has been having an identity crisis for a few years now and no one agrees on just what it should be about. But nevertheless, it serves a purpose that is different than the other main page sections and is valuable. (This is especially the case if the focus of DYK is kept to "newest articles", rather than improved articles, newly-referenced articles, etc.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. of course.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 10:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Another interesting way to showcase our breadth and motivate contributors.  Sandstein  07:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. DYK is the only hope of some editors to get their articles linked from the main page and noticed, without that incentive we'd lose out on a lot of new articles, and likely lose a lot of valuable editors too. -- œ^™ 09:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Endorse in its current form. Much grousing in the 'oppose' column comes from folks best known around DYK for failed proposals to hijack the project for their own ends. - Dravecky (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. This project needs improvements, that's true. So if DYK does stay it'll need thorough reviewing. At the moment we don't have thorough reviewing. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:04pm • 02:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. I don't want to scrap it entirely, because it has the potential to be something great. But we need to eliminate the "everyone-gets-a-trophy" culture and focus on getting quality articles with interesting hooks. Some of the DYK writers don't even seem that interested in the topics they're writing about. They just want to collect awards, or fill out red links out of a sense of duty. Zagalejo^^^ 03:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Until the end of history, Wikipedia's going to continue to need expansion in terms of breadth as well as depth. FA and GA serve a valuable purpose by encouraging the latter; DYK encourages the former. In the past few months alone, I've seen articles there on bird, plant, and animal species; famous, award-winning works of Indonesian literature; cities, rivers, mountains, and forests; Bach cantatas; Egypt's most famous playwright; the head of Thailand's largest TV network; a former Chairman of the Arab Parliament; a photojournalist awarded both a Pulitzer Prize and an International Press Freedom Award; and Burma's first hiphop star, who went on to become a widely-noted dissident and political prisoner. I think it'd be a mistake to not encourage and reward this kind of growth to the 'pedia, and I'd respectfully suggest that those opposers who say we no longer need new articles and/or stub-expansions should take a closer look at the continuing gaps in our coverage. -- Khazar (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Materialscientist sums it up well. Also per HJ and Fram. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Per Materialscientist. Cbl62 (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. I very much support increasing quality standards for DYK (and I also think that reducing the number of noms and featured articles goes hand in hand with such a reform) but quite simply, if DYK didn't exist it'd have to be invented. It is one of the most dynamic aspects of the project and one of the few which actually aligns (more or less) good incentives with good quality work (unlike GA and FA which to a large extent rely on good faith and charity of a very small group of self selected contributors). Yes, there is an occasional SNAFU - which often gets seized upon by some people and held up as if it was representative of DYK articles in general, which is just not true - but honestly, I could go through the list of current FAs and GAs and find LOTS OF CRAP too. In some ways because DYKs receive input from the broader community it's a more robust process. I do however think that DYK has gotten too hectic and in a way has become a "victim of its own success". Slow down. Reduce. Improve. But keep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Again, the idea of the section is what I'm really supporting. We've all seen the problems that DYK has had, but I do think showcasing new content is a worthy goal. Higher standards and stronger checks are needed, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. As has been pointed out, DYK really helps combat systemic bias. Also, some current reform plans look really promising, so no need to dump this now. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. As the easiest way for an editor to get their work featured on the main page, it's a fun way to motivate content creation. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Endorse, though I do like Tony's idea below of "slowing it down" with less sets but 1-2 sets a day is too low. A middle ground of 3 eight hour sets of 5-6 hooks each is probably more ideal. Like most things on Wikipedia the format and execution of DYK can be improved but the amount of good that it does in highlighting new and obscure articles that might not otherwise get much attention is too valuable to scrap. After OTD, I would say DYK is the 2nd most interesting section on the MP. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. This was how I became an active an involved editor; one of my articles was nominated as a Did You Know. It brought me to the attention of a WikiProject, and I've immersed myself because of that initial recognition. I used to just think of Wikipedia as a place where you would put content that you felt people needed to know about; now I think of it as a community where you develop content for the world. VI_WS ^talk 22:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. DYK reignited my flagging interest in WP, my productivity went up, there were things to look forward to which were nor so laborious as GA/FA. I felt that by adding brand new scientific articles/facts or filling in the gaps, I was doing much more useful work than run-of-the-mill editing. AshLin (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Endorse, since !votes seem to be getting counted. Oppose yet another proposal to trash DYK accompanied by vastly exaggerated criticism of its shortcomings. It is a Wikipedia project whose enthusiasts are many and whose substantial infrastructure is constantly being worked on in hopes of improvement. Sharktopus ^talk 14:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. An effective project for enticing readers to interact with different parts of Wikipedia, enticing new contributors to engage in article development (because, unlike FA, most DYK articles offer opportunities for expansion or other improvement), and motivating current contributors. --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. Even if the articles that get put there are not GA-level article, they receive vast improvements by anonymous editors and users just by being listed there. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. I think DYK is an encouragement to novice editors. They will not be participating in this forum because they do not know their way around the Community Portal and do not know this discussion exists. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. DYK is an encouragement for contributors to create articles that aren't stubs and have decent citations, not the articles that go directly to CSD, PROD, or AfD. —mc10 (t/c) 17:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Comments below about plagiarism and quality are important but I feel the two are conflated. I see a number of excellent content editors watching lower quality content be "rewarded" where their work must be pushed through a smaller pipe. We need to disambiguate the concerns about general quality with concerns about plagiarism. Protonk (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. DYK's best feature is the hook. It's important that the main page be interesting and intriguing so that it draws readers in. The hooks are like Twitter - short and attention grabbing - and this is most appropriate for the front page which should have headlines rather than blocks of text. Warden (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Quality control for DYK sucks. It has sucked for a long time, and I'm not willing to give it any more chances. The fact of the matter is that until it reaches a level of peer review that is capable of consistently weeding out plagiarism, junk prose, false citing, and other concerns, it's a liability to Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. An embarassment to the project. Dangerous. In most cases, it should be called 'Did You Kare'. Rushed and nepotistic review process would shame a banana republic. Lightmouse (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Lightmouse—and a strong oppose unless there's reform. I'm surprised to see so many uncritical comments above, which suggests that many editors simply haven't worked at DYK. Please see my comments underneath in "Discussion". Tony (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. DYK is the weakest part of the mainpage: it has a reputation for being Plagiarism Central, the hooks are often sourced to non-reliable sources or sensationalized, and in spite of YEARS of asking DYK to clean up their act, they have actually gone backwards of late by requiring nominators to review hooks, meaning quality control is now worse than when semi-experienced editors reviewed them. DYK is an embarrassment to the main page and a vehicle for those who want to climb the grease pole at RFA to put up quick, plagiarized content-- scrap it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per Sandy. On the one hand, I really like the idea of "did you know" hooks, I think it's a great way to show off content and is a nicely idiosyncratic Wikipedia thing. On the other hand, I've gradually come to the conclusion that this corner of Wikipedia I mostly haven't paid much attention to is broken. The best thing I can suggest right now is to put it on hiatus, replacing hooks drawn from new articles with hooks drawn from new GAs (thus forcing a minimum of quality control). Whilst on hiatus, the time can be taken to figure out how or whether to reintroduce hooks from new articles. Having had a number of DYKs and 2 GAs, to be honest I think it's perverse to feature new articles this prominently and to ignore GAs - new article creation tends to be an intrinsic reward, whereas GA is hard work and needs more encouraging. Rd232 ^talk 00:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. All of the weeks FAs could maybe be DYKs. People don't read 7 a day. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Switching to weak oppose. I think DYK has a place, but the quantity over quality aspect is currently not in balance. Would slide towards expanded articles and less new ones(not refresh every 6 hours) with idea of quality over quantity. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Very weak element of page: prides itself on being misleading, and defends that on basis of "we are not meant to be encyclopaedic, we are here to plug new pages". Prides itself on the sort of misleading texts that other elements at least restrict to 1 April. I spent some time watching the proposals page, suggesting that grammar and honesty levels should be improved, and was harried away from it acussed of discouraging new editors. Well I will continue to discourage people from posting sub-standard content onto the main page for as long as I have any interest in Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I remember contributing to DYK a few years back as a new user and how exhilarating it was, but I have to say with regret that it simply does not have the purpose it had before. In short, too much quantity, too little quality. It's not the users that are to blame - 3.8 million articles cover pretty much everything that is in any way significant; the most notable new articles tend to be about recent events, and those tend to be on ITN already. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Time for it to go. It features the weakest content on the main page and there's no sign that will ever change. It seems very resistant to suggestions to re-tool it. RxS (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. I think the idea of DYK (highlighting the interesting new content that is continually being added to Wikipedia) is a good one. However the process has significant flaws, and given the current attitude towards reform by regulars, I no longer support this feature on the Main Page. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. I like the idea of DYK, but most of the approved hooks are not interesting at all. Unless that is changed, I am afraid I have to oppose.—Chris!_c/t 04:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per Rd232 and Kevin McE. -- Jeandré, 2011-07-18t12:43z
14. The main page should showcase the best of Wikipedia, not whatever happens to be the newest. Neelix (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Dump it as it is. The requirements seem to encourage hastily created articles on obscure topics. Resurrect it to focus on interesting facts regardless of "newness." If an article is updated with interesting information, or someone runs across something they find interesting and didn't know, they could nominate it. --TimL (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. I would support if DYK were showcasing good articles. As it is, it promotes quick work (and quick reviewing), and thinks done in haste should not be on the main page. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Usually not what people read. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Unfortunately, too many problems associated with it. The proposed reforms by many opposers of DYK currently would cripple it beyond any realistic function anyway. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Only quality work belongs on the front page. I like Peregrine Fisher's idea at 6 above. That's effectively shutting down DYK as we know it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. DYK is the weakest part of the main page, and the one part that really doesn't need to be there. I would suggest changing it to highlight high-quality articles rather than recently created or expanded ones, which frequently have problems. Robofish (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. (leaning Oppose) Dunno, I almost never read them. Maybe, instead of showing eight of them, show only two or three chosen at random from a list every time the page is loaded, and use the space saved this way for something else. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 19:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I like the idea of a "did you know" section that can link to more articles. I do not like the way this is currently done. There are too many articles in this section, the hooks are generally boring, many of the articles are full of issues - plagiarism, POV, poor sourcing. I worry that if a new editor is first exposed to these articles then that's the kind of articles that new editor will write. I'd open this up to new GAs with a few slots for other random articles which have been checked for POV, poor sourcing, and plagiarism. Karanacs (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Actually endorse the section, but oppose the 'scrolling ticker'. Too many too fast. ... (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Did you know. Change title. Perhaps "New articles". These are good for inviting new editors write new content. The demonstrate that decent new articles are still being written. Unfortunately, the "know" in the title implies completion and authority. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, I think DYK should become more focused on improving existing (important) articles than encouraging creation of new ones on obscure and barely notable subjects. It should continue to include article expansions but additionally could also include GAs. --Elekhh (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think DYK can be and is sometimes very good on the main page in concept and practice, and some people there do good work. However, I'm going to express an honest opinion that will prompt anger in some quarters: in practice, DYK is all too often an embarrassment and dangerous. The root of the problem is the tidal-wave pace of up to 32 articles a day. It is just impossible for this number to be reviewed, it's hard on the queuing admins, and the recently introduced system of requiring nominators to review is a dreadful failure: they seem to count characters and not much more—tick, tick, tick. No one's suggesting FAC-type standards, but I agree with SandyGeorgia: at the moment copyvio, close paraphrasing, verification problems, bad prose, and poor structure are being let through daily—these are often policy matters. Many articles contain no decent hook material, and although there's been a recent improvement in satisfying the DYK rules about "interesting, catchy, and punchy" hooks, we have a way to go. I'm very uncomfortable that some editors put up large numbers of early-stage articles in the same topic area—often without good hook opportunities; by contrast, there should be an expectation that not all of one's new work should get through the review process. There seems to be a culture of avoiding the rejection of DYK noms. Why?

1. Slow it down, please—one shift a day (possibly two, but I remain to be convinced).
2. Reinforce the trajectory from DYK to GA to FAC by allowing at least one GA hook per day, thus injecting into GA nominating and reviewing a little more motivational impetus.
3. Change the emphasis to creating high quality newly created/expanded articles, as a powerful training ground for editors and something we can be proud of displaying on the main page, not embarrassed by. I'll change to support if the process is reformed to enable proper reviewing. Tony (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it really needs to be slowed down. There is no need for changes every 6 hours or whatever it is. I also believe that DYK should be replaced by hooks from Good articles. Currently good articles serve no purpose on Wikipedia, other than a trophy for somebody. They aren't as great as FAs, but they are still of sufficient quality, and imo deserving of mention on the main page. AD 18:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Good_articles_redux - if this can run concurrently for part of this process might give folks a better idea when it comes time to overhaul. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the support comments (and the opposes) it appears there's a fair amount of dissatisfaction with DYK in its current form. Of course some opposes want to ditch it completely, but some (including me) would change if some changes were made. In any case, by the looks of this section so far some changes need to be made at DYK. RxS (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier with DYK if it posted "the best" of the new articles, rather than "all" of the new articles. Right now, many DYKers believe that it is their duty to post 100% of articles that happen to meet the minimum requirements. IMO we'd be better off posting the better 50%, and omitting the worse 50%.

DYK is not meant to be Good articles (which, in turn, is not meant to be a mini-FA). It is meant to show new articles. Basically all of our new articles need some work. So the fact that they are imperfect (bad prose, insufficient citations, etc.) does not bother me. In fact, I'd be inclined to promote that as a feature: here's a new article with room for improvement—and you could improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that point. However, I think that at the moment, setting a low bar has encouraged the creation of a large volume of new articles which are engineered to pass that bar and sometimes (certainly not always) have quite serious flaws in areas where DYK does not set any requirements. The fact that others could then improve the articles further is not wholly positive. (And I speak as somebody who's gone on a DYK frenzy in the past). It's unreasonable to showcase only the very best content (ie. FAs) because wikipedia is a work in progress and it's important to recruit and encourage new editors which inevitably happens further down the quality scale - people do not arrive as fully-fledged, elite FA writers on day one. However, I would favour setting a slightly higher bar - which could be done by broadening DYK's "internal" standards a bit (I mean adding a bullet point on copyvio, rather than increasing word counts or whatever), or by adding some GAs into the mixture, or something else... bobrayner (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WhatamIdoing is quite right. DYKs are not meant to be perfect like FAs and so to criticise them for being imperfect is otiose. All we need to do is emphasise that the content is new and so may still need more work. Warden (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With short descriptions of events with links to yesterday and tomorrow, and to the archive, email, and the list of anniversaries.

Endorse

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. My favorite section on the MP, would prefer this to be where ITN currently is. Hot Stop (t) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yeah, this seems to be pretty good. With regards to content locations I don't have a big issue with switching it with ITN, but I would get the sections to compete with each other in some way for top slot. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fine as it is. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Again, room for improvement (not sure we really need the blurb format and it can be a bit dull sometimes), but of definite value. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Don't see a problem here. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. On the fence here, but I don't think there's anything necessarily bad about On This Day. hare j 02:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Useful, especially when it comes to celebrations or events that are often overlooked. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Interesting and sometimes bizarre, a good way of exposing the stranger bits of the 'pedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Endorse, because it provides some useful information about our history, inventions, discoveries, important achivements by people, etc. (though it contains nonsense information, like first gay parade...) Plus it contains holidays, not just only christmas or eastern, but also more or less independent holidays like Saint Rosalia or Bon Festival, which gives the reader an overview about our various holidays in our world. It is of huge encyclopedic value, alike TFP.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 10:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. It's a worthwhile counterbalance to ITN. If (and only if) ITN is converted into a ticker format, I would consider OTD expendable. If ITN is retained and largely unaltered, OTD or an equivalent should remain too. —WFC— 23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Very interesting and educational. Excellent starting off point for a myriad of historical topics. A very underappreciated part of the main page, but I'm willing to bet that once it's gone, you'll start to see a lot of complaints from readers. -- œ^™ 09:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. There are different links shown each time, they're not always the same. Also whether one likes it or not is a moot point, it's not about "you" it's about the wider community. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:05pm • 02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Certainly one of those most interesting sections on the MP. Personally, I don't think we leverage this section enough and should promote it more. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. We don't do enough to promote these; they're supposed to be populated with higher-quality articles, but I don't think enough people realize that they can add their articles to any anniversary date. This is a much easier problem to fix than ITN's or DYK's. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. This is exactly the kind of content that causes some people to visit a particular website on a regular basis. (That's why it's a tried and true component of many daily newspapers.) --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. OTD and ITN complements each other. ... (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. It's an interesting section, but perhaps it should be given less weight. —mc10 (t/c) 18:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose, cut this to one line with a link showing off on this day items. I feel this section is a little nerdy. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Why show a small percentage of date specific article repeatedly linked(annually) from main page over none date specific articles? Makes no sense. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. The least useful and my least favorite part of the main page. Marcus Qwertyus 22:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. This would be high on my list of things to cut to free up space for other things. Even if space wasn't an issue, I've never really found this section valuable. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Don't find random links to events in the past useful in any way. --Elekhh (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. No reason why these things should get on the main page every year again. Catholic saints should definitely go, the number of people eagerly awaiting the feast of Martinian and Processus isn't really that high (compared to national holidays and the like). Fram (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Just has always felt to me to be a poor use of real estate. Courcelles 13:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Combined with In the News, this section is too much - it would do better as a section of Wikipedia:Current events — Pretzels ^Hii! 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The on this day events could be rotated more. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I have always found this section to be lame and uninteresting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. I'd rather use the amount of space it takes for something else. I'd just keep the “July 15: Festino of Saint Rosalia in Palermo, Italy; Chūgen/Bon Festival in Japan” part (maybe immediately above where TFA and ITN are now). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Trivial, tedious and repetitive, just not a good use of real estate. It seems like the kind of thing we would've done in the early days when we were trying to draw readers, but Wikipedia's gotten more professional and authoritarian over the years and this "cutesy" stuff just doesn't fit in anymore. If someone were trying to add this now it would get voted down 90 to 10. —Designate (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. It's just trivia; why should it be on the main page? AD 21:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Never liked this. We can use the space in better ways. For instance I'd rather figure out some way to actively Counter Systemic Bias by identifying and highlighting underserved topics, and use the space for that. Rd232 ^talk 00:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. The contents are based on mere coincidence. Why do we tell people about an event just because it happened to happen exactly x*365 days ago?  Sandstein  07:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. This section does not showcase the best of Wikipedia; the sections that showcase featured things (lists, pictures, etc.) should take precedence. Neelix (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. It's too much of a collection of random trivia. This is valuable real estate and I think it would be better filled by moving Featured Picture up here, or having some a featured-non-article-content section which rotates between featured pictures, sounds, lists, and portals. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. No quality assurance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Per Antony-22, Volunteer Marek, Sandstein, Aiken drum, and others. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Extremely trivial. If we are going to have things on the main page based on the position of the Sun when it happened, we might as well post horoscopes. JimSukwutput 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Something has to go and OTD is at the margin. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Random collection of items, never paid any attention to it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Though for now leaning support. As is, THIS is actually the one which probably features the most low-quality content. In a way, all the DYK-haters should re-focus on this particular aspect of the main page. It's a good idea, needs more oversight and involvement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Switching to oppose[reply]

Discussion

• Fine as it. A nice way to link to decent, random content. This sort of section is very popular in other media. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are a small percentage of date specific article repeatedly linked(annually) from main page over none date specific articles? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support repurposing this quadrant to rotating content, and replacing "On this day" to "This week in history" on Sunday and Monday, with a link to that content at the top of the section no matter what day. The space could be used Tuesday-Saturday to feature newly GA content, featured lists, this week's featured WikiProject, and this week's featured WikiMedia sister project. This is the one section of the main page that really can be better served by broadening its scope, and focusing on truly interesting content, rather than the merely trivial. VI_WS ^talk 22:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The content highlighted is not exactly random; it's content which is associated with a specific date. Some fields are much more disposed to dates than others; and in some fields even when you can tie something to a date it's still a somewhat skewed view. We can't put a date on most interesting anthropological stuff, but we can sometimes put a date on when it was "discovered" or "published" by some white guy from a western university. The last 500 years of history get really good coverage at the expense of biology, classical Greek sculpture, metallurgy, Bantu languages, or whatever. bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

1. I'd actually seriously consider moving it bang up to the top. Pictures will attract more people in. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse. Improve blurb checking because occasionally it is sub-optimial. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. My vision of the main page is that, generally speaking, more, bigger pictures are used. I think we should find a way to tie in Today's Featured Picture with the other features on the main page, but barring that, a separate featured picture is doable. hare j 02:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. makes the page more visually appealing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Very beautiful pictures that otherwise we may not see and proof that free images can be just as stunning as copyrighted ones. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is my favorite part of the main page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Makes the page visually more appealing, I would support a greater use of pictures on the MP in general. But not all featured pictures are suitable for TFP if we insist on a given dimension – for example, it's an utter waste of time featuring panoramas when you only give them 500 or 800 pixels' width like other 'standard format' images. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. I agree that less text in the FP might be a good idea, but I like this section, and it loosens up the page, which would otherwise be a wall of text with a few tiny images on the edges. Wikipedia is multimedia, and we should take advantage of that. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Aesthetically I don't like the current section at all. But aesthetics aside it's a fundamental part of the main page. A possible compromise would be to give preference to articles, lists and DYKs that have FPs, but that already happens, and a ~100px image doesn't do a featured picture justice. Agree with the above comments about panoramas, but we should certainly go out of our way to support them on the main page in future. The potential for panoramic shots to add to geographic articles is largely untapped, and who are we to undermine those efforts? —WFC— 11:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Second most active featured content process, and is valuable for introducing eye-catching images to readers, and getting image donations. Courcelles 13:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Featured pics are an impressive part of WP. But POTD is underwhelming because they're buried so far down and are too small. I warned Howcheng I was going to push for POTD to be moved to the top, and he rightly didn't respond for CoI reasons, probably. The pics definitely need to be bigger, and if at the top could have just a (shorter) caption in thumbnail style. But if the whole of the main page were rethought as an image-based design, I think POTD could be just one of the dynamic-click-image-float-out items. Tony (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC) PS I agree with the comment below that some of them are a bit less impressive, but hey, there are thousands in the queue: I'd be choosier. The horizontal slot is a big problem unless the pic is the right dimension. Tony (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Yes. If (as I'm proposing) DYK and ITD are removed or shrunk, it would not even be that far down below the top of the page. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. per Courcelles. Showing a high quality image on the front page lets readers know that we are serious about how we illustrate our articles. ThemFromSpace 05:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Otherwise it's rather a lot of text.  Sandstein  07:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:07pm • 02:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Is quality content, should remain on the main page in some form. --Elekhh (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Adds some visual interest to the page. Zagalejo^^^ 03:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. I understand the opposers' rationale that pictures are secondary in an encyclopedia, but high-quality images greatly add to the visual appeal of the Main Page, which draws in readers. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Dabomb says it better than I can. I have a hard time thinking of a main page without a featured picture as an improvement. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Featured content should take precedence on the main page. Neelix (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Endorse for many of the reasons mentioned previously. TFP is one of my favorite sections; it's visually appealing; it draws readers; it takes advantage of the multimedia aspect of Wikipedia. I agree with some comments that there could be a shift towards pictures of cultural and social significance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Walls of text scare away people --Guerillero | My Talk 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. It unfortunately falls below the fold now, and should be made more prominent. It could be expanded into a featured-non-article-content section which rotates between featured pictures, sounds, lists, and portals. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. This is one of the best parts of our main page, and it should be moved up from its not very prominent position, possibly directly below TFA, if design allows. —mc10 (t/c) 18:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Per MC10 above. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Encourages photography for our articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. It's at the bottom, where really interested people are rewarded with great pictures. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]