Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 |
Main Page error reports
To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.
- Where is the error? An exact quote of all or part of the text in question will help.
- Offer a correction if possible.
- References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
- Time zones: The current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (05:27 on 31 July 2016), not adjusted to your local time zone.
- Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
- Done? Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
- No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article
Errors in In the news
Errors in the current Did you know...
- Issue with Queue 5
- I think the fourth hook must be corrected to ... that Rajendra Singh is the first Indian Coast Guard officer to be appointed as the Director General of the Indian Coast Guard? The present hook seems to contain grammatical errors; to be appointed Director General of Indian Coast Guard? doesn't make sense. Please review it. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 14:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Reads ok to me as it stands. Clearly it's an ENGVAR thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day
Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture
The caption is not correct: the dark green coastal conifer forest can only be seen on the left side of the road, in the distance. Deciduous trees can be seen on both sides of the road -- their leaves are changing color. 108.56.199.37 (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list
General discussion
We have things to learn from the french main page
Hello,
there are several aspects where the french main page does better than ours. Firstly, within the content area of the wikimedia interface, there are only three visible main objects. This is harmonious with the human threshold of four objects that can be identified in an instant. In the English wikipedia however, the titles within the boxes are objects themselves (distinguishing themselves as such by the border lines around them), which is why there are in total five objects. Furthermore, the background colors make readability more difficult.
Thus, I suggest that the french design (once again) be copied and transported to this main page, for better readability and ease of use. Perhaps the authors of the french page would volunteer for such a task if asked. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Most people agree that the Main Page needs to be redesigned, but no one agrees on how to do it. Proposals to do so have been tried and failed many times- if you wish to make a formal proposal, good luck to you. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Am I correct in understanding that you regard this design as simpler and more straightforward than that of our main page? Given the rounded corners, redundant Wikipedia globe logo (directly adjacent to the one appearing on every page) and headings with icons and gradient backgrounds (which you apparently consider less distracting than simple borders), I disagree.
- Also note that the right-hand column's background color is identical to ours. (I realize that this falls outside what you've described as "the content area".) —David Levy 21:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- I agree with David Levy. While there's disagreement on how we should redesign our main page, there's a general consensus that any redesign should remove clutter and make the page easier to navigate. The fr-wiki main page resembles the menu of a rather tacky restaurant, and is even more cheap-looking and cluttered than our own 2004 relic. ‑ Iridescent 22:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Whatever its age the EnMP works reasonably well #partly because it is familiar# (even if there have been some tweaks and changes - such as moving the 'Search box' - and 'rearrangements not visible to the general user').
-
And - 'six months after the significantly redesign' there would be discussions on the talk page about how to improve the Main Page. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Look, one of the reasons why the current page looks about 15 years out of date is the pastel boxes. Even given the quite pathetic inability of the Wikipedia community to update the Main Page design over many years, can this ONE issue be addressed? Can we get rid of the pastel boxes? 86.185.218.109 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- IMO the pastel boxes look a lot cleaner and neater than "modern" web design. Even so, nowadays things are trending back towards flat design anyways. ansh666 02:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- (angrily waves his cane) If it ain't broken, don't fix it!--WaltCip (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Generally for the MP: Is the text legible? Yes. Are some changes made? Yes (using bold to indicate what item on the list images link to). Do people complain? Yes. Do they all complain about the same thing? No (apart from 'six hooks on topic x, 'not in front of the children/while I am having a worktime coffee break and similar). Should there be some updating? Possibly? Should WP capitalise on its MP continuity of layout? Perhaps.
- (angrily waves his cane) If it ain't broken, don't fix it!--WaltCip (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- IMO the pastel boxes look a lot cleaner and neater than "modern" web design. Even so, nowadays things are trending back towards flat design anyways. ansh666 02:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
More generally - did (insert well known company of choice) rebrands work? Cite abject failures/runaway successes to taste.
Will the discussion be continuing as the last humans introduce the latest computer redesign? Almost certainly. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Design by consensus is doomed to fail, as evidenced by the numerous failed attempts at minor variations on the existing outdated theme. Fact is, this is something that's going to have to be decreed by the foundation, and probably standardized across all the projects. --50.160.204.213 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Main page/design of wikipedia
Does anybody know if the foundation are considering an update sometime? We've had the same main page for ten years now and the default Vector design has always looked really bland and amateurish IMO. It is 2016 now, not 2005...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's been multiple discussions here to change it. It isn't a foundation issue; it's a local en.wikipedia issue, which means editors here have to handle it on our own. We've had those discussions about every six months for about 5 years running. You can find them in the archives of this very talk page. Nothing has happened. If you want to fire up a new discussion, feel free, but there's a lot of work already put into this (including concrete designs which have been mooted), but nothing has been done yet. There's a lot of inertia to an organization this large... --Jayron32 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of countless proposals to change, but it never does. Perhaps the site developers should take a leap of good faith and trial some different ones for a period and see which prove to be the most popular? The WikiWand design I think is the closest I've seen to the sort of thing I'd expect, though it's certianly not perfect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- We had a discussion just a couple of weeks ago, in which someone threatened to unilaterally impose a new main page on the project before the end of this year, and was rather decisively told that wouldn't be a good way of doing things. The problem is that I have yet to see any page that beats the current one for aesthetics or content. In many ways the main page is fine as it is, so it needs to be something really good to replace it, and nobody's designed that yet. — Amakuru (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of countless proposals to change, but it never does. Perhaps the site developers should take a leap of good faith and trial some different ones for a period and see which prove to be the most popular? The WikiWand design I think is the closest I've seen to the sort of thing I'd expect, though it's certianly not perfect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're late to the party:
- Discussion started by Edokter;
- RFC started by Edokter (it's in the hatted "Old discussion" section);
- ANI discussion resulting in Edokter's desysop and retirement;
- A new discussion started by Guy.
- It peters out after that, the last edit to that page was almost 3 weeks ago. I understand you're coming here with a desire to discuss this in good faith, but I'd say give everybody time to breathe a little before restarting this whole mess. Isa (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I really don't want to reopen this can of worms, I wasn't aware of a discussion three weeks ago but in all honesty I would say that being bold and just enforcing a change in this stalemate would be a good idea. Otherwise it'll be 2050 and we'll still have this design. For starters we could at least change the pastel headers to something a bit classier. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think you read any of the links I provided. This is exactly what Edokter said, word for word, about 30 days ago. "Enforcing a change" isn't "a good idea". Isa (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I needn't necessarily be a permanent change, but to test some different skins and pages I think, see how people react to them and then go with the most popular. If somebody isn't bold on this it'll be 2050 and we'll still be stuck with the same jurassic era level of web design.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is how a real life large business wanting to update its home page would probably do it: list the design features it was looking for, commission 3–5 alternative designs from internal or external service providers, then pick or vote for their preferred new design, with the field of candidates possibly including the existing design. As Dr Blofeld implies, I doubt if an organisation like Wikipedia would be able to reach consensus on a new design so it would come down to a vote. Has something like this ever been considered in lieu of the 2050 ice age option? Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- I needn't necessarily be a permanent change, but to test some different skins and pages I think, see how people react to them and then go with the most popular. If somebody isn't bold on this it'll be 2050 and we'll still be stuck with the same jurassic era level of web design.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)