This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Talk:Main Page, that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Author(s): Slakr Search for "Main Page" on Google
View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Main Page"
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Talk:Main Page, that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Author(s): Misza13 Search for "Main Page" on Google
View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Main Page"

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Talk:Main Page, that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Author(s): Alan Liefting Search for "Main Page" on Google
View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Main Page"

Main Page error report

{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors}}

General discussion


GA Main Page slot proposal

This discussion has been moved here from the DYK Talk page, suggested that this is the appropriate place to post it:  —  Maile66 (talk<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't GAs have a slot on the main page? Why should GA be a step child of anything else?  —  Maile66 (talk<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/<dot-separator>Template:User-multi/) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • That GAs get their own equal daily slot on the main page, neither subordinate, nor superior to anything else, nor blended in with anything else
  • Support But this is really not the right place to be having this proposal, like, at all. SilverserenC 18:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree with that. After all GA is almost 1 step off FA so it should have it's own part in the main page. It would allow GAs to get main page exposure without compromising DYK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and agree. Jonatalk to me 19:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd support this, but why are we still discussing it here, it won't do anything. Village pump proposals or the talk page for the main page would be a better place. Ryan Vesey 19:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All Comments below this line are after the move from the DYK page

  • Support, but where to put it, and how to proceed it? --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The talk page says: "This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content. Please direct your suggestion to one of the forums listed above or your post may be removed or ignored.". --LauraHale (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the appropriate venue for a discussion about Main Page format. "Content" in that note I presume refers to which articles we choose to present on the Main Page. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Good Article reviews are less thorough than DYK reviews and there is no discussion linked to which suggests a radical overhaul for GA, no suggestion for how to implement this and no link to a conversation showing WP:GAN actually wants this.--LauraHale (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    That's a strange position to adopt, bordering on the delusional. In what way are GA reviews less thorough than DYK reviews? I'd go so far as to say that it's very evident that the majority of DYK reviewers don't even take the trouble to read the entire article, so they can hardly be producing thorough reviews. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    Care to do a similar analysis for GA reviews? I've seen GA reviews where the comment has basically been "Good work! Keep it up!" If you look at the discussions on how to handle GA review drives where they talk about fixing it to prevent such reviewing problems, you can see the problems with GA. --LauraHale (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    Talk:Euphoria (Usher song)/GA1 is a recent GA review. There is no evidence the reviewer reviewed against the criteria. Neutrality not mentioned. Plagiarism not mentioned. Copyright not mentioned. Thoroughness of topic not mentioned. Stability not mentioned. No evidence criteria considered in the review. GA reviews frequently have this problem. --LauraHale (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    In defence of the GA process, try Talk:Albertus Soegijapranata/GA1, Talk:Lynching of Jesse Washington/GA1, Talk:Early life of David Lynch/GA1 or Talk:Crime and Dissonance/GA1 for ones which do offer a broader and deeper look at the criteria; far beyond what DYK offers. Good Articles on the main page would plug a pretty obvious gap, and I see concerns about quality being a poor critique. Featured Articles can and do drop below the standard required and we're not going to abolish TFA, just vet what actually goes on the main page to ensure it looks good. GRAPPLE X 22:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    I see that you're in denial LauraHale. So pick any set of DYKs you like and I'll tell you why none of them would meet the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    She'll win that by picking a DYKs that is already a GA, like Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines. The GA process occasionally (but only occasionally) runs faster than DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    As LauraHale appears reluctant to put her absurd claim that DYK reviews are more rigorous than GA reviews to the test I've just looked at the crop of DYKs on the main page as I type this. None of them meet the GA criteria and once again it's very evident that the DYK reviewers hadn't even read the article or looked for possible plagiarism/copyright violations, a long-standing complaint about the DYK process. Anyone interested in the details can find them here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    That is not what she is saying. She says GA reviews are "less thorough than DYK reviews" and on past experience (I never look at GA reviews now) she may well be right. But that is meant (I presume) in terms of their own respective criteria. Many GA reviews, no doubt including yours, are very thorough & good, others extremely skimpy. You never know what you are getting with GA. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    Absurd her claims certainly are. "Neutrality not mentioned. Plagiarism not mentioned. Copyright not mentioned." ... well, welcome to the DYK reviewing queue (or should I say reviewing freeway?). Tony (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    DKY reviews are merely more pedantic IME, and less focussed on genuine quality in the article. bridies (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    Tony1's claim is completely absurd and ill-informed nonsense. LauraHale is absolutely right. GA reviews are not as thorough as DYK. And they don't need to be; a GA is little more than a B class article. You get one reviewer, and the standard for a GA is quite low. Occasionally I get GA reviewers who want to conduct a FAC review instead, based on the idea that the article is going to FAC. That is a mistaken idea though; an article I write today cannot be an FA until 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    I would somewhat agree with LauraHale on the point that GAs are not really Good Articles. I have seen some comments on article talk pages post-GA or during PR or FAC showing discontent on the GA review that was done. Some key points on the topic are missing or language is poor or some other sorts.
    I have recently also been in DYKNs where they felt as good as FACs with all grilling of critical points.
    But i do not understand LH's opposition for a new slot of GAs on Main Page. In case LH has doubts against the GA review process i would suggest that GARs should also be done by multiple editors. Single editor doing a GA review could sometimes be a reason for missing or overlooking some factors in the article. I have seen multiple editors getting involved in DYKNs but hardly seen that happening on GAs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    Of course FAC is going to be critical; it's at the top of the heap in terms of quality standards and policy compliance. On average, GA is likely to be much higher in that heap that DYK. Tony (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support sounds like a good idea to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow Evan (talkcontribs) 22:18, 7 October 2012‎ (UTC)
  • Oppose a TFA-style slot for GAs. Articles attain FA status at an average rate exceeding one per day, so many never will appear on the main page. Given that fact, it seems illogical for GAs to receive that level of exposure.
    Support expanding DYK's scope to include GAs (perhaps on weekends) in addition to new/expanded articles. —David Levy 22:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes to GAs on the main page Would definitely lead to a lot of quality improvements to established articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In case my comment above is not clear support. I don't really care how we do it, options discussed in the past have been something like TFA, a random GA link, or a link to WP:GA. I think any option that gets GA's placed on or linked from the main page is a good one. Ryan Vesey 22:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Dear Reader, this is an article of an article that is not too bad, but still somewhat short of what we ask our editors to strive for...": why would we do that? No likelihood of running out of FAs. Kevin McE (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    But what we have now with DYK is "Dear Reader, here are some articles that are basically crap, but maybe you can help us to improve them." Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
What has that got to do with my comment? Make a proposal about DYK, and I'll give my response to it: this is my response to a proposal to have a TGA slot. Kevin McE (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It would be much better all round if it said that. Yomanganitalk 23:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    It would, and a great deal more honest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think Kevin hits the nail on the head. What are we promoting? A decent article that hasn't been rigorously reviewed? For that matter, I also support removing DYK, and replacing it with a daily list. Let's just have the best (and current events) on the main page. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, some GAs do receive fairly rigorous reviews, witness Talk:Heinrich Himmler/GA2. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons listed by Kevin and Laura. Further, leave DYK as it is. Manxruler (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose I just can't how it will fit. We have best (FA, image, weekly list), newest and two sorts of most relevant (anniversaries, news). GAs are none of these. They are sort not quite best and definitely none of the others. Better to find space for some other featured content: featured portals, media, or extra featured articles. Good articles can of course make it onto the front page if promoted to featured.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, I have recently come to the understanding that it would be better to promote GA's over FA's as FA promote excess conformity, excess rules, endless arguments and put off newbies both in terms of rules, arguments and standards required. All this for 1 article a day while missing the bigger picture of improving the other 99.9% of articles, literally. In answer to 'Dear Reader, this is an article of an article that is not too bad, but still somewhat short of what we'd like...Wikipedia has millions of articles to improve, in fact over 99.9% of them, Join here. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We already have people saying DYK has too broad a set of aims; this would mix in something very different and genuinely dilute those aims. No prejudice against GAs getting their own Main Page slot; I understand the category came about a couple of years ago? Now that it's well established, those who work in that area of endeavour should see about getting it incorporated into the Main Page if they want. But not mixed in with the very different category of new or newly expanded articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, essentially for the same reasons that everyone else has already raised. Prioryman (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This proposal has been made (more than once I think) in the past. The main page already gives prominent focus to FAs reflecting contributions by those who have honed subjects extensively. The DYK section of the main pages serves a different purposes. It draws attention to newly created/expanded content. By doing so, it attracts additional eyes to new content, helping to improve the new content with contributions from others. It also serves as an excellent means to encourage creation of new content and to develop newer editors. For these reasons, and as I have also voted in the past, I still oppose the proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia must resist the temptation to just cram every possible thing onto the already crowded main-page. What is the advantage, to the reader of having a GA of the day? Besides distracting from the featured content it's confusing. (Which is better? Featured or Good? Who knows! Well, we do, but it's not obvious.) Being on the main-page is not a trophy, so we don't need to make a consolation prize category. APL (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though it is a good thought, I believe we would be having too much stuff stuffed into the main page. Users may also get confused as to what they are looking at (eg: Is this Good, Featured, what?), as noted by APL, and if people would like to see their article get on the main page, then they should work hard to get it up to FA status. Also, making matters worse, GAs are only reviewed by one person, and their review could have been poor, as well, lots of mistake could have been in the articles, and it wasn't even at that quality, due to a poor review, then. Only the best should be on the main page, IMO. Also as per the above. TBrandley 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    I find it difficult to believe that anyone would claim that DYKs are the best of anything. Is that really your position? And how many "reviewers" does the typical DYK have? Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    I was referring to the featured lists, pictures, and articles, sorry, I missed DYK. Actually, after reading above, maybe the DYKs should be removed. I'm leaning to a support for the removal of DYKs. Thanks, TBrandley 02:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    Still doesn't make sense though. What about "In the news" or "On this day"? What are they the best of? Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not against having them there, although it is not fully related to Wikipedia and its articles. TBrandley 02:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    What you very clearly said was "only the best should be on the main page", which makes me wonder if you've ever actually looked at the main page. But whatever. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Honestly, the quality of GAs vary from 'should be an FA' to 'should still be rated C class', and that alone is enough to leave me weary. If you want GAs on the main page, get Featured Topics on the main page. At least those are re-vetted. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    Presumably you mean "wary"... ;) — foxj 15:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This proposal is scant on details and I cant support it as written. Where on the front page would they be placed? I dont think there is much room to spare on the front page. What would be dropped, or would share space with GAs? How would they be selection? I prefer GAs to be integrated into the existing DYK system, and I also like Sven's suggestion to elevate featured topics to the front page, perhaps by replacing ITN on slow news days, ;-) or replacing FL+FP when the featured topic has a good picture to accompany it. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Opposefar too much text on the main page already. I'd be looking to reduce it in all sections except for TFP. Please see the alternative proposal on the DYK talk page, which doesn't require more real estate. Tony (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed. The main page already looks too cluttered, and rather dated. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge with or replace DYK. I see no reason to dilute TFA, or to increase the amount of content on the Main Page. I would support replacing some or all of the current DYK content (which is rarely of much interest to readers) with GA material (which hopefully is, and is of a higher standard). This may require some additional vetting, along the lines currently done for DYK, but that needn't be onerous if the DYK content is reduced. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neither fish nor fowl. I would be more interested in eliminating the Good articles process (and the Start, B, C article rankings). Rmhermen (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    More interested in eliminating the Good articles process than what? DYK is nothing more or less than vanity publishing, and not very good vanity publishing at that. It's also riddled with undetected plagiarism/copyright issues, even in the batch I looked at only a few minutes ago. High time the readers were put first, not the habitual stub creators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Rather see it eliminated than elevated to the main page. It was originally intended for articles too short for FA with longer articles being sent to Peer Review but then got mixed up with the 1.0 folks - and what purpose does it really serve? Rmhermen (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      I think he does know what he's talking about. He was on Wikipedia when the GA system was instituted; you weren't. Graham87 05:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
      Then he clearly misunderstood, just as you do. Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The main page should display the very best WP has to offer. I'm sorry, but GA's are not the very best. It would make no sense having a lesser article in terms of quality on the main page. --CassiantoTalk 20:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    But it doesn't, unless you believe that DYKs, ITNs and On this day articles are anything like the best that anyone could offer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
In principal yes Cassianto but at Mal says it isn't the case. I'd be happy to see a mixture of GAs in with DYKs as the quality generally matches or exceeds the best DYKs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some excellent DYKs, which would easily meet the GA criteria, but they're few and far between. But too many have problems like this one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support I always supported GAs on the mainpage. Remove ITN as per WP:NOTNEWS and instead place something educational and encyclopedic. Regards.--Kürbis () 11:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Good articles are more important than lists, ITN, and DYKs. DYKs are good for encouraging new talent, so perhaps accounts could be allowed 2 DYKS in a smaller DYK section. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --Make space by getting rid of DYK and ITN. Follow the lead of Spanish WP by plugging a couple of GAs (after the FA), and of French WP by making the links to the main portals more prominent. Et voilà! A less cluttered, more encyclopedic main page. Awien (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. If it means significantly revising or replacing existing sections, so be it. I supported that other proposal to introduce GAs into DYK, although just replacing DYK is fine by me. – Steel 21:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We already have a "Featured article" section, so adding a selection of "second best" articles seems illogical to me. I appreciate many of the other links on the page are to non-FA articles, but I don’t see a reason to raise their prominence to something equalling the FAs. - SchroCat (^@) 22:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but not merged with new articles. Personally I would add new articles as a daily list (like Hurracanehink suggested) and save the DYK concept for Good articles. We are an encyclopaedia with many weird and wonderful articles and disqualifying many of these articles from one of our more promising gimmicks is a waste. In my opinion one chosen good article a day with a decent hook is more likely to draw people in than 24 hooks a day, many with bland hooks and repeating topics from previous days. AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The focus given to FA should be kept, not provided more visual competition. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I don't see a reason why not. Good and features articles both represent Wikipedia's best content. Zac (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Good articles are not on the same level as featured articles I'm afraid. Just because an article is awarded GA status, it doesn't mean to say it is a good article. It's quality is dependent on the level of review it receives from the reviewer. Unlike FAC's, the community do not assess a GAC. It's quality is assessed by the review of just one person, and its quality is dependant on that reviewers skills. I sometimes see poorly reviewed GA's that pass the process that still have mistakes in them. These are not "the best of Wikipedia". To base an articles quality on the review of just one editor is not the same as basing it on those of several people at FAC. -- CassiantoTalk 04:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, I've seen them around as well, but overall, good articles are indeed good. If they were to be included, although it would be some work, I think it could work a bit like DYK. You nominate your GA to be included. Someone else takes a look at it to see if it's really good enough. Zac (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously we should show our visitors our best good articles, which indeed are from a higher quality than the usual dd you know nominations (no offense intended, DYK guys do a good work and I've been there a lot). — ΛΧΣ21 03:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The goals of TFA and DYK are different. One is to showcase our best content, while the other is to showcase our newest interesting content. Clearly GA tends more towards the former. As someone mentioned above regarding the FA promotion rate being greater than one per day, we should not show GAs on the main page before we have exhausted our supply of featured articles. -- King of ♠ 04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It will be nice giving some attention to the GA's we (the editors) are working on, same as that attention is given to the FA's. I like this suggestion. — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now, at least) - on the whole, I prefer the approach of amalgamating GA into DYK rather than adding a new section. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- We have plenty of FA's to post, this is not the right place for this proposal so I doubt this discussion will be considered anyway, and please don't remove ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't believe GA's should have a box as large as FA, rather something similar to the DYK box. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per King of Hearts. Currently, the different sections of the Main Page address different needs or interests: the best content, the newest content (that is at least marginally presentable), and so on. The quality of content that they feature varies, but they each fill their own niche. The same does not apply to Good Articles, since GA is largely just a step on the road toward FA. Featuring GAs on the Main Page would place them in direct competition with FAs, which is is counterproductive. If we start to experience a shortage of FAs, then that's a wholly different situation... -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    With regard to the various calls to replace DYK or ITN with GA, I ask this: If either DYK or ITN was removed, would it not be better to feature two FAs instead of one FA and one GA? -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it depends on how you view the main page. If it is for readers then it should not have any Good or new articles featured. If it is to encourage writers then GA serves a similar purpose to FA in that it encourages improving content (as opposed to the new content DYK encourages). A big difference is that GA is more accessable for many editors. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I do not see the need to feature GAs on the main page when we feature FAs, which are superior in quality. Dough4872 00:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: FAs are articles that we should hold in high esteem, but GAs should also be held in high esteem. Are GAs of less "quality" to the point that we don't want to showcase them to viewers? If that is the case, doesn't that warp the whole purpose of being a "Good Article"? We should also showcase GAs in a separate section as an example of what high-quality articles look like. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I actually came to this page planning to support, but the arguments against (too much main page clutter, and the neither fish-nor-fowl nature of GAs) persuaded me. Khazar2 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If not the GAs-merged-with-DKYs proposal, then GA should have its own section. It doesn't make sense that we feature god knows how many DKYs per day and nothing from GA. We should be less obsessed with more-more-more content creation and be more willing to encourage, reward and display quality rewriting of existing coverage. There would be quality control issues, sure, as there are at DKY and TFA. bridies (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. When Wikipedia was young it made sense to incentivise the creation of new articles to help build the encyclopedia. Today, most important articles already exist, so our focus needs to shift towards improving existing articles. Putting GAs on the main page helps update our incentives to match Wikipedia's current needs. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Putting GAs on the Main Page primarily for being a superior process to others that feature content doesn't strike me as the right approach. GAs should stand on their own merits, and shouldn't be put in solely because GAN doesn't have some of the issues that have plagued DYK, for example. Personally, I think that too many GAs have difficulty meeting the project's own quality standards, due to the nature of the process. Letting any one reviewer's opinion decide an article's fate is always going to run the risk of a poor decision. Even GAN's advocates will likely admit as much. DYK has many well-known issues, but at least we aren't announcing to the world that they are high-quality articles, which is what we would be doing with GAs. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Main page should showcase Wikipedia's best content...featured articles. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Another contributor to Singapore-related articles shared with me that he prefers writing DYKs to writing GAs because only the former have Main Page exposure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as a replacement or alteration of DYK or replacement of the trivial "on this day". After over a decade of growth we have a giant baby encyclopaedia with two thirds of the articles at stub status, and is long overdue to shift focus on article improvement. --ELEKHHT 05:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For reasons well-rehearsed by a number of editors above. NB I'd strongly support a proposal to remove DYK. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think that GAs should have their own section and TFL should be a permanent affair. Saying so, I think that it not much worthy to discuss this issue here, village pump is the right place to go for it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't believe I'm supporting both proposals, but what the heck. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Personally I think quality is the most important part of what wikipedia needs, so things that encourage quality are a good thing, and working towards FP will help encourage people that are daunted by the FA standards, and might otherwise try and search for new trivia to put in DYK. The issue some have with the GA process seems irrelevant - this is a classic chicken and egg, while GA has no effect on anything, there is no real reason to tighten up the process. If the GA process was regularly reviewed in the process of choosing GAs for the FP, then the process will improve, plus as there are so many more GAs than FAs, only the best GAs will make the cut anyway, so the concern about poorly reviewed GAs seems misplaced to me. -- (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to expand - personal I think the MP has a massive influence on how Wikipedia works dues to its' prominence. The current set up means the type of wikipedia editor that is "rewarded" with MP attention are 1) people with large amounts of time to make the massive commitment to shepherd an article to FA status 2) those that create new short articles on ever more obscure trivia to get into DYK and 3) recentist articles on things in the news to get into ITN. The 1 FA per day limit means editors that concentrate on creating good quality encyclopaedic articles on mainstream and important topics are competing for that 1 slot per day, where less "important" articles dominate everywhere else on the MP, so a way of increasing the balance towards quality rather than quantity would be good in my view, and highlighting GAs seems the only existing structure. The fact some GA reviews are not thorough enough seems an irrelevant point - items suggested for the MP in the GA category will be filtered and checked by the recommendation process, so poor quality "GA"s won't appear anyway. In terms of the actual resulting section, I could see something along the lines of 3-4 articles per day, with 1 or 2 sentences summarizing the article, and you could have it so down the left hand side of the page you had FA, GA, DYK - showing the pyramid of quality/progression of articles within wikipedia. -- (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Netural. To tell the truth, I don't consider thatsome GAs are good enough for exhibiting in Main Page as high-quality contents.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Question: There are people here that the Main Page's purpose is to feature featured content, although obviously, it's not the case with ITN, DYK and OTD. So the question is, should it? Since when? –HTD 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly!! I don't understand why people have this misconception. Even TFP doesn't necessarily link to any better article. Also i am seeing that commenters are confused about the two discussions happening. Should GA get a separate place. Should GA be included as an additional criteria for DYK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support *"' - as a replacement for DYK with all GAs suitable for inclusion. It may promote GAs which is no bad thing but as an retired reviewer it may well increase the waiting lists. GAs must not be part of DYKs what form of combination would that make. Edmund Patrick confer 20:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have plenty of FAs which have not appeared on the front page. Cannot see any value whatsoever in GAs having a spot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support We need people to improve upon GA's. This is a good way to make people want to edit them. ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ Talk 03:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. GA's do need to be improved, but the Featured Article and Featured Picture spots are reserved for showcasing the very best work on the encyclopedia. It wouldn't seem fitting to include work that's deemed second-class (albeit still very good) when many first-class articles haven't been featured. It is also kind of nice to have only one article featured, as it focuses attention on that subject for the day. Furthermore, comparing it to DYK doesn't make much sense as DYK, rather than showing quality, is showing that WP is still actively-producing articles. dci | TALK 20:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How low we've sunk ...

A cute cat as our featured picture? It took long enough, but now we've reached the same level as the rest of the Internet. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could take a better picture that could be used as our featured picture, instead of bitching about it, Daniel? No, that's too difficult. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
For Pete's sake I was 'joking. Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm offended and outraged, I have 3-year-old children who use Wikipedia who are subject to this, I will never donate to Wikimedia Foundation again, etc.--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Good, they don't want your money anyway. I on the other hand would welcome it with gratitude.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ITN being squeezed out

Over the last few days, I've noticed that ITN seems to be getting smaller and smaller. Right now, ITN doesn't have a picture and there are only four (fairly short) items in the section and still (at least at my resolution and with my serifed font), the right side is a bit longer than the left side. I'm not sure if the TFA blurbs have just been too short (although this has never been a problem in the past), but can we get a couple more DYK items or shorter or fewer OTD blurbs so we can give ITN some space? -- tariqabjotu 22:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I shortened two of the OTD blurbs, put the oldest item back in ITN, and put in a new picture. howcheng {chat} 03:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The licensing for that picture is quite suspect though. It says it's cropped from a picture it's clearly not cropped from. And even if it were, I'm not even sure that makes it free to use. If a copyrighted picture were displayed in public, can I just take a picture of it with my own camera and suddenly it's free? -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. And the reason I didn't use the picture when posting the item. It appears to be a photo of an offical poster. --Stephen 03:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Countdown to complaints that the Main Page is too bird-centric

in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Once again, Wikipedia displays it's shameful bias towards waterfowl in the TFA and featured picture. This is probably because there are so many admins who are birds, they lord it over all the non-bird editors. Just what I've come to expect from this place. No wonder Wikipedia has the reputation it has. I will no longer donate to a site displaying such a willful, arrogant favoritism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And I Always Thought It Was Because Editors Who Like To Follow Victorian Capitalization Conventions Had No Other Venue To Get Their Preferred Style On The Main Page... Now I Know The Truth. That Also Explains Why They Wouldn't Work On Anything To Do With Apple Products. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Fowl comments indeed. The founder asking for donations to cover all the bills of WP, and ornithologists nesting all the content they want on the main-page. I'm sick as a parrot over it. (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, you could say that on the main page...
Yeaaaaaaaah! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Rooster portrait2.jpg
  • Ah, but everyone loves birds. Just look at the number of people searching Wikipedia for cocks, tits, and boobies;-). --Allen3 talk 12:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That there are, that there are. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
As a serious side note: We've had this discussion before — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Max's Roasted Chicken - Evan Swigart.jpg
  • There are a seemingly never ending stream of "bias" threads. How many also taste like chicken? --Allen3 talk 12:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, though, it was witty the first time, now we are down by about 50 percent.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
In my defense, I was unaware of the previous thread, so for me it's up by 50%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Quack. –HTD 13:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • A duck on the main page!!!!! Again! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
File:2012 Umi Fiesta in Onomichi.JPG
File:2005 Half Dollar Rev Unc P.png

You know what, I just can't take it anymore. This site has truly gone to the birds. --MuZemike 20:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just step back and look at yourselves. What a pathetic bunch of childish tits. (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Just trying to lighten the mood... You can't always be serious ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ Talk 23:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like that bird flew over your nest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I saw it. After all, I'm no spring chicken.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured article link

I would like to propose changing the wording of the link at the end of the FA blurb from "more" to the more visible and more explicit "Read the full article here." Awien (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see why - it can be unclear at times what links are meant to send you where. I had been confused when I started to browse wikipedia because I found everything but the search box to be too complicated. (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
'full article' might work, but your suggestion is far too long. Besides, any link with 'here' in it is indicative of poor design. I agree 'more' isn't particularly good, especially since it could be confused with 'more featured articles'. Modest Genius talk 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right that "here" is superfluous, but I think a sentence is still better than a fragment. How about "Read the article"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awien (talkcontribs) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I like the proposed change to "Read the full article". I also think that the section should be retitled "From today's Featured Article" to reinforce the fact that this is not the whole thing, misapprehension that User:Art LaPella mentioned that his wife had. --Khajidha (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I heartily endorse Khajidha's suggestion of changing the heading to "From today's Featured Article": I suspect that a lot of people are under the misapprehension that what appears on the Main Page is the whole thing. And we have only approval for changing the link to something more explicit than "more", so can we implement at least that? (I assume it needs to be done by an admin?) My preference too would be for "Read the full article", but "Read the article" would be better than nothing. Awien (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Read the full article is okay, but if that's too long, how about Continue...? It doesn't sound like it's linking to a list of other featured articles. -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment—has anyone notified the active participants over at WT:TFA/R that suggest the articles? I see only four people commenting here with the OP calling for a change not even a day after the original post. Imzadi 1979  18:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think this really affects the folks at WT:TFA/R; we're discussing Main Page presentation, not TFA choice. Still, pointing them here couldn't hurt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I very much like both the idea to change it to "From Today's Featured Article" at the top, and the idea to replace "more..." with "continue..." or "Read the full article" or something similar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been the main editor on a lot of articles that have appeared as TFA. The suggestions for changes as indicated by Floquenbeam, above, seem to me to be unambiguous and absolutely sensible. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Me too; "full article" seems ok too. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks screwy

Is something wrong with the templates? They're all appearing in default-hidden mode with a "show" button needed to expand them. (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I saw it too - seems to have been corrected now.--Milowenthasspoken 11:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed with this revert. Legoktm (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Page's new look akin to Emperor's new clothes

Getting on Wikipedia this morning I was surprised at seeing all of the usual boxes using the hide\show feature. Just like the story, the new features are a complete disaster. Not only do some of the boxes not show up when opened up, the new layout is a complete mess and sometimes does not even display properly. I wish a notification would have been added in the last few days before something this big was tested. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • It was merely a bug in some js. See the section above. Legoktm (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay. Cheers. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 11:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Gribinets Alexander

Alexander Sergeyevich Gribinets (born November 12,1982 in Lelchytsy) is a Belarusian Judoka,who competed in the Men's Light Heavyweight (– 81 kg) for MalteseJudo National Team in 2009-2011.The student in Belarusian State University of Physical Training

Gold Championship of Malta 2009
Bronze Malta International Open 2010
Bronze Tournament A Class Austria 2006


Records from MJF

Times of Malta



This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Talk:Main Page, that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Author(s): Search for "Main Page" on Google
View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Main Page"

Something else to suggest to readers

In addition to inviting people to create non-notable stuff here, shouldn't the main page issue an invitation to check out Fandom/Wikia in case there's a wikia on the subject, just waiting for their input? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:45, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Wiki

As a long time Wikipedian, I was drawn to this site because of the stong bias towards deletionism on the former, and its limited scope of notability. Also, there exists Deletionpedia. How does this site differ from Deletionpedia or Wikipedia? Thanks, DerHackerSlacker (talk) 20:02, May 4, 2018 (UTC)