Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main Page error reports[edit]

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 (18:45 on 23 October 2018), 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.
  • Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is with the content of an article linked from the main page, consider attempting to fix the problem rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article[edit]

TFA today[edit]

TFA tomorrow[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day[edit]

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the current or next Did you know...[edit]

DYK current[edit]

DYK next[edit]

"... that the funeral procession after the 1920 death of William G. Blakely included the longest line of automobiles ever seen at a funeral in Kingman, Arizona?" So, you're saying that a small town in just barely-out-of-territorial-status Arizona didn't have a lot of cars almost 100 years ago? Wow. Shocking. This could conceivably have been as few as 2 or 3 cars. How about something actually interesting, like "...William G. Blakely was a lawyer, a gold-miner, and a Methodist minister?" --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture[edit]

POTD today[edit]

POTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list[edit]

FL current[edit]

FL next[edit]

General discussion[edit]


The prior discussion on this was archived without being closed: Talk:Main_Page/Archive_192#TemplateStyles. Reopening. The proposal is to use TemplateStyles to add responsive design to the main page per this example. --Yair rand (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus seems pretty clear to me there... — 🦊 16:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep. So... --Yair rand (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Per the previous discussion, the following changes should be made:
Thank you. --Yair rand (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Why did all the box headers go from 120% font size to 150%? Isa (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Isanae: ...I don't think they did? I don't see any changed headers, after checking multiple browsers. The stylesheet says 120% explicitly. You're talking about the headers with "In the news", "On this day", etc right? And in the desktop site (which is the only place this change will appear)? (Temporarily removing editrequested template until this is figured out.) --Yair rand (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I've been trying to understand what's going on for about 30 minutes now. Yes, I'm talking about headers like "From today's featured article" and "In the news", desktop, Firefox 62, Windows 10.
I'm getting 120% when logged out, but 150% when logged in. The current version of the main page is an <h2> that has a font-size:120% inline in its style attribute. Your version is also an <h2>, but it has no inline style.
When logged out, it picks up a 120% from .mw-parser-output h2 that's inline in a <style> tag. I'm not familiar enough with mediawiki to know where it comes from, but it's generated inline in the page. When logged in, this is overridden by a 150% that comes from the vector skin. When I look at the source of the main page logged out, I don't see this css file being included in any <link>, but I have it when logged in (where modules actually has more gadgets from my preferences, but they don't affect this particular output).
Sorry for the confusion. It's probably something on my end. Isa (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see the issue. The gadget MediaWiki:Gadget-VectorClassic.css ("Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin)") overrides the font-size set in Template:Main Page/styles.css. I've fixed the new CSS to override that, so there shouldn't be an issue for people using that gadget anymore. (Re-adding editprotected template.) --Yair rand (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks fixed. I'm not seeing any other obvious problems. Responsive design is nice. Isa (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-A long overdue improvement to the main page.- — fr+ 05:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done but the border on From today's featured list looks wrong. Have you got a quick fix or shall I revert? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • arrow Reverted for now. Presumably it wasn't a Monday or Friday when you tested this, so TFL didn't appear :) And unfortunately I did not notice it until deployed. Waiting for fix before redeploying. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    And while you're at it, on my browser the spacing above Other areas of Wikipedia is slightly wider than the spacing on other blocks on the page. Could you look at that as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    @MSGJ: Ah, sorry, when I was fixing the issue above with the VectorClassic gadget I forgot about the featured list and accidentally broke it. Changing line 63 on Template:Main Page/styles.css from #mp-upper h2, #mp-lower h2, #mp-other-lower h2 { to #mp-upper h2, #mp-middle h2, #mp-lower h2, #mp-other-lower h2 { should fix it. Re the spacing above "Other areas of Wikipedia", the extra padding is currently an explicit extra bit of code, so I assumed it was deliberate and didn't remove it when switching to TemplateStyles. (It could be removed by removing line 146 on Template:Main Page/styles.css.) --Yair rand (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    Okay redeployed. I'll leave the other issue for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering if Template:Main Page/styles.css is in the right place, as it is currently a subtemplate of nothing. Unless there is a reason for it to be a subtemplate, could it be moved to Template:Main Page styles. Does it need the .css? Would the content model need to be changed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Vertical spacing of "Other areas of Wikipedia"[edit]

@Nixinova: as you were involved in the June 2018 redesign please can you comment on the spacing of this block? Is it intentionally wider than the other blocks on this page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to but to my knowledge the spacing or padding isnt (wasn't or shouldn't-be) any different to anything else on the page.  Nixinova  T  C  23:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nixinova:, the vertical space between the top of dark grey box that contains the heading 'Other areas of Wikipedia' and the top of the light grey surrounding box is slightly taller than the corresponding space between any other header box and its surrounding box. Stephen 23:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

So, any objections to removing the 4px padding on top of this block? Proposed version at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No issues...that was probably caused by a collective oversight due to the multiple c/p which occurred during that redesign Rfc. — fr+ 12:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Naked woman painting on main page?[edit]

WP:SNOW close: picture is okay, discussion degenerating. Isa (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just want to check if people think the painting File:Angelo Bronzino - Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time - National Gallery, London.jpg should be added to the unused list, or if it's OK to go on the main page as Today's Featured Picture? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using this featured picture. Schwede66 00:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Think of the children! -- (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be on the MP. Modest Genius talk 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Given how WP is accessible to minors, I would personally prefer some other POTD, but I know I'm the minority on that. L293D ( • ) 13:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    Same. It is not as though we are short of featured pictures. Fish+Karate 13:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't find any reason why I would object to that picture on the main page. I would have no objection to my children seeing it, FWIW. --Jayron32 13:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't object. It's Art, not pornography. Children are taught art in school. And I'm sure their textbooks in various subjects contain pictures that might show nudity in some form.--DarkLight753 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No objection. Kids may actually learn something. Robvanvee 16:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If balance is required, I can offer a nude selfie for consideration. freshacconci (✉) 16:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm scandalized by the little boy showing his you-know-whats. Face-blush.svg Sca (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    His nipples? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No, his cheeks. Suggestively rosy. Sca (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death of Jamal Khashoggi[edit]

Why does the Main Page link to [[Jamal Khashoggi|Death of Jamal Khashoggi]] when we have the article Death of Jamal Khashoggi? Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why a death can be considered as "ongoing". It was an event, which now has a confirmed date and location. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
At the time of the discussion on ITN/C, the target article did not exist. There's also a new discussion about upgrading ongoing to a blurb. Isa (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Rapidly replacing with a blurb would seem sensible, if consensus permits. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Countries in blurbs[edit]

Since this has now been removed from ERRORS, raising it here, although it's relevant to the blurbs currently on the main page. We have four ITN blurbs, two of which mention the country they relate to, two of which do not. Should we standardize this moving forward? To be clear, (and pinging Stephen, since he replied to me via edit-summary at ERRORS) I'm not referring to links, but to whether the country is named at all. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the most internationally recognizable cities should be able to stand alone. New York City and London would be the quintessential examples. Istanbul, currently on the Main Page, should be able to as well. If there is a desire to make an informal or formal list, I think the AP's international list, which includes roughly 50 cities around the world, provides a good list of contenders to pick from. Modulus12 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Apply common sense but understand that the majority of our readers aren't aware of most of the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
That list includes no US cities (which the article considers "domestic"). Do non-US sources use the state when referring to US cities? My recollection is the BBC doesn't use the comma formatting at all, preferring plain "San Fransisco" for the biggies and "the American city of Ames" or some such for smaller ones. That might work for us? ghost 12:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Main page is broken[edit]

The main page appears to be broken. Instead of a 2 by 2 grid, it is now appearing as a 1 by 4 grid.


This needs fixing urgently. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Still works fine for me and looks totally normal?? (Windows 10, Chrome) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine to me as well (Windows 10, Firefox 62.0.3). Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mjroots: MSGJ made a change earlier in the day, which seems to make the display dependent on browser width: I, for instance, still see it normally. Vanamonde (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah this is intentional. See #TemplateStyles above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere in that discussion did it say it would rearrange from 2x2 to 1x4. I'm using the latest version of Firefox too, at 170% expansion. This change has not been properly explained and therefore people have not been given sufficient chance to comment on it. It should be reverted and a full RFC held. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
For info, it's normal at 150%. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I explained right from the start that the proposal included "putting the right panel underneath the left panel when the user's screen isn't wide enough", in my original post here about the topic. The proposal was open for several weeks and also linked from the Village pump. --Yair rand (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
(why are you using such a high level of zoom, by the way?) At-least for me, it seems perfectly reasonable responsive design to switch to 1x4 at >150% zoom in (same for me - 175% is 1x4) because of how squished the text is. Vast majority of views are not affected since this is the desktop site viewed on large screens, and where it is changed it seems correct to do so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It's at 170% because I prefer it that way. My user page displays just how I like it at that level. I see that the original propisal did state that, but what was meant by that was not explained. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Note that the reason the layout changed is because of responsive design: it rearranges the various boxes in a way that best uses the space available in the browser window. It makes the site mobile-friendly. I understand your frustration at seeing something familiar change unexpectedly, but you might be able to tweak your font size and browser window width to get back the original layout. Isa (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Or you can use User:Yair rand/OldMainPage.css to put the layout back. (It doesn't put back the other changes, but I can add some code to do that too if you want.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Given the warning, and that I hold admin privileges, I'll pass on that suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────── @Mjroots: What Yair rand meant, I think, is that you can create your own CSS file and paste the content into it, which would bring back the original main page just for you.

In your preferences, Appearance tab, click "Custom CSS" next to your selected skin. For example, if your skin is vector (the default), "Custom CSS" would create User:Mjroots/vector.css. Just copy/paste the content of User:Yair rand/OldMainPage.css into it and you'll get the old version back (or most of it, some things might still be different). Isa (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

...Or simply add importStylesheet( 'User:Yair rand/OldMainPage.css'); to User:Mjroots/monobook.js to get most of the old version back. — fr+ 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Portal links broken?[edit]

On my mobile (but using the desktop view with responsive design disabled) the portal links at the top of the page are all on top of each other instead of being arranged in a grid like they should be. Double sharp (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you supply a screenshot? Do you see the same or different when you make your PC browser very narrow? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I see the same on my iPad: I was about to come here to say I see the portal links appearing beside a single bullet point, with all of text overlapping and unreadable.
Also, the sister projects are listed one after the other down the screen in one column, not in multiple columns.
All this in desktop mode, not mobile. No idea how I would enable or disable responsive design, so I assume I am getting whatever is the default.
Peculiarly my iPhone shows both properly - separate bullets for the portals, and two columns for the sister projects. But on my iPhone (but not my iPad) the text size in the ITN/OTD box is noticeably smaller than in the TFA/DYK box. The different font size has been an issue for a while, but I've not bothered to complain about it before.
Neither of these change if I change screen orientation (i.e. wide or narrow).
How many pages impressions does the Main Page get every day? How much testing was done before the redesign was deployed? (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I can reproduce the font sizes pretty easily on chrome's device emulator on iPhone X, portrait. My guess is that the lack of a viewport meta activates font scaling on certain browsers, which causes issues because the columns are set to 55% and 45%. I'm also getting very inconsistent font sizes below the table, starting from FP.
I can't reproduce the issue with portal links on any configuration of chrome's device emulator from Windows 10 on desktop, including playing with various responsive resolutions.
I don't think the responsive design was tested much on mobile devices using desktop mode. At this time, I would suggest a rollback until these issues are fixed. Isa (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Noting that the responsive design is not responsive in Moto G running Chrome for Android (~360px*~480px). — fr+ 12:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Error on Wikipedia main page on Ipad2

I took a picture of the error on ipad2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Automaticacc (talkcontribs) 16:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yair rand: I don't think this thing is ready to be live yet. Fixing bugs piecemeal while it's running in production by copying stuff from your sandbox is not exactly professional, and you seem to be the only one around who knows what's going on. I would again advise that the main page be reverted and that this new implementation go through a lot more testing before it's allowed back live. Isa (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Isanae: The OS in question has so few views on the desktop site that it's literally not even listed on the stats (which usually cuts of at about 0.03%-ish, I think), but looking at the relative stats of other versions we're probably looking at 0.0003% of views. In retrospect, there definitely should have been more testing, but I think we're fine now. --Yair rand (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I have sandboxed the fixes. Can everyone please confirm that Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox looks okay in all of their devices and browsers? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)