This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Violetriga (talk | contribs) at 10:24, 8 June 2018 (→...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Main Page error reports

• WP:ERRORS
• WP:MP/E

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English. While Misplaced Pages strives to use language common to all English varieties, some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

• Error reports
• General discussion
• FAQ
• Help
• CSS
• Sandbox
  • CSS
• History
• Alternatives
• April Fools'

• It is currently 14:29 UTC.
• Purge the Main Page
• Purge this page

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 14:29 on 10 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Please change the final sentence to "They have been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since their arrival, and an entire gallery is devoted to them." Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Stephen 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen, much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that Charles Fisk quit physics after unknowingly working for the Manhattan Project and became an organ builder? Strange, he only started studying physics after the end of WWII, so the order in which things are presented here seems dubious, his work on the Manhattan Project wasn't as a physicist but as a technician: and whether his later switch to organ building had anything to do with the Manhattan Project is debated, as can be seen in the article. The juxtaposition and arrangement of facts into a narrative in this hook is wrong. Fram (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the hook is somewhat synthish. Suggested alt:

*ALT1: ... that some years after unknowingly working for the Manhattan Project, Charles Fisk quit physics to find his vocation as an organ builder? Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Picher, Oklahoma, was hit so hard by a tornado in 2008 that it would become a ghost town in 2015? Er, no: "Eventually, the EPA and the state of Oklahoma agreed to a mandatory evacuation and buyout of the entire township." because of lead poisoning, before even the tornado hit. The tornado at most accelerated things for a few people, but it didn't cause the town to become a ghost town. Fram (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggested alt:

ALT1: * ... that after a 2008 tornado, Michael Chertoff likened Picher, Oklahoma to a nuclear bomb site? Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Needs a comma after Oklahoma per MOS:GEOCOMMA, but otherwise sounds good to me (assuming it passes all the usual checks) UndercoverClassicist 12:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Substituted, thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Next DYK

• ... that Luigi Mangione was described as "somewhat of an online sex symbol" following his December 2024 arrest for murder? He isn't convicted and pleads "not guilty", so at the very least this should be changed to "alleged murder" to not give the impression that he is convicted. Fram (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Surely it's obvious that somebody who has just been arrested has yet to be convicted? Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Not an error.--Launchballer 11:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

But an extremely negative aspect of a WP:BLP, sometimes which should be avoided on DYK. Perhaps people solely known for but not convicted of alleged crimes should simply not be the subject of DYK at all, as it is impossible to write a hook without either trivializing the issue (just try to imagine the "pleasure" the loved ones of the victim will have when seeing the suspect paraded here as a sex symbol) or giving the impression that the suspect is guilty (which, even with the "arrested for", is exactly what happens and is the reason we have WP:SUSPECT and the rule about not focusing on negative aspects of a BLP on DYK). Fram (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The whole world knows who this guy is by now, it's hard to imagine a DYK hook somehow prejudicing his case at this point. The "sex symbol" aspect has also been widely canvassed in the media, so again, I can't see a DYK hook making any substantive difference one way or the other. Gatoclass (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

We normally don't ignore BLP (and DYKBLP and WP:SUSPECT) because it has been widely reported elsewhere. Fram (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

With respect, the issue you are raising is a broad one concerning DYK guidelines, that this venue is not designed to address. It is an issue that has been raised multiple times before at DYK and IIRC the consensus has generally been that it is an issue best addressed on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I'm inclined to the view that for a high-profile case like this, any such concerns are by-and-large moot. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have removed "for murder". He has been arrested because he is suspected of murder and has pleaded not guilty. It is not OK to shorten this to "arrested for murder" in a BLP. Our assumption is that he is innocent, per WP:SUSPECT. —Kusma (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Fram (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

Monday's FL

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

• T:MP
• WT:MP

Turn the default headings at the bottom into styled headings, to match the rest of the page

I made a mockup of an alternate Main Page in my userspace: User:Nixinova/Main Page. This is what the bottom of the page looks like:

I just used orange as an example (edit: please note I said *example*) but that could be any colour. I think that this looks much better than default ==headings== which have been on the main page for over almost two decades now. Misplaced Pages is now one of the biggest websites on the internet and it should look professional. Feel free to suggest any changes to this but I do think that this would be very beneficial.  Nixinova  T  C  05:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that it looks worse, personally. The extra frame isn't needed and just causes color clashing. We're not making ourselves look more professional by doing this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally I agree with the concept since the lower sections look like they were added as an afterthought rather than flowing with the design. That being said, I feel that it has been implemented in a way designed to bring out all its cons. I would prefer a simple #f6f6f6 background for the headings with out any border(not even the defaults)

103.215.54.53 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That looks nice too. I just want anything to replace what is currently on the Main Page.  Nixinova  T  C  03:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the second one fits much better with the first half of the current page too, there shouldn't be that style divide between them. --Jessietail (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm usually sceptical of attempts to redesign parts of the MP, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that this second example looks rather good and would fit with the existing design of other sections. Is the code behind it the same as the other section headings? That would ease compatibility/testing concerns. Modest Genius 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Modest Genius-Yes122.163.32.8 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I like the frame being there on the bottom, just like the other sections - don't really care for the orange-y color. — xaosflux 15:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have created an implementation of the idea here.Nixinova, if you really want to change the main page you need to create (what you people all call a "Rfc") to generate consensus. Only then will the admins of the site change the main page.--103.215.54.53 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The spacing between boxes and the text style of the "headers" should match that of the other sections but otherwise yeah that looks like a good improvement so far. --Jessietail (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the spacing needs to be fixed, and the header fonts need to match the rest of the page, but I really like this proposal. I think that the current header style needs to be updated, and this idea is a really good one. --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I implemented the feedback here103.215.54.53 (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work! That looks a lot better. I hope someone with a better understanding of Misplaced Pages's processes and any historical discussions on this topic can bring this up for comment to help build consensus for a Main Page redesign.--haha169 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a slight alteration to your second implementation by adding a border around the headers to match the one found around the "Welcome to Misplaced Pages" box. Sample here. --haha169 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I also think that adding the frame at the bottom would make it look better. The use of headers right now just stands out from the rest of the page. SemiHypercube (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree; the new design looks better; in the previous the bottom part just looks out of place Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.155.2 (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion continues at #Request for Comment.  Nixinova  T  C  22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Main Page pictures

Four of men, and the painting mostly ditto (apart from the Virgin Mary).

Whatever the 'logic of the sections not working together' this does seem unbalanced - WP normally manages a more diverse range of images (allowing for 'themed days'). AL Pluribelle (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Main Page history shows it is unusual not to have any non-human pictures, although interproject monitoring for this "problem" would be a pain. 50% female (or 50% children, animals, aliens or robots) would be unusual. Art LaPella (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning it #because# it is so unusual not to have a collection of 'persons, animal, vegetable, mineral, constructed things.' (And not objecting to themed days - perhaps robots (generic name anyone?) for Isaac Asimov's 100th anniversary etc.) AL Pluribelle (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A reasonable criticism; that all-male image showcase did look rather bad. However a day later we have one male (who was also on yesterday), one female, and four inanimate objects. It's unfortunate those weren't mixed up a bit more over the two days, but hard to see these things coming when each section is scheduled separately. Modest Genius 12:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Logically a 'full house' will occur unintentionally on occasion (along with various other Main page 'hands') - and 'just mentioning it.' It is when such things occur regularly that there is 'an issue.' (Video games do seem to be rather less frequent than they were a while ago.)

What is the collective noun for robots - and should IA's centenary be so celebrated? AL Pluribelle (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(1) "Cog", if Wiktionary is to be believed; (2) Definitely not; we don't even accord this treatment to the anniversaries of genuinely world-changing events like the centenary of the First World War, let alone to a relatively niche writer (albeit one with a disproportionate number of fans among the Misplaced Pages editor base). ‑ Iridescent 06:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And, probably, 'an argument' of sentient computers. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"A lone gunman"

Perhaps we could change that line to say "a single gunman" to allow it to not dramatize murder? Thanks for the response. LordLimaBean (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am unclear as to how swapping one exact synonym for another reduces drama. --Jayron32 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with a simple "A gunman"? Moriori (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The article's lead says "a lone gunman", so it's consistent. But I'm with Moriori. I'd like to see the word "lone" removed from both. Singular usage of "gunman" tells us he was alone anyway. In fact, I'd probably prefer "shooter". It sounds less exciting. We shouldn't be glorifying killing people by using wild west style descriptors. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Lone gunman is just fine, this is a lot of fuss about nothing. As for "shooter", you can keep that, an abhorrence of the English language. Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the common perception of these perpetrators, using 'single' might be seen as an allusion to their relationship status. Best to just use 'lone', or just don't use a qualifier. Oppose 'shooter' per above. Cesdeva  09:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also 'lone gunman' #is# a conventional term (and distinguishes 'person operating on their own' from 'the one person from a group who does the shooting' (eg Gavrilo Princip). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised this is being defended. "Lone gunman" is a very extreme romantification of shooters, and it should be done away with. It may be technically correct in definition, but it's horrible optics. WaltCip (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

But nothing like as disgusting as "shooter", for the love of GOD!! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And we treat English as one language, eh! I prefer "shooter". HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Never, ever, EVER, in BritEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In UK used for the computer game genre. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Shooter states "A Shooter is someone who shoots something." So, an archer? Or slinger? Gunman gives the precision needed. Bazza (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see no hint of romanticism at all in the phrase "lone gunman".--Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, If one word won't change much, why not change "gunman" to "wolf"?--Americanfreedom (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because two phrases use the same adjective does not mean that they will have similar connotations. A "lone gunman" is a statement of fact, a "lone wolf" is a metaphorical description (unless you are actually discussing a wolf). --Khajidha (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Lone gunman" has inextricable idiomatic ties in USEng to the Kennedy assassination and is used almost exclusively in connection with conspiracy theories (see also "hanging chad"), or those looking to throw shade on an opposing opinion by casting it in a similarly dubious light. ghost 11:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's funny, because this American sees it used all the time as a simple description of a shooter who is acting alone. See: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2017-10/03/content_32785340.htm , https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html , https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/suspect-dallas-sniper-attacks-believed-be-lone-gunman-n606336 , https://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/03/01/lone-gunman-robs-gas-station/384591002/ , http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-police-shooting-live-shooter-was-the-lone-gunman-in-this-1468017544-htmlstory.html . It was used in descriptions of the Florida and Santa Fe school shootings earlier this year. --Khajidha (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say some don't use it to be cutesy (seriously, what about any of those stories necessitated the adjective "lone?"). Try a google search; all results related to Kennedy, aside from the TV series, which itself derives from the same. ghost 15:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How is it cutesy? "Lone" is a perfectly normal word to mean "single", "without companion". "Lone gunman" distinguishes these situations from those like Gavrilo Princeps where there were many people armed but only one who fired and from situations where a single assassin was working for a larger conspiracy (like John Wilkes Booth). It's perfectly normal English. --Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Overlapped images

Perhaps it's my display scaling but the main images on the home page seem overlapped over the text etc. Anyone else see that? 2600:1702:1CD1:2CC0:AC3F:3E1B:FB50:B5D6 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Desktop or mobile? What kind of device? What browser? Window size? Screenshot? Isa (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Front page representation for women

Just a note that at this time the front page has links to 23 biographical articles and every single one is male. There shouldn't be a need for a compulsory link to a woman in each section, but having no women mentioned in all sections should not really happen either. Possibilities are Kate Spade for recent deaths and born today Lisa Cholodenko (director/writer of an Academy Award-winning film). SFB 20:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

By all means get involved with the various sections of the main page where items are selected for inclusion. As a regular reviewer at WP:Selected anniversaries, I frequently see three female births/deaths at OTD in a single day. RD operates via consensus and quality control at WP:ITNC, feel free to go there to vote for items you consider ready for inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Erm, you can't say that "(t)here shouldn't be a need for a compulsory link to a woman in each section" and in the very same sentence also say that "having no women mentioned in all sections should not really happen either". The two statements are mutually exclusive.

Also, I see a link to Julie Andrews on the mainpage - and a link to the admittedly fictional and joint article of superhero Rogue & Gambit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no link to Julie Andrews – the link is to Star! (film). As for the logic, these are clearly not mutually exclusive statements: the first statement is saying we shouldn't have rules to always link to a female in each section. The second is saying it's not desirable to have an end result of no women across all sections. A healthy outcome would be for all section curators to keep in mind to regularly feature women and the statistical likelihood of having a page with 23 male biographies and zero female ones decreases dramatically. SFB 21:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No, what happens is "curators" pick from what's available to them, and that's predominantly male-oriented right now. If you personally want to work to change that, please do so. The section "curators" have a hard enough time as it is getting reasonable quality onto the main page without trying to hamstring them with tokenism. We need a step change in content, not a rule to ensure that one item, no matter how crap, has to appear because it's about a woman. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sillyfolkboy, there is no conspiracy in the English Misplaced Pages against women. It's hard to find a work of reference for any period, including national collections of biographies, in which women aren't heavily outnumbered. Until less than a hundred years ago women had few opportunities for notability, it's just the way things are. As The Rambling Man says, do please get involved and do some work to promote links to more women, if you believe you can do better. Moonraker (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And, as was said above 'particular over-representations of one topic' are more noticeable than 'the usual general mix.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The above Main Page redesign proposal (previous discussion here, this is my first RfC so I don't know if the previous discussion will be transcluded) made by @Nixinova: with some adjustments by @103.215.54.53: and myself have generated a bit of traction. I'd like to post a formal RfC in order to gain some sort of consensus about whether or not this redesign proposal should be implemented, or at least generate some discussion on any possible alternatives. --haha169 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the proposed main page redesign: Permalink/843614703--haha169 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The above but moved to its own page: User:Nixinova/Main Page.  Nixinova  T  C  22:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The redesign with just the changed sections: User:Nixinova/Main Page/Transclusion.  Nixinova  T  C  22:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The proposal is just changing the bottom of the main page from default headings to styled headings which match the rest of the page. And I used orange as an example; I think the grey would work better.  Nixinova  T  C  22:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as it blends better in with rest of the page. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as one of the proposers of the design122.163.11.63 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Looks almost identical. Aiken D 14:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  If it's almost identical, why are you opposing? Legoktm (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I really don't see what problem this is supposed to solve, if any.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Aiken drum and WaltCip: Compare the bottom of the new Main Page alternative with the bottom of the Current Main Page. epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes the proposal as written doesn’t state this at all so the change was not apparent. Aiken D 19:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per L293D. Chris857 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support current design doesn't flow very well. --Joshualouie711 16:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support – The bottom part looks better with the redesign than with the current headers. –FlyingAce 16:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is a simple and straightforward change that matches the headings in the lower part of the MP with those in the upper part. I'm told the code is re-used from the upper headings so won't cause any compatibility issues. It's only a tweak to the MP design, but one which I was immediately impressed by and which makes total sense. I'm surprised no-one thought of this before; kudos for doing so. Modest Genius 18:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I do think that the new design looks better, although I probably would not have noticed the difference without being told. However, another reason why I support this is just to demonstrate that consensus can get the main page changed. So often I read here old lags having to disillusion enthusiastic proposers of a redesign, saying that it will never happen because of the impossibility of achieving consensus. Well here is a proposal that has a real chance of success, which perhaps will give impetus to other proposals. Personally I don't feel a need for change, but we ought not to get stuck in a situation where change is impossible. Jmchutchinson (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - it makes the bottom of the page fit in much better. The strong opposes haven't pointed out any problems with changing it or issues with the design. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - The proposed color scheme is too close to WP:COFFEEROLL, which is the standard for talk pages (Misplaced Pages:Talk page templates/vote). — Godsy_CONT) 18:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked at the wrong link. — Godsy_CONT) 18:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comments before, makes it look less like an after thought, which I had thought the bottom felt like well before this proposal. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The boxes at the bottom of the new Main Page proposal look like the rest of the Main Page. It actually looks like it belongs now. epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - agree that it definitely looks more coherent. I would say the opposes are a tad odd under since they are a net positive - if it would ultimately be beneficial, even if only a little, why not go for it? Could we move the discussion (see discussion) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - a very distinct visual improvement (increased consistency) for a small code change. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - positive change, and puts us in a frame were we're not afraid to change the MP sometimes. --PresN 19:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Looks nice, like a fully planned design. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the sneaky attempt to change the heading "Misplaced Pages's sister projects" to "Sister projects". wumbolo ^^^ 19:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nixinova and Haha169: was there any specifi reason this was changed? LittlePuppers (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • That was accidental.  Nixinova  T  C  22:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @LittlePuppers: @Wumbolo:, It has now been fixed. Thanks Nixinova for staying on top of it! --haha169 (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Good catch but it may not be intentional. — Godsy_CONT) 20:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Why wouldn't the simpler "Sister projects" be preferred? It's a section of a Misplaced Pages page, that these are Misplaced Pages's sister pages is implied in that. --Khajidha (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support – The proposed change makes the affected sections appear as part of a cohesive whole—better consistency, per above. ebbillings (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• SupportThe new headers look more consistent and professional. I fell that the RFC should be explicit in highlighting the changes to the headers. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I prefer the new design for purely subjective aesthetic reasons. Deli nk (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. seems better to me. Eddie891 _Work 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I like how the currently page uses a different header style to differentiate the static content from the dynamic content. The new design uses color to try to do the same thing, but that only works for non-color-blind readers. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ahecht:, I personally don't see the utility, from a design perspective, of differentiating static content from dynamic content. However, I'd be curious to hear what kind of color schemes we potentially could use to satisfy your concerns? --haha169 (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Ahecht looked at the wrong link(the orange and purple one). The correct link is here or here(for only the redesigned sections). As far as I know grey does not affect the color-blind users or else most of the Wikimedia interface would have been unusable110.227.70.112 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support for reasons of consistency and aesthetics TeraTIX 23:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support – I'd never really noticed the inconsistency between these sections, but now that you mention it the redesigned version really does look much better. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The change is somewhat subtle, but the more consistent styling is an improvement. Alsee (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Looks cleaner, the styling is more visually appealing, appears more professional and it is more consistent with the rest of the page. And as for the 4 opposes, 2 of them seem to just say that the change is not big enough or that the main page is okay how it is now and another was just pointing out a mistake that Nixinova made - in my opinion, Ahecht's was the only one that had a good argument. And I definitely do like the gray better than the orange, the orange just stands out too much and seems to call attention to solely the headings.--SkyGazer 512 00:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC) (Madminecrafter12 on MCW)
• Support, more consistent. AdA&D ★ 00:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• STRONG NEUTRAL per WP:BIKESHED. --Jayron32 02:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Um, I thought that the transcluded parts were already given their own box. I guess I was mistaken. (Could barely see the difference, honestly, if the box wasn't there.) Anyway, yes, the difference is mighty subtle, but the styling consistency it creates is wondrous. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 03:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A subtle, but welcome improvement that brings a consistent design to the Main Page. MER-C 10:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per consistency comments above. — AfroThundr  12:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per what everyone else has said, but particularly Jmchutchison. --Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per L293D. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per not being able to tell a difference, so it doesn’t appear to be controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• The current design of the main page looks as if the lower sections were added as an after-thought rather than flowing with the design. This change seeks to remedy exactly that. The default headers in the lower section have been replaced by grey headers and a border has been added around the lower sections. All this has been done keeping in mind the aesthetics of the design as a whole. The rest of the main page remains unaltered, untouched. Most of the code has been replicated from other parts of the main page and thus is proven to be compatible with a large number of devices. I believe this a small step towards making the Main Page of the world's fifth most busiest website better in terms of looks.122.163.11.63 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• This RfC would probably go more smoothly if the introductory paragraph gave a brief indication of what changed in the updated design and why, rather than hoping editors will go off and read the discussion from almost two weeks ago and which will archived imminently. Modest Genius 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably a wise idea - would ease the process, and stop people thinking it's becoming orange. Perhaps also worth putting a current main page link right next door just for ease of comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I have done that and spammed "THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE WE'RE NOT MAKING IT ORANGE" around every mention of it.  Nixinova  T  C  22:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Good idea - I had provided a link to the previous discussion but I should have spent a minute describing the changes in more detail. This is a learning experience for me as well :) --haha169 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Is there a rundown somewhere of the changes, looks the same to me. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Nixinova/Main Page/Transclusion – the headings at the bottom of the page are changed from default headings to div styles.  Nixinova  T  C  00:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• I almost feel this kind of subtle change is something that could have been handled and implemented through edit fully-protected request, but I suppose it is better to be on the safe side. No opinion on this either way. Alex Shih (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

...

Both DYK and OTD have ‘...’ in the section title. TFA and ITN do not. Logically OTD doesn’t need it if ITN doesn’t. Only DYK should because the sentences follow on. Sorry if this has been discussed before - I’ve just never noticed until now. violet/riga  23:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a good point. This is a subtle change with solid logic behind it. I support your suggestion unless I hear a good argument for why the status quo was decided this way. --haha169 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you know... and On this day... are phrases that start sentences which are the blurbs. For example "Did you know that despite having no official role, the British town crier Tony Appleton (pictured) is internationally famous for his announcements of royal events such as the birth of Prince Louis of Cambridge" where the ellipsis bridges the repeated phrase before each blurb. It serves the same purpose for On this day. In the news is a stand-alone clause and is not intended to be read before each blurb, and neither is Today's Featured Article. For that reason, I oppose any changes to the current structure. --Jayron32 01:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Violetriga is suggesting the removal of '...' from OTD. While OTD does sound like a blurb, (On this day...someone did something), in reality the structure doesn't quite turn out that way because the years get in the way. --haha169 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

...And I opposed the removal of the ellipses from OTD. That's why I used the word "oppose". And put it in bold. I have a hard time understanding how to make my opposition more obvious. --Jayron32 03:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So just changing to look like Special:PermaLink/844922890 ? — xaosflux 03:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Xaosflux. violet/riga  10:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Main Page discussions
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment