Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features: Difference between revisions

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: Wikipedia style and naming 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.

This is a request for comments regarding the future of the Main Page on Wikipedia. Currently there are disputes as to what should feature on the main page, how each feature is presented, and its general layout. The current design dates from 2006 - a long time in web terms. Before proceeding with actually redesigning to give our front page a fresh, up to date appearance, it is important that the community can agree on what is actually wanted, needed and required on the main page, which is the purpose of this RFC. The proposals suggested are merely to indicate what features are desired, and not how they are structured (so for example, if you support there being a "did you know" section, but not in its current format, you would still indicate that you endorse it).

This is currently in the top left hand corner, welcoming to Wikipedia and linking to Wikipedia:Introduction.

Endorse

1. Weak Endorse. Would like to see this consensed to one line of text. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Would like to see this expanded/turned into a "How you can contribute" section. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Maybe. It's not much use as it currently is, but I agree with MOP that we need more on getting people contributing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Endorse. I agree with master of puppets that the introduction should be reworked into a "how you can contribute" section. It should also be made more prominent, I personally didn't know it existed until now. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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

Discussion

The number of articles.

Endorse

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

1. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The number is downright impressive. Marcus Qwertyus 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose, figure is useful but not on front page. It speaks of quantity rather then quality. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, per SunCreator, also everybody knows that wikipedia is comprehensive, no need to show off. bamse (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Also per SunCreator. AD 21:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Article number is meaningless when we're seeking quality. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. per SunCreator. — Dispenser 00:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. per above, also, the exact number of articles seems much less important as the project matures. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Endorse

1. Weak endorse, linking to a list of portals may be helpful, but links to individual portals seems excessive. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. bamse (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not relevant to most visitors. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think most editors, never mind visitors, would struggle to define what a portal is or how it contributes to an understanding of our articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

With a blurb and a picture.

Endorse

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Blurbs could be tighter though. Hot Stop (t) 20:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Include. Some discussion below on sometimes putting the TFL in the TFA slot, very much oppose that.
6. bamse (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Classic mainstay. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oh definitely. Writing an FA is the ultimate achievement for a Wikipedian and is one of, if not the, most difficult feats one can undertake. We should recognise that at the same time as showing off our very best content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Endorse. Prominently displaying examples of our best content in a heavily trafficked area seems like a PR no-brainer. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

With short hooks and links to Wikinews, deaths and current events.

Endorse

1. But see my comment below Hot Stop (t) 19:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. It should stay for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse, Wikipedia is good at news content. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse. ITN is the most topical section of the MP.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. ITN isn't meant to be a bleeding-edge list of headlines, but offer congregated information about unfolding events. And it does its job well. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Though the items take days to get consensus, I think the ITN process is getting more and more refined and more and more people are taking part in the process. Marcus Qwertyus 22:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. We have many articles on current events, often events of great importance and sometimes events that people might not otherwise read about. It's good to showcase such articles, especially since this is one of the areas where we do best against more traditional encyclopaedias. ITN is flawed, but so are TFA, DYK and OTD. The solution is to improve them, not abolish them—Wikipedia is, after all, a work in progress. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Endorse, It's a nice means of doing background research about current events, go to an article on a current event, and follow the links, you come out with a much more thorough understanding of the issue than you would from watching TV news. A link to wikinews may be useful, however. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. We aren't a news site and the articles are usually about out of date events anyway. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not that useful, why are we trying to invent ourselves into a news site when we do so many other things so well?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per AD and Wehwalt. bamse (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• I find ITN to be useful, but it needs to be changed. Content needs to get posted more frequently. I'd also prefer a separate recent deaths section as seen on the German and Spanish wikipedias, among others. Hot Stop (t) 19:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN does need to continue to be improved, and I have been pushing hard for progress to continue in this regard at WT:ITN. If you don't believe ITN posts enough new content fucking tell us at WT:ITN. At a certain point I'm sure I will lose patience with it, but we should remember that it started the year posting one story every 20 hours, and in June it managed one every 13 hours, which is a big improvement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was active at ITNC, but some recent events have turned me off there. Hot Stop (t) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't blame you for that, sorry if I had any part in it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, it wasn't you though. Sometimes it's like bashing your head into a wall when you try to get something include. All the hyperbole and false comparisons don't help either. Hot Stop (t) 20:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed, and possibly ultimately the right answer is to remove it, but I think we should make a good effort to make it work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe we could change the format? Perhaps a scrolling ticker type thing over the top of the page? I know it's very newsy, and we don't like that, but it would free up a good bit of space to do something else if we wanted to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With short hooks.

Endorse

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak endorse. Would slide towards more expanded articles and less new ones with idea of quality over quantity. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse as it prommotes article creation. Would also tend to somewhat older (more than the 5 day maximum) and longer articles. bamse (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Older article allowance would be nice. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. You gotta love DYK. It pumps 24 hooks a day. That's plenty of opportunity for the average contributor to get something on the main page. Marcus Qwertyus 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Like ITN. Room for improvement, but it has value and is worth keeping. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse, just so long as we're careful about what articles are used. Linking to a poorly referenced, poorly written article from the main page doesn't seem like a good idea to me. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

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

Endorse

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. My favorite section on the MP, would prefer this to be where ITN currently is. Hot Stop (t) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yeah, this seems to be pretty good. With regards to content locations I don't have a big issue with switching it with ITN, but I would get the sections to compete with each other in some way for top slot. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fine as it is. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Again, room for improvement (not sure we really need the blurb format and it can be a bit dull sometimes), but of definite value. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Don't see a problem here. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose, cut this to one line with a link showing off on this day items. I feel this section is a little nerdy. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The least useful and my least favorite part of the main page. Marcus Qwertyus 22:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

With a picture and blurb from the relevant article, and recently featured pictures, the archive and other featured pictures.

Endorse

1. I'd actually seriously consider moving it bang up to the top. Pictures will attract more people in. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse. Improve blurb checking because occasionally it is sub-optimial. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Pictures are fine but don't see the point in featured pictures. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. To me pictures are supplements to articles which is the main focus of wikipedia. As such there should not be a special section devoted to them on the main page. bamse (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. We have the Commons for media. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think the importance we give to featured things other than articles makes FAs less special, and they are the very best thing WP produces. A lot of these images are awesome, but many are just boring and some are of tangential relevance to their associated articles, but put there so someone can put a star on their userpage. I suppose we could keep it and make it smaller and with less text. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

With a picture and blurb from the relevant article, and recently featured lists, the archive and other featured lists.

Endorse

1. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hot Stop (t) 20:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse, only been running a short time but so far interest and quality of lists have been high. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse and hope to see them more than once a week. bamse (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. If we have enough to go around, sure. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The featured list concept is hard to take seriously. Marcus Qwertyus 22:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• I think TFL could feature more than once a week. It has sufficient support and interest to perhaps move to two or three days a week now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that it could be posted more, but when we do post an FL it should take the FA because the current format makes it look like someone just threw it in there. Hot Stop (t) 20:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that could work pretty well. Maybe they could be cycled ~ 16 hours or something to get a bit more flow in that area. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be a consensus reached separately if the TFA is ever going to be bounced from the main page. Very strongly oppose that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that TFL has never consensually suggested replacing TFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with keeping both, if the list runs daily. We have a lot more FLs than I previously realized (2000+), so why don't they run daily now? Hot Stop (t) 23:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm undecided. I've always thought of FL as being too focused on technicalities and not enough on whether someone has just split a table from an article because they know it's less work to write an FL than an FA but they still get a star for their userpage. I'm actually of the opinion that it's more work (fiddly tables aside) to write a GA than an FL, but GAs are very under-appreciated. FLs also tend to be of very narrow interest. However, many FLs are of undoubted encyclopaedic worth and couldn't be presented in any other format. So I'm in two minds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under other areas.

Endorse

1. Weak endorse. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Not important enough imo. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Under other areas.

Endorse

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Already implemented. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse, new users will need help at some point, we should make it as easy to find as possible. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Under other areas.

Endorse

Oppose

1. What is that? AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, maybe a link off the help text? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Under other areas.

Endorse

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose, a useful thing but a division of the help desk. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Already present as part of the Help Desk. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Under other areas.

Endorse

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

Oppose

1. Oppose. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have to admit I don't give a shit about this, and I have getting on for 20k edits. I don't think our readers are likely to care about the sites internal politics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not relevant to most visitors. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree that most visitors won't care. This can go in the community portal. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Under other areas.

Endorse

1. Weak endorse. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Most traffic won't care - we'd probably get inundated in unintelligible gibberish. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

1. Pump is for editors not readers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sister projects.

Endorse

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, maybe smaller if all the sister can adopter the same design. — Dispenser 00:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Makes sense. It seems wise to redirect newbies to the proper venue if it turns out wikipedia isn't what they had in mind. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Would turn into one line of text with link to full list. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Links to the other biggest language Wikipedias.

Endorse

1. Does no harm, especially as its at the bottom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. But let's limit it to those with 500,000 plus articles only. Hot Stop (t) 20:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Supports Wikipedia's multilingualism. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not very intrusive, but effective. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. AD 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, cut to one line, linking to complete list of all language Wikipedias. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong oppose. The other language editions are already listed (without counts) on a dedicated consistent spot on the left and they are also prominently featured on the WWW-site. (Maybe we should link to the WWW instead?) If we remove the site statistics the article counts should also be removed. — Dispenser 00:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Endorse

1. AD 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse, subject to some kind of screening because the occasional GA is rather poor. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse replacement of New articles with Good articles in DYK.
4. Something like Wikipedia:Good articles/recent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. GAs are under-appreciated, but many are high-quality articles and well worth showing off. Some subjects, for one reason or another, just might not ever be able to get to FA while others are there because it lacks something that would push it over the last hurdle at FAC. Showing these off, and getting people to improve them with a view to taking them to FA would be a good thing imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Need for a top-level article is filled by the TFA. No need for an article which of less quality standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Wehwalt. bamse (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yeah, Wehwalt says it best. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. per Wehwalt. --Jayron32 00:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. per Wehwalt. — Dispenser 00:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. per Wehwalt Hot Stop (t) 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Endorse

Oppose

1. AD 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not relevant. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. No. Putting featured portals on the Main Page would suggest they're of comparable importance to featured articles. I'm sure they have value (though I don't know what), but if the all disappeared overnight, the readers wouldn't notice and the encyclopaedia would be no better or no worse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

To better entice new editors.

Endorse

1. AD 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, you should also be able to login on the main page without going to the login page. Hot Stop (t) 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Definitely agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jolly good idea. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strongly agree. bamse (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. We already have the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner with an introduction link - maybe we could expand on it and feature a section that says, "Interested in contributing?" or something like that. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Interested in Master of Puppets proposal. Marcus Qwertyus 22:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Not for Main page. Joining is suitable as a left menu option, i.e on every page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk)
2. 5,000 accounts are created daily, focus on converting them to editors. — Dispenser 00:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

So visitors don't face a wall of text when they are just looking for one thing.

Endorse

1. AD 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Completely agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse, a bit larger but not more (that may seem like clutter). For example would go 120px wide on main page thumb images, per primates. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk)
4. TFA image ridiculously small, often impossible to tell what is in it, favor raising to at least 150px.or make it rollover enlarge.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is a Very Good Idea. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hey. I know of some good pictures that we could use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. We should post more items with free images available even if the quality of the featured article isn't as good. Marcus Qwertyus 23:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Could be mentioned somewhere.

Endorse

1. AD 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. No. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. No bamse (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Signpost is focused on mostly-internal developments and isn't relevant to most traffic. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

More on the background, purpose, how to edit etc. A short friendly welcome expanding on what's there now.

Endorse

1. AD 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. We already have the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner with an introduction link - maybe we could expand on it and feature a section that says, "Interested in contributing?" or something like that. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I agree with the idea but feel the options are required on other pages(one the edit page, on talk pages, on help desk etc) and are not relevant to the main page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Much too vague, decide what you want, bring it back to the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Wehwalt - I don't want anything, these are just suggestions. It's meant to be vague, so we can discuss it. AD 21:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regularly updated, maybe by a bot?

Endorse

1. AD 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak endorse. Maybe not relevant to everyone, but I admit a hot page is User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot/census! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Maybe a "Popular right now" page - similar to Twitter's hashtags - would work, but this would have to be fleshed out. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Isn't this basically what ITN should be doing? Sure we'd have to become less elitist and post more popular content, but I don't really see the value in linking Lady Gaga every day unless she's done something particularly interesting - i.e. her article reads have spiked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not that I'm for censorship but do we really want a banner telling our viewers that people only use Wikipedia to look up sex? Marcus Qwertyus 22:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Amazingly, sex is rather low at #64. howcheng {chat} 00:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   A lot of those are portals or special pages. Also of note is that those stats are from December. Marcus Qwertyus 00:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Would probably have to be "Currently trending" rather than "Most viewed" to be very interesting. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite. So what ITN should be. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ITN is more of headline-news venue; a separate "Popular right now" list might be attractive to all the Twitter-fused socialites we share the world with. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't what is Popular right now consist mostly of ITN items and be redundant? Marcus Qwertyus 23:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now, we're talking about something like twitter's 'currently trending' section. Nothing to do with the News, just articles that are popular that day (be they most-viewed, most-edited, etc.) m.o.p 00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the five pillars?

Endorse

1. AD 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sounds good, but I think a summary page with the rules in a nutshell would be better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Not on front page. No. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Needlessly complicated. Internal pages that are integral to Wikipedia's operation don't need to be paraded on our main landing page. After all, 90% of our traffic has probably never edited before and never will - they don't have an interest in our operation. Putting policy on the front page will only confuse most site-goers. If anybody is interested, they can click on the Introduction page and go from there. m.o.p 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not interesting to the average reader. Hot Stop (t) 23:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This RFC is premature; launching an RFC on mainpage design before ample discussion will be a waste of community time and will not yield an optimal result. Discuss first, design an RFC correctly, then put it to the community. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Main Page features#Putting the cart before the horse.

Endorse

1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. cmadler (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. David Levy 20:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. We don't need to have a discussion before a discussion before a discussion. Hot Stop (t) 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. This isn't about the design it's about the features. It's not at all premature, proposals for changes have been going on for years. Also per Hot Stop. AD 21:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yeah, I'm not sure why we need to have a discussion to develop community consensus... to my knowledge, RfC is for determining community consensus. Also, how can we waste time if we don't have a deadline? If a discussion has merit, letting it proceed regularly can only bring about consensus and, with it, good ideas. If this RfC revolved around what shade of gray the Wikipedia logo was, I'd understand peoples' concerns, but the Main Page has historically been a hot topic - why not participate? m.o.p 22:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. We can always talk about how we are doing and might improve things. No harm. I think people are worried about losing control of the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Firstly, please assume good faith.
   Secondly, if we did seek to impose "control," this poll wouldn't threaten it in the slightest. (If anything, it would serve as a diversion from discussion that actually could interfere with the hypothetical "control.")
   Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for discussion, so the main page's content won't be determined by counting votes. —David Levy 00:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I think we should let this run its course. If nothing useful happens, we've wasted a bit of time, but it could give us a clear idea of what people think should be on the Main Page. That, I think, nicely lays the foundations for a more sensible discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   If the idea here is to to get a rough estimate of where people stand, which seems to be in line with this (ie "polls are typically used in somewhat more complex situations, where it might be hard to otherwise get an overview"). Hot Stop (t) 00:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The main problem, in my view, is that this poll won't tell us why people want or don't want content on the main page and how these opinions relate (or don't relate) to our underlying objectives, which are neither laid out nor raised as points of discussion. —David Levy 00:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]