This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Let's do everything all over again, but simpler. Below are some core statements/questions on which any further action will de determined. Please post you comments in the secions below. Feel free to add any relevant statements or questions I may have left out. -- [[ User:Edokter]] {{ talk}} 15:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Main Page is fine as it is

Endorse

1. Weakly. "Fine" may be stretching it, but the main page is adequate as it is, and I give very little credence to the "it's unfit for purpose and must be changed for the sake of change" doomsayers. ‑  Iridescent 16:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. As Iridescent. It should only be changed if the community reaches a consensus that another version is better than it. Dionysodorus ( talk) 16:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Weakly, per Iridescent. Improvements can always be made to any page or aspect of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean the current ones are so bad they need to be changed, or that we should make changes for the sake of doing so. I question the very existence of this discussion given the creator's statements at Talk:Main Page that they are prepared to attempt to impose a version that they deem an 'improvement' and 'progress' and feel that process has little relevance. 331dot ( talk) 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. There is no consensus for a change. Give it up. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Honestly, I'm not sure how the main page can be considered insufficient as it currently is. Given that the majority of our "new" readers (as in, those who have never accessed Wikipedia before) barely ever see the Main Page, instead accessing Wikipedia directly from search results or on the mobile version of the site, I'm not sure this is really something that desperately needs to be updated as this RfC would suggest. — foxj 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   Very weakly. Per the comments I've made above, I don't really necessarily dislike the proposed update, and while I would be alright , I do believe that the current page is fine as it is. It works well enough, but it could be improved. It could be cleaner, and so on and sort forth, but it functions well enough. however, I do at the same time support the first two oppose rationales? But, I don't think it's an urgent thing to deal with at this time. I think the Main Page can hold until there's a best fit proposal. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Changed to oppose. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

6. It's fine. Not even "weak." SnowFire ( talk) 19:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Strongly. I don't see what the problem is. ansh 666 20:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Plenty of room for improvement exists (and I believe that a major coding overhaul is in order), but I don't regard the current setup as broken. — David Levy 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Wasting time and effort on adding a few changes (no doubt lengthy RfCs in what needs to be done) is no real benefit to the project, when time could, and should, be focused on editing/creating content instead. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weakly oppose, it is functional - but like the rest of Wikipedia, should not be considered "done". As the primary landing for readers, this page need to be functional for as many users as possible, on as many browsers and platforms and connection speeds. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose The main page is a mess, that said none of the changes in this draft constitute improvements. It needs to be cleaned and to entirely refocus on things that people want/need. Portal-links should be the first thing to go. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Looking at the support !votes above, I get the feeling that folks are pushing back against this RfC's implied assumption Something Must Be Done. This Is Something. Therefore This Must Be Done by !voting against any change. I think we just haven't seen the right proposal yet. (And no, I don't think that my particular proposal is "the right proposal". I just think that it is slightly better than the present cluttered mess or than Edokter's proposal to move the clutter around a bit. A good proposal would likely beat all three.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. It's definitely not fine. It's horribly outdated as a piece of technology. In terms of looks, people can make it look like a freaking christmas tree, I have generally stopped caring about that, fix the tech part of it. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
5. It works. But it's not "fine". Eman 235/ talk 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
6. It badly needs an update. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Per TheDJ, it's horribly dated. 86.185.218.118 ( talk) 02:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
8. It looks like it was designed in the mid-2000s. Because it mostly was. One of the most frequent public criticisms of WP is its boring "early Web" look. This should be taken seriously. WMF's own stats show that use of WP is declining. While this is mostly due probably to integration of WP-sourced summary information at the top of Google searches obviating the need to come "all the way" to WP itself, anything that can be done to retain and gain direct readers should be considered. And "adequate" applies only to the material provided; the interface and presentation really are not adequate or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nor is being "adequate" any kind of goal anyway. It's like saying "my ambition is to be as average as possible".  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
9. No, it's not "fine". The problem is how to fix it. SST flyer 04:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
10. Same as TheDJ above. Bazza ( talk) 11:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
11. With the input after I put in mine, especially a bit more of a picture of the technical reasons the page should be updated, I now believe that the page does actually need to be updated. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose, per Xaosflux—the page ought to get significant updating, both technical (divs instead of tables etc.) and aesthetic, but it is currently functional. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
13. It may be functional, but it's also very ugly. -- Pres N 16:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
14. Weak Oppose on general principle that there are always ways to improve. As to whether any proposed changes find consensus is tbd. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
15. It needs to at the very least be updated to use modern HTML techniques, even if the appearance doesn't change. Wikipedia can't be viewed on Internet Explorer 6 anymore, so there is no need to maintain support for that browser. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
16. The entire design and layout of Wikipedia is outdated, and the main page has to come under that. It's got a very 2005 feel. However, I would say: How many people even use the main page? Most of our users are here to search for a specific topic and huge swathes arrive directly at those from Google, not via the main page. So it should be more about functionality than content. KaisaL ( talk) 16:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose The main page simply needs to be refreshed. — Music1201 ^talk 20:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The main page is in need of modernization

Endorse

1. If modernization is meant to imply "the use of flexboxes instead of tables", then definitely, support. Otherwise? Not really. Eman 235/ talk 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support. I think we should ask the Foundation for a grant to do this, to pay either an outside team or a team of Wikipedians who have the design and technical skills. Perhaps they could come up with a couple of choices, and the community could vote on them. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Don't hair-split over the word "need", per WP:Common sense (read: "The main page should be modernized"). Endorse, per my comment in the section above. The use of table-based layout, in particular, has to go. But agree with Sarah that this is also a design matter and should have a design and development team. However, it should be one of volunteer Wikipedians, subject to normal community oversight like any other project or process here.
   [Even if it were official WMF dev work, whether WMF needs to allocate additional resources to it is dubious to me; the bulk of the staff is already techies, and a lot of them seem to be tasked with doing questionable work, so I suspect that reprioritization would take care of it, if WMF wanted to get officially involved, and the community did not revolt. But this RfC isn't in a position to tell WMF how to spend money or what to take on formally.]
    —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)f

   Do you think it'd be a good idea to rename the section to "The main page should be modernized"? I'd WP:BOLDLY rename it, because it's a good point actually, but I'm hesitant considering some of the arguments are based on the word "need" being used. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   I think some of the opposition is that the term modernize is a little vague, and brings thoughts to silly drop-down bars, over-reliance on .js and difficult navigation in the style of kinja. The main page definitely needs an overhaul, but I think modernization is putting some people off. I would go ahead and change it to "The main page should be improved". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   Yeah, it would probably be better to just open a new section.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

4. Yes it is. It's technologically in the dark ages, and likely not at all good accessibility-wise. Presentation-wise, that's subjective; I've been using the draft version since it was made available as an alternative to the current main page, and find it an improvement, albeit cosmetic, on the current version. Bazza ( talk) 11:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Per my change in the section above. With the input after I put in mine, especially a bit more of a picture of the technical reasons the page should be updated, I now believe that the page does actually need to be updated. Also, SMcCandlish does have a point about splitting hairs, now that they've mentioned it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   I don't consider it hair-splitting. A "need" to modernize the main page could be cited to override criticisms. ("I'm sorry that you feel that way, but we need to modernize the main page, so we're going to have to proceed anyway.") Given Edokter's general attitude and tendency to include his personal aesthetic preferences in his definition of "modernization", this is a serious concern. — David Levy 20:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   Ah, that makes it much clearer for me to understand. I think, really, what needs to be outlined, as pointed out by others, is "What exactly is meant by modernization?" Does it mean technical updates, do those technical need to take place? Does it include visual update in a general sense (rather than a specific what any one party things that visual update entails), should those updates take place, do they updates need to take place? They're not the same, and I've come to realize they're being groups together too strongly. And, I personally thing it's to the detriment of this RFC. These modernization sections are so muddy. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 21:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, TenTonParasol, this isn't just academic word-juggling; Edokter has explicitly said that he takes a supposed consensus that "the main page needs modernization" as carte blanche to make whatever changes he wants regardless of opposition. ‑  Iridescent 21:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   Oooooo. I was not aware of that particular discussion thread, or how that's what Edokter meant when these headings were set up. Truthfully, I'm considering just striking all my !votes and pulling out of the discussion altogether until the RFC has a coherent and clear set of headings without ambiguous wording, without an attempt to monolithically impose technical, visual, and content updates as an inseparable package. This has gotten far too muddy and incomprehensible for me. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 21:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

6. I strongly endorse technical improvements to use divs etc. so long as there's graceful degradation for older browsers. I weakly endorse aesthetic and content improvements; they're desirable but not strictly necessary. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
7. We've been arguing about this for years, and it's pretty clear that most people think that the main page could use some updating, on looks alone if nothing else. -- Pres N 16:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
8. The entire website needs to be modernised. It's one of the most outdated looking major websites on the internet, and while it may be functional, we need a serious update. I don't think the community will ever agree in a vote like this, though, to the sweeping changes we need. KaisaL ( talk) 16:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Strongest possible endorsement I've been thinking the main page needs a modern refresh for awhile now. — Music1201 ^talk 20:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "Need" is far too strong. There are some elements of the Main Page which could do with cleaning up (or being quietly disposed of) but the world isn't going to come to an end if the design doesn't change for another decade, let alone another year. ‑  Iridescent 16:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. It might be a good idea to modernise. But the community should decide whether any given proposed version is better than the existing version. The community shouldn't decide to modernise, then be shoehorned into adopting whatever proposal is reached, even if it is worse than the existing version. Dionysodorus ( talk) 16:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. As above; change can be beneficial, but shouldn't be done for the sake of doing so or because of some desired need for 'progress' as deemed by a select few. 331dot ( talk) 16:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. No. There is no aggregate clamoring for an update. Readers come to Wikipedia for content, not style. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
5. The Main Page is currently designed to work on all browsers, new and old, and changing it would likely compromise that. As previously stated, "need" is too loaded a word, and frankly that Wikipedia's Main Page has lasted this long in an online environment where trends seem to change every few minutes says a lot. — foxj 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Again, "need" is really strong, and what exactly does "modernization" entail? A more modern aesthetic? While I do support the idea of a hypothetical update, a sense of urgency is misplaced. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Changed to endorse. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Again, I don't see what the problem is. ansh 666 20:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
8. I agree with Iridescent that "need" is too strong. — David Levy 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Polishing a turd won't attract new editors. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   Well, isn't the goal to make it less turdy?  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

10. Without a specific, identified problem, there's no reason to modify something that's worked well since early in our fifteen-year history. As Foxj says, it's a good thing that we're remaining rather similar in a context where almost everybody thinks that change needs to be frequent. Of course, I'm not opposed to technical modifications that would produce a page of the same appearance with simpler/more valid/more up-to-date coding; I'm only concerned about the end result, not the means of getting there. Nyttend ( talk) 13:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If modernized, one person or committee should be overseeing modernization

Modernization should focus on visual styling

Endorse

1. I agree that a large part of what needs to be redone is the visuals, and anyone who doesn't see that Wikipedia is extremely visually out of date is naïve or conceited. We're losing readers, and most of our interfaces are horrible to navigate. That doesn't mean that I endorse the visual stylings suggested in the draft as of today — but the visuals need to be redone. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Yes. We shouldn't resist change just because we've looked this way for comfortably over a decade. Most other major websites refresh their look subtly on practically an annual basis. That said, it should also focus on accessibility, mobile users, modern web features and future-proofing. You get the idea. KaisaL ( talk) 16:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Endorse per comments above. I liked the term "future-proofing" used by KaisaL. — Music1201 ^talk 20:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Visual styling is subjective, and very few people other than a small change-for-change's sake clique who would be objecting to whatever we had in place actually have any objection with the styling of the existing main page. ‑  Iridescent 16:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Can't get people to agree on that anyways. Waste of time. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. No. Accessibility should be the main concern. Eman 235/ talk 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Kill it. Kill it with fire. First priority is accessibility for the handicapped and visually impaired (it must be audio-screen-reader friendly). Second priority is accessibility to that subset of mobile users who have phones with small screens, limited processing power, and slow Internet connections. Third priority is a balance between accessibility for modern smartphones and modern desktop computers. After all those higher priorities are met, then attention can be paid to visual styling. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   Guy MaconI disagree with your order of priorities. Far more readers use mobile phones and slow internet connections — than do screen readers. That said we should definately do our best to cater to them, but we also need to think about where are readers are coming from. Could you clarify what issues this page has had with screen readers? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   Accessibility for the disabled isn't just a good idea. It is a legal requirement. [1] [2] [3] [4] It is also WMF policy. [5] In addition, a user can buy a better mobile phone and a faster internet connection. He cannot buy a set of working eyes. I know of no particular issues we currently have with screen readers (we have a couple of visually-disabled editors who help us to identify and fix such problems), but I do need to point out that for legal reasons ADA-compliance is the top requirement for any proposed redesign. Fortunately, this is not hard to do, and the same things that make a website accessible for the disabled make it more usable for the rest of us. See WP:ACCESSIBILITY. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   I just don't see how this can be an argument against focusing on the aesthetics. If the page works now of course any new proposal can't be considered valid unless it continues to work with screen-readers. Also there is a sizable portion of the world that can't just buy a new phone or faster internet — because it doesn't exist where they live, or it would mean giving up things such as food. Yes, these cases do exist and we shouldn't downplay them. Also I'm less that convinced that accessibility for the disabled is a legal requirement for all user-generated content — those laws apply to charitable organizations etc., not to what is created by users.
   Now, I'm not trying to downplay the value of accessibility either, but we need to get the facts straight and it is actually unrelated to this question — so isn't an argument either way. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

5. This conflation probably has been the single greatest obstacle. Edokter has continually pushed for significant layout changes based on his personal preferences, attaching this to the coding improvements as a package deal. (A while back, he grudgingly created a recoded version of the page's current layout, but I don't know its current status.) To the extent that it's feasible (and I realize that some visible changes are unavoidable), proposed technical improvements and alterations to the page's content/aesthetics should be kept separate. This, of course, is not to say that substantial visual modifications should be taken off the table; they just shouldn't be tied to improvements that can be made regardless. — David Levy 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose: This should be about accessibility, usability, and Web standards modernization (HTML5, CSS3 features), with an eye to better cross-platform functionality, especially for mobile users. This aligns directly with WMF concerns and resolutions out of last year's board meeting to improve the WMF projects' functionality on mobile devices, since virtually everyone uses one today, and more and more users are abandoning desktop computing. The desktop will always be king for editing, but the main page does not exist for editors.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Same as SMcCandlish above. I also agree to some extent with David Levy's comments, although I give credit to Edokter for pushing changes to the bad technical practices on the current main page. Of interest would be a version of the main page's look using Edokter's technical framework. Bazza ( talk) 11:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose—Visual styling is irrelevant, and adds a layer of confusion to everything else. We should focus on technical updates first, then visual, then content, each separately. Without keeping those separate, we won't have a coherent debate; even the discussion so far has been disrupted by Guy Macon et al.'s proposal for a minimalist Main Page. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Not broken/don't fix it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Modernization should focus on (featured etc.) content

Endorse

1. More specifically, it should focus on removing content. The Main Page is far too cluttered already, and any proposal that involved adding to that clutter should be vetoed on sight. ‑  Iridescent 16:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Agreed with Iridescent, though I do think that we should continue to use the Main Page for encouraging editors to improve content (with sections like TFA and DYK). Reasonably happy to bin In the News, though it has improved a lot in the past few months and years. — foxj 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support focusing on TFA and DYK, with fewer DYKs per day and get rid of "in the news". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. While I don't agree with the arguments that content should be removed, I do think that any update should be made to prioritize the ability to comfortably read content and allow for a greater ease for the eye to navigate said content. That should be the primary goal of any update. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Partial endorse (some changes needed), but mainly focus on accessibility/usability/flexibilty, per proposal higher up the page. Agreed with both Iridescent (trim down the clutter and resist addition of more), and CFCF more specifically (ITN has to go). The ITN feature is extremely confusing, since it does not link to the story in question, just to random-seeming words in the fake headlines; it is basically an abuse of the linking functionality to mislead readers, transgressing the spirit of MOS:EGG (if not the letter of it, since the problem is not entirely about link piping), and WP:ENC and WP:NOT#NEWS policy. It would be much more practical to repurpose the ITN process as one determining what topics to try to focus on finding Featured content in, so that the main page focuses on highlighting featured (or, in a pinch, Good) content, and it has maximal relevance to what is on readers' minds that day.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Partially endorse The main page is way too cluttered IMO. I think a simple layout change that further features and highlights featured articles would be favorable by many. — Music1201 ^talk 20:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not sure what this statement even means. Put a blink tag on TFA to add "focus"? Default oppose. SnowFire ( talk) 19:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. Why not do as those above are doing and stipulate the ways in which you think the main page should focus on content? (If you do think that, and I imagine you don't think it should focus on style tweaks instead, which is what blinking would be, so your comment doesn't seem to make sense to me in the context.)  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
2. No, the content is fine as it is. You can't "modernize" TFA, only change the box it's displayed in. Eman 235/ talk 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Per my above comments, modernizing the code doesn't require substantial alterations to the page's content. It's reasonable to propose such changes, but they don't fall under "modernization". — David Levy 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
4. One thing at a time. Changing the mechanics of the page is "modernisation"; changing looks and content are not necessarily so, and one person's "modern" is another's aberration. Bazza ( talk) 11:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
5. I find this item vague and unhelpful. One thing at a time. We should establish a uniform process to go over technical, visual, and content updates to the Main Page; and discuss and approve each separately and in that order; and then implement all the changes together in one public update (so as to not frustrate readers with incremental changes). Technical updates are a priority for practical reasons, and our discussions should not mire that in colours, gradients, drop-shadows, or attempts to get rid of ITN or whatever. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Why should it focus on that area? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
7. There's probably not many major websites in the world to which the main page is less important than Wikipedia. Most people viewing it are just trying to get to the article they're looking for, and many more seldom see the front page because they arrive from the search engine of their choice direct to the topic they were searching for information on. As such, the front page should focus on facilitating this quest for information, not content like "Did you know?" I would say that the section on current events is useful, and maybe this could be the core of any content, and it makes sense to keep the featured article as well. But I'd otherwise favour a much cleaner main page look. KaisaL ( talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A new main page should be mobile friendly

Endorse

1. Obviously. Mobile is 60% of our users, can't afford not to take this into account. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. I would support keeping the current mobile main page as it is, but a new main page (i.e. using flexboxes) should be mobile friendly enough so as to not be totally unusable on those occasions when one has to use the desktop site on a mobile device. Eman 235/ talk 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Not in a manner that harms desktop viewing (or accessibility in general), of course. — David Levy 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Not optional in any way. This just goes without saying. The Main page is for readers, not editors, and mobile browsers and apps are now the majority of our hits, while virtually all users today are also mobile users at least some of the time. Per TheDJ (1st reply to 1st "oppose") and CFCF (1st reply to 2nd oppose), the time for "design forking" is long over. Not all "mobile" devices are comparable. Many power-users of tablets with a serious OS do not use the mobile version, designed for cell phones. The idea of "there are desktop PCs and there are little mobile devices" is a silly late 1990s anachronism. There's an essentially seamless range from iOS and Android watches all the way up to 4-monitor (even larger) display walls, in regular use by our readers. —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Yes it should. Bazza ( talk) 11:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Yes. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Weak support. I'm wary of making design changes that are poor on desktop for the sake of mobile users who are currently special-cased anyway. If we were to move to using the full Main Page on mobile (rather than an icky scraped version), then, sure, it'd be great, but that change is not bundled here, and I do not want to expand the scope of this discussion to include it. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Support - With so much of our traffic coming from mobile devices, this seems clear. Time to do away with the separate mobile site to whatever extent possible. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Endorse, mobile is not that relevant to the editing, but it is for reading; and that is what the main page is all about. L.tak ( talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
10. Endorse The current mobile view is a bodge which is quite useless and so I always switch to the desktop view. Fixing this should be the priority. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
11. Who can seriously argue that a website in 2016 shouldn't be mobile friendly? KaisaL ( talk) 16:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
12. Support Why oppose? I assume a large portion of Wikipedia users are mobile-only. Why not make the main page more mobile friendly? — Music1201 ^talk 20:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The design of the mobile and desktop sites have nothing in common other than both transcluding TFA. The one-size-fits-all approach makes no sense. ‑  Iridescent 16:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   Actually the only reason why they have nothing in common, is because the current main page design is not mobile compatible. Back in 2008 we (hampton and /me) specifically built in some content scraping to get around that problem and that workaround persists to this day (2 versions of the mobile website later) for the exact same reason. It would be lovely to get rid of that finally. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

2. The mobile site and the desktop site should be *separate*. The mobile site, of course, should be mobile friendly... duh....— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

   That isn't the way modern internet sites work. That practice is actually entirely frowned upon by so many sources that it strikes me as amateur that Wikipedia still has a ".m." site. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   For the benefit of those of us not tremendously knowledgeable about website design - what are the concrete disadvantages of having an .m. site, except that web designers might think we are amateurish? Dionysodorus ( talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   It means essentially maintaining two websites at the same time. Though this discussion is far, far too big for this RfC. — foxj 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

3. There is no reason that Wikipedia should not be like other sites and not have both a desktop and mobile main page. ansh 666 20:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   @ Ansh666: See replies to the above oppose !votes. Other, modern sites do not have both a desktop and mobile main page, they have a page that is designed with modern Web standards to be flexible so that the code does not have to be forked and the design maintenance effort doubled for no reason. This is not 2005 any longer.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

4. Nah, fuck 'em. Doesn't matter about mobile users. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   Are you saying that mobile users don't matter? Because...they kinda do. Eman 235/ talk 21:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   Mobile users matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 21:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

A possible update is at Draft:Main Page

What is good about it?

1. Flexboxes instead of tables. The "Be an editor" section (hard to see as it is). "Wikipedia languages" and "Sister projects" getting their own boxes. Eman 235/ talk 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. It looks different. Such a change should be able to generate mainstream coverage. SST flyer 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Underlying framework is a vast improvement. I really like the columns only appearing when the presentation space is big enough. Subjectively, most of the design is OK for me and I've got used to it over the past months of using it (although I also have issues with it, as below). Bazza ( talk) 11:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
4. The underlying framework appears to be better. I like the "Be an editor" section, but don't want to make inclusion of the framework conditional on adding that. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
5. I disagree with many of the below "bad" comments- the draft version is much better looking than the blocks-over-color main page we have now. Also, of course it doesn't match the styling of articles- it's not exactly an article, is it? -- Pres N 16:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What is bad about it

1. Much uglier than the existing page, far more cluttered, and much harder to scan at a glance. ‑  Iridescent 16:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Yes, it's uglier than the existing page. Also, ITN has to go right at the top: I would suggest splitting the column so we have the FA on the left and ITN on the right - and perhaps have the "Be an editor" bit where you have currently put ITN? I don't know if that would quite work though. Dionysodorus ( talk) 16:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Inclusion of "Be an Editor" takes up valuable space. As I've mentioned before, we have too many editors already and encouraging more to join is foolhardy. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. I think there is too much whitespace on the sides (at least in monobook), see Draft_talk:Main_Page/Archive_2#So_much_whitespace. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
5. The reverse of Christ troutman: Wikipedia badly needs new editors, but the kind of person who would be swayed by a "be an editor" box is exactly not the kind of editor Wikipedia is looking for. And such people are crazy rare anyway. The vast vast majority of "please edit for us, pleaaaaaaaaaase" banners have gone done in miserable failure. Wikipedia needs to work on acquisition, but not this way. SnowFire ( talk) 19:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
6. The shadow text on the section headers. Also, I've always liked the two-column layout that the current main page has (though this is slightly moot due to the flexboxes, one does have some control over the visual layout). Eman 235/ talk 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
7. This seems even worse than what we already have. 86.185.218.118 ( talk) 02:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
8. I don't particularly like the request for more editors appearing as part of the content, and disagreed with the wording when it appeared. Not too impressed with some of the shading, either, which adds unnecessary and distracting blur to the page. Bazza ( talk) 11:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
9. It includes a lot of needless visual changes that both a) increase visual complexity and b) don't match the feel of the rest of the site. In particular, I don't like the gradients, the drop shadows, the differential borders, or the Wikipedia globe background on the top header (redundant to the logo nearby anyway). {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
10. DYK are not always the best articles and should not be listed at the top. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
11. Agreed that DYK shouldn't be at the top. The design should have the reader in mind, and highlight the highest quality (TFA and TFP -- which, from a web design perspective, seems weird near the bottom anyway) and/or most sought-after (ITN) content first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
12. Sorry but the columns are all over the place. As far as I can tell it is something akin to 100, 50/50, 70/30, 100, 40/50. It is chaotic and not visually pleasing. Beyond that is looks no more modern than the old one. Yes I am viewing it with the style sheet. Under the hood the code is an improvement over the old hodge podge. I suggest that changes to the framework that don't make a visual change be done in a separate likely less controversial proposal, as visual changes are going to create the most attention. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
13. If the goal is to bring wikipedia layout into 2016, then it failed. There is no radical change, and the changes that are made are personal style based (colours, moving ITN). I would be open to a modern encyclopedia/newspaper like look, that really would modernize things, but I am afraid that at this moment (with an outdated style for the whole 'pedia) it would not be balanced wth or representative of the way we show the rest of the content. L.tak ( talk) 19:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
14. I had to actually cross-reference the current main page to figure out what has changed. We need a radical modernisation, this is just a tweak that keeps us anchored comfortably in the middle of the previous decade. KaisaL ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

    Re KaisaL and L.tak above, this isn't just a slight visual change, there's a lot of code improvement—try resizing the browser window to see the difference. Eman 235/ talk 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

    I'll leave remarks on improvement of code to those better versed with web development. My point is that, if this is our grand new main page design for 2016, we're still ten years or more behind the times. KaisaL ( talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

    Well, my point was simply that the underlying code is quite modern and not, as it were, behind the times. Eman 235/ talk 17:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I can imagine that and endorse it (especially in the question on whether mobile-friendly is useful; where I also commented). The present layout however still "feels" not very modern. But this is the problem of a package deal I guess. Maybe the focus should initially be to modernise just the code and the way windows move when enlarging etc. That would be relatively uncontroversial and we can work on principle design and content improvements from there? L.tak ( talk) 18:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A possible update is at User:Guy Macon/Simple Main Page

Note: a similar effort is at Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (text only). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What is good about it?

1. Improved load times, avoiding people being forced to sift through things they don't want to find the things they do, the ability to include more subsections than are included on the existing Main Page without being annoying, less of an amateurish appearance than the existing Main Page, reduced prominence for TFA. ‑  Iridescent 18:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. A simple main page seems to be working out just fine for Google. Our main page seems to be about halfway between Google and [ http://www.arngren.net/ ] (or possibly [ http://heaven.internetarchaeology.org/heaven.html#bottom]) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Loads quicker, looks like a Wikipedia article. Would work just fine on mobile. Eman 235/ talk 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What is bad about it

1. Readers are less likely to realise that content changes regularly so may not make a habit of following the links, leading to decreased traffic and a reduction of the awareness among general browsers of the scope and breadth of Wikipedia. ‑  Iridescent 18:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. WP:POINTY. The fact that we are expending energy on this nonsense is the reason why we never get any changes done. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. It's inordinately ugly, and not remotely useful because it doesn't include any kind of information. I think FA and ITN should certainly be kept in any change, if there were a change. Dionysodorus ( talk) 18:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Funny enough, it strikes as more amateurish considering it looks like the front page of a website that just started up and has little content. Plain links do little to encourage actually clicking on them. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Reminiscent of a HTML4 layout from the late 90s. A lot of people probably wouldn't even be aware of the featured content's existence. Also, the search box seems unnecessary. Eman 235/ talk 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
6. "Tips for teachers" in the lead? I don't think this is a good in the first section. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   Are you looking at User:Guy Macon/Simple Main Page? There is no "Tips for teachers" link on that page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   In the Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (text only) version. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

7. Not a good advertisement for Wikipedia. 86.185.218.118 ( talk) 02:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Wikipedia is not a search engine. It's an encyclopedia and I'd like to read and see some recommended interesting stuff on it. Bazza ( talk) 12:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   A paper encyclopedia is just like a search engine. First you decide to look up "elephants", then you reach for the "E" volume. A paper encyclopedia also has a "Forward" section with things the authors want you to read, but nobody else reads that stuff. Art LaPella ( talk) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   Not always. It's nice just to read stuff for the sake of it. I've always liked the effort put into the main page's content for drawing attention to interesting stuff which I certainly wouldn't have bothered to search for. Bazza ( talk) 15:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

   The featured article gets about 0.2% as many clicks as the Main Page. A Did You Know gets about 0.02%. Art LaPella ( talk) 16:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

9. It's boring, but worse, it's faceless. While our current one's cluttered with featured content, ITN, and DYK, those each serve a role in highlighting the editing process (and implicitly, rewarding those who participate in it). Making the Main Page's biggest feature a simple search box encourages people to think of us as that search box, an automaton like Google that can be queried for information and then mentally discarded. That is not a good image for us. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
10. It's dull and doesn't really do much for us. Most people viewing Wikipedia don't care about editing and our internal processes, they just want to get to the content they're looking for. Most importantly, this lacks any modernisation, in fact it looks more outdated than the existing design. KaisaL ( talk) 16:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
11. This drafted main page is faceless. — Music1201 ^talk 20:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

General discussion

• With, I suppose, some exceptions, authors of books don't design their covers (they may have input); they—or the publishers—hire professionals to do that. We ("the authors") should let professionals on the Wikipedia staff design the layout of the main page (the cover of the book).-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Why are we still discussing this? Why is this page in draft space? Do you realize Draft space is meant for AfC? Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Chris troutman, you've surely realized by now that the editor who moved it into Draft space thinks rules don't apply to him? ‑  Iridescent 17:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• @ Iridescent: Sorry, I guess I'm slow on the uptake. I was under the impression that admins, especially, know the rules apply to them. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• I can discuss whatever the hell I like, Chris. You are in no way obligated to participate. -- [[ User:Edokter]] {{ talk}} 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• You can indeed discuss whatever the hell you like, but that doesn't mean that you can do so in the Draft namespace. If I had placed my main page proposal in the draft namespace it would have been moved to my userspace per WP:NS and WP:DRAFTS. Your misuse of this namespace is a tiny thing that I would normally ignore, but your aggressive reply to Chris troutman is a real problem. Let's face facts. This will not end well for you. I strongly suggest that you go to AN, request a replacement, and recuse yourself. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• It is just me, or are we playing to the man now? That does not become any editor. -- [[ User:Edokter]] {{ talk}} 15:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Per the "Feel free to add any relevant statements or questions I may have left out" at the top of this RfC, I have added two questions. I ask everyone to please scan the list of questions again so they don't miss the two new ones. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Surely a project with the resources of Wikipedia can do better than these two proposals ... 86.185.218.118 ( talk) 02:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• I have happily been using the page now at User:Edokter/Draft/Main Page as a Main Page for some time and have only become aware of this discussion as a result of today's move. The flexiboxes make it a definite improvement on the current Main Page. It may not be a radical enough overhaul for some, but I don't think that's necessary. I would like to see this proposal adopted as the new Main Page. Ham II ( talk) 07:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• I also have happily been using the page now at User:Edokter/Draft/Main Page as a Main Page since the facility to do so first became available. It is technically an improvement on the current Main Page. I took much less time to become accustomed to it than when the main page was last altered in the Dark Ages. I have some minor gripes about the new presentation (mainly, the shadows), but can get over those if I'm in the minority. The tone of some contributors to this discussion (including the person who has put most work into the proposed new page) has been unhelpful. Bazza ( talk) 12:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Surely I can't be the only person that feels Wikipedia needs a massive modernisation in general, and that just discussing the main page is a distraction to that goal. Both of the drafts are just rearrangements of content on a very outdated looking website. I would much rather Wikimedia work with designers and developers to create a modern look with modern functionality for the entire Wikimedia portfolio, and after that focus on the relatively minor issue of what information is and isn't on the main page. We need to be dragged kicking and screaming into this decade; The app is a start, but the core desktop site is old, old, old. KaisaL ( talk) 16:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved out of Draft namespace

Moved from Draft:Main Page to User:Edokter/Draft/Main Page. I have serious misgivings about the previous entry in the move log, "19:47, 14 April 2016 Edokter (talk | contribs | block) moved page Draft:Main Page to Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/TakuyaMurata without leaving a redirect (Name too generic; may be used in the future)". If you consider that name "too generic", you shouldn't use it for your proposal either of course. Fram ( talk) 06:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• @ Fram: Is it possible to update the widget? Right now, those of us with this option enabled have no Main Page at all. Raymie ( t • c) 07:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a rather bizarre way to look at the Main Page, the page you were actualy looking at was a draft, which anyone could edit (even vandalize) at any time and which did not necessarily reflect the actual main page. I'll see what I can do. Fram ( talk) 08:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Fram — I moved it back, because this seems pretty WP:POINTY to me. I don't agree with all the choices by Edokter, but I think it is a valid attempt, and especially with this current RfC is should remain. As long as anyone is allowed to edit the page and to improve it, and Edokter doesn't claim ownership there is nothing wrong with having it in draft space. Having it in his userspace precludes the idea that others can edit.

Also, many of the other big Wikipedias pretty much allow editing of the main page by any experienced user — and the reason we have it locked is because of vandalism, not that it shouldn't be edited.

We lock things once there is a need, so far there has been no vandalism here, no no need to lock it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't lock anything, so please don't make such suggestions: and the move was suggested above. Note that Edokter himself believes that Draft:Main Page is a "Name too generic" problem, unless it is his proposal of course. This doesn't belong in draft space, and there was nothing pointy about it (the main [WP:Point]] violations were the actions of Edokter in my view. I fail to see the relevance of what other wikipedia versions do or don't when discussing this move of a proposed redesign to another namespace. I haven't moved the Main Page, obviously. Fram ( talk) 09:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you opposed Guy Macon's proposed version (in userspace!) also as WP:POINTY, despite that page existing since 2013 and being a serious proposal. Perhaps you need to stop throwing around WP:POINT as a reason for your edits and give some actual reasons instead? Fram ( talk) 10:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Guy Macons redesign would only be pointy if accepted as the default page. Citing the same policy two times, for two things that are actually pointy is not a habit. The reason your move was pointy is that it breaks the page for at least a couple of hundred users who had it enabled as the default page.

I don't agree with Edokter's choices, but as long as this RfC is going it would be best to leave the page here, and after that (and especially if your MfD pans out) it can be moved to Draft:Main page/Edokter or Draft:Main page/2016 proposal — where it isn't in userspace. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of terms and such

As this goes on, the more confused I am about what the RFC is about. While it appears to be set up to comment on the general concept of updating the main page, I've realized that it all rests on the manner in which Edokter wishes to implement these changes (something difficult for me to follow as someone not involved in all the relevant discussions and pages, but I've come to realize that is all a big part of this RFC and maybe even inseparable). I'm also very confused about what "modernization" is supposed to mean, and whether it's what Edokter defines it to be or in a more vague sense (or something) or... I'm not even sure. Does it refer to visuals, content, technical aspects, all three together as an all or nothing, all eventually but taking it one at a time, one but not two others, or some other combination? It's possible to endorse a modernization in a conceptual sense but highly disagree on what that means, and as this goes on, I'm realizing I cannot see how this could be coherent in any manner. I'm not even sure if it's because I haven't been involved in previous discussions about updating the main page or if I'm dense or if I'm simply having trouble keeping up with all the discussion spread across multiple pages, but this RFC is, in my opinion very muddy and incomprehensible from where I'm sitting.

I'm not even sure what I'm asking here, whether it's a simple clarification of how this RFC is set up and comprehensible and understandable explanations of what each question in the headings actually means, or if I'm asking for a complete restructuring of the RFC itself so it's more comprehensible and clear, i.e. separate headings with, for example, should the technical aspects be updated, should the visual styling be updated, etc. (I'm not even sure if that's possible). In the end, I suppose, I'm just really confused. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Edokter has requested a desysop "under a cloud" at WP:BN, deleted his userpage, Draft:Main Page, MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage and MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage.js. [9] This discussion should be closed and the page either deleted or moved to a location other than Draft:Main Page that isn't likely to be used in the future. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for moving this, even un-deleting the draft page if anyone wants to take it over as a proposed draft to work off of; moving to one of the Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives type pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why the draft associated with this talk page was deleted under G7. There were multiple editors. Jonathunder ( talk) 21:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it. — David Levy 22:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Good call. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

|}

Hello there,

I have no time to read up the entire discussion, but I would like to remind you of my proposal, which is based on the following criteria:

• Black on white is most readable
• The threshold of four clearly distinguishable units should not be surpassed for better readability
• The content starts after two thirds of the screen, which has been empirically determined to be the area where people look at most of the time

I consider these criteria to be of some importance. W/BR-- Mathmensch ( talk) 06:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)