This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. 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.
It's because of the practice of placing only freely licensed images on the main page. Unfortunately this particular photo is not very good, but there are very few to choose from here. Jonathunder (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That's still negating the fact that there are two people who are listed as the authors of the program, and only one is being pictured. I think no picture is a better choice. Killiondude (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. We shouldn't be so desperate to include an image that we settle for anything remotely relevant to the article's subject. We're better off with no image than with this. —David Levy01:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
When this was at TFAR, I suggested File:Dungeons and Dragons game.jpg could be used as a possible image, as even though it technically doesn't feature this "module", (whatever that is), it does make it obvious it is that this is about a board/dice/card game. I have to admit, at first glance, I assumed it was another video game article. Bobtalk02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As something of an aside, this is why we should have a sensible policy on allowing fair-use images for TFAs which are intrinsically impossible to illustrate without resorting to fair-use (ie. creative works). But apparently writing an encyclopaedia comes second to spreading free content. Modest Geniustalk02:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps most frustrating is the fact that this "policy" began with an ambiguous summary by Jimbo, whose edit was based on a mistaken belief that a suitable free image was available (and who subsequently declined to commit to a concrete statement on the matter). —David Levy02:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Would it be a sensible topic to bring up at the village pump? I would have thought if there was community consensus, the policy could be re-examined. Rob (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The Picture of the Day has an error in its licensing and information
If you look at the source for the current picture of the day, File:Kew_Gardens_Palm_House,_London_-_July_2009.jpg you'll find it has the date wrong. Its the picture of the day for 2010, not 2009. That's causing an error to appear. Also, some broken links to templates are there in the licensing information. DreamFocus12:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the date and removed the missing templates. Some one with clue should check what I've done and reinstate the correct templates if required. TFOWR12:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and WP:ERRORS would be a better bet, for future reference. Not least because it'll get seen by admins-with-clue, instead of idiots like me ;-) TFOWR12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No you as an unregistered user can not edit semi-protected pages. If you want to edit those pages you can either explain your changes on the talk page of the article and use {{edit semi-protected}} or register with the site, make 10 edits and after 4 days you can edit the semi-protected pages also. The quote in the header does not say that anyone can edit every page. It just says that anyone can edit the encyclopedia and you can edit it. ~~ GB fan ~~07:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The person who is asking the question here, on the talk page of the Main Page, is probably trying to edit the articles that are featured on the Main Page. That is why they are locked. Amandajm (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No, i found an error with the in sane clown posse page which is locked so i can't edit, i posted in that discussion but no one replied so i posted here because i thought it was a discussion page about all articles ... maybe i just should have said what the issue was instead of a generic complaint (76.120.39.39 (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC))
This discussion? It seems to have been archived automatically (a little hastily, in my view - the configuration for the archive bot should probably be changed)
The DYK and the article itself provide false information.
... that the first use of bronze doors on an Italian building is attributed to the Amalfi Cathedral, and they came from Constantinople?
These bronze doors are defintiely not the first bronze doors on an Italian building. I am sure that if the reference is located, it will say something like: "... the first medieval bronze doors on and Italian building" or "...the first post-Roman period doors on an Italian building.
Four sets of Ancient Roman bronze doors are in use in Rome, at the Pantheon, at St John's Laterano, at Santa Maria Maggiore and at the Temple of Romulus AKA the Church of SS Cosmas and Damian. They date from the 1st to the 4th century. Amandajm (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The source does actually say: "The imposing bronze doors, the first in Italy, were cast in Constantinople before 1066 ...", which seems unlikely... I'm not sure what to do here, but I've left a note at WP:ERRORS pointing to this section. -- Black Falcon(talk)16:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed it from WP:ERRORS because it's no longer on the Main Page. Did You Know hooks only last 6 hours. The article isn't protected, so anybody can edit it. Art LaPella (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
As an emphasis on Art LaPella's point, as the errors section explains, you should normally discuss and fix and errors or other problems in the article first as the main page defers to articles. In other words, there's no reason to bring attention to the errors section or even here when the problem is still in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Landing Ship, Tank
The second sentence in Today's featured article strikes me as a little confusing, having a comma in an odd spot. It took me a while to make sense of what It comprised ten cargo ships, three Landing Ships, Tank and an escort of five corvettes. actually means, as I couldn't figure out how a Tank could be part of a convoy, other than as freight aboard a ship. I had to follow the link to Landing Ships, Tank to figure it out. Is there a better way to name this article, without the comma? 203.5.252.60 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Modern United States military materiel often has formal names in this particular style that isn't often found elsewhere. We can't use LST, the most common name actually used for the transport, because lots of other things are abbreviated to "LST". In the context of the Featured Article blurb, I think the hyperlinking distinguishes things enough for clarity, though there aren't any hard-and-fast grammatical rules for hypertext that are universally accepted. — Gavia immer (talk)01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
How about 'ten cargo ships, five corvettes, and three Landing Ships, Tank'? OK it loses the distinction between the transports and escorts, but is less confusing. Modest Geniustalk19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a case of treating bureaucratese as if it were inherently superior to common usage. The normal English form Tank Landing Ship (which is quite widely attested) should be used as an alias here. The inverted form is obviously used for purposes of manifest lists where it is useful to specify the general class (Tank) Landing Ship among other types of landing ships. Just as the name is not the thing, the form of the name in a manifest is not the name.μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That way we'd only have to worry about the horrific ugliness of the MP - you can turn it on in Special:Preferences, try it and see. There's a reason why almost all major websites now only underline when the mouse is over the link. Modest Geniustalk00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
That is purely a matter of opinion. I have underlining on, partly because that is how I have always read web pages and so I am used to it.
Personally I think that not using underlining is a poor move as it encourages people to do dumb things that make it hard to find the links. I know some sites that use white text in fancy fonts on a coloured (maybe image) backgroud so that the whole thing looks like an image, which you you are not likely to mouse over. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. In fact I customized my monobook.css to underline links years ago, at the time they were removed. Per usability guru Jakob Nielsen, underlining links is a Good Thing. howcheng {chat}17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
In the news: Netherlands & Netherlands Antilles; the latter ceases to exist
Shouldn't there be some sort of notification that the Kingdom of the Netherlands will cease to exist at dd 10-10-2010? Aruba, Sint Maarten and Curaçao will become seperate countries, while Saba, Sint Eustatius and Bonaire become closely integrated to the Netherlands. I reckon it rather important, since the world gets 3 new countries. Robster1983 (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Are we sure they're actually dissolving this time? Is anybody reporting anything about this? They tried and failed to dissolve every year from 2007 on. Nevermind, Handelsblad covered it. Rimush (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)::
Did you know ... that the Church of St Pothinus in Lyon holds a 17th century painting depicting St Paul in front of the Areopagus that was previously kept at the Notre Dame de Paris?
No I didn't know that, and neither did anybody else! The Areopagus is a rocky prominence in Athens. It was never previously kept at the Notre Dame de Paris as is the implication of the statement. The error is caused by the editting out of two crucial factors in the sentence. The result is that the word "that" refers directly to the noun immediately preceding it, "Areopagus", instead of the subject of the sentence, "painting".
Fortunately, although the editors of DYK have changed the wording, the sentence in its original form in the context of the article about Église Saint-Pothin is correct. It reads There is also a 1656 painting depicting St. Paul in front of the Areopagus, and previously kept at Notre-Dame de Paris. The comma and the "and" in this sentence make the different between a worthy DYK and absolute nonsense and misinformation!
I know that this is an error in "good faith" but whoever takes on the responsibility of the Wikipedia Main Page needs to bear in mind the encyclopedia's credibility. Grammatical errors can sometimes create misinformation.
I once shot a tiger in my pyjamas! Good Heavens! What was the tiger doing in your pyjamas? No, No, I was in my pyjamas when I shot a tiger with my musket! Good Heavens! What was the tiger doing with your musket? No, No, I was wearing my pyjams when I shot, with my musket, a tiger from the back of an elephant! Good Heavens! What was the tiger doing on the back of the elephant?
Call me crazy but you have to read a lot into that sentence to alter the meaning as you have. ;) f o x10:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Fox, "a 17th century painting depicting St Paul in front of the Areopagus" is a compound that, as a WHOLE, serves as the "noun immediately preceding" the word "that". I don't think anyone would read the sentence the way Amandajm is suggesting, unless he/she was actively trying to make it more confusing. --Khajidha (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If it is not perfectly clear to the reader that the "that" refers to a compound noun rather than the single noun, then the sense of the sentence is lost. If you are missing the point try "...a painting depicting St Paul in front of a lectern that was previously kept at Notre Dame." An understanding of the sentence is dependent upon the reader's knowing that the Areopagus is something too large to have ever been inside Notre Dame. In fact, most of your readers will not know what the Areopagus is and will be forced to look it up.
I think I'm an average reader and I was confused by the sentence. Personally I think it would have been clearer if was two separate sentences. Something like: Did you know ... that the Church of St Pothinus in Lyon holds a 17th century painting depicting St Paul in front of the Areopagus and that until nnnn the painting had been kept at the Notre Dame de Paris?Tgpaul58 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Khajidha, if you are failing to understand the point of grammar, then please read again:
"In (the church) is a a painting depicting St Paul in front of a lectern that was previously kept at Notre Dame.
Does "that was previously kept at Notre Dame" refer to the painting? No. It most definitely refers to the lectern.
The tiger joke, which is well known, illustrates this point of grammar, specifically. The fact that sentences are confusing when constructed in that manner, is the whole point of the joke.
I understood the point you were making, I don't see that people would read the sentence the way you are asking them to. To me, the "in front of a lectern" is obviously a modifier of St. Paul and not a separate thing. You seem to be reading the sentence as "in (the church) is a painting depicting St. Paul (said painting being) in front of a lectern that was previously kept at Notre Dame." That simply does not seem like a natural reading of the sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No. You are not getting it. My sentence doesn't imply that the painting is in front of the lectern. The "in front of the lectern" bit comes directly after the noun "Paul", not after the noun "painting". It is clear that Paul is in front of the lectern. But the last add-on implies that the lectern was previously located in Notre Dame. Why? Because the "that was previously..." follows directly after the noun "lectern", not after the noun "painting".
Now, if we go back to the original statement and remember that most people don't know what the Areopagus is and may not bother to interupt their reading by looking it up, then we are left with the problem that this unknown object (not the painting) was once located in Notre Dame. Why? Because the word "that...." pertains to the noun that it follows. This is the rule, unless there is some very clear indication, such as the "and" which Tgpaul158 suggested should be added. The sentence as Tgpaul suggested, or as it actually appears in the article, is perfectly clear. It was only the wording of the DYK that contained a problem.
The bottom line is that the wording of the DYK was not clear. Kajidha, instead of disputing this, why don't you just take it on board, with an aim to improving your own writing style? (I have no idea whether you were the writer of the DYK.) Amandajm (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I was not the writer, but your point is still stretching the natural reading of the sentence. That reading being "in (the church) is a painting, depicting St. Paul in front of the Areopagus, that was previously kept at Notre Dame." I don't see how any other reading is natural. "In front of the Areopagus" is obviously a descriptor indicating exactly how Paul was depicted in said painting (whether you know what the Areopagus is or not). Obviously neither of us is going to convince the other to change his/her mind and the item is long gone anyway, so I'm going to end this conversation. --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You sneaked in a comma between the word "Areopagus" and the word "that". The comma was not there in the DYK. I rest my point. Amandajm (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't "sneak" it in, I was giving my interpretation. The sentence, as originally written, seems to me to mean what the sentence as modified by me means. I still don't see how anyone would read it any other way unless they were trying to not understand it. --Khajidha (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
All this chatter over one sentence! As an Englishman, I have to agree with Fox and Khahidha even though I don't know what a Areopagus is/was/who/can't give a monkeys. Just change it to something else like "that the Church of St Pothinus in Lyon holds a 17th century painting, that was previously kept at Notre Dame de Paris, depicting St Paul in front of the Areopaguse?" and we can all rest. -Dave
OP was right: sloppy grammar made the sentence more unwieldy. It's easy enough to fix and seems kind of pointless to argue about a subjective sense of the 'average reader.' -PrBeacon(talk)05:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
On this day...why is there no mention of John Lennon's birthday?
This only works if people nominate an article at WP:TFAR. Once it's the day, it's too late. There will be another opportunity on 8 December. Bobtalk17:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is a FA, and I think would have had a friendly reception at TFA/R. As it was not brought to us, we had no way of doing anything. Perhaps suggest to the principal editors that they should consider bringing it there?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I will place it in the template of potential nominations for December 8. That doesn't mean anything, someone must still nominate it at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I like it. The gradient needs to be changed to a background image so that it can work on IE, though. Also, the "Wikipedia" looks a bit strange; using an image might be preferable. --Yair rand (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Or we can simply stick to accessible, non-gimmicky, standards-compliant code that won't one day be ridiculed in the manner that we currently mock pages containing blinking text, animated GIF icons and MIDI music. —David Levy02:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it uses only markup that is compatible between browsers, and uses gracefull fallback for those that do not support it (yet). — Edokter • Talk • 14:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You inquired as to "what exactly is non-standard about it." The aforementioned markup is nonstandard (i.e. not included in the official HTML specifications). That's why the template combines multiple versions to target multiple rendering engines (with the Internet Explorer-specific code present but blocked, as you noted on the template's talk page).
Indeed, in browsers not supporting any of the non-blocked code, the template has no effect. This results in needless disparity (depending on what browser[s] someone uses). While Wikipedias in some other languages have accepted such a setup (most commonly in the form of rounded corners), the English Wikpedia has consistently rejected it in the main page's design and the MediaWiki interface. —David Levy01:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Gradient, border-radius and box-shadow are standard CSS3 specifications; they only deviate in (beta-)implementation, which the templates help eliminate by only utilizing common functionality. The dradient template still sets the background color for non-supporting browsers, so fallback is present. — Edokter • Talk • 11:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
CSS3 is not yet finalized; "-moz-linear-gradient," "-webkit-gradient" and the inactive "DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Gradient" are nonstandard implementations targeting different rendering engines.
You again cited the fallback (which is undisputed) without addressing my point regarding why many regard it as undesirable. —David Levy18:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you move your work to a subpage of your user page or some other such page. I'm pretty sure the sandbox is primarily intended for testing simple, uncontroversial or easily approved changes to the main page before they are carried out, not for a redesign which is likely to be difficult to get approved. On a personal note I don't really care either way about the gradient although IMHO using an image for that is a bad idea, but the change in font to Wikipedia, even if it looks closer to the one in the logo, just looks strange in that context Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
These changes are simple; just look at the dif from when it is synced from the main page. The sandbox is freely editable. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The main page does need a bit of a revamp. It was last changed significantly in 2005, five years ago. Unfortunately, you'll have a have a hard time persuading people to accept change. Aiken (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Shelve as per WP:BIKESHED. As explained by Parkinson's Law of Triviality (a.k.a. the "bikeshed concept"), it is trivial to obtain widespread consensus that a change to the current design would be beneficial, but virtually impossible to gain any meaningful agreement on what form the change should take. --Allen3talk14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If there's one thing that we've learned from past attempts, it's that inviting people to throw designs at the wall in the hope that one will stick is a guaranteed path to failure.
The successful method is to identify and address deficiencies, not to initiate change for the sake of change.
I issued the same warning last time, was ignored, and watched helplessly as the redesign project went down in flames (after wasting many people's time). Let's not make that mistake again. —David Levy03:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Aww, man. But I don't think patching it up with gradients and whatnot will help. (I don't like the look of the vector-matching gradient, but that's another story.) What deficiencies are there currently? One thing I find odd is that the lower text is not wrapped in boxes like the upper text, which makes it look slightly out of place. /ƒETCHCOMMS/03:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to get rid of some of the fanciness that's already there. I find the background colors make it more difficult for me to read the text than if it were simply black on white.--Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
When the last successful redesign occurred, there were editors advocating fancy designs and editors who wanted precisely the opposite. We knew that we'd struck the right balance (i.e. arrived at a compromise acceptable to as many people as possible) when we began receiving about the same number of complaints (e.g. "Make it fancier!" and "Make it simpler!") from both ends of the spectrum.
That's an intentional design element, intended to visually differentiate between the dynamic encyclopedia content (colored boxes) and the largely static meta content (no colored boxes) —David Levy00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The last attempted redesign went wrong because everyone was asked to submit a complete rework without any collaboration, which resulted in individual results that failed to gain any consensus on their own. The next redisign should be a collaborative effort, split into two steps: layout and styling. I believe that is the only way to a redisign that has a chance for community support. — Edokter • Talk • 11:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope that you won't forget to mention Mata Hari next Friday, who was shot dead on October 15th by the Entente – for being a spy, like Edith Cavell – the same accusation. 217.236.186.99 (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I know this has been repeatedly proposed, but I'm just throwing a general idea out there for the minute. Does anybody think it would be beneficial to add another section or two of content? A sports section would certainly reduce the load on ITN, which is sometimes (like last weekend) flooded with sport and a section for a GA and/or featured list/sound/portal is another recurring suggestion. Before we get into the technicalities of what and where, does anybody think the general idea is something worth pursuing? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. If someone wants a GA on the main page, they are very welcome to bring it up to FA standards. What, should we say to the reader, "Here's one of our 3,000 best articles, some of which will never run because we are writing them at a faster pace than one a day. Also, here's one which is pretty good, but not to the same standard." No.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
How about FLs? FL standards had gone up and I have a few and with those few I can bring it up to the new standard so that they'd get into the Main Page. FLs are just shorter FAs with more tables on them. Creating tables are hard too with all those formatting and stuff. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't oppose their inclusion in principle, but how would we go about featuring them? There's no obvious form of excerpt or summary that would work well. —David Levy15:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
We could (just bouncing ideas around) feature them the same way as we do the TFA. The "TFL" blurb would have to be quite a bit different from its lead section, but not necessarily completely separate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
[replying to both HJ Mitchell and Howard the Duck]:
If that's feasible, why not simply make featured lists eligible to appear as TFA? They are articles, after all.
An argument against this, I suppose, would be that they aren't held to the same standard (and therefore shouldn't supplant FAs that otherwise would appear). But if this is so, why should featured lists receive a dedicated section (given the fact that many featured articles will never appear, regardless)? —David Levy16:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess they're not really articles in the strictest definition of the word? They're lists with just a really long leads that explain whey they can't be on an article. Some lists are really long (sports-related lists, for example can go back to at least more than a hundred years), imagine a list of FA Cup winners on the main FA Cup article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.)
I understand the distinction, but such pages still meet our usual definition of "article" (and are documented as such).
There was like a proposal to have a separate "List:"-space but was turned down for good reason; it boils down to what a list presents: a list, while an article has prose. It just so happens they are both composed of text. It's like the distinction between still images (photographs and drawings) and moving images (films). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I understand the distinction. But we define both entities as "articles," just as we define both still images and moving images as "images"/"files." —David Levy16:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
To make it interesting, both featured sounds, and probably featured videos (which is essentially a thousand of still images and sound) if there's one, are also located at the File namespace, but the nomination procedures for FPs and FSs are separately done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
@Wehalt: why do you believe only featured content should be on the main page, when we have Did You Know, In the News, On the Day etc that all feature articles that are nowhere near that? Aiken (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Those sections link to articles for reasons primarily unrelated to their overall quality. I agree with Wehwalt that it doesn't make sense to spotlight articles because they've reached a level of quality beneath that of articles that will never receive the same treatment. —David Levy15:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A section for GAs is a good idea, because some GAs will never be able to become FAs for various reasons. However, I don't think a "sports" section is a good idea at all - imo, we should not be so much a news site, and more of an encyclopedia. ITN should be replaced, imo, with GAs or FLs. Aiken (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we create a section to showcase non-good articles? Some of them will never be able to become GAs, for various reasons. —David Levy15:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Most adequate articles would have been eligible for DYK when they were created (1500 characters of prose isn't much). GAs are supposed to be more than just "adequate", but, for one reason or another, not of FA quality. I would go so far as to support the inclusion of really crappy articles on the Main Page in the hope of encouraging people to improve them. This could attract new editors, the articles benefit and it shows that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that not all of our articles are perfect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, GA is quite liberal. There are heaps of cookie-cutter GAs on sportspeople who played two games, boats or planes that never achieved anything, 2km highways, 80km windstroms that didn't do much, often with only two pages of sourcing or a stats table, and 2-sentence lead or seomthing. With the WikiCup giving 40 pts for GA, and 100 for FA, and there being a throttle on how much FAC you can have, it's not surprising that there are a lot of cookiecutter GAs about 3-5kb about topics where nothing happened. And no, there shouldn't be more sections for cookiecutting articles, if GA gets a section, those minimalist GA-farming articles shouldn't be allowed in YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That's part of the idea behind DYK; we hope that the attention will result in the articles' improvement/expansion. —David Levy16:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not mad about the idea of a GA section, but I'm not a great fan of ITN either (it seems to conflict too much with the idea that we're an encyclopaedia not a news service, as well as trampling on Wikinews territory). Featured portals and Featured topics, on the other hand, showcase our best articles by theme and subject and I would be very interested in a revamped main page that provided easier access to them. This would also allow featured lists to be highlighted indirectly - I'm not convinced that "today's featured list" is worth a space on the main page particularly when there is a very long backlog of FAs. While many of the newer FLs are much better than older FLs, it is still much more of an achievement to write an FA compared to an FL (which is why I have 17 FLs but only 3 FAs!) BencherliteTalk15:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well Wikipedians do a brilliant if writing articles on current events and keeping the up-to-date. Wikinews is great for up-to-the-minute news reports (or it would be if it weren't for their internal politics) whereas Wikipedia, not being paper, has the advantage of being able to provide context behind the news and ITN does a good job of highlighting these articles and directing readers to encyclopaedic content of timely interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
(E.C.)This is IMO the tricky part. What part of the main page is not backlogged? Are FPs backlogged? We can borrow one day from them. DYK is perennially backlogged, FA too. ITN has the toughest inclusion criteria (articles that have enough references can be FAs, some won't make it to ITN) so that's the part of the Main Page that is perennially running short of articles to feature. You'd never run out of topics for OTD. Unless it's February 30.
That now sucks. On my screen, you barely see DYK and OTD section headers, you'd have to press PAGE DOWN for you to see them, and another time to see FP. Adding another one will only lengthen the page and won't be of real help since you'd have to scroll all the way down already. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sports, no way. GAs, OK in principle if we used short DYK-style blurbs rather than long TFA-style ones. In fact that may be a better use of the DYK section (or could be integrated in parallel with it), because DYK has become a simple 'well done' sticker for any of our new articles that aren't atrocious. Which is hardly a ringing endorsement. Lists, in principle yes but I don't see how or where we can put them - TFA and TFP have huge backlogs, and it would be incongruous in ITN or OTD. Modest Geniustalk22:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
How about simply making newly promoted GAs eligible for the DYK section. Maybe these would get a place on the top of the list with image. If there is a backlog with DYKs maybe the criteria needs to be lifted (1,800 characters? WikiProject rating of at least mid importance? or else.) I believe it would be beneficial to slightly shift the incentive from simply creating new articles to improving article quality. --Elekhh (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
That's kinda what I was thinking of. Perhaps the top one or two items on each DYK could be a GA, and the rest continue as now but with slightly more difficult criteria. Modest Geniustalk16:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The DYK says that, he "would have played an even more important part in .... politics".
So I looked up the article and the cited quote (which is properly referenced) is as follows: he "would probably have played an even more important part in provincial and colonial politics".[1]
This is a pointless DYK. No-one could possibly know. It isn't a fact. The purported fact is a speculation by the author of the article that is quoted, as is indicated by the presence of the word "probably" in the quote. Whether or not he might "probably" have played a bigger part in politics is singularly unnotable, regardless of how notable the gentleman may have been in other ways. Amandajm (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section
The German and the French Wikipedias have broken the 1,000,000 article mark.
I propose that a new designation be added for those, like this:
This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001 (2001), it currently contains 6,908,152 articles.Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.
I have invited all of the participants there to this thread to discuss the pros and cons. Let's discuss the merits and flaws of the proposal... The Transhumanist05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The achievement is worth pointing out. Which is probably why it keeps being brought up. When English Wikipedia broke the million article milestone, it was a real big deal. It's double the previous benchmark on the list! One million articles. WOW! This is worth celebrating, and would be a show of respect for our sister Wikipedias' achievements.
It's significant from a marketing viewpoint. It's a major feature that could be promoted.
It's significant from an accurate reporting standpoint. And it's notable. Twice as notable as 500,000.
It's significant from a scalar perspective. It's the point of a scale to measure, and the obvious next level is a million.
It's significant from a cultural perspective. 1,000,000 was a major benchmark for English Wikipedia. We celebrated it at the top of our main page.
As one of the editors who commented in the recent discussion (and was notified by The Transhumanist of this one), I can only repeat what I said earlier: I regard four Wikipedias as the absolute bare minimum that we should have on any line, for simple aesthetic reasons. Once there are four Wikipedias with over a million articles, of course we should have a line for that threshold. Until then, we should not. A second point is that I would prefer to stay with only four quantity breaks and not add a fifth one; I can remember when we used to have the giant "brick wall" list of almost every Wikipedia, and there are good reasons why we don't do that any more. I don't especially want to see us creep back in that direction. — Gavia immer (talk)05:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason this issue comes up again and again is the massive inaccuracy (German Wiki appears to have 500,000 articles, it has 1.1 million). The aesthetic rationale is important, but should not lead to such inaccuracies otherwise undesirable in an encyclopedia. Given that this issue is the worst at the top of the list, I would suggest another possible solution: in the first line list the five largest wikis with more precise data regarding the nr of articles, i.e.
I strongly support the proposal. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias generally strive to present accurate information. Whatever the aesthetics, a statement to the effect that certain language versions of Wikipedia have over 500,000 articles, implies very strongly that they have not reached the one million mark. Especially when contrasted with the 3,438,516 articles in the English version (displayed twice on the main page, once just above the figures for the other versions), it appears as if the French and German versions are about a sixth of the size of the English WP whereas they are actually about a third of the size. If this kind of information appeared in a Wikipedia article, it would be quickly corrected. Arguments such as "We need at least four before we add a new line" don't hold water. Just because we are dealing with the main page shouldn't alter the basic principles of the need for accuracy. And just think: the German and French speakers could even go on to make the 2,000,000 mark without leaving the "more than 500,000" line if the "rules" are not changed! Let's give them full credit now for what they have achieved - not in two years time. Over a million articles: WOW! The Dutch recognize this achivement on their main page. Why don't we? I therefore support the proposal. - Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we should wait for at least 1 more language to reach the 1 million article mark before adding this. When that happens, we should reexamine the other levels as well. I would think that 1 M, 750k, 500k, 250k, and 100k would be the best benchmarks. I would, however, accept the compromise of listing the 5 largest wikipedias exactly and then giving the other milestone listings. --Khajidha (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)PS - to Ipigott: of course the German wiki recognizes its own achievement. We list the total for our wiki, but don't have a 3 million article benchmark listing. --Khajidha (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
To Khajida. Yes, I am familiar with the German main page. All the main pages of the different language versions give the number of articles in their wiki. The reason I mentioned the Dutch is that they specifically mention the English, German and French versions as having over one million articles. I am, by the way, often inspired by the German-language articles and the great use of images, charts and maps. That's one of the reasons the German-speakers deserve recognition. - Ipigott (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Can't believe I got confused on German/Dutch there. Anyways.... The Dutch site has three other languages to list as having over 1 million articles, we only have two (English not being an "other language" on the English wiki). The situation is not the same. --Khajidha (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Nor are we bound by another Wikipedia's decisions (just as they aren't bound by ours). Other Wikipedias' practices differ from ours in countless respects (including some of far greater significance). —David Levy18:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Several issues have been raised above.
What is the section's purpose? In the past, there has been some debate as to whether it's to highlight/reward quantitative milestones or provide bilingual/multilingual readers with a general guide of how useful various Wikipedias are. Consensus always has pointed to the latter, which is why we began applying qualitative filters to remove Wikipedias whose article counts have been artificially inflated via the creation of essentially empty pages (sometimes in a deliberate attempt to climb our list).
But isn't 1,000,000 articles twice as notable as 500,000 articles? No, it isn't. The larger a Wikipedia becomes, the more likely it is that core subjects already have been covered. That is not to say that 144 articles about the individual Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes are not valuable, but they aren't the same as 144 articles about countries or world leaders.
But it's inaccurate to list the German and French Wikipedias in the "More than 500,000 articles" tier. No, it's factually accurate that those Wikipedias contain more than 500,000 articles, just as it was when they contained 900,000 articles. The users misled are those who mistake the section for an indiscriminate list of popular numerical milestones. Given the matter of aesthetics, apart from boasting, what purpose would a "more than 1,000,000 articles" tier serve? Is any reader of German or French going to ignore the current links on the basis that 500,000 articles is too few? Will users unable to read German or French nonetheless want to visit those Wikipedias when they see that they've exceeded 1,000,000 articles?
So why don't we keep the current tiers but add individual numbers next to the language names? See above. Our goal has never been to keep a running tally of every Wikipedia's article count. (We already prominently link to such a page directly from the section.) It's to provide a general guide of how useful various Wikipedias are (typically for the benefit of someone who reads English and one or more other languages).
But aren't we bragging about our article count? We display it on the main page twice! Indeed, and this situation's resolution is long overdue. In the most recent main page redesign, we added the article count to the Wikipedia languages section for the purpose of phasing it out at the top of the page. But amid the excitement of hitting 2,000,000 articles, this did not occur. Having now reached 6,908,152 articles (many of which aren't exactly top-notch), are we not ready to finally begin stressing quality over quantity? But I digress. —David Levy13:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if a million is the best threshold, but it might be worth adding a higher level than the 500k we currently have. Howard's suggestion of 700k seems sensible depending on how many Wikipedias would "qualify". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
We periodically adjust the thresholds, and it certainly is reasonable to consider doing that now.
This proposal's downside is that it would push four Wikipedias containing more than 600,000 articles down to the next tier, which currently stands at "More than 150,000 articles" (and could be adjusted, but not by enough to mitigate the problem).
Alternatively, we could change the top tier to "More than 600,000 articles" without otherwise altering the list at all. —David Levy14:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Every Wikipedia containing more than 500,000 articles also contains more than 600,000 articles. We could simply replace "500,000" with "600,000" without that tier's members changing at all.
A separate "More than 700,000 articles" tier would contain five Wikipedias, reducing the current top tier to four. This is undesirable for the following reasons:
In recent years, consensus has dictated that we not exceed four tiers. (Sometimes, we've had only three.)
We have not achieved consensus for a tier containing as few as five Wikipedias (let alone four).
For aesthetic reasons, we try to avoid creating tiers that are substantially larger than those below them. (A difference of one usually isn't substantial, but it is when the resultant number is 25% greater.)
As noted above, every Wikipedia in the current top tier contains more than 600,000 articles. It seems illogical to create a separate tier whose threshold is only 1/6 higher. —David Levy16:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Reply, in particular, to David Levy's explanations. I can see that these old, constantly restated arguments are beginning to create a kind of Wikipedia case law which could well prevent any further action. Great pity in this ever changing world! But OK, if you really want to avoid too much change too soon, I would point out that there is a little preposition in the English language which might do the trick. It's between. Instead of "More than 500,000 articles" why not "Between 500,000 and 1,500,000 articles"? At least that would avoid misunderstandings. And BTW, I don't really agree that the primary objective is to cover major areas such as countries and world leaders. These are well documented in lots of sources in all languages. Where Wikipedia excels is in its ever wider coverage of new items of interest as they emerge. A recent article in the Danish press concluded that Wikipedia was better than the online Danish-language encyclopedia Den store Danske as it not only covered more items of interest to the average Dane but ofte also provided links to even more extensive information through links to articles in other languages such as English or German. So I really do believe that 1,000,000 is twice as good as 500,000. And if we can't maintain that philosophy, we might as well stop writing new articles and spend a couple of years on improving the most popular old ones instead. I would argue that creativity is one of the major incentives for us all. - Ipigott (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
1. When I cite previous consensus, it isn't to imply that past decisions are final, but to explain the logic behind them and invite arguments as to why they should be reconsidered.
2. I'm not belittling articles on subjects other than those covered by a traditional encyclopedia, and I agree that our ability to include them is an important attribute. But that doesn't mean that a Wikipedia doubles in value when its articles double in quantity.
It's nifty that we cover Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes individually, but is it reasonable to assign the same value (in terms of usefulness to readers) to each of those 144 articles that we do to the article about the television series itself? My point is that as a Wikipedia grows, an increasing segment of its articles falls into that category.
3. I seem to recall the range idea being discussed at some point. I don't remember why it wasn't adopted, but it seems like a reasonable solution. —David Levy19:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The same idea (range of 500,000 to 1,500,000) came me last night, and was about to suggest it now here, but others were faster... I naturally support it. --Elekhh (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose having any tier with less than 4 items in it. Having said that, there's no reason why we can't play with the numbers to make it work, which I would support. How about 700k (6 items), 300k (6 items), 150k (8 items), 120k (7 items)? edit: I just realised that's going by the list on meta:List of Wikipedias, not all of which meet our content requirements. But that only affects the lower levels, which would have to be tweaked downwards. Modest Geniustalk22:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Four of the six Wikipedias in the "300,000" tier would contain more than 600,000 articles each (a difference of 50%).
The "700,000" tier actually would comprise five Wikipedias (not six), of which three range in size from 709,271 to 735,279 articles (exceeding 600,000 by 22.6% at most). The other two respectively contain 1,015,445 and 1,133,401 articles, so using "700,000" (instead of the "600,000" that I proposed) would reduce the perceived under-reporting by less than 10% (compared to the 50% increase for the four Wikipedias mentioned in the previous item).
Why have separate tiers for "120,000" and "150,000" (which are quite similar)?
As I realised after I had already posted, I was working from the meta list, so had counted English and messed up on the lower end. I see no problem with what does/doesn't fall into each tier, nor any numbers being any particular percentage away from the entry level of their tier, so long as they balance. And no particular reason for removing so many, that's just the way my numbers came out. Probably better to set a lower bottom limit. Modest Geniustalk00:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I was confused because the stated rationale behind having a "More than 700,000 articles" level was that it would bring the number closer to the German and French Wikipedias' sizes. Your proposed distribution would increase the amount of perceived under-reporting (among Wikipedias for which the difference matters more), so it isn't in line with what others are discussing (an observation, not a criticism).
Aesthetically, our longstanding design principle is to seek approximate balance among three or four tiers, with the quantity of Wikipedias increasing inversely to the thresholds' numbers (and sometimes with a bottom tier substantially larger than the others are). Given the current distribution, we should consider merging the two bottom tiers. —David Levy00:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
So far everybody seems to agree with the range solution, and removing the count from the top of the page. Implementation? --Elekhh (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If you click the "i" in a blue circle, most of the information presented is incomprehensible to anyone but a few Wikipedia insiders. The exception is the Summary section, but even that section is about performers and recording, not readers/listeners. Is it really worth the Main Page space it uses, including the whitespace to the left and right of the blue circle? Art LaPella (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a reason it's there - you must have some way to get to the licensing information, in order to comply with CC and GFDL licenses. Raul654 (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Accepted, but could we link the file to something in the 'Play the ...' description, perhaps? And don't let this quibble distract from this being a positive thing to have done for a musical FA. --Stephen04:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If anyone thinks they have a better approach, I'm open to suggestions.
but could we link the file to something in the 'Play the ...' description - I don't follow. Can you code up an example or provide a screenshot? Raul654 (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm at work with limited access to tools, but for example, in Hey Jude, the sample is shown as a simple play button, and the text above is linked to take you to the file itself, replete with licencing information. So could we link something (a word, or the whole string, or something subtler) in the 'Play the "Toccata" from L'Orfeo' blurb rather than the overly large info button? --Stephen05:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
In Firefox the player unfolds over the text of the FA blurb. Makes it hard to listen and read at the same time. (And I agree with above that it'd be nice if the info dot was a little less conspicuous so it competed less with the play button.)
I created an amendment to Template:listen that fixed that months ago by fixing the image size to 300 pixels. It was rejects because according to some fixing the problem did not warrant a fork of the template. Regards, SunCreator(talk)14:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Promoted on October 7, Main Page on October 15. That's got to be one of the fastest turnarounds TFA has ever seen. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 16:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if that would be a good idea in this case anyway. 300 pixel long is rather long for a non TFP image and is liable to make things rather bad for those with small browser horizontal resolution Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The idea of including a sound with the picture is a very good one, and in general I think it worked very well. There are two things that would be nice to fix for future cases, but I think will need coding work. Firstly, clicking play led to the progress bar overlapping the text but the text still showing through, which was ugly and difficult to read. Best option would be to make the progress bar display to the left, so it only overlaps the sidebar not the blurb. Secondly, the 'i' button is very distracting, confusing and looks bad. As mentioned above, it would be best to remove it and include a link to the file page (for the required attribution) by linking the name of the file. I tried to work out how to make an example of this, but can't get rid of the button. I've illustrated what I mean by a link above, but I would also like the 'i' button to be removed. Modest Geniustalk16:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Two TFAs per day?
Creating a new section so as not to distract from the above discussion. We currently promote articles at a faster rate than can be featured on the Main Page. I'd like to propose that we list two TFA's per day in order to give wider recognition to our best work. We did it once for the U.S. elections and the Main Page aesthetically didn't look bad to my eye. The blurbs can be written to keep to the space available.
Another (much more rare) possibility is to use DYK-style multi-hook blurbs to feature multiple articles in one blurb. This would be a rare/special case where the articles featured are closely related and lend themselves to being written up in a combined blurb (a requirement could be that each article's lead section must be similar enough that a combined blurb doesn't deviate too far from either). Some examples are articles with:
a main/sub relationship (e.g. X and History of X)
a sibling-sibling relationship (e.g. two sub-species of the same animal that are sufficiently similar)
a serial/consecutive relationship (e.g. sections of highways, annual events)
Multi-article DYKs are already possible, though somewhat rare. I'm not sure there is any need for multiple TFAs; I for one don't mind if the FAs I wrote never or only after a very long time become TFA. Ucucha13:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Two TFAs worked very well for the US election, but only because they were articles with a clear relation to each other. I've no objection to repeating the practise for other pairs of articles which are sufficiently close, but I think most FAs won't be amenable to that (esp. once you discount those which have already appeared on the MP). Modest Geniustalk16:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that this should be an option to be considered on certain occasions. Off the top of my head on Canada day we featured John Diefenbaker, he could have been paired with another Canada-themed article. Random8917:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't share your concerns? If we had two separate blurbs for two separate TFA's (as opposed to a single multi-hook blurb) there is no particular reason for the two to be related. We could in principle decide to feature two FA's per day as the new standard, without giving any special consideration to the relationship between the two. In fact this would be MUCH simpler to administer and would achieve the goal proposed, which is simply to give more of our best articles airtime. Personally, as a reader, I would prefer if we featured an article on an animal and a video game on the same day, it would give me a more varied reading experience. Zunaid17:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it fair to limit ourselves to having both non-repeating FAs thought? Considering the US election case, one of them was a repeat TFA if we have two highly relevant to the date and quite significant whatever it is FAs, it seems to me there's no reason why we can't IAR again. This won't help with our problem of too many FAs of course. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot, with the families of boats and animals from the same species and so forth. But to be frank, many of the old FAs that are still TFAless are looking a bit worse for wear, and could do without being on the main page. thirdly, there are usually waves of FAs in certain areas at a time, due to 1-2 people in the same topic, and there's no need to exhaust all the supplies straight away, as no specific topic stays strong for more than 2-3 years. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect to Raul (who does a terrific job), he's obligated to act in accordance with consensus, just as the rest of us are. If the community were to determine that the section should showcase two articles per day, Raul's options would be to manage the additional workload himself, enlist one or more other editors to assist him, or retire as featured article director (hopefully not the third option). —David Levy23:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be a good idea to move this discussion to WT:TFA or a similar page, where those more involved in the process are more likely to notice this discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, there is a substantial "tail" on TFA viewing figures. That is, a substantial number of people are reading TFAs not on the day that they appear in full on the Main Page but in the three days afterwards, while there is still a link to the article under the current TFA. Physchim62(talk)04:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned Wikipedia:Featured article statistics a while back. Surprisingly no one linked to it even though it seems quite relevant to this discussion. While we do usually make more FAs per month then the number of days, our rate of new FAs dropped down from a peak in the 2007-2008 period so we only get an average of perhaps 10 FAs per month more then the number of days in the month. Of course the backlog will grow at slightly higher rate since some demoted FAs will have been TFAs.
My view is from the current statistics the situation isn't really critical. In particular, featuring 2 a day every day seems like a bad idea or at least potentially not sustainable unless you argue the long wait time to be TFA is having a strongly negative effect on the FA rate. (In reality our existing backlog is probably large enough and from the stats it looks like the growth rate has increased again plus if we feature more we likely to have more that eventually get demoted that the situation may not ever reach a critical point). BTW from a quick and dirty estimate presuming a linear growth rate (i.e. almost definitely not going to be close to being accurate but considering the stats seemed the best choice for a quick estimate) we're only going to have 5000 or so FAs at the end of Jan 2015.
I'm undecided on whether this a good idea, but there certainly would be the option of featuring two articles only on some days (weekend days, for example).
Also, there is substantial interest in placing featured lists on the main page (probably more so than for any other featured content not currently included). This might be a feasible means of doing so without drawing objections that we're contributing to the TFA backlog. —David Levy12:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is the implication that space for FL should come from the TFA slot? Bad idea, considering how widely read the TFA is.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I neither support nor oppose the idea, but it's logical in the respect that a featured list article is a type of featured article (albeit one selected via a different process). No other main page section serves as similar a purpose. —David Levy00:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Seriously though, I think the most logical way to implement such a system would be run each FA for 12 hours rather than both for 24 hours. Kaldari (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see my above reply to HJ Mitchell.
Given the existence of time zones and related diversity of sleep schedules, work schedules, et cetera, substantially fewer people would see each item. Someone who checks the main page once per day would miss half of the featured articles' appearances. —David Levy01:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, 12 hours isn't a viable option. Also, are there statistics on how many featured articles haven't appeared on the main page? DCT•C 04:35, Friday October 15, 2010 (UTC) 04:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. With a backlog of 3.5 years (plus about 4 years of FAs already listed), I think it's a good time to seriously consider having two TFAs daily. Perhaps with an RFC? DCT•C20:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to consider that a "backlog". The quantity of FAs allows Raul to pick the most interesting articles for TFA, so that articles like Miniopterus griveaudi can be replaced with more generally interesting one. Ucucha17:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It's also worth remembering that the FA standards will doubtless have changed over that 3 years, and many articles will have been promoted and demoted in that time. Modest Geniustalk00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
A small point
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Lots of heat, very little light. I think I saw an apology or two in there somewhere so it's probably a good idea to close this now, before the trouting starts. TFOWR10:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel nitpicky
"After 14 years of construction, the drilling of the world's longest transport tunnel, the Gotthard Base Railway Tunnel through the Swiss Alps, is completed."
Shoudn't that either be
"After 14 years of construction, the drilling of the world's longest transport tunnel, the Gotthard Base Railway Tunnel through the Swiss Alps, is complete"
or
"After 14 years of construction, the drilling of the world's longest transport tunnel, the Gotthard Base Railway Tunnel through the Swiss Alps, has been completed"
Yeah, Dave. Obviously you were referring to the grammar. I was just pointing out the absurdity of debating grammatical nuances when the statement itself is incorrect. But thanks for directing me to WP:ERRORS, since this is my very first time editing Wikipedia and I simply had no idea what to do. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number21:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Please. Either you thought I was a new user, or you were being deliberately patronizing. If I were a new user, it wouldn't be "helpful" to direct me to ERRORS instead of fixing the problem. This is Talk:Main Page, and there's no rule that says I can't ignore bureaucracy and discuss an error here. In this case, it would be particularly unhelpful to direct me to ERRORS because it was already reported there two days ago and has gotten nowhere. Why don't I join the discussion there, you ask?
I didn't recognize your username (until reading the 21:50 reply and clicking through to your page).
I gave no consideration to whether the editor was new, which I didn't regard as relevant. I, too, find it annoying when an administrator points to WP:ERRORS instead of correcting a simple error (e.g. a typo). My advice to report the issue there had nothing to do with a bureaucratic desire to scold someone for posting in the "wrong" place. It was a sincere attempt to direct you to a forum in which the issue would receive attention from users prepared to address it. (I'm unknowledgeable in this area, and therefore unqualified to assess the complaint's validity and determine how best to reword the item.)
I didn't realize that a relevant thread already existed there. I certainly do question why you would choose to fragment the discussion. ("I don't wanna, and I don't hafta." is not a particularly helpful explanation.)
Given the fact that you're a sysop, I also wonder why you don't simply correct the error yourself (instead of criticising me for failing to). —David Levy23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Because I don't want to. Because it so often happens that when anyone unilaterally fixes something there, someone else turns up with some pedantic argument about how, "Well, technically, it is finished because section H, paragraph 43, of the 1917 European railway charter defines 'completion' as two open ends of a single tunnel, even if a parallel tunnel is still being drilled." Or some such thing.
I'm not criticizing you for failing to fix it, either - just for failing to answer me like a normal person would. Something along the lines of, "Hm, hadn't noticed that. An interesting point." That's all. The kind of exchange that comes from mutual respect for one's fellow human beings. What you would say to a co-worker, or a stranger on a train, if they pointed out a minor error in the morning paper. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number23:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
As explained above, I was trying to be helpful. You and I obviously have very different ideas of what constitutes a respectful response. —David Levy00:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If someone point out an error in a newspaper, one can assume they are just making small talk, as the paper has already been printed. If a regular editor on wikipedia points out an error on the main page, it is reasonable to assume the he or she is interested in fixing the error. --Banana (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That was my assumption, but Kafziel evidently sees things differently. The next time he makes such a comment, I'll try to remember to ask him about the weather instead of suggesting a possible solution. —David Levy05:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You didn't suggest a possible solution. You politely suggested I take a hike. And, in the next breath, absurdly mentioned how "annoying" you find it when admins tell people to go to ERRORS instead of helping them, when that is exactly what you did. Whether you are "knowledgeable" about the subject is utterly irrelevant; you didn't direct me to WP:TRAINS, where I could find someone knowledgeable. You directed me to WP:ERRORS, so you didn't have to bother. If (as you claim) you didn't know who I was, it was a brush-off. If you did know who I was, it was plain rude. Either way, it's not about me. I pointed out an error, and you told me where I could shove it. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number06:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I wrote the following:
I, too, find it annoying when an administrator points to WP:ERRORS instead of correcting a simple error (e.g. a typo).
This is not a simple error that I know how to correct. I don't even know whether it's an error at all. So I provided a link to the page set up to handle such concerns.
You then sarcastically thanked me, at which point I clicked through to your page and realized who you were. I explained that I was trying to help, and you replied that it was wasn't helpful to direct a user to WP:ERRORS "instead of fixing the problem." I explained that I didn't know how to fix the problem and was curious as to why you didn't fix it yourself instead of criticising me for failing to. Despite your previous message, you then stated that you were criticising me not for failing to fix it, but for failing to make small talk (which you apparently regard as more "normal" and useful than attempting to point someone in the direction of people who might be able to help).
Now you're complaining that I didn't want to "bother" dealing with the error, which means that you either are back to criticising me for failing to fix it or believe that it somehow is a bigger "bother" to type "Hm, hadn't noticed that. An interesting point." than it is to type "If you regard the blurb as factually inaccurate, please report this at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors.", the latter of which you somehow interpret as "take a hike" and "shove it."
I'm baffled as to how that sentence even has come to be. I merely tried to direct an editor to a page on which he/she would receive assistance, and I feel as though I've been placed on trial as a result. —David Levy15:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This conversation should stop now, as it is getting nowhere and is certainly not something that a reader of the main page needs to concern himself with. Quite frankly Kafziel, at the moment I am embarrassed to have you as a sysop, as this is likely the most blatant disregard for WP:AGF I have EVER seen. God forbid that someone not know who you are and replies by pointing out to you place you should take up your concern (like you, I find WP:ERRORS sort of dumb, but that doesn't automatically make it no longer the correct place). Finally, I find calling someone an abnormal human being for not responding in the manner YOU would to be a personal attack; your response is unbecoming not just of an admin, but of any Wikipedian. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Not knowing who I am has nothing to do with it. The point was that it shows that rather than helping someone, he points them to ERRORS. That is a place to find help, but not the place. And, yes - If someone chooses not to post at ERRORS, that does automatically make it the wrong place. It's just a bureaucratic invention and there's absolutely nothing that says anyone has to use it. If he had nothing constructive to add, he should have let someone else reply. But that's not how things are done here. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number14:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Kafziel, you really appear to enjoy dragging out this argument to ridiculous lengths. Two editors were having a discussion about grammar, and then you completely derailed the conversation with an irrelevant remark followed by an ego-induced temper tantrum. How about you drop it and allow these other editors to accomplish something other than the continuation of this argument? SnottyWongsoliloquize15:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to help. I didn't know how to directly handle your concern, so I pointed you to the page established for this purpose.
I didn't create WP:ERRORS or advocate/endorse its existence. I don't know whether it's a good idea. I only know that various administrators pay special attention to it (and not to Talk:Main Page) and address the concerns that arise there. I didn't scold you for posting here or tell you that it was the wrong place. I politely asked you to report the error at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors if you felt that the blurb was factually inaccurate.
In the very same thread, I'd just finished replying to someone questioning whether the blurb contained a grammatical error. I knew the answer to that, so I simply addressed the concern on this page. I didn't even mention WP:ERRORS at that point, as I had no desire to turn away editors on a technicality. But I didn't know to directly address your concern, so I attempted to point you in the direction of someone who would. I don't understand how you can examine this scenario and interpret my response as a "brush-off" on the part of someone who didn't want to "bother" assisting people. —David Levy15:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You didn't know how to handle my concern? No in-depth knowledge of the subject matter is required; a glance at the article would have been a start. Or the article's talk page. Or WP:ERRORS, for that matter. Or you could have just said nothing at all, and let someone else address it. That's always an option. But I had never even heard of that tunnel until this thread, and it took me about 30 seconds to realize it was wrong. Anyway, don't worry - I've corrected it myself. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Your revision seems solid. I'm sorry that my grasp of the discrepancy was inferior to yours. I'm not sorry for making a good-faith attempt to point you in the direction of a sysop (not realizing that you were one) whose understanding of the situation was better than mine.
And I remain baffled as to how you can believe that I had no intention of helping (and routinely deflect error reports on a bureaucratic technicality), given the nature of the thread to which you replied. —David Levy16:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If we assume you didn't simply direct me to ERRORS out of hand, I see two possibilities:
You—a highly experienced and intelligent editor—did your due diligence, looked at the article, couldn't find what I was talking about, checked the article talk page but overlooked the relevant thread, checked ERRORS and couldn't understand the discussion there either, completely forgot about the numerous disagreements we have had in the past, assumed I was a new user who simply didn't know the right place to go, and directed me to ERRORS because you had exhausted all other avenues. All this in the space of four minutes. Or...
You made a sarcastic reply to my initial smart-ass comment and can't stop backpedaling.
By the way, I am in no way saying your first response was inappropriate or uncivil. I had it coming. I didn't have a problem with what you said or how you said it, until you started acting like it was all an innocent attempt to help. And I understand that, after all that has gone on since, it would be extremely difficult to go back and admit that that was what happened. So, assuming I have clarified my reasoning enough for you, we can just move on to better things. The page is fixed; the rest is just background noise. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
And the assumption of bad faith continues.
No, I didn't check any of those pages. I took your factual claim at face value, but I had no idea of whether it meant that the wording was inaccurate (i.e. that it was wrong to state that "the drilling of the world's longest transport tunnel" had been "completed"). Your wording seems less ambiguous, but I still am not sure that the original wording was incorrect.
Please forgive me for not memorizing everyone's usernames. Have I even interacted with you in the past nine months? I just read an archived thread from January, but I don't recall anything from the interim. (Perhaps I've forgotten something.)
Do not confuse this for a claim that I would have tried to help you if I'd known who you were. Given past experience, I would have ignored you (apart from editing the blurb if I'd known what was called for). That's what I meant when I noted that "I forgot who I was replying to," which was the most polite characterization (or allusion thereto) that I could muster. —David Levy19:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I accept your apology, but your sarcasm is far less troubling than your accusations of malice and chicanery are. —David Levy19:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Even worse, America's midterm elections are right in the middle of the World Series. Two American (or US since using "American" to refer to the US is pure, 110% US-centric systemic bias) might make the page at the same time. Think of all the children who might get the false impression America (damn-I meant US-my systemic bias is acting up again) is somehow more important than Vanuatu. And it gets worse, from WP:ITN/FE the final mission of America's (there it is again) Death Star build is on November 1. Think of the children! DCT•C16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to worry. I called up the US president, Barack Obama who agreed this was concerning. After consulting with his cabinet and the US Supreme Court justices and both leaders of both houses of Congress and the governor and leader of state legislature of every state they came to a unanimous consensus that the less important event would be delayed. I'm currently on the phone with Chinese president Hu Jintao who's agreed to ensure any significant event will be delayed. This may make some scheduling difficulties for the 2010 Asian Games but it looks doable. Sadly I'm still having trouble getting hold of mother nature but I've spoken to God who's agreed to pass on my message. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record: most Canadians call you guys Americans and things related to the US as American and we're not offended by that usage. So, the American mid-term elections is fine by me. American World Series is a problem since one lonely team is not American (not that they're in the World Series, mind you). freshacconci talktalk15:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I was being tongue in cheek - and I did say 'provoke a discussion' (which would include Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells type entries.
This appears to be one of the more sucessful urban myths, as I see it cited all the time. It's false. The naming of the world series is a classic dead horse but the root of the complaint is certainly accurate.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
See my note below, there almost certainly weren't any baseball teams of comparable ability outside of the US and Canada when the World Series was first held. If all the legitimate competitors in the world had a chance to get in, then it was a world championship. --Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it could rightfully be called the "World Series" if there were no professional baseball teams in other countries or if professional teams in other countries were not of the same caliber as the American (and one Canadian) teams. Are non-North American baseball teams of the same caliber as NA ones? I don't know, just pointing out a possible explanation. --Khajidha (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The male has a showy tail, with the two outermost feathers in the shape of lyres, hence the common name.
NOTE: The two outermost feathers together form the shape of a lyre, while the other feathers (which are uniquely structured) appear to represent strings.
This was written by someone who misread the article, didn't understand the reference and didn't look it up. Information on the main page needs to be double checked, for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility. Amandajm (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the article just now, I think it could be quite easily misread. It says "The tail has sixteen feathers, with the two outermost being lyre-shaped." To someone not familiar with the bird, that could easily be read to mean that each outermost feather was lyre shaped. A better wording would be ...the two outermost together forming the shape of a lyre.HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Now, as my final act of obsessive pedantry here, I will remove the space in the section title. Lyrebird is always just one word. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:ENGVAR either can be used on wikipedia so the precise name will vary depending on the specific case. In terms of the picture, we tend to prefer the picture which relates to the most recent item. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Since the blurb is specifically in regards to an action of the government of Myanmar/Burma, and since the government prefers to call themselves Myanmar, I think in this case that would be the most appropriate term. Just my two cents though. Buddy431 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The Main Page always defers to the supporting articles. Our article on the country is currently located at Burma, so that's what we call it on the Main Page. Modest Geniustalk02:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but you appear to have missed my point and your statement doesn't make sense. We aren't going to say "riots over the price of gasoline in the United Kingdom/Australia/New Zealand cause the collapse of the government". Nor "Obama resigns as US president due to the controvery surrounding his decision to ban moustaches from the White House". I somewhat doubt we'll refer to a Fixed-wing aircraft in ITN either. The main page defers to articles something I commonly point out. But in this case the article makes clear both names are fine. Both names are used thoroughout wikipedia and there is no need to only ever use one thoroughout wikipedia, ENGVAR and policy has always (or at least for a very long time) allowed both in this and other instances where it's suitable (in particular, mass changing instances which currently use one or the other without discussion is generally going to be considered disruptive). There has never been, and should never be a requirement we follow article titles when a different wording is acceptable per ENGVAR (or for other reasons) and is fully supported by the article. (I presume at least you accept we don't say Artifact (archaeology) on the main page.) To use an example I've used before policy on naming articles for US locations is generally name, state name except when the location is well known enough to not require a state name. This doesn't mean we always have to follow that convention thoroughout wikipedia and particularly on ITN, if the name is unambigious, there's no reason why we have to mention the state name, instead just US is fine or if people really, really want to mention state name, then state name, U.S. (or whatever the convention on US is, I can't recall). Generally speaking, we only require internal consistency. P.S. For all the complaints about us being biased to Commonwealth English, it wasn't actually that easy to find an example that clearly worked for the US (I ignored aluminium because of the way policy is currently implemented there). Of course perhaps this was just a lack of involvement and knowledge of such disputes. But for Commonwealth cases, we have pajamas and colour that I found relatively fast. Having said that, I just recalled maize a perhaps better example for the US. Oh and I BTW I also ignored yoghurt because I think the example there is too complex. P.P.S. You didn't really say anything which opposed the ,U.S. bit if we do mention state name although some people do seem to think that fact article is name, state name means we don't have to mention US, I mentioned it primarily for clarity. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough, at this very moment we have developing nations instead of developing countries (the article is developing country) which is probably better per the wording we used. In DYK, we also mention red volva Amanita instead of Amanita rubrovolvata. Similarly in TFP Lycianthes rantonnetii is called Blue Potato Bush. You could perhaps also count our mention of Aberchalder railway station as a railway station as train station is the article on the concept itself. Oh and this is a glance thorough and I didn't consider words that weren't wikilinked. P.S. I may have misunderstood the 'developing nations and countries with emerging markets' to refer to 2 different things rather then one, but anyway the other examples still stand. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
For TFP, I always use a common name rather than the binomial name when possible, as I feel it's more accessible than the Latin. howcheng {chat}16:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
But the beauty (and point) of binomial names is they can't be confused for anything else. Common names, on the other hand, can cause a whole host of confusions. Take the robin in Anglophone Europe vs the robin in the Anglophone Americas; a cowslip in Anglophone Europe which may be the name given to a marsh marigold in the Anglophone Americas. And I haven't even started on Australasian flora and fauna! To avoid geographical favouritism (and cries of bias!) it is always best to use the binomial name. Add all the various common names in the blurb, sure. 86.152.23.246 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Binomial names usually always included, but to use yesterday's POTD, "Blue Potato Bush" is more easily identified as a plant than Lycianthes rantonnetii. howcheng {chat}16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't Latin WP included in the language bar to the left on the main page? I understand that the bar cannot include all languge versions of Wikipedia, but the Latin WP has more articles than some of the versions included in the list. I'd suggest that Latin WP be included in that list of wikipedias. / Carolus 213.100.55.7 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The world's fastest supercomputer
Would the ITN item be improved by adding The China-developed Tianhe-I becomes the world's fastest supercomputer, replacing Jaguar in this position.? I, personally, like to know who held the record beforehand and the article didn't actually state that before I added it. Calistemon (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, especially about adding it to the article (thanks!) ITN doesn't usually add the previous record holder when records are broken, simply for reasons of space: however that doesn't seem to be a problem here. I would say "outpacing Jaguar by more than 40%". I'm copying this to WP:ERRORS, which is where we usually discuss blurb changes like this. Physchim62(talk)00:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Debtors and creditors
"Cantillon's entrepreneurial success, however, came at a cost to his debtors, who pursued him with lawsuits, criminal charges, and even murder plots until his death in 1734." Why would his debtors pursue him, since they owed him money? Perhaps "creditors" is meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.187.105 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There are only 149 featured portals. We'd run out in five months. Even if all of WP's portals became Featured Portals we'd run out in a couple of years.
Of all the other things clamouring for space on the MP (Featured Lists, Good Articles, Featured Sounds etc), why on Earth would we choose to include Featured Portals? There are very few of them, the vast majority are poorly maintained despite their 'featured' status, and there's already a section on portals in the top right (where ALL the featured portals are only two clicks from the MP). Modest Geniustalk20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Nixon TFA
The reduced-size image for this TFA suffers from a fair bit of Moire-patterning. It needs a median filter applying to remove it. Parrotof Doom00:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In some cases, the printing process can cause images to acquire a dot pattern, which will cause a moire when scanned at high resolution and then thumbnailed. Median filtering is acceptable to use in these cases (Compare this un-filtered high resolution scan with this image post median-filtering)
In this case, however, the dot pattern is obviously present in the original Nixon flyer, and was not an inadvertent result of printing and scanning. In this case, the best way to fix it is to slightly adjust the size of the picture to avoid striding the dot pattern. Raul654 (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
On further experimentation, even that won't do any good -- there's no way to thumbnail it without producing a moire, because the people who made this poster wanted it to look that way. Raul654 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In any case I would argue 120 pixels looks a lot better then what we currently have at 125 pixels. BTW while there are some cases when moiré pattern are intentional, I somewhat doubt the people who made the poster had any real concern of the moiré pattern that adjusting the size of a representation of the poster would produce, particularly since that depends on the precise technique used to resize the image, e.g. trying comparing a simple nearest neighbour resize of the image to say 220 pixels horizontal vs a more sophisticated algorithm). While I'm not arguing for the original image to be filtered, I'm not even sure the dot pattern was really intentional per se, it looks to me just like normal halftoning that you would expect given the limits of printing tech. But I admit I'm not an expert on such things. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This was a scan of one in the possession of the Nixon Library. If you look through the file history, it originally was a photograph that I took of another copy of the same flyer (it is about postcard-sized, by the way). If you work from the photograph, do you get better results?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunate position
Hopefully this is the reason. Néstor Kirchner is positioned above the monkey and Myanmar snub-nosed monkey is beside his photo in big bold writing. He is dead now, dont know if it is a good time to make fun of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.190.66 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That's odd. I thought Néstor Kirchner was the world's fastest supercomputer. Perhaps "(pictured)" needs to be in bold and caps.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Why not have the item associated with the picture always be on top with the others following in whatever order is desired? A dividing line can be placed between the items for further clarification. --Khajidha (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's happening again: the news in top position is about a deceased person. It took me about 30 seconds to realize that the man depicted in the photo is not dead. Aldo L (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
A user repeatedly reverts the edits on the Piran page which reflected the fact that Peter Bossman, a person of African origin had taken office in Piran, a first for the country caught by international media. Could a user clear up why this was reverted? The user has not cited reasons for the revertion. --92.12.53.151 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No idea, but you should ask the user who reverted or on the talk page or even in the help desk, not in (as the header says) a completely irrelevant place like here. I would note that none of the sources I've found specifically mention when he is taking office. Are you sure he's actually the mayor of Piran right now and not in a few days or weeks? It's not always the case that someone takes office the moment they are elected. The user in question is apparently Slovenian so they are more likely to be familiar with precisely when the person takes office. Nil Einne (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Slovenian regulations, till the results are official and the municipal council has its first session after the election, the mayor of Piran remains Tomaž Gantar. (list of sessions) --Eleassarmy talk08:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
World Series ITN
I see that the Giants won the "World Series"... however, I can't seem to find any record of the international teams they played to get such a championship. Can someone point me in the right direction? 74.192.20.45 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
As ever with articles featured on the Main Page, you are invited to click on the links to find further information about the subjects featured. You can raise issues on those articles' talk pages or at our reference desk. Physchim62(talk)00:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The teams may not be international (Can't wait for the Toronto Blue Jays in Canada to get back into the MLB playoffs...) but MLB players certainly come from many different countries. That's "World" enough for me. --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no doubt that World Series is a misleading name for the event. It is a regional championship. However, that is not something Wikipedia can do anything about. This is an encyclopaedia that describes things as they are, not as they ought to be./Coffeeshivers (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
For most of those years "World Series" wasn't that bad of a name because nobody else played baseball. Now with a pro league in Japan the name is misleading. If they ever do a series between the champion team in USA and the champion team in Japan I wonder what they'll call it. APL (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
after a quick search of our own pages, there are also professional baseball teams in China, Venezuala, the Netherlands, and Columbia! I hope that someday MLB will create a truly World Series where the best baseball teams in all countries get a chance to compete w/ each other, ala the FIFA World Cup! That might make me care about the WS and MLB for that matter...nah, probably not01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs)
There are some topics which intrinsically can only be illustrated with fair-use images (films, video games, modern works of art etc). Such articles should still be eligible for Featured status. Personally I think a far more sensible solution would be to allow fair-use images on the main page for TFAs, in a narrow range of circumstances (such as when a free image is intrinsically impossible). Modest Geniustalk17:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I think quite a lot of us think that. I remember reading somewhere that there was a lengthy debate about it, but the consensus was that FU images shouldn't be allowed on the Main Page. Still, that debate was quite a while ago... wackywace18:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It comes up on T:MP from time to time, and generally people here are in favour of changing the policy. On the other hand, the response on WT:NFCC has always been extremely negative. It's probably been years since there was a proper attempt at wide-ranging discussion. Perhaps an RfC? Modest Geniustalk18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be a good idea, and I think quite a few people would have things to say on the matter. I know Jimbo's firmly against the idea, though, so I find it highly unlikely that consensus would be achieved quickly, or indeed if there will be much support at all. I certainly would be in favour of an RfC on FU content on the main page, though. wackywace19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you woulld be very unlikely to get consensus for putting non-free content on the Main Page: the potential copyright problems are simply too great, and there are lots of editors who are very vocal about potential copyright problems. Physchim62(talk)19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
But then we include fair use media in articles. If we can put them there, why can't we put them on the main page just because more people look at it? wackywace19:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the argument (which didn't seem to carry much weight until Jimbo made that one edit summary) is that images on articles are informative and necessary for a complete understanding of the subject while images on the mainpage are purely decorative. I suppose that's true as far as it goes, it would be a rare featured article whose intro is so obtuse you can't make sense of it without an image. APL (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The other option to reconsider is whether we should have an available free image as a requirement for TFA (not FAC). That would mean that some FAs would never make it to the Main Page, but it's not as if we're short of FAs to act as the "feedstock" of TFA. Physchim62(talk)19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
But that produces the same problems as not promoting FACs that do not have free media in them. This would mean we would never have articles about films, television programmes, or music on the main page, and then no-one would attempt to bring any media-related article up to FA standard, since it will never be shown on the main page—which, for many, is the ultimate achievement for an article. wackywace19:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, it would lead to editors simply removing all non-free images from articles just to get them a pass in FAC - making the article *less* useful to readers. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 15:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Possibly the most frequently used image on the front page.
While I am generally sceptical about conspiracy theories, I can't help but notice that references to Ngo Dinh Diem, and also his photograph, get on the front page a great deal. Are there just lots of Vietnam enthusiasts out there or is there a competition running? For the sake of variety, I would like to see a minimum one year exclusion of any reference to Diem and his photo from the front page. Greenshed (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Second most frequently used?Fernando Lugo had a history of doing that for a while. None of the presiding admins seemed to think it was a big deal. If anything, it was entertaining.--WaltCip (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There do seem to be an awful lot of Vietnam - and Diem in particular - items popping up on OTD. I count nineteen items on him on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/All, more than one every 3 weeks. It wouldn't surprise me if someone had gone around adding lots of them to the templates on the 360-ish days of the year that they're unprotected. Modest Geniustalk23:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
YellowMonkey (talk·contribs) has been swapping out short, unsourced articles for better-developed ones (sometimes FAs). Can't blame him for trying to improve the quality of articles featured on OTD, but because they tend to be articles he's worked on, he may be inadvertently swinging the bias in a different direction. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This really needs sorting. I took out the Vietnam ref on the Nov 6 OTD a few days ago, as it refers partly to the events of 1 Nov and 2 Nov, both of which were already in OTD for those days. And guess what - when I last checked, it had been put back in. This is overwhelming bias and shouldn't be allowed to continue. Really, it's ridiculous. It seems to me the OTD system is not exposed to much scrutiny, and that authors are promoting their own articles. There should be more rigorous checks, the way there are for FAs. 86.133.55.218 (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is twofold: 1) the current criteria concentrate on what should be included on a given day and the standard of the article, not on the distribution over the year and 2) because the OTD is generally expected to remain pretty static year-to-year, with the odd change due to centenaries etc and to address article quality concerns, there is very little monitoring or oversight. All the other areas of the MP (except maybe TFP) have large numbers of people watching them and dealing with items as they come up. Very few people pay any attention to the OTD templates, and I doubt they're on many watchlists. IMO there should be a limit of one entry a year for all bold items. Modest Geniustalk20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
"there should be a limit of one entry a year for all bold items." - so you'd advocate that Christmas should appear only on January 7, right? Since that's when it's celebrated by Orthodox Churches on the Julian Calendar? GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 23:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, Fernando Lugo is a very polemic character, even if he hardly ever speaks, notwithstanding this photograph of him holding a microphone. Whenever he speaks his aides have to explain to the press that he didn't said what he said and he did said what he didn't said (or did, for that matter). Anyway, he has been the biggest news in Paraguay for the last 20 years, but I don't think he would change the world. As a matter of fact, some news are simply inconsequential. Aldo L (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, looking through the full list of OTD events, South Vietnam features an absolute huge number of times. While it's great that our coverage of South Vietnam is strong, this is just overkill to have South Vietnam events on October 26, November 1, November 2, November 6, and November 11. I've swapped a bunch of these South Vietnam events into comments for keeping them out of circulation a bit. SV is still way "overrepresented" but to a perhaps more reasonable degree, considering we have high-quality articles there and might as well show them off. SnowFire (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
When I looked a few minutes ago the Ngo Dinh Diem-related entry is still there in tomorrow's OTD template ... (6 November). Can someone take it out please? Especially as there's a Vietnam related one in today's OTD81.156.124.139 (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
We need more well written and properly sourced articles for SA/OTD. While Vietnam may have been appearing a little more frequently than it should, but it's better than getting the same old, same old from the Roman Republic/Empire, GB/UK and the USA all the time. Instead of removingVietnam-related items, what we need is someone to write/find more well written and properly sourced articles about the history of Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uruguay, etc. Think WP:CSB. --PFHLai (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This is true, but we also need to keep some sort of balance while we wait for those. Having the same few Vietnam stories (all of which are from the same decade) showing up dozens of times in the year is not reasonable. Modest Geniustalk01:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't deny that, but that was indeed an eventful decade. It seems to me that wikicontributions come in waves. I remember a few years back, the complaint was too much American Civil War. Back then, those were indeed the better articles with confirmed/referenced dates, etc., with few alternatives to choose from. We need a bit more variety on SA/OTD. I am glad that we now have a new and growing set of Vietnam-related articles to choose from. Hopefully, we get a few more of these waves of contributions. I just realized that Zzyzx11 (talk·contribs) is now "semi-retired". Who is doing the choosing these days? Any volunteers? --PFHLai (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Since my name was mentioned, I'll give you my two cents: Probably it was about 3-4 years that I was maintaining OTD on a daily basis. But during the last months before I "semi-retired", it became very time-consuming – so much so that my Number 1 concern was trying to select events in order to avoid the least amount of complaints. Because as more and more people joined Wikipedia, so did the amount of complaints I received. And not only on the OTD talk pages, but my user talk page as well ... complaints about too many 20th and 21st Century events ... complaints about too many American/British/Vietnam events ... complaints about too many war and military topics ... complaints about featuring too many poorly-written, or C-Class and below articles ... complaints about this and that. And it didn't help that the OTD criteria is "subjective due to the fact that any given day of the year can have a great many historical events", "Wikipedia articles tend to more focus on recent events", and "Wikipedia suffers systemic bias". So if anyone wants to accept the challenge and maintain it on a daily basis – and respond to what felt like daily complaints – feel free. Otherwise, it might be better to retire it and possibly put the proposed featured list of the day instead ... Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Aaaaand he's back today, though fortunately without the picture. Could we not replace it with the Leibniz item? Our current coverage of 1960s Vietnam is disproportionately high compared with that of 17th century mathematics (to put it mildly). Modest Geniustalk03:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't see that YellowMonkey had re-edited the OTD November 11 page after I removed the South Vietnamese coup article for precisely the overexposure reason. This is a fundamental disagreement about what "On This Day" is, I suspect; I do not think that we should be taking any kind of high-quality article and figuring out an excuse to stick it into OTD. Rather a holistic balance of OTD should come first, except that any really bad articles are tossed out. YellowMonkey has gone about and added to my view unneeded refimprove tags to any article I'd suggested in its place, or to other articles, so as to provide a strong reason to remove them from OTD (see this edit on Armistice With Germany, for example, one of the most famous events November 11 is known for). Is Armistice With Germany FA quality? No. Like 99% of Wikipedia, it could use more references. But is it a bad article? I don't think so, at least not by the usual standards {{refimprove}} is for.
PFHLai, I agree about the importance of balance and avoiding bias, but that's precisely the problem. South Vietnam was a minor state that lasted for ~20 years. It is certainly a bias for Wikipedia to feature so much about it while the Ottoman Empire or colonial French East Africa or Latin American authors barely if ever show up. There was an absolutely huge number of SV OTDs before my edits, and there still are a huge amount after YellowMonkey restored some (and will probably be more later, as YM tagged some of my replacements with refimprove ). SnowFire (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You're kidding me, he's back on OTD again today??? YELLOWMONKEY THIS IS RIDICULOUS. How can ONE EDITOR'S BIAS be allowed to rule OTD like this? Why is YellowMonkey allowed to impose on OTD like this? Why aren't there mechanisms to prevent this sort of thing? There is something seriously wrong with this system. And if he is adding {refimprove} tags to articles propesed to replace his, it looks like he is gaming the system. 81.147.150.252 (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Because - in principle - the items shouldn't need to change much year-to-year, there's very little oversight and no formal procedure for adding OTD items. Anyone is free to edit the templates for 363 days a year (only admins can change it for the other two, while it's on the MP or the day beforehand). But yes, this is ridiculous and unacceptable. I really hope to see YellowMonkey joining in this discussion, which he has been informed about multiple times. Modest Geniustalk18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
To slightly tone down the temperature here. I'm not happy with some of YellowMonkey's replies to me on his talk page when I raised the issue to him, but ultimately the creation of quality content is the most important thing Wikipedia needs, and YM has done this. If YellowMonkey said "I will produce 5 FAs at the price of featuring them on OTD all the time" it'd be a good trade. So while I still disagree with him, let's not get too crazy here. SnowFire (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I've read some of YellowMonkey's FAs: believe me, that would not be a good trade off! His actions in this case are dispicable. Are we going to have to institute a whole Process at OTD, when it has always worked very well with limited formality, just to counter the disruption of one user (and a former arbitrator at that)? Physchim62(talk)00:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, I must point out that not all of YellowMonkey's edits to the SA/OTD templates were made to add articles about South Vietnam. Can't really blame him for using whatever at his fingertips, though. It would be nice if there are some YellowMonkey-equivalents to contribute to wikicontent on the Ottoman Empire or colonial French East Africa or Latin American ....
Is there any point having this again? It was shown 13 days ago and is now repeated because of the Julian or Gregorian calendar difference. It would have been more logical having Sts Michael and Gabriel.Eugene-elgato (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's a simple answer for that since according to the article the feast is important to people that use both calendars so which one do we choose and why? I'm sure this isn't the only time we have that issue, well there's Easter (and related days) when it diverges and Christmas but I presume there's no dispute about including those twice. No comment on Michael and Gabriel Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd argue "Why not?" There's a case for inclusion, which Nil Einne makes above, and no real case for exclusion - Selected Anniversaries isn't really hurting for space. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 09:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not just about space it's about significance and visitors to the front page seeing things that are well-considered and balanced. E.g. the above discussion on Vietnam. Having the same saint twice because of the 13 day difference (which by the way exists within Orthodoxy and not between Vatican and Orthodoxy) is incoherent and messy.Eugene-elgato (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with OTD policy but I think at least some of the days are significant enough in their own right on both calendars to be mentioned twice. I'm thinking of Christmas, Easter, maybe a handful of others. I'd probably agree that many of the feast days are impractical to mention twice, but I'll let people more famiiliar policy discuss where to draw the line.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand why we include feast days at all. Maybe I just live in a country with different attitudes, but I have NEVER seen any mention of them in conventional media, nor are they widely observed. By including both Christian festivals (Christmas, Easter, Whitsun) and Christian feast days, we seem to be unfairly increasing the number of Christian observances listed over those of other religions. Besides, many forms of Christianity don't even recognise feast days. Modest Geniustalk18:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually The Times of London does feature them. I don't entirely disagree though- it's not like people are accessing Wikipedia really for that and they can't be universally believed in. As you infer, most saints are not part of Christian doctine anyway.Eugene-elgato (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Font
I usually use Firefox with my own custom fonts but I'm using Safari at the moment. Is it me or has the default font changed for wikipedia? the text seems to be emboldened and the article names at the top very bold. Anybody know if the font has actually been modified because I'm pretty sure the old standard for a little smaller and lighter..♦ Dr. Blofeld12:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a specific font, no, but the default font family is set to 'sans-serif'. Check to see what Safari uses as the default sans-serif font. On Windows, the default should be Arial 16pt. — Edokter • Talk • 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I note above that there has recently been discussion about reporting article counts on the Main Page, and the milestone boundaries that should be used in such reports. In view of this recent edit at the Help desk, I wonder whether the milestone boundaries for other language Wikipedias as reported on the Main Page should be reconsidered? The diff is a bit of a grumpy edit, but it's true that both fr. and de. wikipedias are now past the 1 million article milestone, so banding them into the "above 500,000" category, while correct, is rather misleading to a casual reader. (I'm aware that the article totals for both languages are correctly displayed on the initial entry screen around the puzzle ball logo.) Would it be helpful to add an "over 1 million edits" band, do people think? Karenjc15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough - as I say, my question was prompted only by a RD query. There's always the possibility that query was itself inspired by the outcome of the previous debate, which I haven't followed. I'm sure it will resolve itself in time. Karenjc16:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Islamic Eid el Adha paragraph
The Islamic date should be included as well as the Gregorian date. First, it is an Islamic holiday, and such a holiday can theoretically fall twice within the Gregorian year.
I'm unconvinced about that, other then the fall twice which (which is rare since there are few pure lunar calendars and most lunisolar calendars don't have any important events falling close enough to the end of the year they may fall twice and not once), there are many other events we list which are based on some other calendar. The fall twice thing itself seems moot, if it falls twice, we list it twice. The only thing is whether we should bother to put the year. I would say no, but I suspect it helps to remind people to change it from year to year. Perhaps a hidden comment would suffice although I suspect that's more likely to be missed. Of course without the year it may also cause confusion to people who don't realise which year the it fall on that date. I guess part of the problem is we recycle SA/OTD rather then create one for every year. This has it's advantages but it also can cause these sort of issues. Of course even if we don't do that, we can indicate we mean the events for this year, but not which ones don't have a constant Gregorian date (on the other hand some holidays based on the Gregorian calendar don't fall on the same day if they are based on some day of X week). Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Luftwaffe "command" picture
The first DYK states that the pictured bunker is the Luftwaffe command bunker. There is no evidence for this (nor even a claim of it) on the photo itself, nor the article which is referenced. The only claim is that it is simply "a German fortification", "built by slave labour." This is not rigorous enough to make the claim as it is on the mainpage....
It looks very odd without an image. I suggest using Åland Maritime Museum to the top and using File:Pommern ship image 2005.jpg as an image; and replace have the hook as: "... that Åland Maritime Museum in Mariehamn, Åland, features the museum ship Pommern (pictured), which used to be one of the fastest windjammers in the grain trade in the 1930s?" wackywace19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Just chop them off DYK? Nobody would notice... Especially as DYK will be circled through in 4½ hours while the rest of the sections will stay up. Did anyone at DYK think about the length of the section? Of course not. Just cut it, don't mess around with the sections which actually try to work for the readers rather than the contributers. Physchim62(talk)01:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
3 billion...really? I doubt that... Your trying to tell me the most watched thing ever is going to be a wedding... for some guy that many people have neveer even heard of and isnt even next in line... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.151.38 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Isnt the sun a british tabloid... also there are only 60 or so million people in britain... have fun making up the rest of the 3 billion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.151.38 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Considering that his parents' wedding "was televised and watched by a global audience of over 750 million people" almost 30 years ago, it is not at all unlikely that this wedding will draw an audience of well over a billion. Three billion might be pushing it, but considering the increase in world population and the rise of the internet and increase in other forms of telecommmunications it is not impossible. This wedding will be of interest at least to the populations of ALL members of the Commonwealth, a not inconsiderable number. --Khajidha (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
What really confuses me is that the OP has a US IP, and yet apparently is oblivious that plenty in the US (not including myself, but I digress) are going to be interested in this wedding as well. The UK royalty are often treated as a defacto monarchy for the US by folks who are interested in that sort of thing. The percentage of the American population interested will certainly be lower than Commonwealth countries, but it's news here as well.--Boznia19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Three billion seems like an exaggeration, but there will be plenty of non-UK (and even non-Commonwealth) viewers.
My mother (an American) already is talking about ensuring that she can take the day off from work. For the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana, she arranged for my siblings and me to spend the previous night at our grandparents' house. She then awoke at 4:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time (more than two hours before the actual wedding) to view the television coverage. —David Levy16:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not really fair to go from The Sun's "half the world's population" to a figure of three billion! But a figure of one billion viewers, maybe a bit more, would seem reasonable given viewing figure for similar events. Physchim62(talk)16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it's only a tabloid paper, quoting someone from a company called Oracle, and it would probably not reach that figure IMO. I was just attempting to make a point to the IP that just because we all have differing opinions on what is worthy of ITN doesn't mean it is unimportant. We might be getting a day off work for the wedding, here in the UK! Now that's important... Careful With That Axe, EugeneHello...20:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The debate at ITN/C to put this one the main page was very contentious, but in the end the right decision was probably made (I opposed). Certainly, a lot of people outside the UK are interested. Where I work (a British school in Moscow staffed by people largely from the UK and Russia) I noted that the majority of the Brits showed little interest ('I don't follow the royal family' was a representative quote) but the Russians found the topic very intriguing and discussed it at length (the announcement was a top headline in much of the press here). --Johnsemlak (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I find the use of such language very unpleasant when it's used aggressively and personally on Talk pages (usually with no consequences), but that instance is a reference to the name of a real song. While I don't think much of the name of the song (obviously designed to shock and seek attention, irrelevant of other merit or lack thereof), it is a real name and can probably be justified. Whether Wikipedia should set policy with the goal of placating potential donors is another issue entirely. I don't think it should. Such an approach would give donors an inordinate amount of power compared with non-donors. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Its not the use of the word that is so offensive it is the time of day and the time of the week you put in on when children may likely be using wikipedia in the UK on a Sunday. No wikipedia is not censored but we should be responsible for what appears on the main page and use more tact. If this article had appeared say tomorrow at 2pm UK afternoon time it would have been completely fine. No we are not censored but how many parents seeing it are likely to encourage their children to read wikipedia and leave them open to reading it. Educationally it is irresponsible and in seeing it on a front page will judge a book by its cover. ♦ Dr. Blofeld18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the use of a 'bad word' on the main page could cause it to be blocked by filters at schools and workplaces, and by parental control filters in homes. Needless to say, that's not good. Acather96 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I know. Censored or not, many thousands of our readers, particuarly on the weekends are children and I wonder how many children would be banned from wikipedia entirely by a parent seeing that sort of content on the main page when they could massively benefit from learning about solid encyclopedic topics on science and nature etc. of which there are thousands of beneficial articles inside the encyclopedia they could be learning from. It just gives off a bad message putting it on the front page at a time when the amount of children reading wikipedia is likely to be near its peak during the week. ♦ Dr. Blofeld18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the support, and while I certainly support NOTCENSORED as much as anyone else it ought to have a corollary page called NOTINYOURFACE or something like that. My larger point was not so much who would see it as the timing. If you are logged out you will see the fundraiser ad with a nice picture of Jimmy in it (yes, it's that time of year again). One has to wonder if this deterred any contributions ... I think there was a similar incident in the last year where the good Volk at the German Wikipedia put their version of Vulva, complete with free image, on their Main Page, not even during the fundraiser. They got more complaints than we have, ever, for anything we ever did, and even Jimmy said it wasn't the smartest idea. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy also deemed artwork and medical illustrations "pornographic," so he isn't necessarily the most reliable authority on such matters. —David Levy19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The Main Page isslightly censored. WP:TFA says that there is a "a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that [are not intended to] appear on the main page." The question is whether censorship of the title of this song would have been appropriate or not. My own opinion is "No", and I'm afraid that the "not in front of the children" argument doesn't really cut it with me, considering the amount of child-unfriendly material which is already on Wikipedia. Physchim62(talk)18:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Raul654 (the featured article director), the only featured article currently blacklisted is Jenna Jameson. (The Wikipedia article was too, but it no longer has "featured" status.) Even Gropecunt Lane made it onto the main page.
Some users disagree with the Jenna Jameson decision (which Raul made not because he regards the content as offensive, but because he doesn't want to deal with complaints), but we have far more featured articles then available dates. —David Levy19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec):::I agree completely that the use of expletives on the main page is inappropriate. Sure, we have a policy of WP:UNCENSORED, but we also have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Now, I"m not sure what it says about expletives, but I think there should be a rule against them on the main page. We have many policies on language used on the main page that are stricter than the larger body of Wikipedia (e.g. we avoid WP:AmE or WP:BrE; no fair use images). As said above, it's counter to WP's mission to make the page more difficult to use for educational purposes.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it is not used as an expletive, but rather as part of the name of a song. In this context, it would be similar to using "Dick" on the Main Page in the context of an item about Dick Cheney. -- Black Falcon(talk)19:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Dick has two possible meanings. In regards to Cheney it is his name, short for Richard. A resounding "Fuck you!" whether it is a song or whatever can only be used offensively either "to go to hell and get off or "to literally have sexual intercourse" and stands out considerably more... just because wikipedia is stating it as a song name doesn't make it right. Sorry, I'm one of the last people who could generally give a monkeys about censorhsip and liberla use of language but it is the timing of it which left me the impresison of INYOURFACE at a totally inappropriate time of the day and week. ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a tricky situation. On the one hand, there are some valid points regarding problems that can arise (and standing on principle at the expense of readers might not be the most pragmatic approach).
On the other hand, where do we draw the line, and why? Many people would be offended by the sight of unveiled women or LGBT persons on the main page. Many people would be offended by items pertaining to religions other than theirs or scientific claims contradicting their religious beliefs. Why is to okay to offend these people?
The above is not a "slippery slope" argument, as it's highly unlikely that we would censor such subjects. My point is that by not censoring anything (beyond what's required by law), we remain neutral. We don't declare that one group's values matter and another group's values don't. We disseminate encyclopedic information, some of which might offend some people. —David Levy19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
No, but there is something very inappropriate about such a phrase appearing on the main page of wikipedia at a peak time of children's viewing during the week. It would be like airing a pornagraphic film in the afternoon on terrestrial TV on a Sunday afternoon as the TV station "is not censored". It is just the wrong time to do it. Sorry. Yes of course a lot of older children are fully aware of swear words and offensive content but to publish it on the front page on a Sunday afternoon is just off and is very "in your face" we have no rules here. kind of approach which is disasteful...♦ Dr. Blofeld19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally, people withholding information solely because it contains swearwords sends me into a boiling rage. Do my personal feelings get any respect here, or is it only the pro-censorship brigade who have the right to impose their personal morals on everyone? Algebraist20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to the concept of trying to avoid problematic timing, provided that we apply it across the board. (I know that featured articles have been rescheduled to avoid displaying them on certain days.)
Monday afternoon yes. If me comments had no justification then there would be no Watershed (television) in TV either. Why do you think it is that every country in the world will only air certain content at certain times?♦ Dr. Blofeld20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
When did I claim that "[your] comments had no justification"? As I wrote above, I don't object to the concept of trying to avoid problematic timing, provided that we apply it across the board. —David Levy21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Monday afternoon in New Zealand would be Monday morning in Malaysia and India (early morning) and Sunday afternoon in Alaska. Why is that acceptable? DYK items of course last 6 hours. Also I see today (15 November) is Republic Day in Brazil so guess we shouldn't have it today anyway. Eid al-Adha may start tomorrow evening in some countries so we need to be careful about that. Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 18 seems it's Independence Day in Latvia and National Day in Oman so thats out. I think Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 24 is our best bet and hey it's only 1.5 weeks away. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Algebraist did.. Of course at one point in the day whereever in the world it going to be an inappropriate time of the day on the other side of the world, you can't hide that on wikipedia a global 24 hour website. But there are certain days and times of the week, 95% of the rest of the week which is more appropriate. Sure some school kids in Aus might see it in the evening whilst doing homework or whatever but a Sunday afternoon in the UK from my perspective seemed the worst possible time to view it. Those FAs were aired on the front page with some tact for some reason, it should also apply to DYK. Its just bad timing. How often do we see such words which are seen as offensive by the majority of people appear on a wikipedia front page throughout the week or month? Very few times. So why did it have to appear at what is surely one of the peak times during the week for children being on the site at least for the UK and easterm US? Echoing what David said above, no I also oppose censorship of wikipedia and think we should freely be able to publish encyclopedic information. But the time we choose to publish on a main page in front of everybody does needs considering. If not morally then for the fact that wikipedia should be an attractive educational tool for children and their parents to encourage them to read wikipedia. We have a responsibility as an educational institution to show some consideration of the needs of our viewers. How many parents seeing that on the front page are really going to embrace wikipedia and not show concern about its content? Yes they and their children can avoid searching for wikipedia article with likely "adult" content in but to have such phrases appear INYOURFACE on the main page at such a time of the week seems a bad idea to me. Forget moral considerations, I'm just thinking about how much damage it could potentially do to younger viewers who want to learn from wikipedia and read about encyclopedic subjects which could greatly help their knowledge and nurturing but get banned form their parents after seeing that wikipedia is completely irresponsible in choosing what they publish on the main page and that every article may be affected..♦ Dr. Blofeld20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I point out that school times are actually about the most popular times of using Wikipedia. It has been noted in the Dutch wikipedia for instance that juvenile vandalism is at its peak during school hours. The weekends are relatively quiet. Wether or not that is because kids find it less amusing to vandalize wikipedia outside of their "school yard" peer bravado is uncertain, but as far as i'm concerned, there is no usable watershed on wikipedia. Either it's there, or it's not. And I don't feel like writing "F... you" like kids aren't gonna guess that. I find that a shortsighted approach. It's a big song, half the world knows it, most kids can fill in the bleep they hear on USA MTV (this song isn't censored in most of europe). I mean, a bleep means one of seven dirty words. Way to censor !!! Conclusion some want to protect kids by not allowing certain content in the first place to be on the frontpage, which is fine but in that case please just write a "censoring" extension that we can deploy, so I don't have to be bothered with the censoring. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The song is censored in the UK; an alternate 'clean radio edit' is played called 'Forget You'. It works surprising well, with "fuck" replaced by forget, "shit" replaced by a sshh sound and the word "nigga" left out entirely or replaced with an 'mm-hmm' sound. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ01:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Ironically enough, our article says the version performed in the Glee episode is in fact Forget You! The DYK entry however [3] just said it was a censored version which IMHO makes it a poor entry. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It may also be because most parents are not like Dr Blofield imagines, and do in fact take responsibility for their childrens browsing, therefore children find it a lot harder to vandalise when at home and therefore they would also be capable of dealing with any potential issues that may arise due to content we have on the main page and don't need an international website with no timezone visited by people thoroughout the world and in during all times of day, including at schools to some how try and work out a suitable timing for the whole world. Said parents may also be aware of our censorship policy, so are not going to be surprised to find content they may not consider suitable for their children on the main page, and don't need us to hide it at times they won't see it, but their kids may, so that we can pretend we don't show such content. Mind you, I suspect a lot of parents do other things with their children during the weekends, so it wouldn't surprise me if even for children+parents, visiting wikipedia during the weeks may be more common for some. Of course as I've said several times before, we've had dead people in TFP (as with all TFP items for the whole day) and regularly mention at the top of the page people dying (usually as with most ITN items lasting at least 2 days) and other stuff so I'm not really sure which parents these are who are going to be so worried about one mention of Fuck You! on the main page for 6 hours whatever the time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
What was the point of the item? Was it about the release of the Glee Soundtrack, Gwyneth Paltrow's singing career, or the censorship of the song? Only the last would seem to require actually using the name of the song, and thus the word in question. If it was about one of the other two, it could easily have been rephrased. It seems that this was done merely to get the word onto the front page, and that seems more like vandalism than anything else. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think even the most wonderful parents in the world care about whether their children vandalise Wikipedia or not. wackywace13:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion that there should be a 'vanilla version' and a 'all references allowed' (including topics that come under 'medical, war, things that will annoy Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells/filtering services etc applies here.
BTW I forgot to mention that other then whatever Raul isn't going to put on the main page, we have a defacto moratorium on File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg appearing as TFP due to a lack of consensus when Howcheng mentioned it was due. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Daniel Case on this one. While I wouldn't object to seeing this entry on DYK some other time, right now during the fundraising drive seems to be inappropriate. We're asking for money with one hand, and alienating potential donors with the other. howcheng {chat}00:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I still have to disagree. There's no need to pretend we're something we're not to try and win over donors. If people aren't willing to donate to us because of our policies so be it. Better be honest with them and yes some potential donors will appreciate that. Note that this isn't an argument for including the item per se. (Actually as I expressed above I am concerned that the item was poor considering it didn't use the actual name of the song sung in the show). Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Wales has advocated what he called the "principle of least astonishment" which I agree with. Yeah, NOTCENSORED, but, for example, our "goatse" article definitely should not have the goatse image displayed without a "Click here to see the image" link. (Maybe it does right now and maybe it doesn't — because some people enjoy waving the NOTCENSORED banner in order to keep shock photos in maximum prominence in an article, I'm not going to go visit the goatse article to find out.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Page to Main page
Hi. How to change "Page" to "Main Page" in the header of the main page? I want to change it not here, but in another WikiMedia project. Please help. --Wertuose (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Done - Fairly obvious that the description was inaccurate. Rather than leaving it up there while taking the time to find another suitable one, I've simply removed the image for now. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
