Talk:Main Page/Archive 163

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.

→

How gruesome!

Looking at the DYK and OTD sections today are making me sick to my stomach. The vast majority of articles advertised here are about wars and battles. Nazi concentration camps? United States Naval Academy? Ten Years' War? A Chinese general? Battle of Tours, Battle of Karbala, etc. Why are we drawing so much attention to violence and mass murder on the main page? I'm absolutely disgusted at Wikipedia.--128.227.133.183 (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the opening of the Naval Academy is awful. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Because significant events should not be swept under the rug just because some people find them unpleasant, and things related to war are very often extremely significant. Would you prefer we only talk about nice things? 64.180.40.75 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In any case, one might argue that educating people about the horrors of war is a good way to promote non-violence. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Informing about a subject is far from promoting it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The blank space between DYK and the FP is more gruesome. Who designed the layout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.11.237 (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think they're more than halfway in the slow-mo killing of DYK as we know it, hence it had 5 blurbs (compare to 8 blurbs before they "clamped down"). Only a matter of time before we squee with the debut of GAs to replace DYKs. –H T D 10:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A hook was pulled at the last second. Yes, quite gruesome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe i cant speak for everyone, but i noticed war articles etc generally get way more traffic than a standard milk and cookies article. I think if you want to downplay the influx of these articles on DYK one way is to stop glorifying DYK view counts. Just a personal opinion on my own observations of DYK. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Does this use templates like {{In the news}}? The banner, or DYK, or FA? ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.252.2 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all content on the main page is rendered via templates. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#How are templates used on the Main Page?. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

italian WP

As you perhpas know the Italian WP was completely blocked because of a protest against a proposed law which will force Blogger or Websites to remove information about persons without testing whether the information is true or not. Here you can see that German Wikipedians did address their solidarity with the Italian community. de:Wikipedia:Solidaritätserklärung_mit_dem_italienischen_Wikipedia-Streik. We invite you to participate in our solidary address or would encourage you to initiate another solidarity address on your own. Greetings --87.2.187.133 (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is an English translation but it may be advisable (if this hasn't already been done) to seek out someone to provide an Italian translation too? Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)178.119.227.129 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Irony in "In the News" section

Does anyone find the following "In the News" item sad/ironic/amusing: "After five years in captivity, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (pictured) is freed in exchange for the release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners."

If I were in charge of the page, I would take a picture of the 1,027 Palestinians and replace the item with "1,027 Palestinian prisoners (pictured) are freed in exchange for 1 Israeli prisoner."

And no, I'm not anti-Israel or anti-Palestine, I'm just a neutral party who can't understand how that can be considered fair. Gilad was nothing more than a soldier--and he is worth over 1,000 Palestinians?

Allow me to elaborate. Linguistically, if a headline were to read "X is exchanged for Y," I'd figure that X is the more important of the set {X,Y}, since it is the subject of the sentence. So I feel that this item implicitly assigns more importance to, and hence values more, the captivity of 1 Israeli soldier than the captivity of 1,027 Palestinians.

I acknowledge that getting a single picture of 1,027 Palestinians is more challenging than getting a picture of Gilad Shalit, but the inclusion of his picture over the captives' picture is also an implicit indication of bias. Inasilentway (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually like to see some more "in the News" on the english wikipedia that actually reflect english language news. I understand the impetus to avoid bias but this story wasn't even close to a top ten in my country today. This counts below a bunch of exotic animals set free by a suicidal owner and killed, sarkozy's wife giving birth, lindsay lohan getting probation revoked, and a new camera with unlimitied field of focus that we've already heard about, ten times at least. Yes I am trying to be ironical, but consider for a moment that the ONLY exposure many people are going to have of Shalit is on wikipedia's front page - let's entice them to read more instead of turning them off to learning.97.87.1.230 (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, tt's a difficult event to cover with total balance, but removing the image would be a start. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, HiLo48. I do believe the image should be removed, first and foremost. Afterwords, we should rewrite the "In the news" item. Inasilentway (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The news item is well writen and picture should stay, saying we should picture the 1,027 is just plain nonsense, The fact that 1 is less than 1000 doesn't mean it should be mentioned second as becouse many news websites and newspaper mentioned his name and the number he was exchange with. See BBC - Gilad Shalit freed in Israeli-Palestinian prisoner swap, The Guardian - Gilad Shalit prisoner swap deal reached, and many more websites, both western and arabs, the second fact is that if Hamas didn't hold Shalit the exchange would have not be taken place.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's either a very biased or very silly comment. There are two sides here and we must not take either of them. Of course we won't have a picture of the 1,027. Therefore, to be neutral, we shouldn't have a picture of the 1. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilad is nothing more than a soldier, but he is also the entire reason why this story is notable, as borne out by the RSes. Given that, mentioning him first is NPOV. We aren't picking a side, just reflecting what our sources say. Reso lute 05:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Gilad is notable because of the story; the story is not notable because of Gilad. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The neutrality issue was precisely why I proposed the two-flags image for ITN in Candidates. Given the broad references and availabilities, it was entirely reasonable that the article maintain a heavy Shalit picture tilt -- but on ITN, that tilt should be avoided if possible. - Tenebris 06:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.190 (talk)

I don't think the fact that media references include pictures of Gilad rather than any of the 1,027 Palestinians is reason why Wikipedia should do it. Wikipedia is not meant to reflect its sources in that particular way, particularly when the sources are media corporations rather than scholarly publications. Was Anthony Weiner's infamous photo included on ITN even though it was all over every piece of news media for several weeks? Inasilentway (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood babies make front pages of even quite good sources. Wikipedia must never succumb to treating such pap as quality content here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually going to make a comment pretty much along the lines of Inasilentway's but of course he got here first. Like many others, I have my own opinions and sympathies when it comes to that place :). In my case those sympathies are firmly on the hebraic side of the fence.

With that said, and while I understand and respect the arguments made as to how this is covered in the media elsewhere, I personally feel that this headline is a bit insensitive towards those other 1027 people involved, at least some of which did nothing more or less than Mr. Shalit to find themselves in that situation. I would like to propose something along the lines of "A prisoner exchange took place between Israel and Hamas, in which Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and 1027 prisoners held by Israel were freed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.147.103 (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about page view statistics

Clicking on "History" and then "Page View Statistics" reveals this is the SECOND most viewed page in Wikipedia, so what is the first? Thank you in advance for any feedback, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

According to this, the most viewed page is "Special:Export/SynchronizationStartTime:", which was apparently viewed over a billion times last December. I think that we can safely say that is because of some technical thing and that the MP is our most viewed page. Jenks24 (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for getting back to me so quickly on this. Forgive me, but I am not even sure what "Special:Export/SynchronizationStartTime:" means. Can you explain please what it means? Thank you in advance for you co-operation. I wonder whether it just means that people from different parts of the world have (and therefore different time zones) have to be logged in what, in Wikipedia technicalities, is counted as equivalent time. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, no one has got back to me to explain what that means - I take it does mean the times that one gets logged onto Wikipedia. I agree, it appears to be something technical - having clicked on the hypertext above, it does not take one to an article that any one would wish to read! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You can also ask on WP:VPT if you want. Or ask someone like User talk:PrimeHunter or User talk:Edokter; I think they know about that script. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 13:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked (december of last year, I think), it was Special:Search, which makes a lot more sense. Something is wrong with the pageview counter, FYI. Buggie111 (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite curious, I'm stunned that the Gaddafi article [1] got fewer hits today than it did in previous days. With all the attention about his death (I heard a couple of guys talking about it at McDonald's), I thought it would get a million hits at least. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I would expect the stats to be considerably higher today. — Joseph Fox 03:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Special:Export/SynchronizationStartTime: is supposed to be other than an attempt to use Special:Export on the non-existing page name SynchronizationStartTime:. Other non-existing page names like Special:Export/NonexistingPage display exactly the same, while an existing page like Special:Export/Disambiguation_(disambiguation) adds content from the marvelously named Disambiguation (disambiguation) to the end. I suspect the page view stats is either an error or an indication of a one-time server incidence of some kind. The most viewed list at http://stats.grok.se/en/top is based on December 2010. http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Special:Export/SynchronizationStartTime: looks odd. It says all views were on December 12, but it also says "None" on top of the column (perhaps something fails after 1000M). I don't know whether something at http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Server_admin_log/Archive_17#December_12 could have triggered the extreme page view stats. In the months since then it usually shows around 10 views per day. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That tool is a bit odd. It lists Communist Russia as ranking higher than Soviet Union when the former is a redirect for the latter, and has been for years, and even though the hits are higher for Soviet Union.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Number of hooks in DYK

DYK formerly had 8 "hooks" in each set, and ran 3 or 4 sets a day. Due to a significant slowdown in production, we are now running just 6 hooks in a set, and 2 sets per day. Production is increasing, and it should be possible to increase to 7 hooks per set. Would that create any concerns for other Main Page projects? (I imagine that a slightly longer DYK section actually would make life easier for ITN and OTD.) --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you why the production of DYK has slowed: the system is such a mess it's hard to nominate anything there. I can't imagine this is a problem, anyway. — Joseph Fox 05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

^^I agree with that; I've written a few articles for DYK in the past year or so, but recently the process for nominating them has become so much more convoluted that's it's really not worth the hassle, and I've passed on the opportunity even when I do write something eligible. C628 (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The changes in the DYK procedures were made in reaction to vociferous criticism of DYK by a few users who have taken it upon themselves to find fault with this feature -- and to cast aspersions on the intelligence, education, and probably the morals of the regular participants there. That created a lot of turmoil and has discouraged participation. If you enjoyed contributing to DYK in the past, you can help to restore some sanity by returning there -- and weighing in on the project discussion page regarding your experiences with the new procedures. --Orlady (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the changes at DYK were made in response to an RFC, and at least the amount of plagiarism appearing on the mainpage has declined as a result. (I personally disagreed with the convoluted checklist that was instituted, as I don't believe it will cause a change in the habits of less-than-thorough reviewers, but the institution of archives has helped increase accountability.) You, Orlady, have conducted many thorough reviews, finding issues after hooks were approved by other reviewers, but I don't believe the situation has improved enough to increase production-- more issues are being detected now as a result of the increased accountability (Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed), which has resulted in better detection of faulty reviews, but incomplete reviews and a push for sensationalist, catchy hooks are still resulting in inaccurate info and original research running on Wikipedia's mainpage (Wikipedia:Did you know/Mainpage disputed). I'm not sure, though, if defensive intransigence on the part of some other regulars at DYK should be classified as part of "intelligence", "education" or "morals".[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that seems to be a clear consensus that 7 or more is fine. Actually Orlady its you who is doing the work so it should be you and the remaining active project members who come to a conclusion at DYK talk. You can look at a list of bad articles found and argue that its so long because there is so much rogue behaviour or its so long because you are catching so many problems. Obviously problem articles should have fallen by at least 50% as we used to run 48 new articles a day. However its not clear to me whether you have lost poor articles or good contributors Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Victuallers, I'm not seeing any clear consensus, here or at DYK talk. Here it's 2 for, 1 against; at DYK talk it's 2 for, 4 against. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Orlady+Jos Fox+C628+Vict=4 Victuallers (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

C628 seems to be agreeing with the statement JFox made about issues with the DYK process, and you did not state your preference except to say that a consensus exists. Furthermore, at DYK talk (which you argue should be the place to decide this), consensus seems to be running against the increase. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

TFP

The pic would be so much more effective at larger size ... like, 50–100% larger. $Tony (talk)$ 08:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that. It's always been frustrating for me to understand the point of featuring a picture when it's at a small size. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thirded. Looked like a black blob at first... HurricaneFan 25 13:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks fine as it is, to be honest... — Joseph Fox 19:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Fox: none of the pictures look like a black blob to me, but if it looks blobby to anybody, it should probably be made bigger. pluma Ø 05:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Troll move

Move Swamp Wallaby back where it was asap. Thanks.♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to request this - post at WP:ANI instead. I'll look into it though. — Joseph Fox 19:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OTD wikilinking

Is there any particular reason why the years should be wikilinked in SA/OTD entries? I left this query at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries last week and received no response. It seems like overlinking to me unless there's a good reason to do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad someone has brought this up, it's been bugging me for a while now. Not only is it overlinking, but most year articles are unreferenced and, to be honest, crap. Jenks24 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless someone objects either here or on the OTD page, it is my intention to start removing year links when I perform other edits to OTD pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The OTD pages are designed to mirror the the style of days of the year lists (e.g. the January 1, January 2 ... December 31) pages. The days of the year pages link to the year articles (e.g. 2011, 2010 ... 900, etc.), and the year articles link back to the days of the years. This style is detailed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year#Style and Wikipedia:Days of the year, among others. If anything, you should propose such changes on those pages first.

Furthermore, as stated in many discussions here on this talk page, the Main page is treated more as a portal to let users (especially new users) explore the different articles around Wikipedia (including the days of the year, and year pages), and thus the guidelines on WP:OVERLINK tend to be more relaxed here than a regular article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The latter of the style pages you link doesn't seem to mention it; am I missing something? I'm not particularly concerned by what WikiProject DotY decides for its pages, as the Main Page is a whole-community venture; just because the WikiProject prefers a certain style is no reason to impose it on the entire project. Also, we prefer to avoid drawing attention to poorly-developed pages via the Main Page where possible (thus OTD's non-bolding of problematic pages), and as Jenks24 points out above a number of the year pages have considerable issues. Furthermore, your reference to discussions here is outdated: all of the recent discussions on the topic here that I've seen have advocated less wikilinking on the MP, not more. Any other opinions? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake: it is only on the former guideline and not the latter. Secondly, the bolding or non-bolding of links on the Main page only pertains to whether the primary article on the said blurb is a good article or a problematic one; we still link to other articles on the Main page that help give context:[3][4] My understanding was the discussions of reducing the wikilinking only pertained to the prose on the TFA, TFL, and TFL sections, and some of prose on the individual blurbs on DYK, ITN, and OTD sections, because we linked to way too many articles that provided unnecessary or overly-detailed context -- not because these articles were problematic. To me, the links to the dates are more for navigation and give readers access to other events that happened on the specified year. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"linked to way too many articles that provided unnecessary or overly-detailed context" - exactly. You don't need to see the page on the year to understand what happened on a particular day. Give the year, sure; link it, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The year an event happened, and what was going on in the world during that time, provides sufficient context. What happened on a particular day may have been influenced by events that previously happened that year. Or the event in question could have affected later events. Or the year can provide a clue on what the culture, society, and technology was like during that time.

It seems we just disagree on what constitutes as "overly-detailed" content, much like there was disagreement on whether to remove the wikilinks to every single country mentioned on the Main page. But unlike those prior debates, just only three people contributing on this particular discussion is insufficient to overturn long-standing, more than eight-year old, prior consensus on all 366 OTD templates (including the rarely seen one for February 29). I'd rather not have this discussion end up with just you and me arguing for days. So again, are there any other opinions out there? Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As the section dealing with dates, I do feel all dates in this section should be linked. 124.82.4.23 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Linking of dates is to be expected, but not years. We get nothing but a set of articles that happened by coincidence on in a given year. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, exactly. I comment here not through any ideological position, but a sense of the practicalities of drawing readers to what matters. Focus them on the dates, not the years; the years can be accessed easily through the date articles, anyway. And while we're at it, please can we ensure that common country-names and other dictionary items are linked only if absolutely necessary—again, to funnel the dear readers into the thematic link-targets.

Tony (talk)

10:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in link years. It may not be all readers want to read the articles, but I'm sure some will. I would prefer we let our readers decide for themselves what they want to read and rather then shephard them to certain articles and force them to use indirect links because we believe they are unable to or shouldn't work out for themselves what they should read. The fact that the specific collection of years can be considered semi-random isn't really that significant, the events themselves are sort of random (yes we choose the significant ones but we usually have too many and no real way to decide what's most significant) as to some extent are all the links connected to the event but the years are connected to the event as Zzyzx11 has said so aren't irrelevant to the entry.

BTW I disagree that there is any real consensus to reduce 'over'linking on the main page. It's true most recent discussions have been started by people suggesting a reduction in linking, but even in these discussions it's generally became clear several people disagree there is overlinking and even among those who feel there is, precisely what and how much to reduce isn't clear. (It's hardly surprising that most discussions concerning moving the main page have been initated by those who support the move but although I support such a move I know there there's probably no consensus as we found out in the last major discussion although one thing we have close to consensus for is the main page isn't an article.) Most of the discussions I've seen haven't involved that many more participants then here which is very small for something concerning the main page. (I'm not sure if I participated before but I possibly didn't since I considered the discussions largely irrelevant, they are simply to small and poorly advertised to make a substanial change to the main page.)

If a widely advertised and well organised RFC (meaning for example there needs to be specifics on what to reduce, where and preferably with some explanation for why some feel the linking should be reduced and some feel it should be kept as is) on the issue does reveal a clear consensus to reduce overlinking then we can work from there. I have seen suggestions for a trial reduction and while I don't see any harm in a short trial, I don't actually see how it will do anything useful. Considering overlinking isn't something that comes up all the time, and even a change being something people are more likely to notice, the lack of or presence of complaints or praise won't really indicate either way. (Particularly since those for who the extra links are most likely to be useful are those won't don't visit the main page that often and are unlikely to visit a talk page.) The only thing useful IMO would be metrics which people can consider in an RFC although even these need to be treated with care to ensure we actually have statistically meaningful results and don't mislead people.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note to posters: I have opened an RFC on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Year_wikilinking_in_OTD. Interested users are invited to comment there. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article

Why is there no picture for this featured article? Surely there's has to be someone who took a picture of it freely and without copyright. DarkGhost89 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why is a Main Page section missing an illustrative image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.11.237 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

From the date of the signature, I presume this refers to Calabozos. If you check the article, there are in fact currently no highly relevant images. (For something like this, NFCC won't generally allow an image simply to show what it looks like at the current time even on the article itself.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day caption

"Can be seen"..."can be seen"..."can be seen"... my English teacher would have put a diagonal red line through this, with a terse note in the margin to top it off. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please post things like this in WP:ERRORS, as the box at the top of the page clearly indicates. Thanks. — Joseph Fox 13:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Items in the 'Did you know...' section often seem to be ads, like today's version

These seem like ads or publicity pieces to me:

The record of a gambler in a particular venue
The etymology of a rock band's name
A work performed by a local symphony
Mention of a video game related to unnamed film scenes.

The items may be of great interest to those mentioned. Perhaps not so much to others. - Ac44ck (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember DYK features new articles and significantly updates stubs. Ergo the pool of articles is often going to be limited to more obscure articles and articles on recent things. Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to post specific complaints about Did You Know items at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, interest is extremely subjective. Regarding the specific points above:

Tristan Wade - I'm not that into poker, but having three world series finishes is interesting enough.
Unified Theory - Einstein and rock 'n roll? I can't think of anything more interesting than that.
Kenai Peninsula Orchestra - I agree, this is a less than spectacular hook. I wouldn't call it advertising though.
Joe Danger: The Movie - Less than interesting (agreed). Not much that can be done with an upcoming game, though.

The debate about interest has raged for years, with hooks deemed too sensational at one end of the spectrum and ho-drum hooks at the other. Many editors prefer to play it safe, so hooks can at times be rather dry. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For me, the Main Page is as much a vehicle for improvement as it is for showcasing content. Take a look at WP:TFLS. On the face of it it's a slow-moving, sprawling mess of a selection process, and those are the words of the page's creator. But when you look at the work actually done (compared to the amount of work done at the featured list removal process and cleanup task force), you see just how much good being on the Main Page has done for the improvement of lists, and relatively diverse lists at that.

Back to DYK, this objection does raise a serious point. For quite a lot of (currently) poor quality high- or top-importance articles, the only possible route to the Main Page in future would be as Today's featured article. I would suggest some sort of mechanism whereby a significantly improved level 3 vital article can go up on DYK without needing to meet the usual ~~standards~~ eligibility criteria (of course a VITAL article should meet DYK standards on referencing etc). —WFC— 03:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC) EDITED —WFC— 03:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That would definitely need to be discussed at WT:DYK Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No change could be made to DYK without being extensively discussed there, of course. The specific suggestion may or may not be the way to do it, but the general point of encouraging improvement to key articles relates to the role of the Main Page as a whole, and should be explored here. —WFC— 04:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

1929 crash

"'Black Tuesday' set off the Great Depression". But does that really summarize the conflicting opinions in the article? Art LaPella (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

- I agree. I understand that, among scientists and historians, there may be parity for some events, but the cause of the Great Depression has always been widely disputed. In situations like this, we should opt for verifiability above anything else.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  - Resolved. Art LaPella (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the 800-pound gorilla is in the room when the blurb is rewritten so that nothing is even mentioned about Black Tuesday's association with the start of the Great Depression in popular parlance. The way it's written now it feels just like any ordinary black day, sorta like Black Monday (1987) or the Flash Crash. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Birdy bias? Chirp.

A TFA with a bird and a TFP with a bird — really now, that's two images and two articles related to birds, with a total of...five links about birds and two pics? That's seven. HurricaneFan 25 15:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but everyone loves birds. Just look at the number of people searching Wikipedia for cocks, tits, and boobies;-). --Allen3 ^talk 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep.

HurricaneFan 25 15:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How fun. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, systemic bias!! Where's Moni3 when we need her? Surely someone will come along and make an issue out of this chance occurrence, but I think this section provides a good opportunity for some much needed levity via a caption contest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please. This is NOT the place for humo(u)r. Or innuendo. That should be saved for WP:AN/I or some other dark corner of Wikipedia. And yes, I too love a good shag. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we may soon have a bird in ITN as well. Hut 8.5 16:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hark! A flying Penguin! Reso lute 18:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys didn't know about the bird? I thought everyone knew that the bird is the word. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I love me some systematic bias... (?). JORGENEVSKI 22:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you guys know that this topic is full of win. I wish these Main Page bias topics were as amusing as this one. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! I had a good laugh out of it!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Really wasn't intentional, to be honest :) HurricaneFan 25 01:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on. We never get the chance to be cocky and look at pygmy tits. Nobody should rail on us. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late, but back in February 2009 we had three battleships on the main page (TFA, DYK, and (weirdly) ITN because they discovered a long-lost battleship on the bottom of the Mediterranean). It does happen from time to time. Also, nice work bird editors, keep it up. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

All these tits and boobies have caused me to have a hard ... swallow.

Qantas bias?

The TFA is about Qantas, and so is the topmost ITN entry. What's up with that? 80.122.178.68 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I imagine a coincidence. The TFA is selected a little in advance (and is actually not directly about Qantas), Qantas cancelling all services today was unexpected, but still internationally significant news which should be covered in ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact if you look at the timing carefully Lester Brain was TFA for 29 October 2011 meaning it was on the main page at 0:00 UTC (i.e. 11:00 AEDT) 29 October 2011. Qantas didn't even inform the Australian government of the decision until 2pm AEDT (03:00 UTC) on the 29th [5], and the press conference was around 5pm AEDT (06:00 UTC) on the 29th. (AEDT is UTC+11.) So the TFA was on the main page before even the Australian government knew of the upcoming grounding/lockout, let alone nearly everyone else. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hallowe'en

It would appear that some of those involved in compiling DYK are hoping to run entire sets of hooks themed around Hallowe'en. This seems to me to be entirely disproportionate to the importance (i.e. no importance at all beyond the bank accounts of retailers of sweets and shoddy dressing up outfits) of the "festival". There was no discussion at WT:DYK to try to gain consensus, merely an announcement that this was being pursued. Comments? Kevin McE (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this is done every year, so I guess no discussion took place simply because it's the status quo. As a non-American, I also don't really see why Halloween is such as a big deal, but I don't really see the harm in running those hooks. Jenks24 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an annual thing at DYK since I don't know when. The oldest archive I can find right now is Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2008, but I think we started this Halloween thing earlier than 2008. --PFHLai (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The earliest Halloween oriented update on DYK was in 2006 and was heavily influenced by TFAs decision to display a holiday themed FA. At that time it was just the updating admin sifting through a weeks worth of hook submissions intentionally slanting the selection process so that "spookier" hooks appeared on that date (At the time the response was generally positive). The first year with an organized effort was 2008. --Allen3 ^talk 00:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it was 2006. Thanks for reminding, Allen3. That Halloween DYK set inspired me to write up National Christmas Tree (United States) for Christmas later that year! --PFHLai (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's common practice at DYK to group hooks together into one set for special occasions (regardless of how special individual editors think it is or isn't); if there are sufficient hooks (ie new or newly expanded articles), then it's quite normal for entire sets to be dedicated to the occasion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that these hooks themselves are not explicitly about Halloween. There may be more American hooks than is usual, but there are also hooks from Africa, Asia, and Europe, as well as one that is global. Still balanced, IMHO. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have liked the idea of trying to 'theme' dyk - e.g. French material for Bastille Day, environmental stuff for various environmental days, or national days etc. At least the kids aren't stuffing chocolate easter eggs in their gobs....oh I forgot trick or treating. I hope parents have some healthier treats these days....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Psst... the raisins and apples and similar stuff you give out that no kid ever wants is thrown away seconds after you hand it to them and every smile you've every gotten at the door was just them just being polite. If you've had problems with shaving cream, being tp'ed or the like, that's revenge. Stuffing chocolate easter eggs in your gob on Halloween until you are sick when you're ten is a sacred right and rite.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that any other day of the year its called demanding goods with menaces. Kevin McE (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If they threaten, just give them the bird. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What a pity if the creepy woman and the ape-vs.-demon match won't be on main page tomorrow. The Michael "Darkeye" Higgins picture fits perfectly for Halloween + a pervert TFA.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to raise similar objection at xmas, an equally "commercial" and ultimately meaningless holiday? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sick

Article no longer TFA; reasonable concluding remark made and further discussion can be taken elsewhere -- tariqabjotu 01:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can someone cook up some code to hide the TFA? HurricaneFan 25 00:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Indeed. Wikipedia is not (and should not be) censored, but perhaps there'd be some interest in someone writing an add-on to allow a reader to opt-out of content s/he chooses, particularly when it appears on the Main Page. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC) How did this article become a Featured article? It's not exactly morally right and this doesn't make a good impression of Wikipedia to the masses who come here everyday. I hope the (old, resident) Wikipedians here are not becoming weird (if they aren't already). Please reconsider and use another featured article... this has NOTHING to do with Halloween, it is NOT FITTING; the subject of the article isn't morally right and this kind of stuff shouldn't be known by young kids who might come here. Oh what have you guys done? :O - M0rphzone (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The horror-related TFA is suppose to be related to today, Halloween. Maybe cut off some of the detailed verbiage? Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I sort of question the copyright of the image. Dont remember a screen capture of movie retouched or not ever making to main page (not since scooby doo van atleast). -- Ashish -g55 00:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) It's legit, I've checked. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Wow, there are clearly Wikipedians with weak stomachs. I fail to see the issue. At the end of the day, it's basically just text, and I don't know how someone expects to be less disturbing and still describe the movie. Should you choose to watch the movie (or, God forbid, the sequel), you'll see it gets much more disgusting. And the picture, provided it really is free, is perfectly fine. It just looks like a couple people holding on to each other by their underwear, which, of course, is what the picture actually is. -- tariqabjotu 00:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, there are. I don't want Wikipedia to be censored, but that doesn't mean I want this stuff on the front page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Eh, any code? (No offense to you, Coolug...) HurricaneFan 25 01:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Adding `#mp-tfa { visibility:hidden; }` to your theme css file (under My Preferences / Appearance / Custom CSS next to your theme) will hide it. -- tariqabjotu 01:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you! Mark Shaw (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) There has long been a perhaps unwritten policy that while we shouldn't censor things people are looking for (such as pictures of body parts on the appropriate pages), we shouldn't put potentially offensive items on the Main Page where people might not want to see them. It's well known that this particular movie is a big gross-out, so I don't think it's a good choice for the front page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The movie is a gross-out, yes. But a description of its basic premise? Is seeing the phrase "mouth-to-anus" that revolting? I don't even think it's the most disturbing thing on the Main Page right now. Did you scroll down to the Picture of the Day? -- tariqabjotu 01:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Uh, yeah, that description is pretty revolting, actually. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC) And you were forced to read it? —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) There is no such policy, written or unwritten. All material is "potentially offensive." —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I'm normally not a fan of censorship, but I'm more than a little squeamish about putting an article like this on the front page. We should reconsider maybe?--WaltCip (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Nobody is asking for the article to be deleted. That would be censorship. Putting this up as a TFA is an issue of common-sense about how Wikipedia is perceived by a skeptical public & media, who are ever-ready to discount what we are doing here if we give them a reason to (like post disgusting articles on the Front Page where visitors have no way to avoid it). If enough editors can't see the common-sense in being careful about Wikipedia's image, then I'm afraid Wikipedia is in trouble. Abe Froman (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Define "disgusting." I personally know people who find Islam disgusting (and this seems to be a fairly widespread belief). Should all references to Islamic subjects be banned from the main page? —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The article was discussed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, where the consensus was to put it on the main page. If you would like a say in what goes on the main page, I would suggest commenting at TFA/R more frequently, as that is where these things are frequently decided. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) That's unhelpful. It is not unreasonable for people finding the idea of human beings being sown together so they have to shit into each others mouths distasteful. Even if you are a fan of that kind of thing the point is that it is supposed to be unpleasant and revolting. If it wasn't it wouldn't be a horror film. No one is suggesting that it shouldn't be a featured article, we're just suggesting it is a bit much for the front page. There is along-standing tendency of avoiding certain things on the front page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Firstly, how is it unhelpful to recommend that people participate in the process through which featured articles are selected to appear on the main page (instead of complaining after the fact)? Secondly, no, we've routinely included content that many people deemed objectionable, including graphic images of human/animal body parts. —David Levy 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I messed up and the "it's unhelpful" comment was directed at the previous comment about Islam. As in, one sets out to be disgusting and the other is a religion. That said, it is unrealistic to expect people to keep their eye on everything on the pedia! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 1. Many people believe that all Muslims support terrorism. I strongly disagree, just as some disagree with your assessment of the film. 2. No one has asserted that anyone is required to be aware of everything occurring at Wikipedia. But if one wishes to influence the content appearing on the main page, participating in the various selection processes is the most constructive approach. Complaining about decisions after they're made is not a sound strategy. —David Levy 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Are you suggesting that thinking a movie that sets out to shock and disgust is shocking and disgusting is equivalent to being a bigot? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC) No. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The movie has no references to Halloween. The Halloween TFA has nothing to do with the secular holiday. How many potential editors and readers will come to Wikipedia, see that Featured Article, and leave forever because it's disgusting to them? We'll never know. Great job making Wikipedia look like it's run by puerile weirdos. It isn't often that one can harm an organization from within and get away with it. Abe Froman (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Comments along the lines of "puerile weirdos" are not constructive. Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's quite unreasonable for you to expect its front-page content to be filtered in accordance with your opinions. What disgusts or offends you doesn't necessarily have the same effect on others (and vice versa). If we were to limit the main page's content to material that couldn't possibly upset anyone, it would be blank. —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) David, as I said before, this is about Wikipedia's image, not me. This article is good, but should not be on the front page because (i know you disagree) most people find the topic disgusting. I'm not trying to change your mind, just making it clear that I am not pushing any POV other than what a reasonable person would think looking at that article. If the movie is so good yet inoffensive, then I'm sure you bought copies for Mom, Dad, Saba and Savta. But somehow I doubt that. Abe Froman (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I'm unfamiliar with the film (apart from this blurb) and it doesn't interest me in the slightest, but I unreservedly object to your argument that we should base our main page's content upon a notion of what "reasonable" people find unobjectionable. —David Levy 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Image on front page is horrific and horrifically offensive even in thumbnail. The article is debateable and it has clearly been discussed so yes, leave it....but remove that picture from the front page!! JFitch (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I think some of you are just trying to cause trouble or over reacting honestly. There is nothing particularly obscene about the TFA image itself. If someone never heard of the movie, they probably wouldn't even understand what is going on in the photo. All it looks like is three people in their underwear and with underwear around their necks. This image is PG and the least offensive. Keep it.JanderVK (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) That's a truely ignorant comment. Trying to argue that it doesnt show what it clearly shows. It is certainly not PG, and it being a 1-click from main page is horrific. JFitch (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Actually, he's arguing exactly what it shows. They aren't actually attached mouth-to-anus; they're biting each other's underwear. -- tariqabjotu 02:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC) And if someone complains that pictures of Irishmen are offensive, should we remove the photograph of Michael D. Higgins? —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Ask 100 people if a photo of an Irishman is offensive, you'll get 100 nays. Ask 100 people if a picture of a person's mouth sewn to another's anus for the purposes of eating is offensive... Come on guys. Don't be Sophists... Can't wait for the news articles covering this TFA, which will of course make Wikipedians look like idiots. Abe Froman (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) And the bigger idiots would be the people writing the articles you expect because they are missing the point. This is, in fact, a fine example of what our project is capable of. We cover everything that is notable, even that which some people might find objectionable. And that, of course, is the point. We're not going to hide the bad, creepy or utterly stupid things in life. I think this movie qualifies as all three - but the quality of the article is sufficient. It is a gross-out film, yes. But not really any worse than much of the other crap that fills the genre. Nobody needs to read the TFA, but I suspect it will end up one of the most read we've seen in some time. Take that for what it's worth. Reso lute 02:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC) In other words, you advocate that the main page be censored in accordance with majority beliefs. That isn't how Wikipedia operates. And incidentally, anti-Irish bigotry is sufficiently widespread that some of the hypothetical 100 people probably would object to the Michael D. Higgins photograph's inclusion. —David Levy 02:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) What is wikipedia turning into? an obscure movie that would make caligula happy is your feature article? Have you no shame decency or morality? --CatholicW (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) With Freedom on Wikipedia comes responsibility to make decisions that enhance Wikipedia's stature, not diminish it. Particularly when it comes to TFA, which comes with the imprimatur of Editorial Acceptance from Wikipedia. Enough editors on Wikipedia aren't taking their responsibility and mission to this project seriously enough. That's why articles like this are promoted to the front page, making us fools in front of the world. Abe Froman (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC) There's a limit to what any one editor can be aware of. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Taking the mission seriously ≠ focusing purely on subjects that Abe Froman deems inoffensive. Neutrality is a fundamental, nonnegotiable element of the aforementioned mission. We put our best foot forward by honoring it. —David Levy 02:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Featured articles are selected based on their quality. Their subjects' nature is not (and never has been) a factor. —David Levy 02:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) David, nobody is trying to censor you or imply the article is not high-quality. The discussion is not about deleting or demeaning the article; it is about whether promoting something this weird to the Front Page, where people have no choice but to view something the majority of them will find disgusting, is a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea, and that the promotion harms this project. I'm thinking about Wikipedia, not myself. Abe Froman (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The above is a reply to CatholicW, who certainly appears to demean the article. —David Levy 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC) "Quality?" You think that article contains quality? --CatholicW (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I haven't read the article. Have you? —David Levy 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Is this your way of asking me if you are wrong and the article contains no quality? --CatholicW (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I have read the article, and while it isn't my favourite topic it has undergone a peer-review process to certify its quality in reference to certain criteria. In that sense, the article "contains quality". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC) It's a good article. It just causes too many problems for Wikipedia's image to be on the front page. For example: If schools see "The Human Centipede" as a front-page "can't avoid looking at it," Featured Article, they will block Wikipedia. Imagine yourself as an elementary school principal and you saw 5th graders looking at the front page of Wikipedia with "The Human Centipede," as the FA. What do you do next? Abe Froman (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I'd check the calendar to see if it's April 1st, again. --70.31.11.237 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (e/c)This, I think, is key. Any rudimentary Wikipedia policy should immediately be trumped with a good dosage of common sense and WP:IAR. Step back for a moment and ask ourselves the question: is this a good idea?--WaltCip (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) If Gropecunt Lane and 4chan didn't cause those principals (the same ones who expel students for drawing pictures of soldiers) to block Wikipedia, I doubt this will either. Reso lute 03:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia contains a great deal of material to which elementary school principals might wish to restrict access. Schoolchildren, being a curious sort, are likely to find it regardless of whether it appears on the main page. If supervision isn't feasible, the use of a local content filter is an option. Pretending that Wikipedia is "family-friendly" doesn't solve anything. —David Levy 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) David, I don't need to explain why a reasonable person would find the idea of sewing a mouth to an anus disgusting. The article even says that the idea is a parody of Nazi thinking. And why are we taking this risk of being blocked? What have we gained? If Wikipedia is going to constantly highlight the weirdest content in its inventory on the front page where visitors have to look at it, then we're practically begging institutions to block us. If schools block Wikipedia and it becomes ineligible for schoolwork, then the next generation will stop using us. Then this project dies. We lose nothing by being careful about what goes on the front page. The weird inventory would still be there if someone searched for it. Abe Froman (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC) How, exactly, does this article constitute "constantly highlight(ing) the weirdest content in its inventory"? Hyperbole much? Speaking of hyperbole, being blocked by a few schools won't kill the project. Though it would help reduce our vandalism problem... Reso lute 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Resolute: If this TFA stands then the Weird TFA topics will only continue. Then we'll just be on our way to 4chan with more syllables. Visitors will go elsewhere because we'll get blocked. Aside from that, it is wrong to spring something like this on someone who is just visiting for a more prosaic page. It's one thing if someone specifically searches for this movie, quite another to shove a story about anuses in their faces without warning or an option to opt-out. It's a rude thing to do to people. Abe Froman (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Your overuse of hyperbole is not helpful to the discussion. This is not the first "weird" article we've posted, and it won't be the last. It is not the first TFA that someone found offensive, and it won't be the last. The world didn't end the last time. It won't end this time. And it won't end the next time either. Reso lute 04:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Hyperbole? We're talking about a nazi-inspired story in which three people's anuses are sewn to other people's mouths. And you're accusing me of hyperbole? :-) Abe Froman (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, hyperbole. So far you've equated the posting of this article as TFA as being the demise of Wikipedia and the event that will cause schools all over America/the world to block us. You're also arguing that allowing it to stand will basically turn us into 4chan. I get that you don't like the subject matter much (I don't care for it myself), but you are going overboard on your arguments of the supposed damage it will do. You want to be grossed out? Go take a read about what Clifford Olson did to his victims - and I don't mean our crappy article, but stuff out there in the media. Stuff, I would add, the mainstream media put all over the front pages of Canadian newspapers recently given he just died. This is just a stupid movie. There is some truly disturbing things and people out there in the real world. No reason for us to hide it away in a dark corner. Reso lute 04:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC) If it is "just a stupid movie," with nothing to do with Halloween then why is it the TFA for Halloween? I do not understand why such an extreme story has to be on the front page for all to see, whether they want to or not (probably not). Abe Froman (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Now you're comparing Wikipedia with 4chan? Wow. Wikipedia contains articles on topics that some people regard as "weird." (This, of course, is entirely subjective.) TFA is intended to showcase articles of the highest quality, without regard for their subject matter. In doing so, it illustrates the site's comprehensive (and to some, upsetting) nature. You want us to pretend that Wikipedia is something it isn't. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) David, when you have guests over, do you show them your backyard or your porn? Same thing with this article: Do we show people something interesting on the Front Page, or something that is likely to gross them out? Abe Froman (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Abe, just stop. Please. You're practically discrediting the remarks of anyone who should come along here with a reasoned, legitimate comment. There is no porn on the Main Page, and, thanks to Ed, there isn't even a picture of people biting each other's underwear to depict the movie. So, you don't like the word "anus" being on the Main Page. Well, get over it. This has been discussed with consensus before, and no whining from you or anyone else about how Wikipedia is going to be blocked worldwide because of the word "anus" is going to change that. If you're not grown up enough yet to handle having the word in your field of vision, there's an adequate solution to hiding the TFA description. -- tariqabjotu 05:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Don't make this about me. It isn't. Let me state it again: The TFA is harmful to Wikipedia's public image as a reliable source of information, forcing people to see this TFA on loading Wikipedia is rude because the content is offensive to most, and finally, it could even get us blocked. I don't care about seeing the word anus in print. I do care about Wikipedia getting sandbagged by a couple of editors who sit around egging each other on to put more and more extreme articles up as TFA's. This would have never happened on the Wikipedia of a few years ago. Abe Froman (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I addressed the "block" point below. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Having not read the article, I have no opinion on its quality. I seek to determine the basis of your assessment. —David Levy 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) It's official: Wikipedia has finally gone full retard. What's next, goatse on the frontpage? Sure, why not! It's not like this site has any standards left. The Human Centipede is a crime against cinema and civilization that should be talked about as little as possible, and you assholes put it on the front page? Fuck you. I don't want to be reminded that this piece of shit exists. Blahbalicious (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I agree that some standards are essential. Your language goes way beyond what I regard as acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Arbitrary break (edit conflict × 2) I really can't see a good reason to not change Today's Featured Article to an article on a different, less-absurd subject. Think about it, really: all changing Today's Featured Article to one on a less-absurd subject could do is improve upon having that absurd movie's article on the main page. It should not be much trouble to just replace Today's Featured Article and get it over with. Seriously, I can not see an actual good reason to not change Today's Featured Article. R.I.P. Motion Picture Production Code. Regards, —{\|Retro00064\|☎talk\|✍contribs\|} 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC). Look, the point is that there are evolving standards of decency no doubt. We do not blindly follow majority rule, but there are certain guidelines that must be respected. For example, it would be generally understood that an article on pornography or genitalia would be banned from making an appearing on the front page. There are children that use Wikipedia, and it is not a good thing to have such an article within such easy view. It is one thing to say not to censor, but a completely different one to understand that there is a time and place for certain things and that the place for the The Human Centipede is not the front page. When people access that sort of material, they make a choice to look it up. When I logged onto Wikipedia, I did not think I would have to look at that drek and be reminded of that twisted movie. Keep it as a featured article, but for Pete's sack: remove it from from the main page. Houstonbuildings (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Right. We can put this stuff on the front page because we are not censored. But we probably shouldn't, because it is a dick thing to do to people who don't like extremely unpleasant stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC) And of course, your opinion of what constitutes "extremely unpleasant stuff" is the correct one. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) David, Don't be a dick. Abe Froman (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I'm baffled as to how sarcasm is more insulting than calling someone a dick is. Here is a relevant essay. (To be clear, I'm not directing any insult toward you.) —David Levy 05:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC) [redacted] Blahbalicious (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC) What are these "guidelines"? Also, FYI, while to my knowledge no article on genitalia are FAs on en.wiki, but German Wikipedia has previously featured their vulva article on their main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) And that, Sabine, is exactly why I've removed the image. I actually support the article being on TFA (which I explained in more depth here), but people coming to the main page do not have a choice in viewing the image or not. Given the subject matter, it is a courtesy to our readers; if they would like to see more, they are free to click the bolded link. If they do not, they are free to move on with only nondescript words, not an image. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC) In other words, we're taking a formal position on what imagery is and isn't "objectionable." How unfortunate. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) As Sabine's Sunbird points out, having this as TFA is a clear violation of meta:Don't be a dick. It's a big "screw you" to anyone who might be coming to Wikipedia for information on Tinkerbell or quasars and does not want to see this kind of thing in words or pictures. "Wikipedia is not censored" means we don't prevent people from finding information they are looking for. It does not mean we force gross-out stuff on people who might not want to see it. Of the 3,408 other featured articles, I'm sure there is a better one for Oct. 31 for the Main Page. How about Jack the Ripper? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Jack the Ripper was featured last June, so can't be TFA again. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Agreed. The right thing to do would be to pick another TFA having something, anything to do with Halloween (the current topic does not). However, since this TFA went through a vote there's no face-saving, policy based way to do the right thing. So we're stuck with a nazi-inspired story about 3 people's anuses on the world's preeminent encyclopedia's front page. Abe Froman (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Or how about Vampire? It was last a TFA more than 7 years ago. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC) No. We have a rule that anything that's been TFA before cannot be TFA again. Which, for the benefit of everyone objecting to this article, means that after today it will not be TFA again either. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) We have bent that rule once, and only once, so that Barack Obama and John McCain could be on the main page on November 4, 2008. When that happened, Raul made it clear that it was one-off and would never happen again. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Kids vandalize Wikipedia more often (and often via obscenities) from school than we give them credit for; in fact, I had to knock out an school range today because their students have been running amok on Wikipedia for over a year with absolutely no supervision or control from their administration or staff. If school administrators actually pay attention to this now, then I would be surprised, as they generally seem to not have much control over what their students do on their computers within the bounds of their firewalls in the first place. –MuZemike 04:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I don't think it's going to be a surprise to anyone where I stand on this. So I'll just quote from a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution: We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I was astonished at the placement of this article on the front page. I was expecting a treat about Halloween. Instead visitors just get tricked into loading content they probably wouldn't load given a choice. Abe Froman (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Just for some background info User:Raul654 has said there are said FA which won't be TFA which is reflected in Wikipedia:Today's featured article. I don't know if he has ever given specific examples but Jenna Jameson which is an FA is often given as one (you could perhaps come up with things like Felching, Fisting and Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) all of which are quite far from a FA which Raul may be reluctant to feature, let alone allow images to appear). I've also seen it suggested any FA that directly relates to wikipedia or an associated project although I don't know if there are any which are currently FA anyway (but for example Wikipedia which was an FA once or Essjay controversy or Wikimedia Foundation or probably even Jimbo Wales). I believe the reason Raul has given relates more to the controvesy it will cause and negative feedback he will receive rather then a specific belief those articles are unsuitable to appear on the main page. Also Raul's comments came before the involvement of User:Dabomb87 and before WP:TFA/R was that significant, it's not clear to me that Raul would veto any article including the examples I gave if it gets significant community support in TFA/R. There is also the case of File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg which should have appeared on TFP a while ago but never did after opposition when the idea was raised. On the other hand, I know we've had images of real dead people on TFP and elsewhere. I do find it funny that one of the few times we have a highly relevant free image for a recent and copyrighted form of visual entertainment, it's removed. Also for all the complaints, at least for me, it wasn't that clear without reading the blurb what that image showed, where's Tony where you need him? Nil Einne (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Raul recently confirmed that Jenna Jameson is the only current featured article that he won't schedule. As you noted, it's because he doesn't wish to ignite controversy and deal with complaints, not because of a belief that it's unsuitable. I'm of the opinion that Jenna Jameson as TFA would be be less controversial than other articles that already have appeared (including today's and the aforementioned Gropecunt lane). —David Levy 05:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Won't argue against the article's placement per strict TFA policy. Honestly don't plan on ever seeing either film, preferably not even by accident, but then I have no particular desire to see any film in the Saw franchise either. Will point out, in case it matters, that THC 2 -- also linked from the front page -- was originally banned outright in the United Kingdom on the basis of the Obscene Publications Act (was eventually released after multiple cuts), and was only ever screened at midnight in limited United States theatres. (It was never submitted for rating.) THC 1 was not found to be in breach of the Obscene Publications Act. According to the article, THC 1 did win a few Best Picture awards in the horror film genre. Will also point out that THC 2 happens to be in theatres currently. Some might see this placement as promotion. - Tenebris 07:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Main Page summary I've edited the Main Page summary at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2011 to remove references to the mouth-to-anus mechanics. Melchoir (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Looks good to me. I've copyedited the blurb to suit the new wording. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks! You might want to try some alternate phrasing though. It's currently a rather long sentence. I know that "a joke he made with friends and Nazi medical experiments..." is intended as "(a joke he made with friends) and (Nazi medical experiments....)" but to me, it parses as the nonsensical "a joke he made with (friends and Nazi medical experiments...)". Anyway, I'm signing off for today. Melchoir (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Looks much better. Seriously the mount to anus thing should never have gone on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Why? There's nothing offensive about the word anus, we all have one, and we all shit through it on a regular basis. It seems odd to me that so many people are complaining that this TFA will harm Wikipedia's image, without a single reliable citation to bolster their claim. Parrot of Doom 08:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC) If it was just "anus" then there probably wouldn't be a problem. Combining "anus," with "dinner," and "torture," makes the topic more shocking, and brings the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement of controversial content into play. There's no easy & automatic way for someone to opt-out of seeing that on the Front Page, aside from not visiting Wikipedia. I don't think anyone wants to encourage people to avoid this site. Abe Froman (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC) There's an extremely simple way for people not to see that on the front page. They can choose not to visit Wikipedia. Maybe they should choose instead to visit the BBC's front page, which in my area has a large Halloween graphic, and underneath, stories about rape, killing, riots and racism. Parrot of Doom 09:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Well, since Wikipedia hasn't mentioned this sort of graphic torture on the front page before, people can't really avoid it today because they'd have had no way of guessing that it would be there until they got here. If this was mentioned on the front page of Torturepedia (encyclopedia I've just invented for the sake of discussion), you'd have a point because people who didn't want to see it wouldn't go to that website. People know the sorts of things that appear on the front page of BBC News, too. Kaid100 (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC) They wouldn't be seeing torture though, would they? They'd be seeing four people on a film set. Parrot of Doom 09:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Let me understand your logic: As long as any depicted activity appears "on a film set," it's okay to put that in user's faces without their consent? Take a look at this Wikipedia article: it happens on a film set. By your logic is it TFA-eligible and keeping within the principle of least astonishment in the placement of articles? Abe Froman (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Logic seems to be something you do not understand; readers' consent is not required. And yes, I'd be quite happy to include Two Girls One Cup on the front page. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC) We've had far worse on the Main Page without this level of complaint. — Joseph Fox 09:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC) No, we haven't. Kaid100 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, we have, and with barely a wit of controversy either. Raul654 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Not really, some people are cannibals but no-one gets their ass and mouth tied together. Additionally the content on the front page was significantly tamer for cannibal holocaust. There is nothing anywhere near as bad in the blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC) If this topic can be TFA, then so could this Wikipedia article if enough editors thought it would be 'cool' to nominate. Think about it. I don't think that this is what Jimbo Wales had in mind when he started this project. Abe Froman (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC) If it is indeed the case that WP is disproportionately populated by male editors, the immature and the socially inadequate - as some would argue - features like that one won't do much to change things. (I'm in at least one, but not all, those categories, by the way.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC) OK, I thought this section was about editing the main page summary... so I'll get back to the point. When the main page summary was edited, it introduced a factual inaccuracy: as I understand it, Six did tell investors about the crazed surgeon aspect of the plot... he just omitted the mouth-to-arse details. If you really must censor things (particular very prominent things like the main page), please be extremely careful not to introduce errors; check all relevant sources, ask prominent editors of the article etc. Many would probably disagree, but I'd rather be offended by something than misinformed by it. Papa November (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I apologize for the misleading wording, but I'd do it again. The Main Page gets 3-4 million views per day, so it was too urgent to go fishing for consensus. Thanks for pointing out the issue! Melchoir (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Why are people asking for definitions of the word "disgusting", or asking for citations to prove that this offends people? Just look at the number of reactions here. People have been grossed out by this. I read remarks like "If this grosses you out, then don't read it"; people didn't know the content until they read it! This was an 18+ movie; The article mentions that details were withheld from the financiers, and yet Wikipedia have just gone and thrown it up there on the front page where everyone would suddenly be confronted by it without actively searching that content. Claiming that people shouldn't visit Wikipedia if they don't want to see articles like that doesn't cut it. Fine: don't search out potentially gross articles if you don't like being grossed out! But anyone who came here today to look up whatever they wanted to look up has now been confronted with this. How did it ever get through? Captain Sumo —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC). Look, every encyclopedia has things that parents whould find innapropriate, Wikipedia is no differant. Don't want your kids looking up dirty words? Don't show them Wikipedia! That's the choice of the parent, not Wiki. And so far Jimbo and a legion of admins havent come down saying that this whole thing is out of control, and by taking a head count of the people in here I think I can say that truthfully, the majority of people don't even care about this argument. A few guys will come in here to blow off steam and thats it (which is actually not what the main page should be used for). This will just blow over after halloween. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Not on the front page. And its not just kids who will have an issue with this.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Sigh. I am a bit saddened that this has actually transpired, over one word and based on some of the most paper-thin arguments I've ever seen. That's what I find more disgusting, frankly, and I think it'll discourage Wikipedians from working on articles that aren't just about butterflies and daffodils. We should draw a line on content we put on the Main Page (or, namely, as Today's Featured Article), but I don't think this article is what crosses the line. And I think it says a lot when a fictional story involving the word "anus" revolts people more than the stories about people dying that appear on the Main Page very frequently. -- tariqabjotu 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Just wanted to weigh in here and say that I agree this should not be on the main page. Principle of least astonishment = don't put disturbing, gross articles in the lead slot. (Also, it's not like this is a historic event that may be disturbing but is of obvious educational value. I wouldn't be making the same argument over Holocaust or War rape.) Obviously this article offends a lot of readers - look at all the comments in this section! That it is in the lead slot is further evidence of the dominance 15-35yo men have in Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC) @Tariqabjotu, its not the word "anus" its the words "mouth-to-anus" - and originally the graphic image. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) What graphic image? Oh, the one of people biting each other's underwear? This isn't the image of someone contorting as they swallow the feces of the person in front of them. No one is being attacked and killed, with blood spilling onto their surgically attached counterparts. It's just three people biting each other's underwear. Now that this has been watered down to just describing a "surgical procedure", unless you've seen the movie, or read the article, you have no idea what's supposed to be implied in that picture. It's not graphic. -- tariqabjotu 20:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I think its pretty obvious what its supposed to represent. Especially with the original wording - which is how it was originally posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Well, look at all the comments not in this section. People not offended by this are generally not going to come to the talk page to explain how not offended they are by the Main Page. I take more stock in the discussion that led to this being posted in the Main Page, because in that discussion, people who thought it was okay for the article to be featured had just as much incentive as those who didn't to write their opinion. Here, we're just going to get a slew of complaints, with just a few regulars (like myself or David Levy or Resolute) who follow the Main Page through thick and thin defending the article. So, the obvious conclusion is that because the complaints outnumber the defenses, most people think this is unacceptable. Also, I refuse to take the standard line that works of fiction are of lesser educational value than historical or real-life events. They both have their places, and they both should have their place (judged by somewhat similar standards) on our Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Not all the regulars are defending this. And even if those not offended don't come here, this is obviously THE MOST offensive article we have posted in a while, judging by the reader response. And I never said that works of fiction, taken as a whole, are of lesser value. Give me a break--this is essentially a B movie. It's not like you're here defending Oedipus Rex or even Rosemary's Baby. I haven't seen the movie, but judging by the critical response, it wasn't exactly a work of art. It was a popcorn flick designed to be a gross-out fest. Not all articles are created equal in terms of educational value. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Advertising Isn't putting up a front page summary of a movie just after the release of a sequel advertising? Obviously unpaid advertising in this case, but it would give a commercial benefit to the sequel. It sounds like there was an intent to put a horror movie on the front page, but how about a historic choice that would not give commercial favour to a particular individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Did you write a FA on a historic horror movie that hasn't yet been featured on the main page that you're proposing? Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The author of the article first proposed having this appear on the main page on the date that THC2 was to premiere. That was shot down as being too much like advertising. But, the discussion that followed, I think, led us to here. The release of horror films are a staple of Halloween these days, and it stands to reason that running a horror film as TFA on Halloween is fair game. Reso lute 13:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Isn't putting up a front page summary of a movie just after the release of a sequel advertising? - I think the connection is too tenuous to be of much consequence, but reasonable people could disagree on this. Raul654 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Obviously unpaid advertising in this case, but it would give a commercial benefit to the sequel. - I'm not sure it would cause them much benefit, but even assuming it does, why should that factor into the decision to put this on the main page? but how about a historic choice that would not give commercial favour to a particular individual? - that's what I probably would have done had I not selected this one. Raul654 (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC) This happens much more often with video games but few seem to object to it. I think our processes are manipulated - in addition, the rules for Feature Articles themselves are partly to blame, because they shoot down articles on broad educational topics because they can never be "comprehensive", whereas an article about a commercial product that incorporates every scrap of publicity it's ever received (perhaps with help from the manufacturer?) is absolutely comprehensive. Wnt (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) TFA Quality? I find it hard to believe his article is a "high quality" article given the fact that it fails to adequately cover the volume of controversy generated by the movie. This movie would be another pedestrian porno-violence film below most people's radars but for the controversy. Somehow though, this got to TFA status while hardly WHY it's as culturally significant as it it. It may be disgusting and I'm among those wondering at the process breakdown that led to this being considered TFA material.Bigjimleo (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Your comment belongs at talk:The Human Centipede (First Sequence), and unless you can be more specific than "fails to adequately cover the volume of controversy generated by the movie", your comment is too vague to be actionable. Raul654 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC) If you could find some reliable sources that document this controversy please let me know on the talk page and I shall work it into the article. Because the reception this film received was generally that it was in bad taste and a bit rubbish, but not that it was actually that horrific. If you read the article you'll learn more about how the gore and yucky content of the film is more implied than actually shown. Regards Coolug (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC) A stat from down under: 1 in 6 schools already block Wikipedia in Australia [6]. I bet that this stat is true in other English speaking countries as well. How likely is this TFA to get Wikipedia unblocked and further the project's mission? Is Front-Paging the controversial content furthering any educational goal? If it is, I can't think of one. Or is this TFA just some outrageous article that a majority of TFA voters thought was funny to spring on casual visitors to the front page? If that is what is going on, that doesn't make it a good idea. It just means it won a vote. Abe Froman (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC) putting aside the argumentum ad nauseum, how is this relevant to the article's quality? Reso lute 18:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Its relevant to the need to self-censor at least a bit in order to reach the widest possible audience. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC) This topic subsection is not about reaching the "widest possible audience", it is about the quality of the article. Abe has already made his point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in sections where it is relevant. Reso lute 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC) You have a point, I'll quiet down after this. Wikimedia.org asks whether controversial content "has a realistic educational use," and to apply the "principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement." I'm wondering 1. What is this article's realistic educational use on the Front Page, and 2. How could placing it there cause less astonishment than placing it anywhere else? Abe Froman (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I'm a 43 year old man who had trouble sleeping after seeing just the trailer to this film. Not since being 8 has this happened to me. I think it's very poor judgement for Wikipedia to use this film as a TFA, especially during a fundraising campaign! I know there are fans of this film out there (I fear for their pets), but many people will not want this material forced on them or their children by having it front and center on the main page. 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.203.88.125 (talk) You probably won't believe this, but I had a rather unsettling dream about The Human Centipede 2 film last night myself. It was a bit of an odd dream really, based somewhat on the plot of centipede 2 but with a my minds version of what a rather depressing and messed up ending might be. Coolug (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Some people really make me shake my head. Is the name of a horror film and a very (now-)unspecific 1,200 character text summary of the film's history and premise really making anyone want to physically vomit and/or quit the Internet? Honestly. Some people are claiming this offends them on a moral level. Really? What if it were the Halloween (1978 film) or A Nightmare on Elm Street articles that were featured today instead? Those films are about murder, which isn't any morally acceptable than surgically attaching people. It would be hypocritical to object to this article being featured using a morality argument but support any of the other films that I just suggested. Full disclosure, I find the premise of Human Centipede disgusting and don't intend to see the movie, but I also am reasonable when it comes to this ridiculous controversy. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Spot on, I don't recall any whinging when Moors murders was TFA. Perhaps the rape and murder of children is somehow less offensive than a work of fiction. Parrot of Doom 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Or when Katyn massacre appeared as TFA in November 2006. It even included a picture of a real corpse being transported out of a grave [now deleted due to copyright issues discovered a year after its appearance on the Main Page]. -- tariqabjotu 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Probably its the fact that those things happened, and that the blurb was significantly less graphic, yes. My objection is not that it was posted, but that the blurb wasn't worded in a sensitive fashion. Of course there is a strong argument in favour of making the front page suitable for viewing by an 11 year old. Maybe that means some of these other controversial topics would have to be avoided as well. I don't think it would be a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) There is no argument in favour of making the main page suitable by viewing by a 11 year old, well no rational one anyway, unless you happen to live in California. You go ahead and write a children's version of Wikipedia if that's what you want. Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC) There is. Greater good. The good achieved by schools not blocking Wikipedia and making it usable by people for their school research projects (one of the primary use cases for the project) vastly outweighs the freedom gained post 18 certificate horror movie articles on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Who are you to judge the "greater good"? As I said, if you want a children's version of Wikipedia then just write one. And exactly what evidence do you have that schools are likely to block access based on what's on the main page as opposed to what's on any other page? Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I think everyone is going to have their own idea about what "greater good" is. I would think it would be reasonable to come to a consensus here - where there is a wider audience - for items that are clearly going to be controversial like this one. And what I think schools will do is if the main page is bad they will block the whole project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC) If you want to discuss what's about to appear on the main page then why not take part at WP:TFAR? And frankly, what you think schools may do is not any kind of evidence for anything. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Because it is completely unreasonable to expect everyone to follow every talk page on the project. As with everything else on Wikipedia more controversial topics need to be given a wider audience. With regards to schools as pointed out above by Abe Froman one in six schools in Australia do block Wikipedia already - its hardly strange to assume that if the main page is controversial that you'd just block the whole site - life's too short to do anything else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Nobody's asking you to follow every page, but if you're concerned about the content of the main page then that's one page you ought to be watching; it's rather too late to complain once the article's actually on the main page. And frankly, given the volume of vandalism that flows from school IP addresses it might be a good thing™ if a few more of them blocked access to Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum Reading != Editing. And I don't generally care about TFA, beyond the ~0.3% which could reasonably be considered controversial.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC) But what do you think are the chances of us agreeing which are the controversial articles? Zero, or just as close to zero as makes no difference? For instance, I may think it's inflammatory and provocative to have yet another 9/11 article on the next anniversary. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC) It doesn't really matter whether we agree on what's controversial. You can easily err on the side of caution with regards to controversial articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I don't think any notable subject is controversial, whereas you apparently do. Therefore the place to make your opinion heard is WP:TFAR. Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I can think of few subjects regarded as more controversial than evolution is. Should that article have been ineligible to appear as TFA? —David Levy 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Are you're asking me? Haven't I made it clear that I don't consider any article on a notable subject ineligible for TFA? Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I was responding to Eraserhead1 (and indented my message accordingly). —David Levy 02:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC) The difference is that the New York Times or the BBC might put an article on evolution on their front page, they aren't going to put an article about this topic without appropriate disclaimers. I think its really quite dishonest to equate these two topics. Additionally evolution has obvious educational value. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not equating the two topics. I'm addressing your statement that we should "err on the side of caution with regards to controversial articles." The subject of evolution obviously carries far more societal significance than any film does, and it also carries far more controversy. TFA frequently includes subjects unlikely to appear on the front page of nytimes.com or bbc.co.uk. Unlike those websites (and our main page's right-hand column), the FA and TFA processes don't factor a subject's importance into the decision. —David Levy 18:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Right, now I understand your point. However I don't think you understand mine (or I wasn't clear) - by erring on the side of caution I was just saying that we should discuss potentially controversial topics - I don't think bringing up here putting evolution on the front page here would be particularly burdensome and given it has the potential to be controversial that is a reasonable step. I was saying that we should discuss posting such things not avoid posting them unless a consensus is found not to do so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying. If I understand correctly, you agree that evolution is a controversial subject and include it among those warranting special discussion before appearing on the main page. Is that correct? (The Evolution article appeared as TFA in 2005, incidentally.) —David Levy 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Yes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Okay. You've referred to "the need to self-censor" and mentioned the possibility of avoiding certain controversial subjects when determining what to include on the main page. How, in your view, should this apply to The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and Evolution (pretending that neither article has appeared as TFA)? In other words, if special discussions were held regarding both, what outcomes would you prefer? —David Levy 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I would be OK with evolution, and not with this, I'd probably avoid posting Cannibal Holocaust and maybe Jenna Jameson. Obviously the blurb is an issue here as well and that could have been improved to the level it got to after 6 hours initially which was a significant improvement. Ultimately I would be happy to leave all of them to the community to make a decision - if when presented to a reasonable audience people think this isn't controversial and the evolution is, that's OK. A lot of the issue here could have been solved by getting more attention on the blurb - which a wider audience would have given. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I saw that The Human Centipede over at FAC and I browsed the article. I was quite appalled and disturbed, and inwardly I was praying it wouldn't get on the mainpage. Part of my intense dislike is that I've become a lot more sensitive to violence in the last few years. But in this case, a lot of it was about how excruciatingly gratuitous and sadistic it is. Seeing it go from successful FAC to TFA in less than a month almost smacks of provocation, even it might be unintentional. Trying to defend this by comparing it with real life atrocities or anything like that is patently absurd. We all know damned well that there's a fundamental difference; it's an argument fit for the aptly described "puerile weirdos" mentioned above in my view. Either way, from the perspective of what Wikipedia's long term goals are, I simply can't see why we should ever let these topics onto the mainpage. But one thing has to be absolutely crystal clear by now and can't possibly be in dispute any more: we can never, ever discuss any kind of mainpage ban list without an unacceptable level of hypocrisy. No matter what we as individual think of this, it's flat out impossible to ever argue that topics like Jenna Jameson (or far more obscure porn topics should they ever reach FA status) can't be on the mainpage, while both The Human Centipede and Cannibal Holocaust can slip through the cracks. I personally would be outraged and disgusted if we chose to uphold censorship for mainstream porn while allowing controversial and fairly obscure horror films to be featured. Which also happen to feature graphic rape scenes. Either we start actually clamping down on material that would be considered flat-out inappropriate even by most adults, or we don't at all. Peter ^Isotalo 21:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Good point. Jenna Jameson is clearly far less controversial than this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I don't think it's "far less" controversial, but I certainly don't think it's more controversial. And I would not oppose its inclusion on the Main Page either, even though -- strangely -- this is supposedly on Raul's list of banned TFAs. -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Abe, about that article on the schools blocking wikipedia, have you read the article? Coolug (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC) While the blog author opines that the schools are blocking it for inaccuracy that isn't necessarily why they have done so. Its true that they might not be blocking it for being controversial in other ways too. With regards to inaccuracy though as a middle class parent one would be able to go to the school and complain about how a school project isn't peer reviewed research and therefore its reasonable to allow your child to use wikipedia for their research (although ideally put less bluntly). You can't win the argument about controversial content in the same way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Since when was 14% "1 in 6" anyway? I blame the teachers. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Fair point, 1 in 7 is correct. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Hang on, you can't say "oh the article says this but they probably mean something else!" - The article says the schools are blocking it because kids are just being lazy with their work. As someone who worked with kids in schools for a few years I've seen this myself, every research piece on Captain Scott or whatever is exactly the same, a lot of the time the kids not even managing to take out the little citation numbers :) I really think you should stop spinning your own slant on that article. You sound like a politician. Coolug (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC) No I'm not saying that - I'm making two different points. 1) We don't really know why the individual schools have blocked it - both the blogger and myself have surmised. 2) If they blocked it due to controversial content it is far more difficult to get the block overturned by complaining to the school than if it is blocked because they don't think that Wikipedia is a good source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The article says that the Wikipedia Project is blocked in some institutions it was created to serve: to wit, "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content." I believe some of those blocks are because administrators see things like today's TFA, and decide that Wikipedia is not a destination for 'educational content' for their users. There is an unavoidable tension between Freedom and Mission in this discussion: Freedom to put whatever on the Front Page, while being cognizant of this project's Mission to educate. Weighed against each other, I don't think today's TFA should be on the front page because the public's reaction to seeing it highlighted by Wikipedia could interfere with our mission to educate. That puts me on the Mission side. Others feel that the front page should be open to anything, that puts them on the Freedom side. The answer is obviously in the middle, and several admins have attempted to walk between the raindrops on this already. Rather than keep rehashing the same issues, we should probably be talking about surveying institutions that block us to find out what causes them to do so. That way Freedom and Mission won't be at each other's throats like they are today. Abe Froman (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I'm going to bed. It's been a hell of a day. Can't wait to see the stats on this one, somehow I suspect more than the usual 20k have looked at the article. Happy Halloween. Coolug (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I view that as a false dichotomy. The mission is to share information. That cannot happen without the freedom to share it. Being blocked by an external source, or self-censoring has the same net result: we stop sharing information. We can't control what external sources will do, but we can control what we do. And TFA has consistently been used to promote our best quality work, not the most important topics. Hell, look at October's TFAs. Other than Statue of Liberty, the topics are pretty much all obscure. TFA has never been about showing off Wikipedia's educational value. And there is nothing wrong with that. The aspect of the main page that is truly educational is On This Day, not Today's Featured Article. Reso lute 22:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The issue is that if a school gets a complaint about the current TFA then there is a risk that they will decide to block the whole site. And with regards to freedom you are never going to be able to be 100% free, there has to be a balance. Abe Froman is quite right above when he says that more data is a good idea - but there has to be a line. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The mission here is to present facts in an engaging and interesting format. Frankly I couldn't care less if some conservative schoolteacher decides to block Wikipedia because he doesn't like what he sees, just as I couldn't care less about sky-fairy worshippers who think presenting an image of their cult founder is blasphemous. This site is written for intelligent adults, not deluded zealots. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC) No, the mission is to spread knowledge. That means you have to make some effort to engage conservative schoolteachers and muslims. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC) No, the mission is to make knowledge available, not to spread it. There's a subtle difference. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The information isn't available if its blocked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) It is, as the information isn't blocked. Bear in mind in any case that it's mirrored on God knows how many sites anyway, so any school blocking access to Wikipedia is just pissing in the wind. Which if you read the Australian article referred to earlier is pretty much what the author was saying. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The fact that too many "adults" find things like breast and penis offensive is more likely to lead to Wikipedia being blocked in schools than this TFA will. If a fear of offending school marms is going to be a driving force in Wikipedia's direction, we might as well just delete half the project. Reso lute 23:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Hell, I'm half tempted to try and get breast to FA, just so we can put a pair of tits on the main page and really watch people freak out! Reso lute 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Ooh, looks like its time to block these trolls then. That's your first warning. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) You'll have a difficult time beating this then... Parrot of Doom 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Happy days. And exactly how many schools blocked access to Wikipedia because of that main page appearance? None? Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC) After today, I can bet you that more than 100 schools just added Wikipedia to their blacklist. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Not all bad news then, at least the level of vandalism will be down tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC) The irony of claiming that schools will ban Wikipedia because of this is that, as a high school teacher, I first learnt about the human centipede from some of my 14 year old students. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Most people aren't sophisticated enough at using computers to work around blocks - sure some people will, but not everyone is up to it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Did you intend to respond to a different message? I see no relevance to the one under which your reply is indented. —David Levy 18:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I think it was aimed at a whole thread of discussion above. <shrug> I'm not sure myself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC) We already have a line: notability. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Notability isn't really enough by any means... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC) In your opinion perhaps, but not in mine. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Right, and if we discussed any items that were controversial properly then as a community we could see whose view came out on top. This is the sort of issue that the community should be able to make a sensible decision on with a "vote" or normal discussion that was appropriately publicised. If the community doesn't think its controversial then it probably isn't and then it doesn't matter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) But we've now come full circle. Who is to be the arbiter of "controversial"? You? Me? Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Make a sensible and conservative decision. It shouldn't be too difficult to realise that this is a probable candidate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I didn't find the information on the Human Centipede particularly "educational". In fact, I HIGHLY doubt that most people who came here even wanted to see such an image and description in the first place. And with your type of comment, it just goes to show how the Wikippedians around here have become robots who only care about "encyclopedic style, rules, customs" with no regard for possible ethical violations in certain countries, groups, of laws that do not allow such images or content to be shown in such a public view. It was a pretty poor decision from the admins to post the image or for that matter, the article itself as the TFA. I don't know how this project can continue to function if things like this "slip" through without proper presentation of info. Even the Wikimedia board posted an unfavorable view towards this TFA. What a fail - M0rphzone (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Some cultures don't allow unveiled women to be seen in public (and regard the concept as highly offensive). Should we ban images of unveiled women from the main page? —David Levy 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) While I admit that not everyone objecting to the article has done a great job of expressing the reasons for their objections, some have explained their objections quite clearly. I'm dismayed at the number of straw man arguments being used to discredit them, especially coming from intelligent users who are capable of better reasoning than that. David Levy and tariqabjotu, I'm talking partly to you. Analogies to religious and philosophical conflicts do not apply. We are not discussing a film which is widely considered the norm in some, any, society. Thus David's reference to "unveiled women in public" is unfortunate, since many cultures have no issues with unveiled women. The same misuse of analogies appear elsewhere as "evolution" and other topics disputed by some but accepted by the general public of existing societies. Likewise, tariqabjotu, the primary objection is not the inclusion of the word "anus" on the MP, as I believe you know. The objection is to featuring a film that presents as entertainment some of the most revolting violation of humanity imaginable in ANY society, not just the religious conservatives of Westernsociety. Reducing the objections to "think of the children" via school access is another straw man. Adult users are clearly offended on their own account, without thinking of children at all. Finally, the not-censored rule can and should be subject to the principle of least astonishment. Without suggesting that Philippe Beaudette is the final authority on this matter, his comment above was succinct and useful. Bottom line: the article is no longer on the MP, but a grain of thoughtfulness would probably be useful in avoiding a repeat of this disaster. If Wikipedians have come to the point that respect for the mainstream readership has taken a backseat to other, internal considerations (whichever ones are responsible for this article appearing yesterday), then today is a sad day, indeed. 174.252.168.148 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Actually some people have explained the reasons for their objections fairly well, it's just that many people here find their objections silly. (In other words, it's not just that they have not explained the reasons for their objections well, it's that some of their reasons are in the opinion of several people here, silly.) As an example, arguments about the number of schools who are going to block wikipedia as a result of this. This doesn't mean all arguments here are the same, but you cannot blame people for pointing out some of the arguments have little support. Also I challenge you to prove that every society feels it is unacceptable to put the article on the main page. (The issue of whether it's revolting is a different thing.) This is an important point because if it is not true, then you come down to the issue of where we draw the line. You appear to agree that stuff like unveiled women should be allowed because some cultures have no issue with it even though some clearly do. Ultimately you're not going to convince people we need to do something to avoid a repeat if people don't agree it's a 'disaster'. On that point, I can't find any news coverage of this, heck not even discussion in a blog excluding from a wikipedian, I'm sure some exists and I found a small amount in forums and one twitter comment, but for all the noise here I'm not seeing much evidence many people actually noticed this 'disaster'. This compares for example to the vulva/German wikipedia thing. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I don't doubt that the subject of the film is revolting, but that does not change my opinion of its inclusion on the Main Page; I don't think my personal opinions about subject matter should guide what goes on the Main Page (n.b. about half of critics who reviewed the movie, for example, gave it a positive review). And, clearly "mouth-to-anus" or "anus" was a central part of the issue, as those words were removed in response to complaints here. Some people even explicitly said the phrase was what made them so disgusted. -- tariqabjotu 14:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I was addressing M0rphzone, who referred to our lack of "regard for possible ethical violations in certain countries, groups." How is it a straw man argument to point out that certain cultures bar unveiled women from appearing in public? You note above that "many cultures have no issues with unveiled women," but by M0rphzone's logic, our publication of such photographs is grossly inconsiderate of the others. I referenced evolution in response to Eraserhead1's statement that we should "err on the side of caution with regards to controversial articles." Do you deny that evolution is an extremely controversial subject? It certainly appears to have generated more controversy (from the nineteenth century to the present) than any horror film has. You also note that any society would consider the film's subject matter revolting. Let's assume that this is true. So what? As as been pointed out, our main page frequently hosts material about real-life murders, massacres and other events widely regarded as horrific atrocities. That doesn't make academic coverage of such a subject a horrific atrocity, and I reject your assertion that we disrespect our readership by providing it. —David Levy 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC) To all those who still think we should ban some articles from appearing on the front page (and granted, some of those arguments hold water) here's a troubling riddle: If we were to prevent any innapropriate featured articles from appearing on the front page, whats the point in our work in making them featured anway? All arguments should answer this. Granted, THC is not the best (in terms of quality) movie to be on the main page, but attention is now being given to improve it by those who have info about the film. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Not that I necessarily support excluding THC from the main page but I think while having the article appear on the main page is a fair reward, we should also always hope our FA writers are willing to put in the work so they can produce an excellent article which people will find useful and interesting regardless of when or if it appears on the main page. A notable factoid here, some news and other sources link to our article on THC 1 or 2 because they don't want to provide a synopsis or plot details themselves e.g. [7]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC) While I'm not impressed with the idea of advertising commercial products, the notion of not talking about nasty topics on the front page or the schools will block us is unreasonable. A censor censors because it is his nature, or gives him some personal advantage. It doesn't matter how much or how little we try to make the site please them, they'll still spend the same amount of time choosing something to pick at and express horror about. Schools seriously objecting to some coherent-ish agenda of topics can always block specific images and pages - in the U.S. the COPA act forces the government to pay them to hire people to "filter" the internet, who might as well at least have to do some work for the money and decide which Wikipedia pages are trouble each day. Countries like Australia which have fallen deep into a pit of internet censorship should be made to suffer the loss of our affections, not rewarded with top-tier service. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC) As long as the Main Page doesn't display a full-page Playboy centerfold, or other kinds of offensive display you can easily imagine, the question is how much to censor it, not whether to censor it at all, despite our alleged policy. Art LaPella (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC) To be clear I see no reason at all why Jenna Jameson shouldn't run also. Wnt (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Nil Einne: I concede that "disaster" is my own assessment. I should have said "controversy," which is self-evident here on the talk page. I disagree that anyone needs to prove that no culture in the world is ok with THC's content. I assert that no culture would accept that content as generally acceptable. My assertion is based on generalizing from every culture that I know anything about. If my generalization is incorrect, someone will no doubt provide an example of why I am wrong. Tariqabjotu: I don't think your personal opinion carries any more or less weight than mine, so in that sense, I agree with your reply. I assert that human societies' general expectations take precedence, and I believe that the rule of least astonishment addresses those expectations - imperfectly, perhaps, but we do what we can. I acknowledge that you have a point about the "mouth-to-anus" phrase being a sticking point, and if I wrongly believed that you reduced the objections to that, I apologize. Wnt: I'd rather see Jenna Jameson on TFP than THC, simply because I believe that her career is somewhat more culturally accepted than the film's content would be (FWIW I approve of neither, but my personal approval isn't a criterium), but that's a side issue. Your anti-censorship ideology isn't the point, either. Respect for the basic cultural sensitivities of WP's readership is more relevant. Understand that I am not calling for the article's removal (which would be true censorship). I am suggesting that the article's placement was inappropriate due to the level of shock it could reasonably be expected to inflict upon members of our - or any other - society; that is not censoring anything. Sensitivity and censorship should not be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.168.148 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I think I'm innocent of the ideological peccadillo of which you've accused me - I used "censor" above in reference to people who block Wikipedia or parts thereof from reaching the reader, which is certainly a standard usage. I understand that access to the Main Page is a competition, and no content has an intrinsic right to reach the Main Page when much does not. My point was that the threat of censorship should not affect our decisions about what to put there. Wnt (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Arbitrary section break Since the article is off Main page for a while now, could we just say something like "if the choice of Main page content is expected to raise several eyebrows, someone should drop a message to some frequently-monitored page, such as this one, so that we can have a discussion prior to the apperance on the Main page"?--Tone 17:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Quite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Yeah, that should have happened, and would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. -- tariqabjotu 19:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Article no longer TFA; reasonable concluding remark made and further discussion can be taken elsewhere -- tariqabjotu 01:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can someone cook up some code to hide the TFA? HurricaneFan 25 00:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is not (and should not be) censored, but perhaps there'd be some interest in someone writing an add-on to allow a reader to opt-out of content s/he chooses, particularly when it appears on the Main Page. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How did this article become a Featured article? It's not exactly morally right and this doesn't make a good impression of Wikipedia to the masses who come here everyday. I hope the (old, resident) Wikipedians here are not becoming weird (if they aren't already). Please reconsider and use another featured article... this has NOTHING to do with Halloween, it is NOT FITTING; the subject of the article isn't morally right and this kind of stuff shouldn't be known by young kids who might come here. Oh what have you guys done? :O - M0rphzone (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The horror-related TFA is suppose to be related to today, Halloween. Maybe cut off some of the detailed verbiage? Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I sort of question the copyright of the image. Dont remember a screen capture of movie retouched or not ever making to main page (not since scooby doo van atleast). -- Ashish -g55 00:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's legit, I've checked. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, there are clearly Wikipedians with weak stomachs. I fail to see the issue. At the end of the day, it's basically just text, and I don't know how someone expects to be less disturbing and still describe the movie. Should you choose to watch the movie (or, God forbid, the sequel), you'll see it gets much more disgusting. And the picture, provided it really is free, is perfectly fine. It just looks like a couple people holding on to each other by their underwear, which, of course, is what the picture actually is. -- tariqabjotu 00:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are. I don't want Wikipedia to be censored, but that doesn't mean I want this stuff on the front page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, any code? (No offense to you, Coolug...) HurricaneFan 25 01:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding #mp-tfa { visibility:hidden; } to your theme css file (under My Preferences / Appearance / Custom CSS next to your theme) will hide it. -- tariqabjotu 01:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Mark Shaw (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There has long been a perhaps unwritten policy that while we shouldn't censor things people are looking for (such as pictures of body parts on the appropriate pages), we shouldn't put potentially offensive items on the Main Page where people might not want to see them. It's well known that this particular movie is a big gross-out, so I don't think it's a good choice for the front page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The movie is a gross-out, yes. But a description of its basic premise? Is seeing the phrase "mouth-to-anus" that revolting? I don't even think it's the most disturbing thing on the Main Page right now. Did you scroll down to the Picture of the Day? -- tariqabjotu 01:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that description is pretty revolting, actually. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And you were forced to read it? —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such policy, written or unwritten. All material is "potentially offensive." —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm normally not a fan of censorship, but I'm more than a little squeamish about putting an article like this on the front page. We should reconsider maybe?--WaltCip (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is asking for the article to be deleted. That would be censorship. Putting this up as a TFA is an issue of common-sense about how Wikipedia is perceived by a skeptical public & media, who are ever-ready to discount what we are doing here if we give them a reason to (like post disgusting articles on the Front Page where visitors have no way to avoid it). If enough editors can't see the common-sense in being careful about Wikipedia's image, then I'm afraid Wikipedia is in trouble. Abe Froman (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Define "disgusting."

I personally know people who find Islam disgusting (and this seems to be a fairly widespread belief). Should all references to Islamic subjects be banned from the main page? —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was discussed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, where the consensus was to put it on the main page. If you would like a say in what goes on the main page, I would suggest commenting at TFA/R more frequently, as that is where these things are frequently decided. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's unhelpful. It is not unreasonable for people finding the idea of human beings being sown together so they have to shit into each others mouths distasteful. Even if you are a fan of that kind of thing the point is that it is supposed to be unpleasant and revolting. If it wasn't it wouldn't be a horror film. No one is suggesting that it shouldn't be a featured article, we're just suggesting it is a bit much for the front page. There is along-standing tendency of avoiding certain things on the front page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, how is it unhelpful to recommend that people participate in the process through which featured articles are selected to appear on the main page (instead of complaining after the fact)?

Secondly, no, we've routinely included content that many people deemed objectionable, including graphic images of human/animal body parts. —David Levy 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up and the "it's unhelpful" comment was directed at the previous comment about Islam. As in, one sets out to be disgusting and the other is a religion. That said, it is unrealistic to expect people to keep their eye on everything on the pedia! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Many people believe that all Muslims support terrorism. I strongly disagree, just as some disagree with your assessment of the film.

2. No one has asserted that anyone is required to be aware of everything occurring at Wikipedia. But if one wishes to influence the content appearing on the main page, participating in the various selection processes is the most constructive approach. Complaining about decisions after they're made is not a sound strategy. —David Levy 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that thinking a movie that sets out to shock and disgust is shocking and disgusting is equivalent to being a bigot? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The movie has no references to Halloween. The Halloween TFA has nothing to do with the secular holiday. How many potential editors and readers will come to Wikipedia, see that Featured Article, and leave forever because it's disgusting to them? We'll never know. Great job making Wikipedia look like it's run by puerile weirdos. It isn't often that one can harm an organization from within and get away with it. Abe Froman (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments along the lines of "puerile weirdos" are not constructive. Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's quite unreasonable for you to expect its front-page content to be filtered in accordance with your opinions.

What disgusts or offends you doesn't necessarily have the same effect on others (and vice versa). If we were to limit the main page's content to material that couldn't possibly upset anyone, it would be blank. —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

David, as I said before, this is about Wikipedia's image, not me. This article is good, but should not be on the front page because (i know you disagree) most people find the topic disgusting. I'm not trying to change your mind, just making it clear that I am not pushing any POV other than what a reasonable person would think looking at that article. If the movie is so good yet inoffensive, then I'm sure you bought copies for Mom, Dad, Saba and Savta. But somehow I doubt that. Abe Froman (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the film (apart from this blurb) and it doesn't interest me in the slightest, but I unreservedly object to your argument that we should base our main page's content upon a notion of what "reasonable" people find unobjectionable. —David Levy 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Image on front page is horrific and horrifically offensive even in thumbnail. The article is debateable and it has clearly been discussed so yes, leave it....but remove that picture from the front page!! JFitch (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some of you are just trying to cause trouble or over reacting honestly. There is nothing particularly obscene about the TFA image itself. If someone never heard of the movie, they probably wouldn't even understand what is going on in the photo. All it looks like is three people in their underwear and with underwear around their necks. This image is PG and the least offensive. Keep it.JanderVK (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a truely ignorant comment. Trying to argue that it doesnt show what it clearly shows. It is certainly not PG, and it being a 1-click from main page is horrific. JFitch (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he's arguing exactly what it shows. They aren't actually attached mouth-to-anus; they're biting each other's underwear. -- tariqabjotu 02:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And if someone complains that pictures of Irishmen are offensive, should we remove the photograph of Michael D. Higgins? —David Levy 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask 100 people if a photo of an Irishman is offensive, you'll get 100 nays. Ask 100 people if a picture of a person's mouth sewn to another's anus for the purposes of eating is offensive... Come on guys. Don't be Sophists... Can't wait for the news articles covering this TFA, which will of course make Wikipedians look like idiots. Abe Froman (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And the bigger idiots would be the people writing the articles you expect because they are missing the point. This is, in fact, a fine example of what our project is capable of. We cover everything that is notable, even that which some people might find objectionable. And that, of course, is the point. We're not going to hide the bad, creepy or utterly stupid things in life. I think this movie qualifies as all three - but the quality of the article is sufficient. It is a gross-out film, yes. But not really any worse than much of the other crap that fills the genre. Nobody needs to read the TFA, but I suspect it will end up one of the most read we've seen in some time. Take that for what it's worth. Reso lute 02:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you advocate that the main page be censored in accordance with majority beliefs. That isn't how Wikipedia operates.

And incidentally, anti-Irish bigotry is sufficiently widespread that some of the hypothetical 100 people probably would object to the Michael D. Higgins photograph's inclusion. —David Levy 02:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What is wikipedia turning into? an obscure movie that would make caligula happy is your feature article? Have you no shame decency or morality? --CatholicW (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

With Freedom on Wikipedia comes responsibility to make decisions that enhance Wikipedia's stature, not diminish it. Particularly when it comes to TFA, which comes with the imprimatur of Editorial Acceptance from Wikipedia. Enough editors on Wikipedia aren't taking their responsibility and mission to this project seriously enough. That's why articles like this are promoted to the front page, making us fools in front of the world. Abe Froman (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a limit to what any one editor can be aware of. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Taking the mission seriously ≠ focusing purely on subjects that Abe Froman deems inoffensive.

Neutrality is a fundamental, nonnegotiable element of the aforementioned mission. We put our best foot forward by honoring it. —David Levy 02:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles are selected based on their quality. Their subjects' nature is not (and never has been) a factor. —David Levy 02:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

David, nobody is trying to censor you or imply the article is not high-quality. The discussion is not about deleting or demeaning the article; it is about whether promoting something this weird to the Front Page, where people have no choice but to view something the majority of them will find disgusting, is a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea, and that the promotion harms this project. I'm thinking about Wikipedia, not myself. Abe Froman (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The above is a reply to CatholicW, who certainly appears to demean the article. —David Levy 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Quality?" You think that article contains quality? --CatholicW (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the article. Have you? —David Levy 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this your way of asking me if you are wrong and the article contains no quality? --CatholicW (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article, and while it isn't my favourite topic it has undergone a peer-review process to certify its quality in reference to certain criteria. In that sense, the article "contains quality". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a good article. It just causes too many problems for Wikipedia's image to be on the front page. For example: If schools see "The Human Centipede" as a front-page "can't avoid looking at it," Featured Article, they will block Wikipedia. Imagine yourself as an elementary school principal and you saw 5th graders looking at the front page of Wikipedia with "The Human Centipede," as the FA. What do you do next? Abe Froman (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd check the calendar to see if it's April 1st, again. --70.31.11.237 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)This, I think, is key. Any rudimentary Wikipedia policy should immediately be trumped with a good dosage of common sense and WP:IAR. Step back for a moment and ask ourselves the question: is this a good idea?--WaltCip (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If Gropecunt Lane and 4chan didn't cause those principals (the same ones who expel students for drawing pictures of soldiers) to block Wikipedia, I doubt this will either. Reso lute 03:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains a great deal of material to which elementary school principals might wish to restrict access. Schoolchildren, being a curious sort, are likely to find it regardless of whether it appears on the main page. If supervision isn't feasible, the use of a local content filter is an option. Pretending that Wikipedia is "family-friendly" doesn't solve anything. —David Levy 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

David, I don't need to explain why a reasonable person would find the idea of sewing a mouth to an anus disgusting. The article even says that the idea is a parody of Nazi thinking. And why are we taking this risk of being blocked? What have we gained? If Wikipedia is going to constantly highlight the weirdest content in its inventory on the front page where visitors have to look at it, then we're practically begging institutions to block us. If schools block Wikipedia and it becomes ineligible for schoolwork, then the next generation will stop using us. Then this project dies. We lose nothing by being careful about what goes on the front page. The weird inventory would still be there if someone searched for it. Abe Froman (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How, exactly, does this article constitute "constantly highlight(ing) the weirdest content in its inventory"? Hyperbole much? Speaking of hyperbole, being blocked by a few schools won't kill the project. Though it would help reduce our vandalism problem... Reso lute 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolute: If this TFA stands then the Weird TFA topics will only continue. Then we'll just be on our way to 4chan with more syllables. Visitors will go elsewhere because we'll get blocked. Aside from that, it is wrong to spring something like this on someone who is just visiting for a more prosaic page. It's one thing if someone specifically searches for this movie, quite another to shove a story about anuses in their faces without warning or an option to opt-out. It's a rude thing to do to people. Abe Froman (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your overuse of hyperbole is not helpful to the discussion. This is not the first "weird" article we've posted, and it won't be the last. It is not the first TFA that someone found offensive, and it won't be the last. The world didn't end the last time. It won't end this time. And it won't end the next time either. Reso lute 04:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hyperbole? We're talking about a nazi-inspired story in which three people's anuses are sewn to other people's mouths. And you're accusing *me* of hyperbole? :-) Abe Froman (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hyperbole. So far you've equated the posting of this article as TFA as being the demise of Wikipedia and the event that will cause schools all over America/the world to block us. You're also arguing that allowing it to stand will basically turn us into 4chan. I get that you don't like the subject matter much (I don't care for it myself), but you are going overboard on your arguments of the supposed damage it will do. You want to be grossed out? Go take a read about what Clifford Olson did to his victims - and I don't mean our crappy article, but stuff out there in the media. Stuff, I would add, the mainstream media put all over the front pages of Canadian newspapers recently given he just died. This is just a stupid movie. There is some truly disturbing things and people out there in the real world. No reason for us to hide it away in a dark corner. Reso lute 04:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is "just a stupid movie," with nothing to do with Halloween then why is it the TFA for Halloween? I do not understand why such an extreme story *has* to be on the front page for all to see, whether they want to or not (probably not). Abe Froman (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you're comparing Wikipedia with 4chan? Wow.

Wikipedia contains articles on topics that some people regard as "weird." (This, of course, is entirely subjective.) TFA is intended to showcase articles of the highest quality, without regard for their subject matter. In doing so, it illustrates the site's comprehensive (and to some, upsetting) nature. You want us to pretend that Wikipedia is something it isn't. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

David, when you have guests over, do you show them your backyard or your porn? Same thing with this article: Do we show people something interesting on the Front Page, or something that is likely to gross them out? Abe Froman (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Abe, just stop. Please. You're practically discrediting the remarks of anyone who should come along here with a reasoned, legitimate comment. There is no porn on the Main Page, and, thanks to Ed, there isn't even a picture of people biting each other's underwear to depict the movie. So, you don't like the word "anus" being on the Main Page. Well, get over it. This has been discussed with consensus before, and no whining from you or anyone else about how Wikipedia is going to be blocked worldwide because of the word "anus" is going to change that. If you're not grown up enough yet to handle having the word in your field of vision, there's an adequate solution to hiding the TFA description. -- tariqabjotu 05:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't make this about me. It isn't. Let me state it again: The TFA is harmful to Wikipedia's public image as a reliable source of information, forcing people to see this TFA on loading Wikipedia is rude because the content is offensive to most, and finally, it could even get us blocked. I don't care about seeing the word anus in print. I do care about Wikipedia getting sandbagged by a couple of editors who sit around egging each other on to put more and more extreme articles up as TFA's. This would have never happened on the Wikipedia of a few years ago. Abe Froman (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I addressed the "block" point below. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Having not read the article, I have no opinion on its quality. I seek to determine the basis of your assessment. —David Levy 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's official: Wikipedia has finally gone full retard. What's next, goatse on the frontpage? Sure, why not! It's not like this site has any standards left. The Human Centipede is a crime against cinema and civilization that should be talked about as little as possible, and you assholes put it on the front page? Fuck you. I don't want to be reminded that this piece of shit exists. Blahbalicious (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some standards are essential. Your language goes way beyond what I regard as acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(edit conflict × 2) I really can't see a good reason to not change Today's Featured Article to an article on a different, less-absurd subject. Think about it, really: all changing Today's Featured Article to one on a less-absurd subject could do is improve upon having that absurd movie's article on the main page. It should not be much trouble to just replace Today's Featured Article and get it over with. Seriously, I can not see an actual good reason to not change Today's Featured Article.

R.I.P. Motion Picture Production Code.

Regards,

—{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

Look, the point is that there are evolving standards of decency no doubt. We do not blindly follow majority rule, but there are certain guidelines that must be respected. For example, it would be generally understood that an article on pornography or genitalia would be banned from making an appearing on the front page. There are children that use Wikipedia, and it is not a good thing to have such an article within such easy view. It is one thing to say not to censor, but a completely different one to understand that there is a time and place for certain things and that the place for the The Human Centipede is not the front page. When people access that sort of material, they make a choice to look it up. When I logged onto Wikipedia, I did not think I would have to look at that drek and be reminded of that twisted movie. Keep it as a featured article, but for Pete's sack: remove it from from the main page. Houstonbuildings (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. We can put this stuff on the front page because we are not censored. But we probably shouldn't, because it is a dick thing to do to people who don't like extremely unpleasant stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And of course, your opinion of what constitutes "extremely unpleasant stuff" is the correct one. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

David, Don't be a dick. Abe Froman (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to how sarcasm is more insulting than calling someone a dick is. Here is a relevant essay. (To be clear, I'm not directing any insult toward you.) —David Levy 05:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

[redacted] Blahbalicious (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What are these "guidelines"? Also, FYI, while to my knowledge no article on genitalia are FAs on en.wiki, but German Wikipedia has previously featured their vulva article on their main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that, Sabine, is exactly why I've removed the image. I actually support the article being on TFA (which I explained in more depth here), but people coming to the main page do not have a choice in viewing the image or not. Given the subject matter, it is a courtesy to our readers; if they would like to see more, they are free to click the bolded link. If they do not, they are free to move on with only nondescript words, not an image. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, we're taking a formal position on what imagery is and isn't "objectionable." How unfortunate. —David Levy 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As Sabine's Sunbird points out, having this as TFA is a clear violation of meta:Don't be a dick. It's a big "screw you" to anyone who might be coming to Wikipedia for information on Tinkerbell or quasars and does not want to see this kind of thing in words or pictures. "Wikipedia is not censored" means we don't prevent people from finding information they are looking for. It does not mean we force gross-out stuff on people who might not want to see it. Of the 3,408 other featured articles, I'm sure there is a better one for Oct. 31 for the Main Page. How about Jack the Ripper? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper was featured last June, so can't be TFA again. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The right thing to do would be to pick another TFA having something, anything to do with Halloween (the current topic does not). However, since this TFA went through a vote there's no face-saving, policy based way to do the right thing. So we're stuck with a nazi-inspired story about 3 people's anuses on the world's preeminent encyclopedia's front page. Abe Froman (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Or how about Vampire? It was last a TFA more than 7 years ago. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No. We have a rule that anything that's been TFA before cannot be TFA again. Which, for the benefit of everyone objecting to this article, means that after today it will not be TFA again either. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We have bent that rule once, and only once, so that Barack Obama and John McCain could be on the main page on November 4, 2008. When that happened, Raul made it clear that it was one-off and would never happen again. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Kids vandalize Wikipedia more often (and often via obscenities) from school than we give them credit for; in fact, I had to knock out an school range today because their students have been running amok on Wikipedia for over a year with absolutely no supervision or control from their administration or staff. If school administrators actually pay attention to this now, then I would be surprised, as they generally seem to not have much control over what their students do on their computers within the bounds of their firewalls in the first place. –MuZemike 04:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to be a surprise to anyone where I stand on this. So I'll just quote from a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution:

We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I was astonished at the placement of this article on the front page. I was expecting a treat about Halloween. Instead visitors just get tricked into loading content they probably wouldn't load given a choice. Abe Froman (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for some background info User:Raul654 has said there are said FA which won't be TFA which is reflected in Wikipedia:Today's featured article. I don't know if he has ever given specific examples but Jenna Jameson which is an FA is often given as one (you could perhaps come up with things like Felching, Fisting and Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) all of which are quite far from a FA which Raul may be reluctant to feature, let alone allow images to appear). I've also seen it suggested any FA that directly relates to wikipedia or an associated project although I don't know if there are any which are currently FA anyway (but for example Wikipedia which was an FA once or Essjay controversy or Wikimedia Foundation or probably even Jimbo Wales). I believe the reason Raul has given relates more to the controvesy it will cause and negative feedback he will receive rather then a specific belief those articles are unsuitable to appear on the main page. Also Raul's comments came before the involvement of User:Dabomb87 and before WP:TFA/R was that significant, it's not clear to me that Raul would veto any article including the examples I gave if it gets significant community support in TFA/R. There is also the case of File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg which should have appeared on TFP a while ago but never did after opposition when the idea was raised. On the other hand, I know we've had images of real dead people on TFP and elsewhere. I do find it funny that one of the few times we have a highly relevant free image for a recent and copyrighted form of visual entertainment, it's removed. Also for all the complaints, at least for me, it wasn't that clear without reading the blurb what that image showed, where's Tony where you need him? Nil Einne (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Raul recently confirmed that Jenna Jameson is the only current featured article that he won't schedule. As you noted, it's because he doesn't wish to ignite controversy and deal with complaints, not because of a belief that it's unsuitable.

I'm of the opinion that Jenna Jameson as TFA would be be less controversial than other articles that already have appeared (including today's and the aforementioned Gropecunt lane). —David Levy 05:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Won't argue against the article's placement per strict TFA policy. Honestly don't plan on ever seeing either film, preferably not even by accident, but then I have no particular desire to see any film in the Saw franchise either. Will point out, in case it matters, that THC 2 -- also linked from the front page -- was originally banned outright in the United Kingdom on the basis of the Obscene Publications Act (was eventually released after multiple cuts), and was only ever screened at midnight in limited United States theatres. (It was never submitted for rating.) THC 1 was not found to be in breach of the Obscene Publications Act. According to the article, THC 1 did win a few Best Picture awards in the horror film genre. Will also point out that THC 2 happens to be in theatres currently. Some might see this placement as promotion. - Tenebris 07:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Main Page summary

I've edited the Main Page summary at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2011 to remove references to the mouth-to-anus mechanics. Melchoir (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've copyedited the blurb to suit the new wording. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! You might want to try some alternate phrasing though. It's currently a rather long sentence. I know that "a joke he made with friends and Nazi medical experiments..." is intended as

"(a joke he made with friends) and (Nazi medical experiments....)"

but to me, it parses as the nonsensical

"a joke he made with (friends and Nazi medical experiments...)".

Anyway, I'm signing off for today. Melchoir (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better. Seriously the mount to anus thing should never have gone on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? There's nothing offensive about the word anus, we all have one, and we all shit through it on a regular basis. It seems odd to me that so many people are complaining that this TFA will harm Wikipedia's image, without a single reliable citation to bolster their claim. Parrot of Doom 08:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If it was just "anus" then there probably wouldn't be a problem. Combining "anus," with "dinner," and "torture," makes the topic more shocking, and brings the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement of controversial content into play. There's no easy & automatic way for someone to opt-out of seeing that on the Front Page, aside from not visiting Wikipedia. I don't think anyone wants to encourage people to avoid this site. Abe Froman (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's an extremely simple way for people not to see that on the front page. They can choose not to visit Wikipedia. Maybe they should choose instead to visit the BBC's front page, which in my area has a large Halloween graphic, and underneath, stories about rape, killing, riots and racism. Parrot of Doom 09:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, since Wikipedia hasn't mentioned this sort of graphic torture on the front page before, people can't really avoid it today because they'd have had no way of guessing that it would be there until they got here. If this was mentioned on the front page of Torturepedia (encyclopedia I've just invented for the sake of discussion), you'd have a point because people who didn't want to see it wouldn't go to that website. People know the sorts of things that appear on the front page of BBC News, too. Kaid100 (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They wouldn't be seeing torture though, would they? They'd be seeing four people on a film set. Parrot of Doom 09:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me understand your logic: As long as any depicted activity appears "on a film set," it's okay to put that in user's faces without their consent? Take a look at this Wikipedia article: it happens on a film set. By your logic is it TFA-eligible and keeping within the principle of least astonishment in the placement of articles? Abe Froman (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Logic seems to be something you do not understand; readers' consent is not required. And yes, I'd be quite happy to include Two Girls One Cup on the front page. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We've had far worse on the Main Page without this level of complaint. — Joseph Fox 09:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, we haven't. Kaid100 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have, and with barely a wit of controversy either. Raul654 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really, some people are cannibals but no-one gets their ass and mouth tied together. Additionally the content on the front page was significantly tamer for cannibal holocaust. There is nothing anywhere near as bad in the blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If this topic can be TFA, then so could this Wikipedia article if enough editors thought it would be 'cool' to nominate. Think about it. I don't think that this is what Jimbo Wales had in mind when he started this project. Abe Froman (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is indeed the case that WP is disproportionately populated by male editors, the immature and the socially inadequate - as some would argue - features like that one won't do much to change things. (I'm in at least one, but not all, those categories, by the way.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I thought this section was about editing the main page summary... so I'll get back to the point. When the main page summary was edited, it introduced a factual inaccuracy: as I understand it, Six did tell investors about the crazed surgeon aspect of the plot... he just omitted the mouth-to-arse details. If you really must censor things (particular very prominent things like the main page), please be extremely careful not to introduce errors; check all relevant sources, ask prominent editors of the article etc. Many would probably disagree, but I'd rather be offended by something than misinformed by it. Papa November (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the misleading wording, but I'd do it again. The Main Page gets 3-4 million views per day, so it was too urgent to go fishing for consensus. Thanks for pointing out the issue! Melchoir (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are people asking for definitions of the word "disgusting", or asking for citations to prove that this offends people? Just look at the number of reactions here. People have been grossed out by this. I read remarks like "If this grosses you out, then don't read it"; people didn't know the content until they read it! This was an 18+ movie; The article mentions that details were withheld from the financiers, and yet Wikipedia have just gone and thrown it up there on the front page where everyone would suddenly be confronted by it without actively searching that content. Claiming that people shouldn't visit Wikipedia if they don't want to see articles like that doesn't cut it. Fine: don't search out potentially gross articles if you don't like being grossed out! But anyone who came here today to look up whatever they wanted to look up has now been confronted with this. How did it ever get through? Captain Sumo —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

Look, every encyclopedia has things that parents whould find innapropriate, Wikipedia is no differant. Don't want your kids looking up dirty words? Don't show them Wikipedia! That's the choice of the parent, not Wiki. And so far Jimbo and a legion of admins havent come down saying that this whole thing is out of control, and by taking a head count of the people in here I think I can say that truthfully, the majority of people don't even care about this argument. A few guys will come in here to blow off steam and thats it (which is actually not what the main page should be used for). This will just blow over after halloween. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not on the front page. And its not just kids who will have an issue with this.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I am a bit saddened that this has actually transpired, over one word and based on some of the most paper-thin arguments I've ever seen. That's what I find more disgusting, frankly, and I think it'll discourage Wikipedians from working on articles that aren't just about butterflies and daffodils. We should draw a line on content we put on the Main Page (or, namely, as Today's Featured Article), but I don't think this article is what crosses the line. And I think it says a lot when a fictional story involving the word "anus" revolts people more than the stories about people dying that appear on the Main Page very frequently. -- tariqabjotu 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to weigh in here and say that I agree this should not be on the main page. Principle of least astonishment = don't put disturbing, gross articles in the lead slot. (Also, it's not like this is a historic event that may be disturbing but is of obvious educational value. I wouldn't be making the same argument over Holocaust or War rape.) Obviously this article offends a lot of readers - look at all the comments in this section! That it is in the lead slot is further evidence of the dominance 15-35yo men have in Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu, its not the word "anus" its the words "mouth-to-anus" - and originally the graphic image. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What graphic image? Oh, the one of people biting each other's underwear? This isn't the image of someone contorting as they swallow the feces of the person in front of them. No one is being attacked and killed, with blood spilling onto their surgically attached counterparts. It's just three people biting each other's underwear. Now that this has been watered down to just describing a "surgical procedure", unless you've seen the movie, or read the article, you have no idea what's supposed to be implied in that picture. It's not graphic. -- tariqabjotu 20:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious what its supposed to represent. Especially with the original wording - which is how it was originally posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, look at all the comments not in this section. People not offended by this are generally not going to come to the talk page to explain how not offended they are by the Main Page. I take more stock in the discussion that led to this being posted in the Main Page, because in that discussion, people who thought it was okay for the article to be featured had just as much incentive as those who didn't to write their opinion. Here, we're just going to get a slew of complaints, with just a few regulars (like myself or David Levy or Resolute) who follow the Main Page through thick and thin defending the article. So, the obvious conclusion is that because the complaints outnumber the defenses, most people think this is unacceptable. Also, I refuse to take the standard line that works of fiction are of lesser educational value than historical or real-life events. They both have their places, and they both should have their place (judged by somewhat similar standards) on our Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not all the regulars are defending this. And even if those not offended don't come here, this is obviously THE MOST offensive article we have posted in a while, judging by the reader response. And I never said that works of fiction, taken as a whole, are of lesser value. Give me a break--this is essentially a B movie. It's not like you're here defending Oedipus Rex or even Rosemary's Baby. I haven't seen the movie, but judging by the critical response, it wasn't exactly a work of art. It was a popcorn flick designed to be a gross-out fest. Not all articles are created equal in terms of educational value. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Advertising

Isn't putting up a front page summary of a movie just after the release of a sequel advertising? Obviously unpaid advertising in this case, but it would give a commercial benefit to the sequel. It sounds like there was an intent to put a horror movie on the front page, but how about a historic choice that would not give commercial favour to a particular individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you write a FA on a historic horror movie that hasn't yet been featured on the main page that you're proposing? Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The author of the article first proposed having this appear on the main page on the date that THC2 was to premiere. That was shot down as being too much like advertising. But, the discussion that followed, I think, led us to here. The release of horror films are a staple of Halloween these days, and it stands to reason that running a horror film as TFA on Halloween is fair game. Reso lute 13:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't putting up a front page summary of a movie just after the release of a sequel advertising? - I think the connection is too tenuous to be of much consequence, but reasonable people could disagree on this. Raul654 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously unpaid advertising in this case, but it would give a commercial benefit to the sequel. - I'm not sure it would cause them much benefit, but even assuming it does, why should that factor into the decision to put this on the main page?

but how about a historic choice that would not give commercial favour to a particular individual? - that's what I probably would have done had I not selected this one. Raul654 (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This happens much more often with video games but few seem to object to it. I think our processes are manipulated - in addition, the rules for Feature Articles themselves are partly to blame, because they shoot down articles on broad educational topics because they can never be "comprehensive", whereas an article about a commercial product that incorporates every scrap of publicity it's ever received (perhaps with help from the manufacturer?) is absolutely comprehensive. Wnt (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

TFA Quality?

I find it hard to believe his article is a "high quality" article given the fact that it fails to adequately cover the volume of controversy generated by the movie. This movie would be another pedestrian porno-violence film below most people's radars but for the controversy. Somehow though, this got to TFA status while hardly WHY it's as culturally significant as it it. It may be disgusting and I'm among those wondering at the process breakdown that led to this being considered TFA material.Bigjimleo (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comment belongs at talk:The Human Centipede (First Sequence), and unless you can be more specific than "fails to adequately cover the volume of controversy generated by the movie", your comment is too vague to be actionable. Raul654 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you could find some reliable sources that document this controversy please let me know on the talk page and I shall work it into the article. Because the reception this film received was generally that it was in bad taste and a bit rubbish, but not that it was actually that horrific. If you read the article you'll learn more about how the gore and yucky content of the film is more implied than actually shown. Regards Coolug (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A stat from down under: 1 in 6 schools already block Wikipedia in Australia [6]. I bet that this stat is true in other English speaking countries as well. How likely is this TFA to get Wikipedia unblocked and further the project's mission? Is Front-Paging the controversial content furthering any educational goal? If it is, I can't think of one. Or is this TFA just some outrageous article that a majority of TFA voters thought was funny to spring on casual visitors to the front page? If that is what is going on, that doesn't make it a good idea. It just means it won a vote. Abe Froman (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

putting aside the argumentum ad nauseum, how is this relevant to the article's quality? Reso lute 18:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Its relevant to the need to self-censor at least a bit in order to reach the widest possible audience. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This topic subsection is not about reaching the "widest possible audience", it is about the quality of the article. Abe has already made his point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in sections where it is relevant. Reso lute 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, I'll quiet down after this. Wikimedia.org asks whether controversial content "has a realistic educational use," and to apply the "principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement." I'm wondering 1. What is this article's realistic educational use on the Front Page, and 2. How could placing it there cause less astonishment than placing it anywhere else? Abe Froman (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a 43 year old man who had trouble sleeping after seeing just the trailer to this film. Not since being 8 has this happened to me. I think it's very poor judgement for Wikipedia to use this film as a TFA, especially during a fundraising campaign! I know there are fans of this film out there (I fear for their pets), but many people will not want this material forced on them or their children by having it front and center on the main page. 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.203.88.125 (talk)

You probably won't believe this, but I had a rather unsettling dream about The Human Centipede 2 film last night myself. It was a bit of an odd dream really, based somewhat on the plot of centipede 2 but with a my minds version of what a rather depressing and messed up ending might be. Coolug (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people really make me shake my head. Is the name of a horror film and a very (now-)unspecific 1,200 character text summary of the film's history and premise really making anyone want to physically vomit and/or quit the Internet? Honestly. Some people are claiming this offends them on a moral level. Really? What if it were the Halloween (1978 film) or A Nightmare on Elm Street articles that were featured today instead? Those films are about murder, which isn't any morally acceptable than surgically attaching people. It would be hypocritical to object to this article being featured using a morality argument but support any of the other films that I just suggested. Full disclosure, I find the premise of Human Centipede disgusting and don't intend to see the movie, but I also am reasonable when it comes to this ridiculous controversy. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Spot on, I don't recall any whinging when Moors murders was TFA. Perhaps the rape and murder of children is somehow less offensive than a work of fiction. Parrot of Doom 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Or when Katyn massacre appeared as TFA in November 2006. It even included a picture of a real corpse being transported out of a grave [now deleted due to copyright issues discovered a year after its appearance on the Main Page]. -- tariqabjotu 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably its the fact that those things happened, and that the blurb was significantly less graphic, yes. My objection is not that it was posted, but that the blurb wasn't worded in a sensitive fashion.

Of course there is a strong argument in favour of making the front page suitable for viewing by an 11 year old. Maybe that means some of these other controversial topics would have to be avoided as well. I don't think it would be a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no argument in favour of making the main page suitable by viewing by a 11 year old, well no rational one anyway, unless you happen to live in California. You go ahead and write a children's version of Wikipedia if that's what you want. Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is. Greater good. The good achieved by schools not blocking Wikipedia and making it usable by people for their school research projects (one of the primary use cases for the project) vastly outweighs the freedom gained post 18 certificate horror movie articles on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to judge the "greater good"? As I said, if you want a children's version of Wikipedia then just write one. And exactly what evidence do you have that schools are likely to block access based on what's on the main page as opposed to what's on any other page? Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone is going to have their own idea about what "greater good" is. I would think it would be reasonable to come to a consensus here - where there is a wider audience - for items that are clearly going to be controversial like this one. And what I think schools will do is if the main page is bad they will block the whole project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss what's about to appear on the main page then why not take part at WP:TFAR? And frankly, what you think schools may do is not any kind of evidence for anything. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it is completely unreasonable to expect everyone to follow every talk page on the project. As with everything else on Wikipedia more controversial topics need to be given a wider audience. With regards to schools as pointed out above by Abe Froman one in six schools in Australia do block Wikipedia already - its hardly strange to assume that if the main page is controversial that you'd just block the whole site - life's too short to do anything else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's asking you to follow every page, but if you're concerned about the content of the main page then that's one page you ought to be watching; it's rather too late to complain once the article's actually on the main page. And frankly, given the volume of vandalism that flows from school IP addresses it might be a good thing™ if a few more of them blocked access to Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum

Reading != Editing. And I don't generally care about TFA, beyond the ~0.3% which could reasonably be considered controversial.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

But what do you think are the chances of us agreeing which are the controversial articles? Zero, or just as close to zero as makes no difference? For instance, I may think it's inflammatory and provocative to have yet another 9/11 article on the next anniversary. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether we agree on what's controversial. You can easily err on the side of caution with regards to controversial articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any notable subject is controversial, whereas you apparently do. Therefore the place to make your opinion heard is WP:TFAR. Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I can think of few subjects regarded as more controversial than evolution is. Should that article have been ineligible to appear as TFA? —David Levy 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you're asking me? Haven't I made it clear that I don't consider any article on a notable subject ineligible for TFA? Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to Eraserhead1 (and indented my message accordingly). —David Levy 02:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the New York Times or the BBC might put an article on evolution on their front page, they aren't going to put an article about this topic without appropriate disclaimers. I think its really quite dishonest to equate these two topics. Additionally evolution has obvious educational value. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not equating the two topics. I'm addressing your statement that we should "err on the side of caution with regards to controversial articles." The subject of evolution obviously carries far more societal significance than any film does, and it also carries far more controversy.

TFA frequently includes subjects unlikely to appear on the front page of nytimes.com or bbc.co.uk. Unlike those websites (and our main page's right-hand column), the FA and TFA processes don't factor a subject's importance into the decision. —David Levy 18:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, now I understand your point. However I don't think you understand mine (or I wasn't clear) - by erring on the side of caution I was just saying that we should discuss potentially controversial topics - I don't think bringing up here putting evolution on the front page here would be particularly burdensome and given it has the potential to be controversial that is a reasonable step. I was saying that we should discuss posting such things not avoid posting them unless a consensus is found not to do so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. If I understand correctly, you agree that evolution is a controversial subject and include it among those warranting special discussion before appearing on the main page. Is that correct? (The Evolution article appeared as TFA in 2005, incidentally.) —David Levy 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. You've referred to "the need to self-censor" and mentioned the possibility of avoiding certain controversial subjects when determining what to include on the main page. How, in your view, should this apply to The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and Evolution (pretending that neither article has appeared as TFA)? In other words, if special discussions were held regarding both, what outcomes would you prefer? —David Levy 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be OK with evolution, and not with this, I'd probably avoid posting Cannibal Holocaust and maybe Jenna Jameson. Obviously the blurb is an issue here as well and that could have been improved to the level it got to after 6 hours initially which was a significant improvement. Ultimately I would be happy to leave all of them to the community to make a decision - if when presented to a reasonable audience people think this isn't controversial and the evolution is, that's OK. A lot of the issue here could have been solved by getting more attention on the blurb - which a wider audience would have given. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw that The Human Centipede over at FAC and I browsed the article. I was quite appalled and disturbed, and inwardly I was praying it wouldn't get on the mainpage. Part of my intense dislike is that I've become a lot more sensitive to violence in the last few years. But in this case, a lot of it was about how excruciatingly gratuitous and sadistic it is. Seeing it go from successful FAC to TFA in less than a month almost smacks of provocation, even it might be unintentional. Trying to defend this by comparing it with real life atrocities or anything like that is patently absurd. We all know damned well that there's a fundamental difference; it's an argument fit for the aptly described "puerile weirdos" mentioned above in my view. Either way, from the perspective of what Wikipedia's long term goals are, I simply can't see why we should ever let these topics onto the mainpage.

But one thing has to be absolutely crystal clear by now and can't possibly be in dispute any more: we can never, ever discuss any kind of mainpage ban list without an unacceptable level of hypocrisy. No matter what we as individual think of this, it's flat out impossible to ever argue that topics like Jenna Jameson (or far more obscure porn topics should they ever reach FA status) can't be on the mainpage, while both The Human Centipede and Cannibal Holocaust can slip through the cracks. I personally would be outraged and disgusted if we chose to uphold censorship for mainstream porn while allowing controversial and fairly obscure horror films to be featured. Which also happen to feature graphic rape scenes.

Either we start actually clamping down on material that would be considered flat-out inappropriate even by most adults, or we don't at all.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Jenna Jameson is clearly far less controversial than this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's "far less" controversial, but I certainly don't think it's more controversial. And I would not oppose its inclusion on the Main Page either, even though -- strangely -- this is supposedly on Raul's list of banned TFAs. -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Abe, about that article on the schools blocking wikipedia, have you read the article? Coolug (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

While the blog author opines that the schools are blocking it for inaccuracy that isn't necessarily why they have done so. Its true that they might not be blocking it for being controversial in other ways too.

With regards to inaccuracy though as a middle class parent one would be able to go to the school and complain about how a school project isn't peer reviewed research and therefore its reasonable to allow your child to use wikipedia for their research (although ideally put less bluntly). You can't win the argument about controversial content in the same way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Since when was 14% "1 in 6" anyway? I blame the teachers. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, 1 in 7 is correct. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, you can't say "oh the article says this but they probably mean something else!" - The article says the schools are blocking it because kids are just being lazy with their work. As someone who worked with kids in schools for a few years I've seen this myself, every research piece on Captain Scott or whatever is exactly the same, a lot of the time the kids not even managing to take out the little citation numbers :) I really think you should stop spinning your own slant on that article. You sound like a politician. Coolug (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not saying that - I'm making two different points. 1) We don't really know why the individual schools have blocked it - both the blogger and myself have surmised. 2) If they blocked it due to controversial content it is far more difficult to get the block overturned by complaining to the school than if it is blocked because they don't think that Wikipedia is a good source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The article says that the Wikipedia Project is blocked in some institutions it was created to serve: to wit, "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content." I believe some of those blocks are because administrators see things like today's TFA, and decide that Wikipedia is not a destination for 'educational content' for their users. There is an unavoidable tension between Freedom and Mission in this discussion: Freedom to put whatever on the Front Page, while being cognizant of this project's Mission to educate. Weighed against each other, I don't think today's TFA should be on the front page because the public's reaction to seeing it highlighted by Wikipedia could interfere with our mission to educate. That puts me on the Mission side. Others feel that the front page should be open to anything, that puts them on the Freedom side. The answer is obviously in the middle, and several admins have attempted to walk between the raindrops on this already. Rather than keep rehashing the same issues, we should probably be talking about surveying institutions that block us to find out what causes them to do so. That way Freedom and Mission won't be at each other's throats like they are today. Abe Froman (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to bed. It's been a hell of a day. Can't wait to see the stats on this one, somehow I suspect more than the usual 20k have looked at the article. Happy Halloween. Coolug (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I view that as a false dichotomy. The mission is to share information. That cannot happen without the freedom to share it. Being blocked by an external source, or self-censoring has the same net result: we stop sharing information. We can't control what external sources will do, but we can control what we do. And TFA has consistently been used to promote our best quality work, not the most important topics. Hell, look at October's TFAs. Other than Statue of Liberty, the topics are pretty much all obscure. TFA has never been about showing off Wikipedia's educational value. And there is nothing wrong with that. The aspect of the main page that is truly educational is On This Day, not Today's Featured Article. Reso lute 22:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that if a school gets a complaint about the current TFA then there is a risk that they will decide to block the whole site. And with regards to freedom you are never going to be able to be 100% free, there has to be a balance. Abe Froman is quite right above when he says that more data is a good idea - but there has to be a line. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The mission here is to present facts in an engaging and interesting format. Frankly I couldn't care less if some conservative schoolteacher decides to block Wikipedia because he doesn't like what he sees, just as I couldn't care less about sky-fairy worshippers who think presenting an image of their cult founder is blasphemous. This site is written for intelligent adults, not deluded zealots. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the mission is to spread knowledge. That means you have to make some effort to engage conservative schoolteachers and muslims. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the mission is to make knowledge available, not to spread it. There's a subtle difference. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The information isn't available if its blocked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is, as the information isn't blocked. Bear in mind in any case that it's mirrored on God knows how many sites anyway, so any school blocking access to Wikipedia is just pissing in the wind. Which if you read the Australian article referred to earlier is pretty much what the author was saying. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that too many "adults" find things like breast and penis offensive is more likely to lead to Wikipedia being blocked in schools than this TFA will. If a fear of offending school marms is going to be a driving force in Wikipedia's direction, we might as well just delete half the project. Reso lute 23:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hell, I'm half tempted to try and get breast to FA, just so we can put a pair of tits on the main page and really watch people freak out! Reso lute 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, looks like its time to block these trolls then. That's your first warning. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll have a difficult time beating this then... Parrot of Doom 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy days. And exactly how many schools blocked access to Wikipedia because of that main page appearance? None? Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

After today, I can bet you that more than 100 schools just added Wikipedia to their blacklist. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all bad news then, at least the level of vandalism will be down tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The irony of claiming that schools will ban Wikipedia because of this is that, as a high school teacher, I first learnt about the human centipede from some of my 14 year old students. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Most people aren't sophisticated enough at using computers to work around blocks - sure some people will, but not everyone is up to it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you intend to respond to a different message? I see no relevance to the one under which your reply is indented. —David Levy 18:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it was aimed at a whole thread of discussion above. <shrug> I'm not sure myself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We already have a line: notability. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't really enough by any means... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion perhaps, but not in mine. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, and if we discussed any items that were controversial properly then as a community we could see whose view came out on top. This is the sort of issue that the community should be able to make a sensible decision on with a "vote" or normal discussion that was appropriately publicised. If the community doesn't think its controversial then it probably isn't and then it doesn't matter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

But we've now come full circle. Who is to be the arbiter of "controversial"? You? Me? Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Make a sensible and conservative decision. It shouldn't be too difficult to realise that this is a probable candidate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find the information on the Human Centipede particularly "educational". In fact, I HIGHLY doubt that most people who came here even wanted to see such an image and description in the first place. And with your type of comment, it just goes to show how the Wikippedians around here have become robots who only care about "encyclopedic style, rules, customs" with no regard for possible ethical violations in certain countries, groups, of laws that do not allow such images or content to be shown in such a public view. It was a pretty poor decision from the admins to post the image or for that matter, the article itself as the TFA. I don't know how this project can continue to function if things like this "slip" through without proper presentation of info. Even the Wikimedia board posted an unfavorable view towards this TFA.

What a fail - M0rphzone (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Some cultures don't allow unveiled women to be seen in public (and regard the concept as highly offensive). Should we ban images of unveiled women from the main page? —David Levy 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While I admit that not everyone objecting to the article has done a great job of expressing the reasons for their objections, some have explained their objections quite clearly. I'm dismayed at the number of straw man arguments being used to discredit them, especially coming from intelligent users who are capable of better reasoning than that. David Levy and tariqabjotu, I'm talking partly to you.

Analogies to religious and philosophical conflicts do not apply. We are not discussing a film which is widely considered the norm in some, any, society. Thus David's reference to "unveiled women in public" is unfortunate, since many cultures have no issues with unveiled women. The same misuse of analogies appear elsewhere as "evolution" and other topics disputed by some but accepted by the general public of existing societies.

Likewise, tariqabjotu, the primary objection is not the inclusion of the word "anus" on the MP, as I believe you know. The objection is to featuring a film that presents as entertainment some of the most revolting violation of humanity imaginable in ANY society, not just the religious conservatives of Westernsociety.

Reducing the objections to "think of the children" via school access is another straw man. Adult users are clearly offended on their own account, without thinking of children at all.

Finally, the not-censored rule can and should be subject to the principle of least astonishment. Without suggesting that Philippe Beaudette is the final authority on this matter, his comment above was succinct and useful.

Bottom line: the article is no longer on the MP, but a grain of thoughtfulness would probably be useful in avoiding a repeat of this disaster. If Wikipedians have come to the point that respect for the mainstream readership has taken a backseat to other, internal considerations (whichever ones are responsible for this article appearing yesterday), then today is a sad day, indeed. 174.252.168.148 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually some people have explained the reasons for their objections fairly well, it's just that many people here find their objections silly. (In other words, it's not just that they have not explained the reasons for their objections well, it's that some of their reasons are in the opinion of several people here, silly.) As an example, arguments about the number of schools who are going to block wikipedia as a result of this. This doesn't mean all arguments here are the same, but you cannot blame people for pointing out some of the arguments have little support. Also I challenge you to prove that every society feels it is unacceptable to put the article on the main page. (The issue of whether it's revolting is a different thing.) This is an important point because if it is not true, then you come down to the issue of where we draw the line. You appear to agree that stuff like unveiled women should be allowed because some cultures have no issue with it even though some clearly do. Ultimately you're not going to convince people we need to do something to avoid a repeat if people don't agree it's a 'disaster'. On that point, I can't find any news coverage of this, heck not even discussion in a blog excluding from a wikipedian, I'm sure some exists and I found a small amount in forums and one twitter comment, but for all the noise here I'm not seeing much evidence many people actually noticed this 'disaster'. This compares for example to the vulva/German wikipedia thing. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the subject of the film is revolting, but that does not change my opinion of its inclusion on the Main Page; I don't think my personal opinions about subject matter should guide what goes on the Main Page (n.b. about half of critics who reviewed the movie, for example, gave it a positive review). And, clearly "mouth-to-anus" or "anus" was a central part of the issue, as those words were removed in response to complaints here. Some people even explicitly said the phrase was what made them so disgusted. -- tariqabjotu 14:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was addressing M0rphzone, who referred to our lack of "regard for possible ethical violations in certain countries, groups." How is it a straw man argument to point out that certain cultures bar unveiled women from appearing in public? You note above that "many cultures have no issues with unveiled women," but by M0rphzone's logic, our publication of such photographs is grossly inconsiderate of the others.

I referenced evolution in response to Eraserhead1's statement that we should "err on the side of caution with regards to controversial articles." Do you deny that evolution is an extremely controversial subject? It certainly appears to have generated more controversy (from the nineteenth century to the present) than any horror film has.

You also note that any society would consider the film's subject matter revolting. Let's assume that this is true. So what? As as been pointed out, our main page frequently hosts material about real-life murders, massacres and other events widely regarded as horrific atrocities. That doesn't make academic coverage of such a subject a horrific atrocity, and I reject your assertion that we disrespect our readership by providing it. —David Levy 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To all those who still think we should ban some articles from appearing on the front page (and granted, some of those arguments hold water) here's a troubling riddle: If we were to prevent any innapropriate featured articles from appearing on the front page, whats the point in our work in making them featured anway? All arguments should answer this. Granted, THC is not the best (in terms of quality) movie to be on the main page, but attention is now being given to improve it by those who have info about the film. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily support excluding THC from the main page but I think while having the article appear on the main page is a fair reward, we should also always hope our FA writers are willing to put in the work so they can produce an excellent article which people will find useful and interesting regardless of when or if it appears on the main page. A notable factoid here, some news and other sources link to our article on THC 1 or 2 because they don't want to provide a synopsis or plot details themselves e.g. [7]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not impressed with the idea of advertising commercial products, the notion of not talking about nasty topics on the front page or the schools will block us is unreasonable. A censor censors because it is his nature, or gives him some personal advantage. It doesn't matter how much or how little we try to make the site please them, they'll still spend the same amount of time choosing something to pick at and express horror about. Schools seriously objecting to some coherent-ish agenda of topics can always block specific images and pages - in the U.S. the COPA act forces the government to pay them to hire people to "filter" the internet, who might as well at least have to do some work for the money and decide which Wikipedia pages are trouble each day. Countries like Australia which have fallen deep into a pit of internet censorship should be made to suffer the loss of our affections, not rewarded with top-tier service. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as the Main Page doesn't display a full-page Playboy centerfold, or other kinds of offensive display you can easily imagine, the question is how much to censor it, not whether to censor it at all, despite our alleged policy. Art LaPella (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear I see no reason at all why Jenna Jameson shouldn't run also. Wnt (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne: I concede that "disaster" is my own assessment. I should have said "controversy," which is self-evident here on the talk page. I disagree that anyone needs to prove that no culture in the world is ok with THC's content. I assert that no culture would accept that content as generally acceptable. My assertion is based on generalizing from every culture that I know anything about. If my generalization is incorrect, someone will no doubt provide an example of why I am wrong.

Tariqabjotu: I don't think your personal opinion carries any more or less weight than mine, so in that sense, I agree with your reply. I assert that human societies' general expectations take precedence, and I believe that the rule of least astonishment addresses those expectations - imperfectly, perhaps, but we do what we can. I acknowledge that you have a point about the "mouth-to-anus" phrase being a sticking point, and if I wrongly believed that you reduced the objections to that, I apologize.

Wnt: I'd rather see Jenna Jameson on TFP than THC, simply because I believe that her career is somewhat more culturally accepted than the film's content would be (FWIW I approve of neither, but my personal approval isn't a criterium), but that's a side issue. Your anti-censorship ideology isn't the point, either. Respect for the basic cultural sensitivities of WP's readership is more relevant. Understand that I am not calling for the article's removal (which would be true censorship). I am suggesting that the article's placement was inappropriate due to the level of shock it could reasonably be expected to inflict upon members of our - or any other - society; that is not censoring anything. Sensitivity and censorship should not be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.168.148 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm innocent of the ideological peccadillo of which you've accused me - I used "censor" above in reference to people who block Wikipedia or parts thereof from reaching the reader, which is certainly a standard usage. I understand that access to the Main Page is a competition, and no content has an intrinsic right to reach the Main Page when much does not. My point was that the threat of censorship should not affect our decisions about what to put there. Wnt (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Since the article is off Main page for a while now, could we just say something like "if the choice of Main page content is expected to raise several eyebrows, someone should drop a message to some frequently-monitored page, such as this one, so that we can have a discussion prior to the apperance on the Main page"?--Tone 17:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that should have happened, and would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. -- tariqabjotu 19:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

USS Reuben James

Why so unspecific? More than 101 crew members of the USS Reuben James perished when the article quite clearly states only 44 of 159 survived. Wouldn't 115 crew members of the USS Reuben James perished be more precise and shorter? Calistemon (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Day of Seven Billion

If the human population has reached that number today, shouldn't we all drop everything and see if we actually can all stand on Zanzibar for a group photo from space? Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We could also possibly attempt to form a new type of consciousness, finally! Perhaps, seven billion neurons could be equivalent to an infant's brain gestating in the womb. -- Menti fisto 22:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Todays Halloween 'Did you know?' is brilliant!

Closing thread: this has long since moved away from a discussion related to the main page. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Just wanted to say well done to everyone involved in today's brilliant halloween themed DYK. Finding so much grisly content among new articles must have been a bit of a pain, well done to you all! Coolug (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A heartfelt thanks from me and everyone else at DYK who may not check the main page. Ghosts, murderers, and the most frightening of all... there are 7 billion mouths to feed! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Great hooks today. Reso lute 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what Halloween should be about. Not the overcommercialised one we are accustomed to seeing. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was a bad idea from the get-go because Halloween is a blatantly US-centric holiday? –H T D 02:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Wikipedia will formally tell you, we more mature Australians do see Halloween as a pain in the arse, but I know where home base is for this allegedly global encyclopaedia, and recognise that resistance is futile ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Australia is nicknamed the "land of the long weekend" [8] and Leisure is actually a class in school. Relax. Let us have some fun. Abe Froman (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Simply being a (primarily) US holiday doesn't make it biased. I don't believe there's any rule against something of chiefly regional interest being included - and sometimes that's going to mean the US. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 03:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I can still have a whinge about being forced by stand-over tactics to give tooth rotting lollies to kids manipulated by American commercial interests and TV shows. It's not fun having my house, garden and car vandalised because I didn't get to the door quickly enough. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the problem is you're taking the wrong inspiration. If you would just do what you did with the Split Enz, Phar Lap, and Pavlova (food) and steal from us Kiwis you'd be sweet! (In NZ while trick or treating seems common in certain the suburbs, at least in Auckland, vandalism or destructive pranks are still AFAIK very rare even when you don't give anything.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll trade you that situation for Russell Crowe. You can have him back any time. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I should say too that, in my lifetime in the US, through over three dozen Halloweens in different locations, never once has the idea of post-Halloween vandalism of the property of someone who didn't give out candy even been broached. If anything, the tricks come the night before Halloween (and that tradition seems to have died as well, due to the combination of overenthusiastic vandals and the corresponding increased police presence ... it has been a long time since I saw toilet paper and/or shaving cream on anything Halloween morning). Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some forum/nonRS discussion in modern times, it's a far bigger problem in the UK then the US (one of the reasons I did not name any country that the Aussies were following) Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hallowe'en is emphatically NOT a "U.S. centric holiday". It has long been oberved in my home country (the United Kingdom). In fact, the Pagan forerunner of Hallowe'en - Samhain - was observed on the East of the Atlantic long before the United States was even founded! Although it is true that the day is not an official Bank holiday in the United Kingdom, one only need observe shops here in the U.K. around about the time of Hallowe'en to see how widely observed the custom is in Britain. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2011 (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.

Awesome In the News

That is an amazingly global "In the News" section. Six out of seven continents is represented with at least one story. 75.62.148.246 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Normally the "In the News" section and the Main Page is accused of being biased to a particular country. It is nice to hear praise once in a while! Gizza^Talk ^© 01:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the UNESCO news for Palistine admission?

Where is the UNESCO news?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Halil marx07 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It had to be pulled due to issues with close paraphrasing. See ANI and WT:ITN. Jenks24 (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphasing is being nice. It was pulled for blatant copyright violations. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, no need to snipe, Sven. — Joseph Fox 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, there is in fact a need to snipe. Whole paragraphs were taken almost verbatim, any of the copyvio scanner tools we have would have caught that damn quick if someone screened the article before throwing it onto the main page. Yes, for once the copyvio on the main page didn't come out of DYK, but still... Sven Manguard Wha? 13:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

They restore it. Halil marx07 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)...82.118.161.114 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

BBC TV HDTV 1936

The section "On this day” says, for 1936: "The BBC Television Service launched as the world's first regular, public all-electronic high-definition television service.” The article “BBC One” says that HDTV was introduced in 2010.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It means the 405 line service which was known then as high-definition (#The early years 3rd Paragraph). The current BBC HD channel (1080 lines) was launched in 2006 (BBC One HD in 2010). -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It also says "all electric". Was there an alternative that was partly powered by mice running in a wheel or something?

If this is an ignorant question, please point me to my error. --FormerIP (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See Mechanical television. Graham87 00:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, OK. But was this ever anything more than experimental? Do the words "regular" and "public" make "all-electronic" otiose? --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but you do understand there's a reason why we link to articles in the blurb or when people have questions right? As has already been explained, the linked BBC One does explain the HD bit. It also says:

Copied content collapsed
Baird Television Ltd. made Britain's first television broadcast, on 30 September 1929 from its studio in Long Acre, London via the BBC's London transmitter, using the electromechanical system pioneered by John Logie Baird. This system used a vertically-scanned image of 30 lines — just enough resolution for a close-up of one person, and with a bandwidth low enough to use existing radio transmitters. Simultaneous transmission of sound and picture was achieved on 30 March 1930, by using the BBC's new twin transmitter at Brookmans Park. By late 1930, 30 minutes of morning programmes were broadcast Monday to Friday, and 30 minutes at midnight on Tuesdays and Fridays, after BBC radio went off the air. Baird broadcasts via the BBC continued until June 1932. The BBC began its own regular television programming from the basement of Broadcasting House, London, on 22 August 1932. The studio moved to larger quarters in 16 Portland Place, London, in February 1934, and continued broadcasting the 30-line images, carried by telephone line to the medium wave transmitter at Brookmans Park, until 11 September 1935, by which time advances in all-electronic television systems made the electromechanical broadcasts obsolete. After a series of test transmissions and special broadcasts that began in August, regular BBC television broadcasts officially resumed on 1 October 1936, from a converted wing of Alexandra Palace in London, which housed two studios, various scenery stores, make-up areas, dressing rooms, offices, and the transmitter itself, now broadcasting on the VHF band...........

Copied content collapsed

Baird Television Ltd. made Britain's first television broadcast, on 30 September 1929 from its studio in Long Acre, London via the BBC's London transmitter, using the electromechanical system pioneered by John Logie Baird. This system used a vertically-scanned image of 30 lines — just enough resolution for a close-up of one person, and with a bandwidth low enough to use existing radio transmitters. Simultaneous transmission of sound and picture was achieved on 30 March 1930, by using the BBC's new twin transmitter at Brookmans Park. By late 1930, 30 minutes of morning programmes were broadcast Monday to Friday, and 30 minutes at midnight on Tuesdays and Fridays, after BBC radio went off the air. Baird broadcasts via the BBC continued until June 1932.

The BBC began its own regular television programming from the basement of Broadcasting House, London, on 22 August 1932. The studio moved to larger quarters in 16 Portland Place, London, in February 1934, and continued broadcasting the 30-line images, carried by telephone line to the medium wave transmitter at Brookmans Park, until 11 September 1935, by which time advances in all-electronic television systems made the electromechanical broadcasts obsolete.

After a series of test transmissions and special broadcasts that began in August, regular BBC television broadcasts officially resumed on 1 October 1936, from a converted wing of Alexandra Palace in London, which housed two studios, various scenery stores, make-up areas, dressing rooms, offices, and the transmitter itself, now broadcasting on the VHF band...........

As you can see from the 27th October version, these aren't new additions [9].

In the article on mechanical TV which wasn't linked from our blurb but is linked from the BBC One article and Graham87 linked above, it says in the intro:

Copied content collapsed
Mechanical systems were used in television broadcasting from 1925 to 1939, overlapping the all-electronic television era by three years.

Later it says:

Copied content collapsed
Mechanical television transmitting a live, moving image in tone gradations (grayscale images) was demonstrated by British inventor John Logie Baird on January 26, 1926, at his laboratory in London. Unlike later electronic systems with several hundred lines of resolution, Baird's vertically scanned image, using a scanning disk embedded with a double spiral of lenses, had only 30 lines, just enough to reproduce a recognizable human face. Ulises Armand Sanabria was the builder and engineer of WCFL, the first mechanical television station to go on the air in Chicago on June 12, 1928.[2] By sending the sound signal to station WIBO[3] and the video signal on WCFL, he was the first to transmit sound and picture simultaneously on the same wave band on May 19, 1929. Several US universities established and maintained mechanical television stations from 1930 to 1939. (See External Links below for list of such stations US and Canada 1928-1939.) Because only a limited number of holes could be made in the disks, and disks beyond a certain diameter became impractical, image resolution on mechanical television broadcasts was relatively low, ranging from about 30 lines up to 120 or so. Nevertheless, the image quality of 30-line transmissions steadily improved with technical advances, and by 1933 the UK broadcasts using the Baird system were remarkably clear.[4] A few systems ranging into the 200-line region also went on the air. Two of these were the 180-line system that Compagnie des Compteurs (CDC) installed in Paris in 1935, and the 180-line system that Peck Television started in 1935 at station VE9AK in Montreal.[5]

Copied content collapsed

Mechanical television transmitting a live, moving image in tone gradations (grayscale images) was demonstrated by British inventor John Logie Baird on January 26, 1926, at his laboratory in London. Unlike later electronic systems with several hundred lines of resolution, Baird's vertically scanned image, using a scanning disk embedded with a double spiral of lenses, had only 30 lines, just enough to reproduce a recognizable human face.

Ulises Armand Sanabria was the builder and engineer of WCFL, the first mechanical television station to go on the air in Chicago on June 12, 1928.[2] By sending the sound signal to station WIBO[3] and the video signal on WCFL, he was the first to transmit sound and picture simultaneously on the same wave band on May 19, 1929. Several US universities established and maintained mechanical television stations from 1930 to 1939. (See External Links below for list of such stations US and Canada 1928-1939.)

Because only a limited number of holes could be made in the disks, and disks beyond a certain diameter became impractical, image resolution on mechanical television broadcasts was relatively low, ranging from about 30 lines up to 120 or so. Nevertheless, the image quality of 30-line transmissions steadily improved with technical advances, and by 1933 the UK broadcasts using the Baird system were remarkably clear.[4] A few systems ranging into the 200-line region also went on the air. Two of these were the 180-line system that Compagnie des Compteurs (CDC) installed in Paris in 1935, and the 180-line system that Peck Television started in 1935 at station VE9AK in Montreal.[5]

Even later it says:

Copied content collapsed
The advancement of all-electronic television (including image dissectors and other camera tubes and cathode ray tubes for the reproducer) marked the beginning of the end for mechanical systems as the dominant form of television. Mechanical TV usually only produced small images. It was the main type of TV until the 1930s. All-electronic television, first demonstrated in September 1927 in San Francisco by Philo Farnsworth, and then publicly by Farnsworth at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia in 1934, was rapidly overtaking mechanical television. Farnsworth's system was first used for broadcasting in 1936, reaching 400 to more than 600 lines with fast field scan rates, along with competing systems by Philco and DuMont Laboratories. The last mechanical television broadcasts ended in 1939 at stations run by a handful of public universities in the United States. In 1939, RCA paid Farnsworth $1 million for his patents after ten years of litigation, and RCA began demonstrating all-electronic television at the 1939 World's Fair in New York City.

Copied content collapsed

The advancement of all-electronic television (including image dissectors and other camera tubes and cathode ray tubes for the reproducer) marked the beginning of the end for mechanical systems as the dominant form of television. Mechanical TV usually only produced small images. It was the main type of TV until the 1930s.

All-electronic television, first demonstrated in September 1927 in San Francisco by Philo Farnsworth, and then publicly by Farnsworth at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia in 1934, was rapidly overtaking mechanical television. Farnsworth's system was first used for broadcasting in 1936, reaching 400 to more than 600 lines with fast field scan rates, along with competing systems by Philco and DuMont Laboratories. The last mechanical television broadcasts ended in 1939 at stations run by a handful of public universities in the United States. In 1939, RCA paid Farnsworth $1 million for his patents after ten years of litigation, and RCA began demonstrating all-electronic television at the 1939 World's Fair in New York City.

The article hasn't been changed since July 2011.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Annual end-of-year fundraiser

Excuse me, not that I'm missing anything, but is there going to be a fundraising drive at the end of this year, as usual, or not? I couldn't find anything, but I only took a little while to search and can't properly concentrate today. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fundraising is handled by Wikimedia themselves, not by this language's Wikipedia. If you're interested in the status of Fundraising this year, have a look at the Fundraising page over at meta.wikimedia.org. :) — Joseph Fox 08:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, thanks. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Done

Alfonso Cano

The death of Alfonso Cano is not appearing neither on Wikinews nor "In the News".201.209.196.94 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been nominated at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Feel free to add your thoughts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of articles

As far as I can see, for all the languages listed as having 650,000 articles, there are now more than 700,000 articles. Time to upgrade! - Ipigott (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Done.[10] Requests can be posted to Template talk:Wikipedia languages. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

More than 1,000,000 articles

Hello!

On the main page, it is indicated the number of articles on various Wikipedias:

English contains 3,790,000 articles
More than 700,000 items
More than 150,000 items
More than 50,000 items

Why not update the main page and creating :

More than ~~1,000,000,000~~ 1,000,000 articles : Deutsch, English, Français

Time to upgrade! Thanks! Busway (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been proposed and rejected so, so many times. Sorry. — Joseph Fox 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why ? I don't remember the reason ? Yet it's a good update (more than ~~1,000,000,000~~ articles). Busway (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that no wiki has yet hit 1,000,000,000 articles, see this here. ;) — Joseph Fox 18:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ! I would write 1,000,000 articles. So I re-write my proposition

Why not update the main page and creating :

More than 1,000,000 articles : Deutsch, English, Français Busway (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you read any of the discussions to which Joseph Fox linked?

We don't list an "English" link (for obvious reasons), so a "more than 1,000,000 articles" tier would include two Wikipedias. There is longstanding consensus against creating a tier for such a small quantity. We didn't add a "more than 500,000 articles" tier (just updated to "more than 700,000 articles") until eight Wikipedias crossed that threshold. —David Levy 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, four would probably be a more sensible cut-off. But we're not there yet. Modest Genius ^talk 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Four seems a bit low to me, but yeah, I don't mean to imply that eight is the absolute minimum.

We also must consider how the other tiers would be affected (and possibly adjust them accordingly). For example, in a hypothetical scenario in which a "more than 1,000,000 articles" tier replaces a "more than 800,000 articles" tier, Wikipedias containing 900,000 articles might be moved to a "more than 200,000 articles" tier (which is undesirable). —David Levy 19:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

O.K. ! Thanks ! Busway (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Main Page's logs

This is terrible! How can anybody have a right to delete the Main Page?! (Even for only two minutes.) And how “nobody can delete it again”? :/ ~Alex^{discussion ★} 22:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You might like to read Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page, and the references therein. Modest Genius ^talk 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive126#Adding useless revisions to pages to make them undeletable —David Levy 23:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In 2005 Moriori moved the Main Page to the title "Hauturu/Little Barrier Island". (details) Ah, we were so innocent back then. - Banyan Tree 05:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia

has more than 50.000 articles and should be included in the appropriate list on the main page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As reaching the 50,000 mark does not automatically guarantee inclusion on the list, this request is better addressed at Template talk:Wikipedia languages, so I will copy your request there. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Aragonese language

Please, put in the section of "Languages" the Wikipedia in aragonese. Thank you for you colaboration!

An anonymous user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.132.51 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Aragonese Wikipedia is currently listed at meta:List of Wikipedias. To be listed on the English Wikipedia's Main page a language wikipedia currently needs at least 50,000 articles (this number tends to grow over time and languages with high percentages of stubs, redirects, or machine generated content usually require even higher totals). As the Aragonese langage has only created 26,716 articles, it falls well short of current listing guidelines. --Allen3 ^talk 21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just gonna point out that redirects aren't counted in the total number of articles a wiki has (unless this has changed recently, and I can't imagine why it would have), though they are counted in the total number of pages, along with project pages, templates, etc. AdamSommerton (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please unlock the main page

Please unlock the main page. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 02:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 02:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the "Frequently Asked Questions" explanation. Art LaPella (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

But I want to vandalize it. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 22:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, only admins may vandalize the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 22:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It has happened: [11][12][13] Hut 8.5 22:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

for the Armistice Day / Veteran's Day themed DYKs. Wikipedia's gesture is very much appreciated.

"When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For your Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today." (The Kohima Memorial). 86.133.55.244 (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. "To you from failing hands we throw / The torch; be yours to hold it high." (In Flanders Fields) Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Extinction Bias

This is simply unacceptable. An INT about an extinct Rhino and a FP of an obviously extinct dinosaur? Seriously? I am disappoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuyoi.ai (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And what is the problem?--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 11:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Sorry, but who updates the main page? --46.12.65.6 (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No one. People build consensus for the following "tasks": ITN, OTD, TFA, DYK, TFP and TFL, and admins subsequently put it on Main Page (they change the blurbs if they feel there is an error or something inappropriate). Regards.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 11:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please amendment. (Wikipedia Persian)

Persian Wikipedia article is 144.292. And not 166.166. See here — Preceding unsigned comment added by الشبح العربي (talk • contribs) 08:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The number-of-articles directive on fa.wiki states there are 166,296 articles. — Edokter (talk) — 10:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppy

I appreciate this is leaving it quite late but could an image of a poppy be added to the main page for Armistice Day on 11 November and Remembrance Sunday on 12 November? Harrison49 (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be highly opposed to this on the grounds of A) avoiding creating a precedent for themed days marked in such a way, B) retaining neutrality, and C) minimizing systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Have there been any similar additions to the main page on any dates in the past? Coolug (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I understand your first two concerns, but not the third: according to our articles on the subjects, Remembrance Day/Armistice Day are observed in a significant number of countries, not just the US or the Anglosphere. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

@Coolug, I don't think so. @Nikkimaria, how many countries outside the UK and Commonwealth use the poppy as the symbol of remembrance of war dead? My impression is (from reading the WP articles you linked) is that it isn't a widespread symbol. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I was thinking, based on part A, that Kevin was referring to marking the day at all, not specifically the poppy. Never mind then. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, Bencherlite, the UK, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand use the poppy (in their own right) as a symbol, while poppies are sold in over 180 other countries (admittedly usually sticking to expats). For the record I would be opposed to using one on the Main Page, unless it were in a suitable section. — Joseph Fox 03:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

On the 11th we have Armistice Day, Remembrance Day and Veterans Day in the Selected Anniversaries, the signing of the armistice in 1914 in On This Day, and a Today's Featured Article which is not only a pilot who served in WW1, but one who died on Remembrance Day in 1955. On Sunday 13th we will certainly be putting Remembrance Sunday in Selected Anniversaries, not sure about any other sections. I think that's mention enough without adding any unnecessary images. Oh and yes the poppy is a much more common symbol in the UK than elsewhere in the world. Modest Genius ^talk 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppies are used very extensively in Australia too. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And New Zealand. --LauraHale (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't. But more poppies are distributed in the UK than the rest of the world put together. Modest Genius ^talk 13:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a poppy on DYK-P4 now. Pls move it to DYK-Q1 for use on MainPage on Remembrance Sunday, 13 November, as appropriate. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. The main thing I was looking for was recognition of the days here on Wikipedia, which was achieved very well. Harrison49 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight on military matters

At the moment I am looking at a wikipedia front page that is presenting articles of roughly 75% military content. I don't know if this has something to do with today's Veteran Day celebrations, but this is an encyclopedia of so much more content. More variation please, less kings and wars. (For information: I am myself involved in many military-related projects). --MoRsE (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the Armstice/Veteran day theme. It's common (but not undisputable) practice to theme important days, such as X mas or the 9/11 anniversary. They'll be gone tomorrow. 89.24.143.20 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And Remembrance Day in several Commonwealth nations. We often tailor the main page towards topical days of observance. Just wait until April Fools Day! ;) Reso lute 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

you just had to bring up April Fools Day, didn't you Resolute?...sigh...let the battle begin again....Rhodesisland (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As user, I would prefer little banner. Let say commercial company,may be few, make donation to Wikipedia, and all users see little banner of gratitude to main donator(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.224.183 (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

American Censorship Day

Even WMF supports it, having changes their logo. Italian Wikipedia did it few weeks ago. Why are we not joining? See discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bit late now, I would say. — Joseph Fox 00:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Portals on the Main Page?

In an RfC about the purpose of Portals, it was suggested that they be featured on the Main Page. Please join the discussion!--~T P W 19:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: The last major discussion on whether to include featuring portals, now archived on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features#Featured portals, was consensus to not to include them on the main page at this time. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!--~T P W 19:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, featured portal drive

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Main_Page_Featured_Portal_drive. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that Wikipedia asks for donations in order to avoid placing annoying ad banners by putting a huge "please donate" banner on top? --Cerlomin (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We do this in order to avoid having to place advertisements. A subtle difference. — Edokter (talk) — 11:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia reader is affected in basically the same way. Actually, since commercial advertisements are probably more profitable they could be made smaller and, thus, less annoying. --Cerlomin (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Profitable? We're a non-profit by definition, so that logic doesn't really check out. — Joseph Fox 11:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You sir aren't the sharpest tool in the shed. --Cerlomin (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We are a non-profit organization, but we need donations to keep running. That's why the banners exist. HurricaneFan 25 19:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear Cerlomin is saying that commercial advertisements (and there are ways this could be handled while keeping the WMF itself a legally recognised non-profit) would make more money then our yearly donation banners do and could be made smaller. I think there are holes in this argument (for example I don't think smaller automatically equals less annoying) but I don't think these replies other then perhaps Edokter have really addressed them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, but they still need money. How would your local non-profit charity give to the pour if they had no money? The ad banners is because people don't donate, and the organization who's paying Wikipedia for the ad pays pays Wikipedia. StevenDP 20:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, commercial ads also result in an inherent, indirect, advertiser-generated bias—much like what happens on for-profit cable news networks. That is, once a given organization is addicted to the revenues generated by 3rd party advertisers, the 3rd party advertisers need only to threaten to stop advertising, and the organization is then forced to either acquiesce to the sponsor's demands or risk financial catastrophe. In fact, the more profitable the ad space, the greater the financial risk should it not be filled with high-dollar sponsors. Long story short, it's lose-lose for organizations who actually wish to remain neutral as a core pillar (as opposed to turning a profit). On the upside, our "ads" can be easily hidden, and we readily allow our users to do so without any need for ad-blocking software. --slakr^\ talk / 22:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That was the answer I was looking for. Thank you Wikifriend. --Cerlomin (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I would have probably donated, but the left-wing extremism here and the weaselly use of the 'rules' to justify that left wing bias leaves a permanent bad taste in my mouth. I've paid attention to key subjects' discussion pages and I've seen how WP runs off all the right-wing conservatives, right-libertarians, constitutionalists, anti-globalization patriots, etc... Now I must say, WP is to academia what McDonald's is to restaurants. WP is not regarded on the same level as say, Encyclopedia Britannica. BUT, that doesn't mean that WP can't encourage HEALTHY debate where the perspectives of right-leaning Americans (or others) are respected. I've seen how the left-wing extremists here censor the content of articles, or even have articles deleted; then they hide behind the guidelines as if these were Law to prevent the legitimate reversion of an article back to an unbiased, left-spin-free version. Fortunately, there is still 'the rest of the internets', and WP is not the be-all and end-all of the 'Net. Wikipedia's credibility and reliability have consequently been damaged, and possibly irreparably - unless these issues are resolved and people of other political alignment are afforded a substantial stake in the administration, moderation, and editorial control of Wikipedia.

I will not be checking back for comments; my statement is only for the edification of the people who run Wikipedia, in the hopes that they will stop 'being evil', as the founders of Google would have put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.39.185 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The "people who run Wikipedia" don't read this talk page much, if by "run" you mean "financially support". If you want them to even read your opinion, you need to contact them directly. --N Y Kevin @783, i.e. 17:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably have donated by now if it weren't for Jimbo's ugly mug staring back at me every time I visit. I can't even look at the banner long enough to click on it. It's that bad. 71.62.210.158 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people just prefer to have a little fun with Jimbo instead.--~T P W 20:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We should contact Michele Merkin and ask if she would be willing to sub in for Jimbo's portrait. She's a featured picture, which should roll in the donations like crazy. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to hear a word about putting banners or other advertisements on Wikipedia, or related Wikis. Asking for donations within a banner on the top of a Wikipedia page is nothing like a "shoot five iPods and win a car" advertisement on all the other websites in cyberspace. All users need to understand that Wikipedia does not manage itself. Dninyo (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest, if you don't want to hear such discussion, you might like to avoid visiting talk pages like this one. Interesting that you don't show the same respect for 'what other people want' as you expect for 'what you want'. I personally agree with some of the above posters, I may have been inclined to donate, but the size and persistence of the banners has ensured I won't. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If the only thing stopping you from donating is the mere aesthetic appeal of a banner, then you are no altruist. Imagine if I used that same logic for not making a donation to a non-profit charity just because the picture they used of a homeless person on the donation box was ugly. "Would probably have donated" - Frankly, I don't think any of you would have donated at all. --WaltCip (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Extremely few people are true altruists, and I doubt you're one either. I do use the same logic for donating to charities, which isn't the strawman you invented for yourself just now. The ones that have respect for the people doing the donating, who don't harass them on the street or cold-call them repeatedly pleading for money, are the ones that get donations. It's simple - show respect and you get respect. Disrespect your donators, treat them like customers and use targeted marketing tactics, and you get nothing. These types of marketing have rapidly diminished in acceptability over the last 10 years. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Targeted marketing tactics - such as what? How can one disrespect donors when you aren't even donating? As far as advertisements go, the banner is extremely unobtrusive and does not impede with usage of Wikipedia the same way as a pop-up, a pop-under, or a Flash ad. I'd be interested to hear ideas as to how to fulfill the same function without being, as you say, "harassing" or "cold-calling".--WaltCip (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't really belong here but I'll answer. Not donating is a reaction, not a prior state. 'You aren't even donating' is a state caused by the banners, not one that existed prior to them. If they were less intrusive, they'd get a better reaction from me. Off the top of my head, ideas for how to make the banners less intrusive would be A) reducing their size significantly, B) having a gadget option to disable them, and C) respecting a viewer's action when they're closed. Thus far I've had the banner reappear multiple times a day after being closed. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mobile Wikipedia

Who selected TFA and ITN for display at http://m.en.wikipedia.org? I always visit the main page on my cellphone, but I never need to see what the news is because I have other sites for that. Is there any way to get FPC instead or any other of the main page's content? Matthewedwards : Chat 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know and don't know if anyone here does know. At a guess though, TFN and ITN were selected because they are the top 2 (in terms of location) on the default main page. You can try asking at WP:VP/T but I'm not sure if you can get much help there or anywhere on wikipedia. As I remarked Talk:Main Page/Archive 161#en.m.wikipedia.org part 2, the mobile site is AFAIK run by the foundation, I don't think we have much control over it. They appear to welcome feedback at twitter, mail, or the feedback function and their mailing list but I don't think there's really anywhere on wikipedia (perhaps somewhere on meta I don't know about that). To be fair though, I don't believe there's anyway to edit wikipedia via the mobile site (at least until the Athena skin comes along) so perhaps that makes sense. See also Help:Mobile access#Official online version. Nil Einne (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you can't edit from the mobile version, but you can edit from your mobile phone as long as you shut off the mobile site. Here's a screenshot of me, editing from an Android. I wasn't aware of Athena, thanks. :) Matthewedwards : Chat 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I get all frustrated that I can't edit that typo from my phone. Then I think about how maddening it would be to find and type the square brackets, and I feel better.--~T P W 12:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem any good reason to include ITN on the mobile site. It regularly displays week old news and also frequently fails to post massive stories - e.g. the clearing of the Occupy Wall Street protests being a recent example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well people shouldn't be looking at ITN for news anyway. I think the bigger question is whether it fulfills it's purpose well and that purpose is not to display news stories. And also whether people find the purpose useful. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Avocado pic

It's a bit lame (sorry Muhammed—just in this context, I mean). And it's very small. And the TFA pic of the freeway is worthless at that size. $Tony (talk)$ 11:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, people can "zoom in" with the intuitive method of clicking the photo. I can see it fine on my 13" screen anyway. — Joseph Fox 12:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder sometimes if the TFA image should be displayed on the main page as a image which enlarges if rolled over. That way you would not have to leave the page to see a decent size presentation of that image.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As the main page serves as an introduction to the site, consistency with our images' normal behavior is more helpful. —David Levy 22:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think people quickly discover that the main page is a special case in many ways.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the avocado description (and its article) both describe is being a large berry, whereas the article on berries specifically mentions the avocado not being one. It's a relatively minor inconsistency, but someone ought to verify which is correct, and edit the other. --108.21.63.154 (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

= ???

Why is the article Cleveland Steamer deleted? --93.210.106.184 (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(Warning to weak stomachs: Don't click) You meant this article, and here's the deletion discussion. Art LaPella (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page image protection

File:Malcolm II of Scotland.jpg (ITN) and File:Corvus coronoides.jpg (OTD) were not protected. Is there a problem in some protection routine on Commons? Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

They are temporarely uploaded here and protected locally. — Edokter (talk) — 01:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the question is why weren't they protected before? Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There is some sort of protection scheme on Commons at Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en that cascade protects them automatically, I believe. I don't know the specifics, but it shouldn't usually be necessary to upload and protect them here unless there is a malfunction of some sort. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That system was set up as a fallback. It isn't flawless and shouldn't be relied upon for first-line protection. —David Levy 02:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. So uploading and protecting is still the standard procedure? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: when posting this, I haven't checked where those images were transcluded on Commons, I just checked that they were not protected. I went there now and don't see those images were transcluded to some protected page. The only purpose of this thread is to urge the operators to check the protection routines. Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en is the page. Looks like User:Krinkle's bot went down. It hasn't been operational for over 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 05:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a good example of why not to rely on that system. —David Levy 05:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No system is ideal, and I only know how the protection is done at DYK: manual local upload or manual protection on Commons. The DYK bot then checks 2 hours before the update whether the image is protected (warns if not) and does not update if the image is unprotected. The bot also deletes the local upload after it is off the main page. It is a fairly stable bot which can reset itself if hanging. Yet, as any bot, it does go offline from time to time due to toolserver maintenance and similar interruptions (roughly once per month). If the update is manual then the updater checks the image protection. This system works. It should be easy and helpful to write a bot/script checking the protection status of the images on the main page and alerting WP:ERRORS. This would require input from admins who update different MP sections, and someone to write the bot and keep an eye on it (sorry, this can't be me :-). Materialscientist (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

KrinkleBot is back in action today. howcheng {chat} 03:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status for K-143 shield

Is the image [14] (used for highway K-143 in DYK) not a copyrighted artwork belonging to the state of Kansas? The page does not even mention this, it is marked as "own work" of the uploader. I think at the very least the descriotion page should explain why the image is public domain; and if there's doubt then it should not be on the main page. — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Doubt needs to be raised elsewhere, for example at WP:FFD, but while it is on the main page I believe it is exempt from such rules. — Joseph Fox 16:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it is actually the opposite. Fair use and non-free images *may not* appear on the main page so if there is doubt then it should be taken off the MP first and then argued over afterwards. There amay be no issue of course but worth flagging anyway, — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. This has now rotated off the Main Page. — Joseph Fox 16:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not possible to copyright a sign like that, it's made of simple geometric shapes and text. Now it may be trademarked, but that's a separate issue. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

U.S. state highway shields are not copyrighted for a number of reasons. First, many were first issued before 1978, without a copyright notice, thus they're PD. Second, most are included in their state's supplement to the federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, making them a derivative work of a public domain document. Third is the geometric-shapes exception noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No TFA today?

The TFA page at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 26, 2011 hasn't been created. HurricaneFan 25 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously... how did that happen? -- tariqabjotu 00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've alerted the persons responsible. — Edokter (talk) — 00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is no action, I suggest we include the article in the nonspecific date request slot at WP:TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Raul654 hasn't edited since Nov 24, Dabomb87 (who's been choosing the TFA recently) hasn't edited since Nov 22. I suggest somebody pick something. Hut 8.5 00:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I will do as I just suggested. Please no one edit conflict me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. I am sure there is all sorts of cleanup work, notifications, etc etc. I have no idea how to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some copyediting on the blurb. Feel free to improve further. Now the Main Page is heavily lopsided though. I'll head after ITN and SA, which, again, is far too long. -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:TFA title/November 26, 2011 should contain the title of the page, it adds the editnotice (see Template:TFA title/November 25, 2011). Peter E. James (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There should also be a picture, the main page does not look right. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish there were one, but I don't think there's a relevant free picture. -- tariqabjotu 00:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(was not expecting a 2nd video game TFA in November, but considering it probably makes up for zero in October) Triforce!. –MuZemike 04:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a free shot of WW director Eiji Aonuma. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As I previously commented in a very similar context, two questions that are helpful to ask are:

Will the image's general nature be readily apparent to most readers seeing the blurb (before they read the caption)?
Would we seriously consider including the image in the article's infobox?

If the answer to both questions is "no," the image probably isn't particularly suitable. —David Levy 01:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you have that discussion bookmarked since this discussion is one of Main Page's Greatest Hits? (Other hits: "x bias" and "video game TFA bias" hbdragon88 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I searched the archives for "who's that guy", a specific phrase that I recalled using in the discussion. :) —David Levy 01:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Preventing reoccurrence

I have prepared an emergency TFA page here. I suggest that we keep this and perhaps one or two more in reserve as emergency TFAs and that we agree that in similar circumstances, we'll deal off the top on that page. We could even have a bot automatically add the article if there is no selection made by zero hour.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no TFA for tomorrow yet. May as well set that one up now, acting-FA Director Wehwalt! ;) Reso lute 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

All the kingdoms of the earth ... --Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyhoo, Dabomb is back. I suggest we keep that emergency page in reserve, though not necessarily the three articles I fairly randomly selected.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad that someone is back to clean up a bit. Props to Wehwalt for taking care of this before it ended up as egg on our face. May I suggest that, as Wehwalt suggested, we set up a list of 3-4 "emergency TFA" articles and blurbs that we can drop in just in case this happens again. --Jayron32 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it will ever happen again (I'm rewatching the next open TFA spot as I used to, and stopped doing when Dabomb87 was appointed), but Wehwalt's idea to keep a blurb in reserve is a good one (as long as we rotate it every now and then so we don't permanently keep an article out of the pool). I suggest that the reserve blurb be recorded somewhere on the WP:TFA/R page, since some of us (ahem, me) are likely to forget where to look for it in an emergency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Three should be good, just in case. What I suggest is that every six months, Raul and Dabomb empty the page and run the articles that are on the emergency page, and the community can select some more. That kinda thing, anyway, we can work it out. We have a reserve and Raul and Dabomb get a little of their work prepared for them. Win win.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll offer a more permanent solution <gulp> ... I've never wanted to deal with the coprolalia-related vandalism that would likely erupt were Tourette syndrome to run as TFA, Raul has respected that, so it's been kinda sorta effectively out of the pool anyway. You can use it as the emergency blurb, and then it wouldn't have to be rotated unless it's used. You would probably have to semi it for vandalism, though. If you decide to put it up, let me know, I'll check the blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I just realized we missed our chance to post Jenna Jameson! Reso lute 02:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but we'd look like we abused the opportunity to select an article when given it. It's better this way.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh pooh... you're no fun. Reso lute 03:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. :) Anyway, I've added the link to the emergency blurbs to the header at WP:TFA/R, and there may be one or two other places we might want to add a link. Not too public.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Found-- you meant WT:TFAR (the talk page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WT:TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)