Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 178

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laraib ahmad was born sulanpur of a little village in dhakwa.but no he live in kanpur

protecting mainpage articles

[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Is_it_time_to_revisit_the_protection_status_of_the_article_featured_on_the_main_page.3F. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Bagge

[edit]

Vill höra lite mer om A.Bagge, blev fascinerande att han har gjort så mycket för musiken. Dels på egen hand och tillsammans med andra. Förvånad över att jag är äldre, (två år). Annveas (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google translates this as "Want to hear a little more about A.Bagge, was fascinating that he has done so much for music. Both on their own and with others. Surprised that I'm older, (two years)"

Hi Annveas@, this is the talk page for the Main page on the English Wikipedia. Assuming you mean Anders Bagge, the place to discuss that article, in English, is at talk:Anders Bagge. There is an article on the Swedish Wikipedia at sv:Anders Bagge. Edgepedia (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia has now officially gone to hell ...

[edit]

No, not because of the above subject, but because we now have a cute cat picture as the Featured Picture of the Day.

Obviously it's all about getting clicks fom now on ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should have more articles on cats featured. I nominate Frank's Pussy. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Let's get Catgirl that bronze star on it then. GamerPro64 04:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I mention the Kitten War site, and the intermittent withdrawal of the Argos cat-alogue. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Van Buren

[edit]

Fantastic TFP of Martin Van Buren, by Mathew Brady ! A visage of true character... Sca (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, very good article and nice picture too. Much better than the Cock article75.73.114.111 (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balance on the main page

[edit]

Time for a few more chappesses on the MP to match the chaps? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How about some Ada Jafri? BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 08:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK error

[edit]

Someone please answer in the "Errors in the current or next Did you know..." section. — Bill william comptonTalk 13:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

[edit]

Cock "Frank" ? Why are you are showing an article about movie of the penis of the man ! I knew what I have come to expect from online encyclopedia, and it is not this. In addition, the page is locked, how am I supposed to edit ? You guys are slipping ... Frankscock (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read an article. It's about stupid Canada movies. Who heard of this "cock"? Writer of the article was laughing all the way as he probably chose a movie with a provocative title. Frankscock (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about a film, singular, not movies plural. Perhaps you didn't read it that well, or perhaps we're still waiting for Mr Maturity to pay a visit? Nice shiny account you have - always good to see new, open-minded editors joining us.... - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was rude of the  — Crisco 1492 (talk) and the SchroCat (talk) to tell me that my spelling was bad. It is not my fault, it has been limited to the translator. You should be more welcoming for new users create a fun alternative, Wikipedia, you guys are supposed to be to an experience collaborative. Franklin dfd (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... do you know the story of trolls under glass bridges? Seriously, "stupid Canada movies", "You guys are slipping", "Writer of the article was laughing all the way as he probably chose a movie with a provocative title"... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am not a troll. I was ashamed to look at the article. Who is the writer? I think he has been trying to provoke an imperfect reaction by making sure the word "penis" and the erection of Frank's featured movie becomes the front page. Franklin dfd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. So what is it, exactly, you are ashamed of? The existence of AIDS? The suffering the disease causes? Perhaps you are ashamed of homosexuality? Perhaps you think "those people" shouldn't be mentioned or covered? I mean, you said you read the article, so obviously your concern is the content, right? You're not so childish as to register multiple accounts just to whine about the movie's title, right? Resolute 15:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm offended by the image being used on the front page. How dare they show someone drinking orange juice out of a plastic cup? What image are we trying to show for our future generations to know such taboo was a thing? GamerPro64 17:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I sympathize with OP here. TFA director/former TFA director Raul had blacklisted Jenna Jameson from appearing on the main page for the longest time because the subject matter was considered too provocative. Is that article any more provocative than what we have here, particularly the title? It's great to say that we, as editors, can take a sober, scholarly approach to all sorts of unorthodox subject matter. And we can; that's one of the many great things about Wikipedia. But today's featured article is primarily for readers, not editors, and we should at least take into consideration what our readers would expect to see on the main page of a top-ten website, rather than focusing solely on what we think they should see.

Let me offer one hypothetical: suppose the main page featured article was Nigger. For an entire day, we'd have that word displayed very prominently on our main page. Would that really be the type of image that we'd want to present? Is there any doubt whatsoever that the heaps of criticism that we'd receive would be richly deserved? --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat it". No, a featured-quality article on nigger as a word should be featured. As for Raul's unilateral decision about Jameson... that's already quite controversial, and many editors feel the article (if it still meets the FA criteria) should be run. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail on the head. If Nigger becomes a featured article, I see no valid reason to bar a main page appearance. (As a Jew, I'll note that the same goes for Kike.)
We frequently run articles about massacres and other ghastly events, but we're worried about mentioning naughty words? —David Levy 00:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the quality of that particular article, I think it would be a fine idea. Knee-jerk reactionists can go on having knee-jerk reactions, and the rest of us will carry on sensibly. Vranak (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED is always well worth remembering. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but whenever WP:NOTCENSORED is invoked, it's usually a gross oversimplification. It's a bit more nuanced than just bleating "NOTCENSORED" and doing whatever we want. It's not a substitute for actual editorial judgement. There are boatloads of words and images that are appropriate in an article context, but wouldn't be appropriate in a main page context. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. There is a big difference between doing a service to our readers and doing a service to ourselves by showing off how cutting-edge and uncensored we are. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more nuanced than just bleating "NOTCENSORED" and doing whatever we want.
No one (in this discussion) asserts that the principle gives us license to do "whatever we want".
We wouldn't make a non-featured article TFA because its subject is controversial and we want to show off to the world that Wikipedia is uncensored. And it's inappropriate for us to go out of our way to include content on the main page because it's likely to cause a stir, even if it complies with the section's criteria. (In one instance, someone cherry-picked a piece of trivia as an excuse to get the word "fuck" into DYK. This was ill-advised.)
In other words, WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that we should do something just because we can; it means that we shouldn't not do something just because it might upset/offend people.
There are boatloads of words and images that are appropriate in an article context, but wouldn't be appropriate in a main page context.
So far, we've covered the words "cock" (in the context meaning "penis") and "nigger". Can you provide other examples of words and images that you regard as off-limits? —David Levy 03:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in compiling a blacklist; I'd merely like to see some occasional restraint when selecting main page content. Failing that, we could certainly do a better job of addressing concerns from our readership when these items do appear. Such concerns are inevitably dismissed out of hand with a chorus of WP:NOTCENSORED and claims of prudishness. I'm not even sure that Frank's Cock is over the line regarding main page content. But again, anybody who thinks there is no line is delusional. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attempting to get a general idea of where you believe the line should be drawn (and on what basis). For our purposes, "I know it when I see it" isn't an actionable standard (particularly given the site's worldwide audience, comprising many distinct cultures).
I agree that complaints shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but in this instance, the OP's approach was hardly tactful. —David Levy 08:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) When will we have the 'vanilla/work/library/school safe' and 'anything goes' versions of the MP? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'vanilla list' would probably cover the following.

  • A selection of words #considered# 'gratuitously offensive.'
  • A variety of 'adult themes.'
  • Violence, 'very medical', 'some war-related topics.'
  • 'Certain historical topics, books and artworks etc.'
  • 'Topics which one thinks #other people are likely to have much discussion about on the MP talk page.'
  • 'The tenth reference to a theme in only a few days.'

One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.' Jackiespeel (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED says that content should not be removed; it does not say anything about making considerations about what we want to put on our front page. Indeed, Wikipedia:Offensive material in its current version talks explicitly about making considerations; and that's not even on the front page: Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.
Guidelines for what's considered appropriate for the front page can be decided through votes. First vote: should we have such guidelines at all? If yes:
  1. Which words are offensive? Individual vote for each candidate.
  2. Should titles containing offensive words not appear on the front page if they concern an obscure topic? If yes, Frank's Cock will not appear on the front page. If no, it may.
Add more votes as needed. --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting Wikipedia:Offensive material.
As discussed above, we don't favor controversial material and shouldn't go out of our way to insert it. For example, this photograph (which contains nudity) wouldn't be an appropriate addition to the Guitar article (where it would provide no illustrative value beyond that of an image not containing nudity, so readers wouldn't expect to find it there).
Likewise, this photograph (also containing nudity) would have little illustrative value at Beach (where the concept of nudity is addressed only in passing), but it's a perfect fit at Nude beach (where its omission would sacrifice the article's quality).
We don't suppress (let alone "vote" away) relevant, informative material on the basis that it's offensive. —David Levy 08:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point about Wikipedia:Offensive material is that we make considerations at all about what may shock readers. The main page is about promotion of our content; and if our readers are turned away by it, it works against its own purpose. NOTCENSORED does not apply to the main page, because the main page does not hold any information on its own, it only reflects/summarises other pages where the information is actually stored.
Out notability guidelines are ultimately completely subjective; but we still need them. And we still manage to create a sensible encyclopedia despite this obvious imperfection (indeed, notability is its own form of censorship, since information is actively suppressed). There are widely different views on what user behaviour should lead to a block, but we still have guidelines and block people to make things go smoother. This topic is no different from the two previous ones. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point about Wikipedia:Offensive material is that we make considerations at all about what may shock readers.
But the idea isn't to exclude content simply because it's "offensive"; it's to apply our normal inclusion standards instead of intentionally inserting controversial material because we can.
The main page is about promotion of our content; and if our readers are turned away by it, it works against its own purpose.
Readers are "turned away" by all sorts of things. Restricting the main page's content to subjects widely regarded as pleasant would hardly convey the encyclopedia's nature.
NOTCENSORED does not apply to the main page,
That's been debated for years.
because the main page does not hold any information on its own, it only reflects/summarises other pages where the information is actually stored.
And in terms of subject matter, it's intended to reflect the encyclopedia as a whole. We might showcase an article about a mass murder one day and a pop singer the next.
Out notability guidelines are ultimately completely subjective; but we still need them. And we still manage to create a sensible encyclopedia despite this obvious imperfection (indeed, notability is its own form of censorship, since information is actively suppressed).
Do you acknowledge that there's a material distinction between omitting information on the basis that it's non-notable and omitting information on the basis that it's offensive?
Certainly, assessing notability entails the application of arbitrary and imperfect criteria, but the level of subjectivity is nowhere near as great.
Editors might not unanimously agree on how much coverage by reliable sources a subject must receive (as one example of many) in order to be considered notable, but such considerations are relatively objective measures. Conversely, the determination that something is offensive is purely subjective (and easily swayed by systemic bias at the English Wikipedia level, resulting in the identification of material widely regarded as objectionable only among members of certain cultures).
But if we are to vote on what's offensive, allow me to be the first to cast a ballot: I'm offended by the idea of voting "offensive" words off the main page.
There are widely different views on what user behaviour should lead to a block, but we still have guidelines and block people to make things go smoother.
That's even less connected.
This topic is no different from the two previous ones.
Should I interpret this to mean that you don't recognize any material distinctions? —David Levy 12:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the idea isn't to exclude content simply because it's "offensive"; it's to apply our normal inclusion standards instead of intentionally inserting controversial material because we can.
That may be what it says literally (it seems more like the page contradicts itself, ultimately), but expectations on what to find in articles are not formed from nothing. (quote: respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible [...])
And in terms of subject matter, it's intended to reflect the encyclopedia as a whole. We might showcase an article about a mass murder one day and a pop singer the next.
In that case, they should have been randomly selected with the only criterion being that notability is met. Instead, we only have featured articles in that spot, presumably because they make for a better reading.
Assessing notability is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen, just like assessing offensiveness is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen.
and easily swayed by systemic bias at the English Wikipedia level, resulting in the identification of material widely regarded as objectionable only among members of certain cultures
Indeed; and that's how everything goes here. We only have articles on subjects that we have people to write about, and we only have featured articles for the content that our authors cares enough about to make featured.
Here's another funny detail from notability: according to WP:NASTRO, a star is not inherently notable, even though it has much more influence on the Universe than any tiny hill down here on Earth that we may have an article on, and which it may outlive by billions of years.
Should I interpret this to mean that you don't recognize any material distinctions?
They are no different in the sense that the topics are complicated with no ideal solution. Any solution is a compromise, but a solution is still possible. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be what it says literally (it seems more like the page contradicts itself, ultimately),
To what contradiction are you referring?
but expectations on what to find in articles are not formed from nothing. (quote: respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible [...])
Readers conventionally expect to find material that aids in their comprehension of the article's subject.
In the case of the Guitar article, they expect to see images of guitars, guitarists playing guitars, and other things directly relevant to the subject of guitars. They don't expect to see a photograph of a random nude woman who happens to be holding a guitar.
Of course, no off-topic material, irrespective of whether someone finds it offensive, should appear in articles. Wikipedia:Offensive material exists because some editors have gone out of their way to include controversial content purely for the sake of including controversial content (either maliciously or in a misguided attempt to demonstrate that Wikipedia is not censored). There's no dispute that this is highly inappropriate.
In that case, they should have been randomly selected with the only criterion being that notability is met. Instead, we only have featured articles in that spot, presumably because they make for a better reading.
I was careful to preface my statement with the phrase "in terms of subject matter", precisely to avoid the above misinterpretation.
The various main page sections serve different purposes and operate with different criteria. (TFA, for example, exists to showcase featured articles.) But in terms of subject matter, we seek to reflect the encyclopedia as a whole.
Assessing notability is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen, just like assessing offensiveness is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen.
You're ignoring a fundamental distinction. Compiling information about notable subjects is key to Wikipedia's mission. Suppressing "offensive" words and images is not.
Indeed; and that's how everything goes here. We only have articles on subjects that we have people to write about, and we only have featured articles for the content that our authors cares enough about to make featured.
Yes, I'm well aware of the issues stemming from systemic bias. And I'm baffled as to why you wish to exacerbate the problem by allowing local majorities to vote away content that offends them.
Here's another funny detail from notability: according to WP:NASTRO, a star is not inherently notable, even though it has much more influence on the Universe than any tiny hill down here on Earth that we may have an article on, and which it may outlive by billions of years.
I don't assert that our notability standards are perfect. Perhaps they should be changed to permit more articles about stars and/or fewer articles about tiny hills and such.
They are no different in the sense that the topics are complicated with no ideal solution. Any solution is a compromise, but a solution is still possible.
Only if it addresses an actual problem. —David Levy 19:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To what contradiction are you referring? [...] Readers conventionally expect to find material that aids in their comprehension of the article's subject.
I think you have to make up your mind here: does WP:Offensive material exist because we want the articles to be on-topic or because we are catering to our readers? The two are not the same.
I was careful to preface my statement with the phrase "in terms of subject matter", precisely to avoid the above misinterpretation.
The featured articles will always represent a subset of the topics that we cover. They are by far the most visible on our main page.
You're ignoring a fundamental distinction. Compiling information about notable subjects is key to Wikipedia's mission. Suppressing "offensive" words and images is not. [...] Yes, I'm well aware of the issues stemming from systemic bias. And I'm baffled as to why you wish to exacerbate the problem by allowing local majorities to vote away content that offends them.
The content is still there, but simply not reflected onto the main page. That doesn't mean that we suppress it, but that we do not actively promote it via our main page. Otherwise, it is treated exactly the same any other content, as it should be (with the exception of images, from my POV; but that is a separate topic).
I don't assert that our notability standards are perfect. Perhaps they should be changed to permit more articles about stars and/or fewer articles about tiny hills and such.
They can't be. That's the issue that I was trying to illustrate.
You more or less used as an argument that any solution here will be flawed, when in reality we already have lots of necessarily flawed policies in place. It is not a problem unique to this topic. That's why I am mentioning this.
Only if it addresses an actual problem.
The actual problem is that people may avoid the main page if they are "worried" about what they might encounter there. When people search, they themselves control which articles they want to read (any default manipulation of search results would of course be an obvious violation of NOTCENSORED, anyway). --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to make up your mind here: does WP:Offensive material exist because we want the articles to be on-topic or because we are catering to our readers? The two are not the same.
As explained above, it exists to discourage the insertion of "offensive" material for the sake of inserting "offensive" material. It doesn't mean that we should exclude material because it's "offensive"; it means that we shouldn't include "offensive" material that otherwise wouldn't make the cut (based on our normal content standards).
As Bongwarrior mentioned, editors sometimes cite WP:NOTCENSORED as a mandate to favor controversial content and prohibit its removal for any reason (even if better alternatives exist). This is the sort of misunderstanding that Wikipedia:Offensive material is intended to address.
If editors seeking to ruffle feathers or make a misguided point commonly inserted unhelpful photographs of cats, Wikipedia:Feline material would set them straight.
The featured articles will always represent a subset of the topics that we cover. They are by far the most visible on our main page.
I'm unclear on what the above response is intended to convey. Please elaborate.
The content is still there, but simply not reflected onto the main page.
Firstly, I'm referring to the main page's content.
Secondly, "the content is still there" is a common argument among editors who wish to censor articles by hiding "objectionable" images behind warning messages that readers must click to display them.
It isn't sufficient that the material in question remain available via some means. Treating it differently than we treat any other content (all else being equal) contradicts our fundamental principles.
That doesn't mean that we suppress it,
You advocate suppressing material from the main page (by allowing users to "vote" away words that offend them).
but that we do not actively promote it via our main page.
Where in our policies and guidelines is it established that content deemed "offensive" is less worthy of promotion? Do you believe that removing an incentive to contribute such material would improve the encyclopedia?
Otherwise, it is treated exactly the same any other content, as it should be
The operative word is "otherwise".
(with the exception of images, from my POV; but that is a separate topic).
I'm interested in reading your thoughts on the matter.
You more or less used as an argument that any solution here will be flawed,
My point is that any such "solution" would be highly biased and discriminatory. Through "voting", we would eliminate main page content that offends local majorities (members of the national/ethnic/religious/political groups that predominate among our editors) while leaving in place material offensive to others.
I note this not to assert that the "solution" would be flawed or incomplete, but because it would actively cause harm.
If we could ensure, with 100% certainty, that no one visiting the main page encounter material that he/she regards as objectionable, we still shouldn't. That's inconsistent with our mission.
when in reality we already have lots of necessarily flawed policies in place.
As noted above, said policies are necessarily flawed because they cover matters that are necessary to the encyclopedia's operation.
The actual problem is that people may avoid the main page if they are "worried" about what they might encounter there.
And that's entirely appropriate. Alternatively, they're welcome to create/visit derivative websites that cater to their sensibilities.
You'd prefer that we lure readers into the encyclopedia by providing a false sense of security? You'd prefer that we discriminate against certain cultures by demonstrating favoritism toward others?
When people search, they themselves control which articles they want to read
And if someone is worried about being exposed to subjects that offend him/her, that's precisely what he/she should do. "Problem" solved. —David Levy 12:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) As explained above, it exists to discourage the insertion of "offensive" material for the sake of inserting "offensive" material. It doesn't mean that we should exclude material because it's "offensive"; it means that we shouldn't include "offensive" material that otherwise wouldn't make the cut (based on our normal content standards).
That's contradicted by the sentence I quoted a part of, and which you referred to; hence my question. Perhaps the sentence should be modified or removed.
I'm unclear on what the above response is intended to convey. Please elaborate.
We do not reflect all of our content through the featured articles, and the featured articles are the best promoted articles.
It isn't sufficient that the material in question remain available via some means. Treating it differently than we treat any other content (all else being equal) contradicts our fundamental principles. [...] Where in our policies and guidelines is it established that content deemed "offensive" is less worthy of promotion? Do you believe that removing an incentive to contribute such material would improve the encyclopedia?
The content is not available through "some means", it is avalable through the main method content is accessed through: searches and internal links. The main page in its current design is a mainly promotional service (ITN and OTD are perhaps the only exceptions) All the main page actually needeed to be is a search box. That way, we'd have no promotional bias. Despite this, we chose to have a more inviting front page. When we first chose to have a more inviting main page, we should go all the way: be selective with what we put on it. Now, if Frank's cock was a well-known film, it would seem silly to not have it featured; but when it is an obscure 20 year old short film with no interwiki, we have to consider whether including it on the main page is beneficial to our mission or not (the mission of spreading information).
You advocate suppressing material from the main page (by allowing users to "vote" away words that offend them).
Yes, from the main page. I am not really interested in what offends Wikipedia users, but rather whether or not including certain forms of material on our main page is likely have us lose readers; or have readers frequent us/refer to us less than they otherwise would have.
The operative word is "otherwise".
Again, the main page is no normal page. Any article that is linked to from the main page is during that time given very special treatment; a special form of treatment a great many articles are likely to never receive.
I'm interested in reading your thoughts on the matter.
Our mission is to spread information. Images are more likely to cause a physical reaction in a reader than what text is. If there were images that e.g. cause serious nausea in 25% of our readers, then these readers, having encountered one such image, migh be a lot more careful in the future when it comes to which articles on Wikipedia they chose to read, and may as a result of this be ignorant on topics they otherwise wouldn't have been, because they fear exposure to similar images again.
The easiest solution to this would be to have an easily available turn on/off all images on Wikipedia. A more time-consuming alternative would be to categorise images on Commons according to reactions they are likely to cause in a reader, and then let the individual wikipedias decide whether or not images of a certain category should require an extra click by default.
If we could ensure, with 100% certainty, that no one visiting the main page encounter material that he/she regards as objectionable, we still shouldn't. That's inconsistent with our mission. [...] As noted above, said policies are necessarily flawed because they cover matters that are necessary to the encyclopedia's operation.
That's thea idealistic position. But what if we lost 80% of our readers because they felt that Wikipedia had a "gross" way of representing its content - how would that go along with our mission of spreading information? I am a pragmatist, so actual results are just as important to me as theoretical ideals.
You'd prefer that we lure readers into the encyclopedia by providing a false sense of security?
It is no more "luring" than having featured articles on our main page could have readers think that most of our articles are of a similar standard.
You'd prefer that we discriminate against certain cultures by demonstrating favoritism toward others?
Can all cultures reasonably expect that their sensitivies would simultaneously be taken notice of at the one same website? No. But we can note the sensitivies that a) are shared among the majority of cultures, and b) apply to the culture(s) that make up the core of our reader base.
And if someone is worried about being exposed to subjects that offend him/her, that's precisely what he/she should do. "Problem" solved.
The main page is the landing page, so it's not quite that simple. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's contradicted by the sentence I quoted a part of, and which you referred to; hence my question. Perhaps the sentence should be modified or removed.
No contradiction exists, as I've attempted to explain.
"We should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." This doesn't mean "remove all images that offend readers" or even "apply special requirements regarding the educational value of images that offend readers". (That would sacrifice articles' quality.) It means "don't deliberately use images that offend readers instead of images of equal or greater educational value that don't offend readers". (See my Guitar example.)
We refer to "conventional expectations" in the context of "offensive material" because some editors mistakenly believe that such content is favored and go out of their way to insert it. Again, if this commonly occurred with pictures of cats, Wikipedia:Feline material would advise editors to "respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article" by not including adorable kitty photographs where they aren't needed.
We do not reflect all of our content through the featured articles, and the featured articles are the best promoted articles.
Obviously, our options are limited to the pool of featured articles (the makeup of which is subject to systemic bias). But from that pool, we attempt to select as diverse an assortment of topics as possible. We don't bar the appearance of featured articles deemed "offensive". (Even Raul's unilateral and controversial exclusion of Jenna Jameson was based entirely upon his lack of inclination to deal with possible complaints, not a determination that the subject matter was inappropriate.)
The content is not available through "some means", it is avalable through the main method content is accessed through: searches and internal links.
You advocate that such material be excluded from the main page. Others, applying similar logic and the same "the content is still there" argument, want it hidden within articles (requiring readers to click through warning messages to access it). Obviously, the latter is more extreme, but the underlying justification is not. As soon as we single out "offensive" material for special treatment, we've failed in our mission to disseminate encyclopedic information without bias.
When we first chose to have a more inviting main page, we should go all the way: be selective with what we put on it.
The main page is intended to invite readers to access the encyclopedia that actually exists, not a hypothetical variant containing only material that makes them happy.
Now, if Frank's cock was a well-known film, it would seem silly to not have it featured; but when it is an obscure 20 year old short film with no interwiki, we have to consider whether including it on the main page is beneficial to our mission or not (the mission of spreading information).
You believe that our mission of spreading information is better accomplished by favoring subjects with which readers are more likely to be familiar already?
One of Wikipedia's strongest assets is its unprecedentedly comprehensive nature. Unlike paper encyclopedias, we have the luxury of covering relatively obscure topics. When an article about one reaches the "featured" level, this is a noteworthy accomplishment, not an embarrassment.
Yes, from the main page.
Thank you for acknowledging that this constitutes suppression.
I am not really interested in what offends Wikipedia users, but rather whether or not including certain forms of material on our main page is likely have us lose readers; or have readers frequent us/refer to us less than they otherwise would have.
If our goal were to attract as many readers as possible (without regard for our fundamental principles), we could do all sorts of things differently.
Again, the main page is no normal page. Any article that is linked to from the main page is during that time given very special treatment; a special form of treatment a great many articles are likely to never receive.
Indeed, it isn't possible to promote every article on the main page. It is possible to promote articles without considering their level of "offensiveness".
The easiest solution to this would be to have an easily available turn on/off all images on Wikipedia.
I've argued in favor of precisely that feature.
A more time-consuming alternative would be to categorise images on Commons according to reactions they are likely to cause in a reader, and then let the individual wikipedias decide whether or not images of a certain category should require an extra click by default.
As discussed when such a system was proposed, various factors render this neither appropriate nor technically feasible.
But what if we lost 80% of our readers because they felt that Wikipedia had a "gross" way of representing its content - how would that go along with our mission of spreading information?
What if we lost 80% of our readers because they felt that Wikipedia had betrayed its core values by engaging in censorship? How would that go along with our mission of spreading information?
Both your hypothetical and mine are highly speculative (and probably wildly unrealistic).
And again, our goal isn't to draw in as many readers as possible by presenting whatever content makes them happy.
It is no more "luring" than having featured articles on our main page could have readers think that most of our articles are of a similar standard.
The DYK section appears directly below TFA, and that's no accident. (In case you aren't aware, DYK previously appeared in the right-hand column. I suggested swapping its position with that of the OTD section, with one of the justifications being that it was sensible to promote our newest content alongside our most polished content.)
Can all cultures reasonably expect that their sensitivies would simultaneously be taken notice of at the one same website? No.
Agreed. And given our mission to write an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view, no culture (apart from readers of the English language, obviously) should expect special treatment here.
Systemic bias is unavoidable, but we needn't codify it and introduce it where none is present.
But we can note the sensitivies that a) are shared among the majority of cultures, and b) apply to the culture(s) that make up the core of our reader base.
In other words, we should set aside our fundamental principle of neutrality by pandering to majorities. And if that means barring the Frank's Cock article from the main page because most of our readers dislike seeing the word "cock" or barring the Barack Obama article from the main page because most of our readers oppose miscegenation, so be it. Whatever the majority says goes.
No, thank you.
The main page is the landing page, so it's not quite that simple.
The landing page located at www.wikipedia.org is a suitable alternative. So are search engines. —David Levy 17:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Now, if Frank's cock was a well-known film, it would seem silly to not have it featured; but when it is an obscure 20 year old short film with no interwiki..." - sorry, but since when is "it's well known" a criteria for "Today's Featured Article"? Any article which is notable enough for Wikipedia can be a featured article if it is comprehensive enough, and any featured article can (not to say "will" or "should", but can) run in TFA. If you think the film is so insignificant that it should not run in TFA, then by implication you are saying it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. And since when is the number of interwikis a valid criterion for judging an article's notability or validity? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No contradiction exists, as I've attempted to explain.
Yes, if the point is to keep images as on-topic as possible, then "respect[ing] the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic" is irrelevant. It is also contradicting since it could in theory lead to the exclusion of pictures that are relevant just because readers would not expect to find them there.
not a determination that the subject matter was inappropriate
No subject matter is 'inappropriate' in itself; that's not what I have been arguing.
Others, applying similar logic and the same "the content is still there" argument, want it hidden within articles (requiring readers to click through warning messages to access it). Obviously, the latter is more extreme, but the underlying justification is not.
I agree with the argument, but I would strongly oppose any such implementation. It seems rather counterintuitive.
As soon as we single out "offensive" material for special treatment, we've failed in our mission to disseminate encyclopedic information without bias.
To avoid bias is practically impossible. At best, it is a question of attemptimg to minimalise it. It is true that labelling certain forms of content as "offensive" is an obvious form for bias. However, by not putting it on the main page, we are not saying that it is offensive, only recognising that putting it there does not fit convential standards and expectations for regular public websites. The articles are there; as easily accessible as any other article; they are not put in a special place or subsection of the website.
The main page is intended to invite readers to access the encyclopedia that actually exists, not a hypothetical variant containing only material that makes them happy.
With the enormous amount of articles we have, covering a vast amount of completely different topics, looking at the featured articles is not going to give a realistic idea of the total span of our articles; there are simply too many of them for true comprehension.
You believe that our mission of spreading information is better accomplished by favoring subjects with which readers are more likely to be familiar already?
Nope. The context is potentially 'offensive' article titles; the topic's obscurity in itself is no issue.
If our goal were to attract as many readers as possible (without regard for our fundamental principles), we could do all sorts of things differently. [...] And again, our goal isn't to draw in as many readers as possible by presenting whatever content makes them happy.
Obviously, that cannot be the goal. At the same time, if we didn't care about attracting readers, we wouldn't need a main page like this. We wouldn't need any fancy design, we wouldn't care about usability or anything such. We'd focus solely on how be as effective as possible when it comes to writing articles.
barring the Barack Obama article from the main page because most of our readers oppose miscegenation
I assume you mean that as a hypothetical to illustrate the principle, since it is an obvious absurdity by contemporary standards.
Whatever the majority says goes.
It's not a matter of what the majority says, but about what expecations readers have for regular public websites. There is an expectation that you may get offended, but more about opinions expressed rather than use of language (by the journalist, anyway) or graphic images.
@Crisco 1492 Now you are removing the statetment from its context. The context is "offensive material", not notability. --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A word used in a certain meaning is no less offensive if it part of an extremely well known work than it is if it is in a work which is not as well known. You brought the issue of significance and notability into this discussion. I was merely pointing out the logical flaw there: how well-known an article's subject is has nothing to do with its place in TFA, nor with the offensiveness of the word(s) which are considered offensive. Furthermore, any exceptions based on a work being "well-known" would be purely subjective, simply because "well-known" varies between group to group. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the point is to keep images as on-topic as possible, then "respect[ing] the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic" is irrelevant.
Readers don't conventionally expect images to be directly relevant to articles' subjects?
It is also contradicting since it could in theory lead to the exclusion of pictures that are relevant just because readers would not expect to find them there.
You seem to have forgotten about the "as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article" part (perhaps because you didn't quote it this time).
No subject matter is 'inappropriate' in itself; that's not what I have been arguing.
I was referring to Raul's rationale. He explicitly acknowledged that his decision to exclude the Jenna Jameson article from TFA contention stemmed purely from his expectation that the resultant reactions would inconvenience him.
To avoid bias is practically impossible. At best, it is a question of attemptimg to minimalise it.
Indeed, it's an ongoing challenge. And for some reason, you want us to introduce additional bias.
It is true that labelling certain forms of content as "offensive" is an obvious form for bias. However, by not putting it on the main page, we are not saying that it is offensive,
You suggested that we vote on "which words are offensive" to establish "guidelines for what's considered appropriate for the front page". Those are your words.
only recognising that putting it there does not fit convential standards and expectations for regular public websites.
Define "regular public websites".
The articles are there; as easily accessible as any other article; they are not put in a special place or subsection of the website.
We're discussing the main page.
With the enormous amount of articles we have, covering a vast amount of completely different topics, looking at the featured articles is not going to give a realistic idea of the total span of our articles; there are simply too many of them for true comprehension.
Again, we attempt to select as diverse an assortment of topics as possible. The FA pool will never be a perfect representation of the encyclopedia as a whole, but we do our best with what's available. Removing "offensive" topics from consideration has the opposite effect.
And we're discussing the main page in its entirety, not merely TFA.
The context is potentially 'offensive' article titles; the topic's obscurity in itself is no issue.
Firstly, all article titles are potentially offensive.
Secondly, you appear to assert that our "mission of spreading information" is fulfilled when we promote articles whose subjects are well known and articles whose subjects are obscure and "inoffensive", but not articles whose subjects are obscure and "offensive". I don't understand how a subject's prominence is even relevant, apart from the existence of a greater opportunity to "spread information" with which readers are heretofore unfamiliar.
Obviously, that cannot be the goal. At the same time, if we didn't care about attracting readers, we wouldn't need a main page like this.
We certainly care about attracting readers, but not at all costs.
I assume you mean that as a hypothetical to illustrate the principle, since it is an obvious absurdity by contemporary standards.
Yes, those are hypothetical examples. The specific topics are immaterial.
It's not a matter of what the majority says,
"Guidelines for what's considered appropriate for the front page can be decided through votes." "Which words are offensive? Individual vote for each candidate." Again, those are your words.
but about what expecations readers have for regular public websites.
Definition, please.
There is an expectation that you may get offended, but more about opinions expressed rather than use of language (by the journalist, anyway) or graphic images.
1. Wikipedia isn't a journalistic endeavor.
2. [citation needed]
@Crisco 1492 Now you are removing the statetment from its context. The context is "offensive material", not notability.
The problem is that you're inexplicably conflating the two issues by citing how "well-known" a subject is as a factor in determining whether it's okay to display its "offensive" name. —David Levy 15:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A word used in a certain meaning is no less offensive if it part of an extremely well known work than it is if it is in a work which is not as well known. 
Which is nowhere implied.
how well-known an article's subject is has nothing to do with its place in TFA
Not according to current policy, perhaps, but this debate is about an hypothetical change to them, anyway.
Furthermore, any exceptions based on a work being "well-known" would be purely subjective, simply because "well-known" varies between group to group
It's a consideration similar to notability and what should make it to the ITN.
Readers don't conventionally expect images to be directly relevant to articles' subjects?
They probably do. See below.
You seem to have forgotten about the "as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article" part (perhaps because you didn't quote it this time).
This part kills the part that precedes it. It's at the core of the contradiction. Which expectations are we supposed to respect other than relevance to the article? If there are none, then there is no point mentioning expectations at all; what people expect is then irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether the image is on-topic or not.
Indeed, it's an ongoing challenge. And for some reason, you want us to introduce additional bias.
Does not a main page promoting articles add additional bias, perhaps? It really does. It is about weighing pros and cons.
You suggested that we vote on "which words are offensive" to establish "guidelines for what's considered appropriate for the front page". Those are your words.
Sloppy wording on my part. It is intended to read something like "which words can be considered offensive in the English language".
Define "regular public websites".
Websites that do not intend to reach out to a subsection of society (children excluded), nor have a verry narrow scope.
We're discussing the main page.
I don't think it makes sense to treat the main page generally like a content page. We seem to simply disagree on this point.
And we're discussing the main page in its entirety, not merely TFA.
Still far too many articles exist for readers to realistically make an assessment of our content span based on what we put on the main page.
Firstly, all article titles are potentially offensive.
They are, but I don't think you misunderstood what I meant. More accurate language just for the sake of it can quickly become too time-consuming.
Secondly, you appear to assert that our "mission of spreading information" is fulfilled when we promote articles whose subjects are well known and articles whose subjects are obscure and "inoffensive", but not articles whose subjects are obscure and "offensive". I don't understand how a subject's prominence is even relevant, apart from the existence of a greater opportunity to "spread information" with which readers are heretofore unfamiliar.
The mission is fulfilled by people actually reading the encyclopedia. If they don't want to read it because it leaves a bad taste in their mouth, then the mission is failed.
The prominence is relevant in this context in the sense that people expect to see prominent things being covered. It would be weird if we didn't cover some of them just because a lot of people could find them distasteful. It would be much easier to defend putting articles like that on the main page.
We certainly care about attracting readers, but not at all costs.
No, certainly not. Good thing this is not "at all costs".
Again, those are your words.
Yes, and I would like them to vote with the thought in mind what people expect to find on the main page of a website like this, and not merely what offends people.
1. Wikipedia isn't a journalistic endeavor.
Substitute "journalist" with "writer".
2. [citation needed].
I am sure one of those could have been added to some of your own statements. It is my understanding from reading many of the most used websites. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to current policy, perhaps, but this debate is about an hypothetical change to them, anyway.
And we're struggling to understand how such a change relates to the matter of "offensiveness".
It's a consideration similar to notability and what should make it to the ITN.
As discussed above, the various main page sections serve different functions. It makes as much sense to apply ITN-like criteria to TFA as it does to demand that all of ITN's bold links lead to featured articles.
This part kills the part that precedes it. It's at the core of the contradiction.
The contradiction exists between the text's intended meaning and your misinterpretation.
Which expectations are we supposed to respect other than relevance to the article?
Again, as its title indicates, the page does pertain to material considered likely to offend. You simply aren't understanding why we've addressed said material. As I've attempted to explain, it isn't because we wish to purge it from the encyclopedia or demand that it meet exceptionally high educational standards; it's because certain parties have inserted it because it's likely to offend, which isn't an appropriate rationale. So we're advising editors to keep readers' expectations in mind, watch for content that appears to defy said expectations, and remove it if doing so doesn't sacrifice the articles' quality (in which case the "offensive" material didn't belong in the first place).
Does not a main page promoting articles add additional bias, perhaps? It really does.
Please elaborate.
It is about weighing pros and cons.
Con: For the main page, we abandon our fundamental principle of neutrality.
Pro: Some of the page's readers are spared the horror of encountering words that upset them, such as "cock".
Actually, I don't regard the latter as a pro, as it entails cultural discrimination against other readers.
Sloppy wording on my part. It is intended to read something like "which words can be considered offensive in the English language".
I'm baffled as to what distinction you seek to draw.
I don't think it makes sense to treat the main page generally like a content page. We seem to simply disagree on this point.
Certainly, the main page differs from articles in various respects. But I see no valid reason to deviate in the area of neutrality, one of our fundamental principles.
And I noted that "we're discussing the main page" in response to your statement that "the articles are there; as easily accessible as any other article; they are not put in a special place or subsection of the website", a point of no direct relevance to the hypothetical suppression of material from the main page. (As previously noted, however, the topic of censoring articles is tangentially relevant, given the similar justifications involved.)
Still far too many articles exist for readers to realistically make an assessment of our content span based on what we put on the main page.
Again, we do our best to provide a representative sample. This includes content that some readers find offensive. If editors seeking to offend readers are causing certain types of material to be overrepresented on the main page, that's inappropriate and should be rectified. Apart from a small number of isolated incidents, I've seen no evidence of such a problem. The change that you advocate would impede our ability to seek topical balance.
They are, but I don't think you misunderstood what I meant. More accurate language just for the sake of it can quickly become too time-consuming.
I'm not quibbling over semantics. I'm pointing out the folly of attempting to weed out "offensive" material. Of course, unlike me, you have no problem with catering to majorities at the expense of minorities, so it's understandable that the concept would seem more straightforward from your perspective.
The mission is fulfilled by people actually reading the encyclopedia. If they don't want to read it because it leaves a bad taste in their mouth, then the mission is failed.
Why stop at the main page? Let's "vote" on what article content readers prefer and eliminate everything that leaves a bad taste in their mouths. If we include only the most popular topics and viewpoints, the majority will be happy and continue reading the encyclopedia. Mission accomplished!
Heck, maybe we should stop writing an encyclopedia altogether! Perhaps switching to a "celebrity gossip, recipes and dating advice" format would bring in more readers. That's what matters, right?
The prominence is relevant in this context in the sense that people expect to see prominent things being covered. It would be weird if we didn't cover some of them just because a lot of people could find them distasteful. It would be much easier to defend putting articles like that on the main page.
Only if one believes that our mission is to cover the best-known subjects.
No, certainly not. Good thing this is not "at all costs".
Abandoning our fundamental principle of neutrality, even on the main page alone, is an unacceptably high cost.
Yes, and I would like them to vote with the thought in mind what people expect to find on the main page of a website like this, and not merely what offends people.
Your words (once again): "Which words are offensive [subsequently amended to 'which words can be considered offensive in the English language']? Individual vote for each candidate." "Should titles containing offensive words not appear on the front page if they concern an obscure topic? If yes, Frank's Cock will not appear on the front page. If no, it may."
But okay, let's assume that this was an incomplete idea. What other criteria do you have in mind?
I am sure one of those could have been added to some of your own statements.
If you believe that I've made factual claims of questionable veracity, please bring them to my attention.
It is my understanding from reading many of the most used websites.
In other words, you've projected your personal expectations onto readers in general. —David Levy 20:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if one believes that our mission is to cover the best-known subjects.
There exists only a vague link between our main page and our mission.
You simply aren't understanding why we've addressed said material.
I've understood it perfectly well, which is why I am pointing out that the expectations of the readers are irrelevant, because ...the "offensive" material didn't belong in the first place. Thinking about what readers would expect may be used as a tool to spot irrelevant material or details, but that's something different. We aren't actually caring about readers' expectations, only the relevance of whatever potentially offensive content.
Please elaborate.
We've already touched the topic. For starters, the featured articles receive the best promotion, and there can be a huge difference in the likelyhood of two random articles becoming featured, a difference rooted in who it is that is writing this encyclopedia.
I'm baffled as to what distinction you seek to draw.
cow dung tastes terrible vs most people think cow dung tastes terrible. Subjectivity versus statistics. Look to what I was replying to.
If we include only the most popular topics and viewpoints, the majority will be happy and continue reading the encyclopedia. Mission accomplished!
No, because if we are removing content, then there is less of a point in having people read us. They'd not necessarily be any wiser from it.
Only if one believes that our mission is to cover the best-known subjects.
No more than banning troublemakers makes us believe that only "nice" people should be editing articles.
But okay, let's assume that this was an incomplete idea. What other criteria do you have in mind?
It was intended to introduce a new idea, not to be a detailed and well-crafted plan on how to arrive at a final solution. If the idea/principle does not receive much support, then it doesn't make that much sense to me to flesh it out.
If you believe that I've made factual claims of questionable veracity, please bring them to my attention.
This is largely a debate on principles, so the exact accuracy of facts isn't always that important; as long as things aren't too far off.
In other words, you've projected your personal expectations onto readers in general.
That's where the polls I talked about at first come in; to build consensus – or at least attempt to. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There exists only a vague link between our main page and our mission.
The main page functions as both a gateway to the encyclopedia and a catalyst for its growth.
I've understood it perfectly well, which is why I am pointing out that the expectations of the readers are irrelevant, because ...the "offensive" material didn't belong in the first place.
As far as I can tell, you're interpreting "expectations of the readers" as "what doesn't offend readers". That isn't what it means.
Some readers might find photographs of unclothed humans offensive. Fewer would be surprised to find them in the Nudity article (and regardless, they couldn't be removed without sacrificing the article's quality).
Now suppose that someone just decided to add this photograph to the Park article. Is it off-topic/irrelevant? Well, it depicts a park, so one could argue that it isn't. Does it illustrate the article's subject as well as other free images do? Surely not, so that concludes the matter, right? No, because the editor who inserted the photograph is responding with "WP:NOTCENSORED! Wikipedia is not censored! You're not allowed to remove the image!".
That's why Wikipedia:Offensive material exists. We pay special attention to what causes offense not because we want to do whatever it takes to avoid causing offense, but because we don't want to purposely cause offense.
We've already touched the topic. For starters, the featured articles receive the best promotion, and there can be a huge difference in the likelyhood of two random articles becoming featured, a difference rooted in who it is that is writing this encyclopedia.
As I've noted, the unfortunate existence of systemic bias doesn't justify the intentional introduction of systematic bias.
cow dung tastes terrible vs most people think cow dung tastes terrible.
Rather than voting on what they find offensive, you want users to vote on what they believe offends the site's readers in general. I recognize the distinction, but in the context of my argument, there's no material difference. (Please see my "100% certainty" comment.)
No, because if we are removing content, then there is less of a point in having people read us. They'd not necessarily be any wiser from it.
But what if people encounter articles (and elements thereof) that offend them, causing them to leave Wikipedia and never return? If we remove the content in question, at least they'll stay to read whatever's left. Right?
No more than banning troublemakers makes us believe that only "nice" people should be editing articles.
I'm not seeing the analogy.
It was intended to introduce a new idea, not to be a detailed and well-crafted plan on how to arrive at a final solution. If the idea/principle does not receive much support, then it doesn't make that much sense to me to flesh it out.
So you don't have anything in mind other than voting "offensive" material off the main page?
This is largely a debate on principles, so the exact accuracy of facts isn't always that important; as long as things aren't too far off.
I appended the {{citation needed}} tag to a statement whose accuracy is unknown to me. (It might be "far off".) —David Levy 23:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) We pay special attention to what causes offense not because we want to do whatever it takes to avoid causing offense, but because we don't want to purposely cause offense.
There could be an elephant in the park photo; a park in a location were elephants do not live in the wild. The elephant is irrelevant to the topic, so a photo without the elephant would be preferred. Very few people is likely to be offended by the presence of the elephant, but that is not really relevant; nor is it relevant what people expect from a park photo. Perhaps some places elephants in parks are commonplace, but that doesn't mean we should cater to the expectations of pepople from these places by having photos of elephants in parks where elephants do not naturally live. So again, expectations are irrelevant – they do nowhere enter the equation of whether an image should be used or not.
As I've noted, the unfortunate existence of systemic bias doesn't justify the intentional introduction of systematic bias.
The point was that a non-simplistic design of the main page introduces an extra layer of bias.
But what if people encounter articles (and elements thereof) that offend them, causing them to leave Wikipedia and never return? If we remove the content in question, at least they'll stay to read whatever's left. Right?
We'd have to live with that. There's a red line at censoring information. When the content itself becomes problematic rather than how we display or promote it, it's the reader that got issues.
I'm not seeing the analogy.
If some content would be barred from the main page, that doesn't mean it is any less important or useful, even if the most common human reaction would be to interpret it like this. It does not follow.
So you don't have anything in mind other than voting "offensive" material off the main page?
My idea is to avoid people having a bad view of Wikipedia where pretty much unnecessary. Before we'd start any votes at all, I'd assume we'd have quite a lot of debating on the topic. I'm no expert on the inner workings of the English Wikipedia, and therefore it doesn't make that much sense for me to dive head-first into details. I would first need the feedback that such a debate would generate. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There could be an elephant in the park photo; a park in a location were elephants do not live in the wild. The elephant is irrelevant to the topic, so a photo without the elephant would be preferred.
And if it were common for editors to pointedly add unhelpful photographs of elephants to articles, Wikipedia:Pachyderm material would advise against it.
Very few people is likely to be offended by the presence of the elephant, but that is not really relevant;
I've been attempting to explain that gauging the likelihood of offense is a means of detecting a particular manifestation of inappropriate image use that happens to be widespread. Purposely causing offense is disruptive, and we seek to prevent disruption.
So again, expectations are irrelevant – they do nowhere enter the equation of whether an image should be used or not.
Expectations are relevant because certain editors seek to deliberately defy them (in a manner that adds no value to the encyclopedia) for the sake of provocation. There's nothing contradictory about advising against that.
The point was that a non-simplistic design of the main page introduces an extra layer of bias.
My point is that the existence of unavoidable bias doesn't justify the intentional introduction of avoidable bias.
We'd have to live with that. There's a red line at censoring information.
And you and I disagree on where it's drawn.
If some content would be barred from the main page, that doesn't mean it is any less important or useful, even if the most common human reaction would be to interpret it like this.
The main page provides incentive to create and improve articles, whose editors derive satisfaction from the added exposure and resultant knowledge that others are more likely to benefit from their work. Barring certain topics or words from appearing on the main page would eliminate this incentive. In that respect, the actual articles' content would be adversely impacted.
My idea is to avoid people having a bad view of Wikipedia where pretty much unnecessary.
My position is that such a change would compromise a necessary standard and promote a bad view of Wikipedia among those opposed to censorship. —David Levy 17:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expectations are relevant because certain editors seek to deliberately defy them (in a manner that adds no value to the encyclopedia) for the sake of provocation. There's nothing contradictory about advising against that.
WP:Offensive material says that we should respect these expectations up to a certain point, when what we're actually supposed to do is to make sure that we neither ourselves attempt to be offensive for sake of it, nor let others get away with it. I can't really put it in clearer terms than this.
My point is that the existence of unavoidable bias doesn't justify the intentional introduction of avoidable bias.
And my point is that the main page does not need to be anything more than a search box. We can avoid the extra bias that the current main page design brings with it. --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Offensive material says that we should respect these expectations up to a certain point, when what we're actually supposed to do is to make sure that we neither ourselves attempt to be offensive for sake of it, nor let others get away with it.
I've cited a particular behavior (the purposeful insertion/retention of material intended to offend) to explain why the problem exists on a scale warranting the existence of a dedicated page. But inappropriate content ("offensive" or otherwise) — whether inserted intentionally or accidentally — doesn't belong. We needn't concern ourselves with contributors' motives, apart from intervening when a pattern of disruptive editing is recognized.
I can't really put it in clearer terms than this.
Nor can I.
And my point is that the main page does not need to be anything more than a search box. We can avoid the extra bias that the current main page design brings with it.
But then the page would cease to accomplish many of its longstanding goals (described above). Conversely, your suggestion is predicated on a goal inconsistent not only with the current main page, but with the project itself. —David Levy 20:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.'
Indeed, and that's a big problem. To a Hindu reader, this image might be more upsetting than any of the above examples are. Meanwhile, a Haredi Jew might find this image's display highly objectionable. The only "safe" content is none at all. —David Levy 08:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As 'the cup of tea' remark is taken from comments I made (and could add 'things which will annoy library and other computer blocking poliices( - I am referring 'to things encountered unexpectedly' (whether on the main page, through idly clicking on blue links/random article button) as distinct from 'deliberately looking for a topic' (shall we say for understanding a previously unknown term).

Entries on the main page involving 'sex, very medical/veterinary, war and similar, violence, and certain persons and events' and 'things constituting bad taste' are always likely to cause at least some degree of comment and complaint, however well the articles themselves are written.

I have said previously one of the benefits of the Main Page is to bring to the readers' attention to topics they would not otherwise be aware of, and it can be said of WP as well as the newspaper 'all human and other life (among many other things) can be found herein.'

There will always be degree of conflict between these two aspects - whatever arrangements WP makes to allow people to select which categories of topics they view. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of sxx (shhh!), I am shocked, shocked (!) by today's TFP of Mating Ulysses butterflies, a graphic depiction of said subject if ever there was one. Have we no shame? Sca (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's this? Entomological pornography on our main page! Surely these flying hussies could have used their wings to shield this disgusting display! I assure you I shall contact the the relevant authorities forthwith! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know how you make out. Sca (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the News: Uruguay and marijuana

[edit]

Was thinking perhaps "re-legalize" is the correct term, as cannabis-consumption laws are only about a century old in most cases. Although I understand that "legalize" has a more direct meaning to most folks. 72.35.135.79 (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legalize means "make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law". Therefore, you can only legalize something that had previously been criminalized. --Khajidha (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to expand the 'Other Areas of Wikipedia' section

[edit]

The 'Other areas of Wikipedia' is currently a collection of 6 static links to areas of the 'community' side of the wiki, one of which is already linked in the side bar (community portal). I propose that we use this area like our other featured content sections, and shine a spotlight on areas that would otherwise get little exposure. Examples of the types of featured areas would be policy (such as 5 pillars), editing advice/tutorials, areas to make proposals, areas to request articles, how to start an article, find help (reference desk), information about WikiProjects, how to register an account, how to upload a photograph, how to nominate featured content, etc.

Like other featured content, items would be rotated at an interval to be determined by the community, and blurbs would have to be written and approved before content would be entered into the rotation. The goal of this program would be to show readers that there are simple ways to get involved, and to drive traffic to areas that might otherwise be unnoticed by our readership. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I think that what is there now is a good collection of links for routing people to the destinations they are most likely to be looking for. This isn't an outreach section, as much as it is a help section. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, more information with regard to this particular section would be a good idea to provide additional resources to the reader and hopefully potential new editors, as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela

[edit]

Perhaps we could convert his news entry, moving it up in the list, to something like "The body of Nelson Mandela lay in state from 11–13 December at the Union Buildings in Pretoria and a state funeral will be held on 15 December 2013 in Qunu, South Africa." The goal here would be to establish a new record for an image, ousting the current, uh, incumbent. <grin>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really. I mean, no offense, but we do need to move on with a new image. The rover would be a nice one to feature.JanderVK (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have many options right now image-wise. Main page images must be free, and the only conceivable free images that I see among the current ITN blurbs would be a picture of the Moon or a picture of marijuana, neither of which would be very useful in my opinion (I don't believe we have any free images associated with the Chang'e 3 mission). If Peter O'Toole's death ends up being given a full blurb, a picture of him would be the most obvious solution. We don't normally add pictures for entries that are only listed in the RD section at the bottom. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No real objection, although I'm not sure how confident we should be about the Public Domain claim. The copyright on the trailer may not have been renewed, but surely that is a derivative work based on the film (?).
Is there a photo of Nelson Mandela pictured with Fernando Lugo we could use? Formerip (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like --Jayron32 05:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chang'e Flying to the Moon (Ren Shuai Ying).jpg
In China, Chang'e is the goddess of the Moon

You might use a more peripherally related illustration for Chang'e if there's no free-licensed image of the lander. But agreed there must be a free Mandela image somewhere. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good photo. I like that idea. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balance on the main page

[edit]

Three extra-terrestial topics (but, as Hitchikers... says, the Universe is a Big Place). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more visually appealing sister projects template

[edit]

IMO the design used for the sister projects list on Commons, commons:Template:Sisterprojects-en, is more visually appealing than the one used on en.wp today. It nicely wraps the projects under the Wikimedia logo, and de-emphasizes the project descriptions. How would people feel about using the same template here?--Eloquence* 09:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with our current Template:Wikipedia's sister projects (permalink).
I agree there is much to be preferred about the Commons version. My only worries would be: (1) color-contrast for the descriptions (does that meet the minimum? #767676 squeezes into AA compliance.), and (2) whether 3x4 or 4x3 is better (I suspect our 3x4 layout is preferable for dynamic sizing). –Quiddity (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice, but it would be strange to just drop it into our current design (in which we pointedly use one style of heading for dynamic content and one style for static content).
Moving the section back to the bottom of the page might be a viable solution. We swapped its location with that of Wikipedia languages to enable the latter to be any length without pushing down the former, but subsequent consensus has been to minimize the quantity of Wikipedias listed anyway. —David Levy 09:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some elements that are an improvement; shorter descriptions and the 4x3 layout. Even better would be a dynamic layout that reduces the number of columns automatically (and lose the table in the process). — Edokter (talk) — 12:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here for another proposal and some discussion... Although I like the Commons version better... Thanks, Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 20:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What next?

[edit]

Two toxic critters on the main page.

Comment not complaint. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, three strange hens and four golly birds, of course! And a dropbear in a peach tree. ♫ -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Obscure Wikipedia games' numbers X and X + 1: getting several items in a (slightly obscure topic) on the MP on the same day - and/or a sequence of stories on a theme over several days. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And after that, five olden things, six donkeys braying, seven sharks a-swimming, and a dropbear in a peach tree! ♪ -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... the nine lords a-leaping would be suitable for this version (and possibly 12 doctors hoovering tardily). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That frog is EVIL! 86.176.211.137 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English script

[edit]

Today the lead DYK reads:

... that hōchōdō (庖丁道, the way of the cleaver) is a traditional Japanese culinary art form of filleting a fish or fowl without touching it with one's hands (demonstration pictured)?

Why was the non-English script so important to be presented on the main page? This after all in English Wikipedia, right? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanophiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.68.21 (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Please post the same argument about the Dutch on ja.wp's FA blurb, then we'll talk. PhnomPencil (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Telling a person who asks a question to post the question in Wikipedia in another language is a cheap shot. If you have a reason, give it; if you don't, fix it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's more curious is why you're so bothered by Japanese script that you felt the need to complain here about it. Seriously? --Samuel Peoples (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's question hasn't been answered. Why is the non-English script there? HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters
Note that I don't know whether it's been applied properly in this instance. —David Levy 02:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the OP was complaining about 'hōchōdō'. My belief is the main complaint was about '庖丁道'. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're probably right. And I'm inclined to agree that its inclusion was superfluous. —David Levy 03:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is there because it was in the hook that the person who proposed the DYK wrote, and no one objected to it. Prodego talk 02:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you realise that just leads to another question. Why was it there in the hook? HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Jet

[edit]

How come there is a picture of him in the article but not on the main page. Yugenftf (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the picture is still in copyright, and not published under a free license. We can therefore justify using it on the article about the horse; but not on the main page. Other Wikipedias have slightly different rules; thus for example the German language Wikipedia would not be able to use that image on the article about the horse either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Main_Page#Why_is_a_Main_Page_section_missing_an_illustrative_image.3F CaptRik (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

Münchsmünster Abbey — Now that's obscure! Sca (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

[edit]

I need to know how to create a Wikipedia page or submit one Bobbybeefburger (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Starting an article. However, this is not the right place to ask - see the box at the top of this page about using and contributing to wikipedia. Richerman (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Featured Portal drive completed !!!

[edit]

The Main Page Featured Portal drive was successfully completed.

This was a collaborative initiative created to get all portals linked from the top-right of the Main Page to Featured Portal quality status.

Thank you to all who participated or contributed towards this quality improvement effort in some way.

Happy Holidays,

— Cirt (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario

[edit]

Super Mario is the day's showcase. Who cares? Was there no other article to showcase? Just another thing that proves Wikipedia isn't a serious academic source, because the main editors are all teenagers who only care about video games and girls' breasts. Disappointing. Carrots Sucker (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of serious topics at TFA, and this is the only video game for December. Looking ahead, we have a plant, Jesus, a football game, an album, a cricket admin, a general, a tank, and a king. We have this article today because editors have put the effort in to write a quality article, and it was chosen to provide topic diversity. Chris857 (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just biased as a former member of the WP:CVG, but why do video game article seem to always catch heat for being TFA? Nothing else generates this kind of controversy. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am mistaken the last two or three video game articles that have been on the main page have not gotten these types of complaints. It seems that on the whole the complaints have been going down and it appears that most of the complainers have moved on which I see as a good thing since it was getting old.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that video games are not a serious academic subject? It isn't the subject matter, but rather its treatment, that makes something academic, and the Wikipedia article in question is quite well researched and written, and based on sources that are themselves scrupulous. I'm at a total loss why someone would not want to highlight such an article. And if you think only teenagers play video games, you really haven't been paying attention for the past 20 years. Please consider reliable sources such as this, which shows, among other things, that 1) The average age of video game players is 30, over 1/3 of all video game players is over 36, and less than 1/3 of all video game players is under 18. In fact, 31% of video game players are women over 18, compared to only 19% who are boys 17 and under. People who have grown up with video games keep playing them well into adulthood, and the video game industry now rivals other media (music, film, etc.) in terms of sales, money spent, etc. From the source above, video game sales peaked in 2010 with 16.9 billion dollars in sales. By comparison, music sales in 2009 was 6.9 billion dollars: [1] and in 2010, the movie industry made 10.4 billion dollars: [2]. If you do the math, the video game industry is essential as large as movies and music COMBINED. It simply isn't a niche industry for teenage boys anymore, and it's simply baffling that any person who is paying attention would think so. You should be careful when speaking about subjects you have little knowledge of, because it makes you appear foolish. --Jayron32 04:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that Super Mario is a major pop cultural icon, familiar even to people who have never picked up a controller. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, from direct experience. - Tenebris 04:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Video games take flack because they are overrepresented and there is obvious commercial advantage from it. As I've posted previously, the company Square Enix is entitled to about 1 out of ever 180 Featured Articles presented on this site (it helps that the company has its very own WikiProject). Does that reflect its real significance to the world? Wnt (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Featured article selection on the main page is skewed against representing the same subject matter repeatedly. Any perceived notion of over-representation should be countered by getting more articles of other subjects to featured status, rather than bellyaching about it on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things Wnt: 1) If you're going to accuse the people who improve articles about video games of being bad-faith actors who deliberately shill for corporate interests instead of merely being independent volunteers who improve articles of interest to themselves, you're going to have to provide some evidence of that or retract your position. 2) You have all the control in the world over what appears on the main page. Simply start improving articles about subjects YOU want to see on the main page, and overwhelm the available pool of featured articles that are about subjects you don't like to see on the main page stop appearing so often. Complaining that other people work too hard improving articles of interest to them and implying they should stop isn't going to make Wikipedia a more complete source of scholarly information. Actually making Wikipedia a more complete source of scholarly information will do that. --Jayron32 19:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to accuse individuals, because the system itself is flawed. Articles about real topics are never done, never complete, and there's always someone to oppose them. Whereas articles about video games are complete the moment that every piece of fluff the company has ever arranged to get written about them is indexed, and then lots of editors seem to line up behind them. Sure, with enough motivation Wikipedia editors could spiff up more science FAs, and pack in the bodies to win the election, and even change the guidelines to feature articles that tackle large, complex subject areas. Yet somehow the products that don't pay don't seem to find much motivation. I wonder why that is - to avoid any impermissible allegation, I shall assure you that this is purely a divine mystery to which I cannot fathom an answer. Wnt (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase that. What articles have you recently worked up to featured status that you think is in an underrepresented subject? --Jayron32 19:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't bother me at all that video game enthusiasts like to write articles about their interests. But that is really the only reason the articles exist. They are for the enjoyment of the editors who like to document every item of sub-trivia about "Power Shots" or "Ring Shots" or "Tic-Tac-Glow", or whatever turns them on. The articles have almost no value to anyone else: no one else cares. For that reason I feel they should not be featured too heavily on the main page. By the way, this common practice of countering any criticism of Wikipedia with "well fix it then" simply will not wash. You do not have to participate in a project in order to be able to criticise it or comment on it. That's the way the world works. 86.128.4.88 (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only reason the articles exist. They are for the enjoyment of the editors who like to document every item of sub-trivia about "Power Shots" or "Ring Shots" or "Tic-Tac-Glow", or whatever turns them on. The articles have almost no value to anyone else: no one else cares." Random video game article, average 80 views a day. People care. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any value jn the overrepresentation arguement. A video gane related article usually comes up once a month meaning that they make up about 1/30 TFA's, meaning that there are much more non-gaming articles up. Seriousky, if there was shrilling for the industry I think they would try much harder that that.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
80 is little more than background noise and random/accidental clicks. Also, it is necessary to determine how many of those are search engines crawling Wikipedia. You may be surprised. 86.171.174.208 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also doesn't the TFA page use some sort of point system to try and ensure that there is some diversity in article selection. I only gave it a brief look over last night, and right before falling asleep, but that was the impression I got from it. It seems to be a non-issue to me. I don't particularly notice video games getting to be TFA more often than other topics, and I personally welcome their status when it happens. I think readers are just as interested in video games as anything else and the topic is certainly just as notable as any scientific topic. (Also without trying to get off topic, I want to voice my support for Frank's Cock as well. It was an excellent article and got me reading about HIV the other day) Zell Faze (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Mikhail pics on the main page today

[edit]

Can we have a Pussy Riot pic instead, please? Maybe a cropped version of --74.15.88.37 (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Ask and ye shall receive. —howcheng {chat} 18:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The picture of the Pussy Riot woman should not be next to the paragraph on Turing. "They transformed his body. The man who had run a marathon in 2 hours and 46 minutes - when the world record was 2 hours and 25 minutes - was reduced to a shadow of his former self. 'They've given me breasts,' he was reported to have said to a friend, describing the shameful process as 'horrible' and 'humiliating'." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212910/How-Britain-drove-greatest-genius-Alan-Turing-suicide--just-gay.html#ixzz2obzlpTED You can imagine the confusion. Please put the Pussy Riot photo next to the Pussy Riot paragraph. And how about putting a photo of Turing next to the paragraph on Turing?CountMacula (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The picture at the right of the box doesn't reflect the first item in the list; look at the "On this day..." section, where the image has to do with the third item (about Pierre and Marie Curie). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's quite as confusing as that. But it's a very common problem. Personally, I'd prefer to see only the top story with a picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we do not have a non-free image of Alan Turing to use. —howcheng {chat} 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't stop anyone from putting the PR photo next to the PR paragraph instead of next to the Turing paragraph. Really, I've rarely or never seen layout like this. Maybe you ought to talk it over with someone who has studied this kind of thing in school or done it in a job that pays money.CountMacula (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. We've 'talked to' many people, not all of who have had the same opinion, and more importantly, no one has actually been willing to put in the effort to prove any solution works with the majority of browsers and layouts without causing other problems like unwanted whitespace. This isn't surprising since talk is cheap. Nil Einne (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned before and I'll say it again: put whatever story has a picture up top, put a slight line under it and then put all the other stories in order below that line. What is so difficult about that? --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or what's so difficult about adding a short caption in a small font? 86.171.174.208 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For both those suggestions, see WP:Consensus and the history mentioned in the FAQ and the fact those are two rather different, not necessarily incompatible but perhaps overkill to do both suggestions. Incidentally, this has been mentioned plenty of times before as my comment implied with the "'talked to' many people, not all of who have had the same opinion" and also hence why it's in the FAQ. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what he said. —howcheng {chat} 05:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is disgusting

[edit]
close trolling by static IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I know it's Christmas but does every single inch of the Main page have to do something with Jesus, or Santa, or Lambs (for God's sakes, in the featured picture). It's highly irritating, and also completely disregarding the fact that not every one in the world is Christian, and may or may not (even if they are Christian) care for Christmas at all, and may not want to see such high public displays of affection, if you will, on the main page. You might as well rename Wikipedia to the Catholic Encyclopedia for this one day complete with a new logo with Santa's hat on it and a crucifix dangling from it somewhere. Pathetic! Sorry, but have respect for other religions and peoples. Don't enforce your majority in such a way that people, especially on a page such as this on a website that people all over the world read and access everyday, should feel disgusted or poorly represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.106.18.10 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That "Christ" in Christmas stands for something, IP... —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough I was just coming on here to appauld the efforts of the editors in producing the material to make the front page so Chrismassy - and not just Christian specific either with some general cultural Chrismas appearing in Did You Know too. Good job! Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP.... I woke up nice and early to see to my four-week-old son who smiled at me for the first time (sans wind), then I had some turkey and enjoyed the fact that numerous editors from around the world collaborated on producing a really nice main page for today. If you don't like it, do something about it by getting involved and helping determine what articles are placed on the main page at WP:TFA, WP:ITN, WP:OTD, WP:TFP etc. If you need help in this endeavour, don't hesitate to get in touch. Happy "festive period" (just in case...) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Santa Catholic? Hmmm... Anyways, please create an account for yourself and help balance things out if you see anything underrepresented in Wikipedia. Happy Holidays. --174.93.80.217 (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 25 December content is light years ahead of the insanity that occurs on 1 April.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)IP27 - A pioneering code-breaker is posthumously pardoned, thousands of Russian prisoners are released, Brazil are the women's handball world champions, William the Conqueror was crowned 947 years ago and an ovarian tumour was removed for the first time 204 years ago. Thank you for drawing my attention to these facts, some of which I might otherwise have missed. Please don't feel disgusted - ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is a common complaint around these parts, particularly as a result of "editorial oversight". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The MP's main purpose is to draw people's attention to 'unknown unknowns' and things people do not know that they do not wish to know about. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jackie. I didn't even know that I never wanted to be told that. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Sounds like a restatement of the Prophetic Mission. Or, as some clergy have been known to say, "Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable." Sca (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, cheer up, at least we have a sexy front page ITN picture now! Happy Boxing Day!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Along with Santa, I'd suggest Pussy Riot are definitely not Catholic. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Is it not now traditional to switch to 'spot the first Easter Egg'? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buried

[edit]

DYK ... that a dead elephant is buried under a road junction in Brighton's Bear Road area?

— If a live elephant were buried there, this would be news. And why isn't it called Elephant Road? Sca (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the article explains, "Bear Road" comes from the name of a public house in the area doktorb wordsdeeds 04:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sca (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's no good living in the past, you know... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's always Elephant and Castle to redress the balance. Modest Genius talk 16:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Sounds like a Cock and Bull story to me. Sca (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Phoenix as TFA...

[edit]

I see what you guys did there. Good on ya people who scheduled that one in. GamerPro64 01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vicipaedia

[edit]

The Latin Wikipedia now has over 100,000 articles; is there a reason why it does not appear in the over 50,000 section of other wikipedias?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The count of pages should not include stubs and placeholders. A request was previously made Template talk:Wikipedia languages#Latin Wikipedia back on 18 December, and it was determined, using our standard sample of fifty random articles, that most of those pages were in fact stubs. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that makes good sense.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wowee that is one short feature!!!

[edit]

I don't think I ever saw a shorter feature to read! Are there any shorter?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriendlyreadervisiting (talk • contribs)

The shortest FA was Tropical Storm Erick (2007), but that article has since been merged into another. Some pretty short ones include Missing My Baby, Nico Ditch, and Tropical Depression Ten (2005) (most storm FAs aren't long). I think Miss Meyers takes the cake in terms of prose size; it doesn't even crack 4k. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of "most storm FAs", there has been a bit of a wave (no pun intended) of merging the shortest Featured Articles and Good Articles into the parent season articles. The rest, well, there's nowhere to merge, and this is essentially everything to be written on the topic. Chris857 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil wikipedia has more than 50000 articles

[edit]

Tamil wikipedia is not included in the list of wikipedias that have more than 50000 articles. It has above 57000 articles. Please include that in the list too.--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been past discussions about the fact that not all language Wikipedias appear in or should be included in the template, even if they strictly meet the number threshold, based on the quality of the average article. See Template talk:Wikipedia languages/Archive 6#Should Hindi Wikipedia be included on the mainpage? Tamil is discussed there and though it was about 5,000 articles smaller at that time, the indication was that a low percentage of Tamil articles were more than short stubs and so it should not be included.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut retarget proposal

[edit]

I have proposed that redirect WP:MP be changed from Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy to Main Page. If you care either way, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Wikipedia:MP. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

== Temporary cropped images

Please remove the image of a regular potto from the false potto blurb.

[edit]

I fear you may misrepresent the subject article by having a picture of a regular potto. Please remove it as soon as you can. This blurb will have to go without an image to represent it. Stuart Pfanninstiel (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, as per my original decision when scheduling the article/writing the blurb and per common sense. BencherliteTalk 18:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Are you seriously saying we had a false picture of a regular potto on the main page, instead of a regular picture of a false potto? This is a pretty scary thing to think about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's driving me potto. 86.176.208.58 (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstood but I think you're mistaken.
Didn't we have a regular picture of a regular potto which was may have been misinterpreted as a regular picture of a false potto? If it was interpreted in that way, which wouldn't be surprising, this would be a problem because as a regular picture of a regular potto it was obviously a false picture of a false potto.
You're right however that what we wanted but didn't have was a regular picture of a false potto.
A false picture of a regular potto may have actually been okay if the reason it was a false picture of regular potto was because it was actually a regular picture of a false potto. Of course if it was a false picture of a regular potto but also a false picture of a false potto then this wouldn't have helped at all although may have actually been less confusing.
Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I guess. I requested that the picture of the Regular Potto be included as a visual aid to accompany the blurb. Although clearly not an ideal picture (there is no picture of a False Potto on Wikimedia that I could find), it still served to give the reader an instant clue as to what a False Potto may actually be. The blurb could easily have read "(Regular Potto pictured)". I must admit to being a bit confused by other's posts but suspect this may have been their intention, for humourous effect. Also, I'm sure we've had "artist's impressions" pictured, which could also be argued to be 'false'. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 08:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An "artist's impression" is still supposed to be of the thing in question. A drawing of me is a valid representation of me, but a picture of my cousin isn't. That's what using a picture of a true potto to illustrate a false potto is like. --Khajidha (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point well made! I withdraw my ill-conceived comment about artists' impressions. Still would prefer there to be an image of a potto as the blurb was primarily drawing distinctions between the two and highlighting that some researchers believed the differences '[...]do not actually distinguish it from the potto'. Why not have '[...]do not actually distinguish it from the potto (pictured)'? Water under the bridge now I guess... Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After hours on the main page, in 2014, I wondered about this

[edit]

"After years in opposition, in 1849, ..." Was this construction really intended? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In The News

[edit]

Considering the historical importance of it (and that other, far lesser figures get death notice mentions), isn't it about time that Wikipedia announced the death of Arial Sharon?

Please feel free to consider contributing at WP:ITN/C where this is being discussed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Yellen

[edit]

Janet Yellen is the CHAIRMAN of the Fed - see the article. She's not the "chair" as it says on the main page. Can we get rid of this PC nonsense and accord her the proper title. Thanks. 86.29.246.113 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I just noticed her own article Janet Yellen needs expunging of this politically correct garbage. She's variously referred to as chairwoman, chair and chairperson, but not chairman. The term "chairman" can be referenced to the Fed's website. Let's get it right. 86.29.246.113 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, unless the IP is an admin, he can't fix the main page item, it's protected. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just noticed that. I can't edit the Main Page or the Yellen article. 86.29.246.113 (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So register and get an account so you can fix the latter. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful advice. 86.29.246.113 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@86.29.246.113: - I've fixed the TFA template, so if you purge your cache the change should occur. I made the change per your request and as Chairman of the Federal Reserve seems to be the correct title. So this is now  Done. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus wept. Formerip (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FormerIP: Eh? Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the issue of whether we want to reflect language as it is most commonly used or according to a particular standard, we normally use the language of an article as a guide and requests to switch to British/American/conservative/19th century English should be referred to the article talk page. I'm not going to argue this, though. Let the outside world see us for what we are, warts and all. Formerip (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for that. I do actually have an account, but I was accidentally logged out when I made the first post on this matter, so I didn't want to link my IP with the account by making the change myself. 86.29.246.113 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minas Gerais

[edit]

Today's Featured Article refers to Minas Gerais. Is this a real place? Sounds like something out of J.R.R. Tolkien. (Just kidding.) See Minas Tirith. (I'll go away now.) Sca (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Sharon

[edit]

I find it a bit odd that the main page image of Ariel Sharon has him standing before what appears to be an American flag. Wouldn't it be more fitting for it to be an Israeli flag, or even no flag at all?

Perhaps a flag confers some impression of him being a statesman. That said, there are quite a few at Commons. Maybe this image File:Ariel Sharon Headshot.jpg would be stronger? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched to that photograph. —David Levy 01:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-balancing column widths

[edit]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox&oldid=590546901 for a version of the Main Page with the two main columns set to the same width. I believe this looks better than the existing version when the typography refresh beta is turned on. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this. -- The Anome (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your example looks better than the existing version when the "typography refresh" beta is turned on. But that's because said beta is confining content to the left side of the screen (leaving more than half empty when I display a full-screen window at 1920x1080px with the default text size) in both of my browsers. Is that an intended effect, or is something broken on my end? —David Levy 19:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's apparently deliberate. I think it's too narrow, and the Main Page is a case in point: I wanted to experiment to see if it could be improved in spite of the width limitation. -- The Anome (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if the main page is a good example of possible problems with the typography refresh feature, at least generally. I imagine that the main page is somewhat of a special case as most of the content is in two columns therefore the restriction of width is less important and could even have an undesired effect, at least for those two columns. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The content issue with a balanced page is that a 'wordy' TFA will leave ITN and OTD on the right struggling to balance as the left hand side is pushed further down the page. Stephen 22:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what a "wordy" TFA blurb looks like - in fact, I do my very best to keep TFA blurbs consistent in length (never more than 1,200 characters including spaces, and they are rarely less than 1,100 characters) precisely to minimise adjustment problems for the RHS of the main page. The "footprint" of the TFA blurb will vary depending on the image (not all TFAs have images, some images are larger than others) but I've never tried measuring the depth of the TFA box to see what the upper/lower boundaries are. BencherliteTalk 13:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed equal-columns layout violates the Rule of Thirds in graphics and photography — although in this case it's more like a rule of fifths. An asymmetrical layout tends to focus attention in one place or "entry point," usually upper left (in this case the TFA), and the eye then travels diagonally across the composition or page. Symmetrical columns, however, tend to act as a barrier to visual "entry" by the reader or viewer, who does not instinctively know where to start.
Prefer the existing layout. Sca (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more aesthetically pleasing with the two slightly unequal columns, as used at present. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Meek in "Did you know..."

[edit]

The "Did you know..." today (Wed 15 Jan) about speed-skater Patrick Meek seems a bit unclear

... that speed skater Patrick Meek qualified for the 2014 Winter Olympics despite not being able to "really see anything"?

To me, that reads as if he were blind, or partially-blind, instead of simply losing contact lenses during the qualifications. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wikipedia Day 2014!

[edit]

Nothing more than that. Just reminding people it's Wikipedia:Wikipedia_day. The project started 13 years ago today. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woo! --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that and was surprised there was nothing was on the main page! --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

[edit]

... happenings at Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Apparently they want to take over the whole Main Page with content related to a political protest, but didn't bother to inform this talk page. There's further discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#The_Day_We_Fight_Back. Modest Genius talk 23:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a message on the project's talk page asking for the various projects that will be affected to be notified. Hopefully somebody will respond with more information. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If one wants to pursue a policy of 'counfounding their knavish tricks' as suggested, a mild protest on WP's main page is not necessarily the best way to get something done. (Possibly 'confuse the authorities.') 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Newman

[edit]

Was there really no interesting fact? Why did we resort to tooting our own horn? Beerest 2 talk 01:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The self reference makes us look a bit silly. It's like we are saying: "You wanted your article; here it is." Jonathunder (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


If you are asking if this woman is really uninteresting to such a degree... well, I can only point you to the sources used.
As for the rest:
User:PFHLai promoted this DYK hook on 14:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC), so they may wish to comment.[reply]
User:Bobamnertiopsis approved this DYK hook at 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC), so they may wish to comment.[reply]
User:Pgallert proposed this DYK entry on 10 January 2014, so they may wish to comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that her article was written in response to her writing an article (phew!) is uninteresting? I note that the article on the American Idol competitor she mentioned is now a redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul bombing

[edit]

Is there no separate article to update for ITN with Friday's Kabul bombing and attack, which killed 21 including IMF and U.N. officials? [3] [4] I could find only War in Afghanistan, which weighs in at 7,000 words and goes back to 1978. Sca (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be. Feel free to start one. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I see we have now started our main page with a commercial logo. I am not anti-business and have no objection to having a commercial product as our featured article but starting the the company's logo sets a bas precedent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a precedent. The article is about Capcom, the logo is related to the article. It's fairly obvious that it's not a sponsorship deal. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been done a bunch of times in the past. Whenever the logo is simple enough that it's not copyright-able. APL (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of TFL on the main page

[edit]
There is a clear consensus, that the TFL section should be appear on the Main page twice a week. There is also a clear consensus that Friday should be the second day. (From the users mentioning this point of the discussion, only one !voted for a Thursday slot.) Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 13:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should Today's featured list appear twice a week on the Main page, rather than just on Mondays?

Background

[edit]

In June 2011 a unanimously supported proposal to add Today's featured list (TFL) to the Main Page every Monday was passed. Since 13 June 2013 a FL has appeared on the front page every Monday. Following a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Expansion of TFL on the main page, it was agreed that there is sufficient interest to run the TFL at least twice a week.

The FL process is strong, healthy and can cope with a second slot on the front page. As of 3 December 2013 there are 2,533 featured lists; in the first 11 months of 2013, 209 lists were promoted (and 239 during 2012), and all naturally meet the current criteria demanded by the community. There are, therefore, a sufficient number of high-quality lists available from which to select.

Featured lists, like their article counterparts, cover a hugely wide-ranging set of topics. An extra day per week on the main page will allow the FL community to both increase the diversity of those lists featured and enable us to schedule time-specific lists on appropriate dates, or within a closer timeframe than we currently do.

Why additional day/s

[edit]

Featured lists are a strong and healthy part of the project's output and they provide content whose standards are as exacting as other Featured output. In order to best showcase that output, it is considered appropriate to raise its profile by showcasing the finest lists we have on the main page.

  • Display the diversity of the FL output
  • Allow more flexibility for date-specific listings

Although there were calls during the discussion for lists to be run on three days, two days would enable a strong diversity to be maintained. A suggestion was also made for a "floating day", to be used intermittently on specific dates. Although the consensus was against this for a second day, it may be suitable as a potential third day, on an intermittant basis for key events.

Practicalities

[edit]

There are currently over 2,500 featured lists, over 200 of which have been selected during 2013. These recently promoted articles will, by definition, meet the current criteria of featured status as defined by community consensus. Even through selection of just the articles passed this year, there is a sufficient number to be able to select two articles a week. There is also a sufficiently diverse pool of lists from which we are able to select the TFL, in order that we avoid appearing too Western-centric.

Technical points

[edit]

Technical impact on the main page is nil. The current code for TFL was written with the anticipation that it could be expanded to more then one day in the future.

Summary

[edit]
  1. We seek a set second day for TFLs on the main page: Mondays and either Thursday or Friday.
  2. A potential third list scheduled when there is date relevance, and when there is consensus to do so.

Featured lists have enriched the main page now for over a year without any serious issues. I hope the community would agree that allowing us to feature at least twice a week would enrich the project. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 198.169.113.63 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Before the discussion becomes muddled, I strongly suggest that the "floating third day" element be dropped. While it was proposed as a "floating second day" in the previous discussion, the concerns expressed therein point to consensus against a floating day in general; whether it's a second or third day makes no material difference (and I believe that you were the only respondent to draw such a distinction). —David Levy 08:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who initially suggested it, I'm happy for the floating day bit to be removed entirely in order to simplify the proposal. There seems to be so little appetite for a floating day that the only thing it could possibly do here is divide the opinions of people who actually agree on whether or not there should be a second fixed day. —WFC— FL wishlist 13:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For disclosure I was heavily involved in the initial TFL proposal, and in 2012 I was perhaps the first person to seriously suggest that it was ready to expand. In terms of the quality of the content featured lists are there, and FLC undoubtedly promotes enough lists per week to sustain a second slot. However, I am a firm believer in making the most of what you have, and expanding only when you have reached that point. I do not think we are making the best use of the Monday slot at this particular point in time:
    TFL views have dropped sharply since the peak which occurred in mid-2012 (see Wikipedia:Today's featured list/Statistics (2013), Wikipedia:Today's featured list/Statistics 2012 and Wikipedia:Today's featured list/Statistics 2011). Compare the first eight months of 2012, to the last eight months of 2013.
    In my opinion, TFL is not as good today at maximising the potential of date relevance as it was in 2012. I am not suggesting that TFL should be about "chasing the ratings" – diversity is the absolute top priority and we must never allow it to compromise on that. However, TFL was as diverse in 2012 as in 2013, and yet views have fallen away sharply.

    When I raised this at the TFL talk page, my perception was that those more involved with it than I am were defensive about TFL's record. I fully understand that mindset – once upon a time I was heavily involed myself, and would have defended TFL from anyone I perceived to be giving it an unduly hard time. Nonetheless, I don't see anyone trying to explain why relatively obscure lists in 2012 were getting the sorts of attention that more mainstream lists got in 2013, and to do whatever can be done to reverse that trend without harming diversity. Interest in the Main Page overall has dipped a bit in the past couple of years – I was the one that pointed it out – but that is no reason to shy away from asking what we can do to maintain interest in TFL.

A second day would allow us to get within 24 hours of a date relevant event on six days out of seven. That is by far the most compelling reason for supporting this expansion, and the reason why I believe TFL needs to expand at some point. However, a prerequisite for expansion on the basis of date relevance is to convince the community that TFL currently does date relevance well, and I for one am not convinced. I therefore oppose expansion at this point in time. —WFC— FL wishlist 13:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Main page talk page query

[edit]

When was it blocked to those writing on their IP addresses? (Being of the category of 'persons not always signing in to correct the odd typo.) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Jan 23. Looks like the protection already expired. Log here. Chris857 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Mainly curiousity' (and the library terminal I am using has its IP blocked 'much of the time.'

Probably 'a certain fraction' of IP changes are registered WPedians who are merely correcting typos or have not noticed the computer has signed them out and other equally 'innocent' reasons. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squawk!

[edit]

I see today's Mangrove Robin DYK pic is to be recycled in less than two weeks as a TFP. Isn't once a month enough? Sca (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably as DYK and TFP are entirely independent processes. If you'd like to monitor both (and probably ought to include TFA and TFL and ITN) and report ahead, that'd be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A case of 'watch the birdie'? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So today's TFP is the Yellow-spotted Honeyeater. Not to disparage the work of its extremely prolific originator, but for variety's sake we need a rule limiting the frequency of TFPs of a certain kind or category to, say, two per month. Sca (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the people at WP:TFP would appreciate another pair of hands to help select which pictures are featured from day to day. It's a thankless task. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yours truly pipes up now & then at WP:FPC. Sca (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are a lot of bird pix in the queue is unknown by, and in any case irrelevant to, our audience. Sca (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The audience is not the one who has to deal with the "first-in-first-out" policy of POTD and see birds lag further behind because of constant whining. Once a week to once every ten days is rare enough. (As a side note, the audience doesn't know how the FA process works, but that doesn't mean that we can select articles willy-nilly for TFA). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. This is an internal problem that should be solved internally by people with the requisite technical / administrative skills, which yours truly sadly lacks. Sca (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. POTD chooses FPs in order of promotion, rather than at the whim of an individual or the community, save that the scheduler has leeway to skip images with no usable article or to delay some images to avoid excessive repetition. Personally, I'd be happy to leave the interval between (a) appearances of a specific picture at DYK and POTD and (b) appearances of the same class of picture to the discretion of the POTD scheduler, who (is doing an excellent job and) has enough to worry about without complying to arbitrary limits such as no more than two per month in any one category. BencherliteTalk 23:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also (just a note): !voting at FPC helps a lot, but if you could propose more images (artwork, photographs that are pretty cool, etc.) that would help with diversity a bit more. Though my own restorations and photographs have been promoted, I've been much more prolific with nominating other people's work... it's perfectly acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Black-breasted Thrush DYK pic. is due back in less than two weeks (Feb. 5) as a TFP. Sigh. Sca (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

misspelled article on MAIN PAGE

[edit]

hello article is crocodile not crocodilla please fix - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurugamash (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 January 2014‎

Crocodilia is the proper name for the entire order of animals which are referred to in the vernacular as "crocodiles". GRAPPLE X 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, "The order Crocodilia includes the true crocodiles (family Crocodylidae), the alligators and caimans (family Alligatoridae), and the gharial and false gharial (family Gavialidae)." Chris857 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those were quick replies, you may go so far to say very snappy. See you later, Aligator. Chortle. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's Alligator, as in Albert. [5] Sca (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a TFA nomination

[edit]

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck (film) has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 12:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A battle took place

[edit]

Not sure if this appropriate, but I was almost looking for the article title to be "A battle took place", but somehow I'm thinking that the article title should actually be in the intro paragraph...could someone update that? Hires an editor (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't easy to integrate the article title; usually, per MOS:BOLDTITLE, this isn't exactly best practice as done here, and I believe there is precedent for not bolding the article title/link in TFA blurbs not too long ago. Maybe poke a TFA delegate about this? Cloudchased (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of examples for not precisely using the article title in the TFA blurb: 1, 2 examples from last month alone. It seemed the least stilted way of introducing it on the main page, which is why I wrote the blurb like this in the first place. BencherliteTalk 08:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Aragonés

[edit]

His death should really be mentioned, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkinsonProject (talk • contribs)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates. Edgepedia (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five pictures of five white males on the main page today

[edit]

no other pics to choose from? where are the birdies and old churches when we need them? --76.64.180.9 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best New Artist?

[edit]

Why was Daft Punk mentioned predominately when Macklemore was clearly the most influential artist at the Grammys? I hate pop culture, but obviously, some sort of favoritism is going on.Dirt290 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"clearly the most influential"? Who won Album of the Year and Record of the Year? Not Macklemore. --76.64.180.9 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US-related things on the front page today.

[edit]

3/5 images are of Americans today. 5/7 of Did you know items are on US-centric things. Today's Featured article is on an American. Amazingly, only one piece of On this day... is American. They still got the picture though. --85.210.107.124 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I conclude from this that we should all redouble our efforts to create or improve articles that are not about American topics, and to take photographs or create images of things that are not American. Start today! What do you have to lose? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I picked the Ambrose Burnside picture because of his awesome facial hair. :) —howcheng {chat} 21:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chen Guangbiao is hardly American

There's this one day in OTD this year that had 3 US and 2 UK and 0 ROTW blurbs. –HTD 03:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually one day that has all US-related blurbs (because everything else is ineligible). —howcheng {chat} 04:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a British or Irish topic? For shame! :P –HTD 15:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the "Featured Article" and "In This Day in News". Those a predominately neutral topics, set on European events on the first page. All I hear is European unrest and cricket/football stats. I have yet to see any American topics covered on this shitboard.Dirt290 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, get "INVOLVED!" WP:ITN/C is desperate for volunteers, as is WP:OTD!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

[edit]

" Did you know...that a cup (pictured) is a small container for drinks?" Was that supposed to be some sort of joke?JDiala (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an accurate and non-misleading fact from an article which qualified for DYK selection. Har har? GRAPPLE X 02:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an awful lot like the very first DYK, which was "Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"? Well, OK, you probably did." Chris857 (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, non-registered user here; I don't know why - but I'm absolutely disgusting by the attempt at dry humor on the DYK page. Can somebody please change it, with perhaps a month-ban on the IP responsible? Thanks.

Get an account and join DYK to put in more stuff that you approve of over there. --76.64.180.9 (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"it became one of the defining albums of the decade"?!?

[edit]

How is this phrase encyclopaedic?!? It reads like some puff piece in a magazine. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I'd say. It's not even true ... or is that just my POV (not being a fan). Jimp 10:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
deleted Jimp 10:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And since you couldn't manage to do that without leaving a non-sentence "Released on February 4, 1986." in the TFA blurb, I've cleaned up after you. Please take more care in future, Jimp, when editing main page templates. BencherliteTalk 10:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Jimp 10:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This phrase seems a bit...advert-y, but I can see why it's there in terms of US popular culture at the time. Although if anything, it seems a bit too "US-centric" considering the album's peak positions on non-US charts. --Connelly90 11:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC) 10:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK commentary

[edit]
this is off the main page. Further discussion about article content can happen at article talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The crap you are running about Sasheer Zamata is a total disgrace. Instead of telling me an interesting fact about her, you simply choose to sensationalize her race. Seriously, you guys WOULD NOT write "...that John Random is one of many white random people?" Utter crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D'urville (talk • contribs)

Looking at the article, I can't see any interesting facts that would make a good DYK. But being the first African-American female member of the SNL cast in almost seven years has been the focus of much of the media coverage that was used to write the article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that Random sentence is a pretty crappy sentence. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being second of something-or-other doing something relatively parochial is indeed not an interesting fact. (Second person-in-X-category to set foot on the Moon, perhaps wouldn't be so bad.) Maybe this is a case for arguing that articles that don't have any interesting facts in them at all, might be better off not appearing on DYK.
She's not even second—SNL has had a couple of African-American women as cast members before Maya Rudolph's tenure on the show (see Danitra Vance and Ellen Cleghorne). The point is that SNL had gone seven years from Rudolph's departure without an African-American woman in the cast (whereas there has always been at least one African-American man in the cast during that time, and indeed in the show's entire history). This was increasingly criticized and seen as an oversight, to the point that it was lampshaded earlier this season (NOTE: this link may not be accessible outside North America) when Kerry Washington was the host. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, either the Main Page reader already knows that, in which case it's not an interesting fact; or else the Main Page reader does not know that (as I didn't) and thus responds "so what"? Either way, it falls flat as a hook. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's something of a "so what"? but the media coverage was otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I myself came close with "Did you know ... that Rajinder Kaur Bhattal was the first female chief minister of Punjab, but only the eighth female chief minister of an Indian state?"... if she'd only been the second female chief minister of that particular state, it really wouldn't have been interesting enough, even with the "but..." clause added for extra interest.
As others have suggested, I doubt the intention was "to sensationalize her race" any more than our sources do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would a better hook have been "Did you know that the Americans are so astonishingly humourless (combining as they do the Russian's talent for satire, the Dutchman's for sexual comedy, the German's for slapstick, and the Frenchman's for irony), that unfunny comedienne Sasheer Zamata is judged not by her wit or delivery but by her ability to fill an arbitrary racial quota? --77.102.114.99 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harsh. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I so love the insight one gets from single-edit IPs. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to home page format

[edit]

I suggest that we add a section to the home page where we feature a different WikiProject each day. This will help recruit new editors to join editing topics of particular interest to them. Within the featured WikiProject box would be a brief description of the project, and a list of a few representative articles of high quality. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I didn't really know what WikiProjects were until way too long after I started editing. It'll also encourage editors (old and new) to work together rather than the confrontation we see all too often. You get my vote. --Connelly90 13:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

[edit]
OK, this conversation is getting silly. The proposal is obviously not going to be adopted, but those who want to see more-sports related content can contribute/comment at the various locations that feed into the main page. BencherliteTalk 00:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Yet again I want to bring up the idea of a separate "Sports" section on the front page. There are normally a couple or several sports entries in the News section on the front page, a Sports section on the front page could be larger and keep News and Sport separate , for easier viewing and emphasis on sport.Cosprings (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and War ... war (and wars) too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)and art and natural sciences and politics ... and some other things I will think of later --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure why you write things in such an arrogant way. Also, no, not those things, just sports. Cosprings (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge was being sarcastic. Also, keep your disgusting sports off my main page. Th4n3r (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first time I've been accused of arrogance, so there must be something in it. I have some very dear friends who are very deeply devoted to their favourite sports topics, and if they and people like them want to contribute encyclopedic material about sports, I totally respect their right to do so. But, equally, war and politics (OK less so politics actually, it's so factional and tiresome) and art and history and so on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sports are not the world and the world is not sports. The main page isn't big enough to contain a bunch of categories. All of the things mentioned by Demiurge1000 have an equal (or better!) claim to space.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when tablets have front and back pages (hey someone invent one!), the front page can be war and death and politics and popstars, and the back page can be sport. Just like in real life/dead trees. Deal? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

See also

[edit]

Help needed

[edit]

Chronological summary of the 2014 Winter Olympics needs to be updated, or the link to this page should not be placed on ITN. --76.64.180.9 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Position Insertion Point Vertical Bar In Search Box For Immediate Use

[edit]

When the Main Page is first displayed, the vertical bar designating the place where user keyboard input is inserted should be in the Search box at the upper right. As it is, I cannot see where the insertion point or focus is located when the Main Page is first displayed. Pressing the TAB key moves the insertion point vertical bar to the Search box, but this is an extra and unnecessary keystroke imposed on users whose goal is searching for something. Repeated TAB key presses allow cycling through available links, which is fine. Maybe different browsers behave differently, not sure. Naive users will not know that the TAB key is the one to use, and they will be obliged to mouse over to the Search box and click it to get started with their encyclopedia research. Megapod (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google?. This proposal has been frequently rejected because the Main Page is primarily meant to be read and scrolled, not just a simple search engine like Google. Many users scroll using the arrow keys. However, if the cursor first appears in the search box, the arrow keys will instead pop-up autotext in the search field.
If you are looking for a similar screen like Google, you can go to http://www.wikipedia.org/ instead. As a registered user, you can also enable the automatic focus on the Main Page search field as a Gadget in your preferences. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a per-user option that can be turned on in your preferences. Go to [6] then tick the box for 'Focus the cursor in the search bar on loading the Main Page'. Modest Genius talk 17:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is TFL becoming an everyday feature now or is it just starting to appear on Mondays and Fridays? Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 01:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedias

[edit]

the Waray-Waray and Cebuano Wikipedia have more than 400k articles. shouldnt they be listed here now? oh, and congrats to all the new 1m encyclopedias last year, which i hadnt noticed growing so fast. a little competition is good for the soul.(User:Mercurywoodrose not logged in.99.14.216.18 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should raise this at Template talk:Wikipedialang, which handles the list of languages. Modest Genius talk 17:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest?

[edit]
This should have been at WP:ERRORS. In any case, it's off the main page now. BencherliteTalk 20:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I remember reading somewhere many years ago that human footprints have been found on (I think) sandstone in material that was dated as being so old as to be impossible for them to actually be human – on the order of several million years old. This might have been in the context of disproving the way that scientists date sedimentary rock. I didn't think much about it until I took a geology class 30 or so years ago at North Carolina State University where the professor was showing slides that included a shot of footprints like those, and as I remember, they were in or near the United States somewhere (Kentucky?) in rock that was maybe 1.5 million years old. He presented it as a mystery that had not been explained up until that point in time. Anyone else out there have any such memories? Shocking Blue (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a question better suited to the Science reference desk? the wub "?!" 00:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is really a question for the Reference Desk, but FWIW, you might be thinking of the Xalnene Tuff footprints (in Mexico, not Kentucky). These are now generally accepted to be damage caused by mining, rather than genuine footprints. EDIT: Just realized that discovery of the "footprints" was much more recent than 30 years ago. It could be [7], although these "footprints" are far more than 1.5 million years old, and are probably some sort of reptile or amphibian. Either way, the UK footprints are the oldest that are currently seriously considered human. Smurrayinchester 14:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit above got auto-deleted. Apologies for the diversion but I believe the news item should reference hominid footprints, not human footprints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljamoquio (talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references, including the British Museum, call them human footprints. Richerman (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Thoughts regarding cabbage

[edit]
This should have been at WP:ERRORS to start with, and the conversation took a turn for the worst later on... BencherliteTalk 20:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It's great to see a vegetable as TFA.

One thought. This is just a thought, not an error.

Lots of stupid people read the front page, and, even slightly less stupid people, like me, might read "Cabbage is prone to several nutrient deficiencies" as implying there might be something negative about eating cabbage. Admittedly, I only thought so for two seconds because then I worked it out.

For benefit of various stupid people, would it be ok to change it to "Cabbage plants are prone to several nutrient deficiencies, as well as multiple pests, bacteria and fungal diseases."

Clever people already know this is what it means, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And so, eventually, does everybody else, because clever people talk loudly in restaurants. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lettuce make that change. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate veggies. –HTD 09:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love veggies including cabbage. I ate cabbage's close relative, Romanesco broccoli, for the first time the other day. It was fractalicious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought ducks are herbivores... --76.64.180.9 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I hate veggies" hmmm, you hate vegetarians? - that's very discriminatory. :) Richerman (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the scientific paper, Oral Sadism and the Vegetarian Personality, which puts them on the spot for their vile behaviors.(Mercurywoodrose)99.14.216.18 (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was very disappointed that there was no mention of victory cabbage. Sca (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Cornwell Scout Badge

[edit]
Again, this should have been at WP:ERRORS. BencherliteTalk 20:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I know it may be tiresome, but it would be great if Wikipedia could use British English syntax when quoting an article about a British subject such as the Cornwell Scout Badge. It should be "named after" and not "named for". In hope and anticipation of the next occurrence. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   17:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I switched to the wording used in the article ("created in memory of"), which is more informative.
Regarding future occurrences, please understand that this isn't a matter of discourtesy. We aspire to use the appropriate English variety, but some discrepancies are easy to overlook. If you spot a mistake on the main page or among the queued DYK hooks, please report it at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks for your help! —David Levy 18:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The new search sucks

[edit]
To be continued at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 124#Searchbox is broken & Search is overloaded, please, not here. BencherliteTalk 20:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It doesn't take me directly to articles, it keeps saying "a page containing [search term] exists" and I have to click on the article. It just seems unnecessary and clunky. Bananaj2 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sucks? What if your search item is not the title of the wikiarticle? --76.64.180.9 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


There is a "go" button for non-Vector skins, however, they are available only for registered users under Special:Preferences -> Appearance. -- Srolanh See.Say. 20:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<br /

(EC) Your question is at the wrong place, try WP:Help Desk or WP:VPT. That said, as far as I'm aware mw:Extension:CirrusSearch is still a beta feature on en and needs to be specifically enabled it in your options or bu automatically enabling all beta features Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 123#CirrusSearch now enabled). If you did specifically enable it or choose to enable all beta features by default, you should of course provide feedback in the appropriate places which are linked to in the options when you enable it.
If you didn't enable CirrusSearch, then as far as I'm aware there's been no substanially changes to the LuceneSearch for a while which is to be expected considering the efforts are being directed at CirrusSearch. In other words, if you're getting different behaviour, it's unlikely to be due to a change in the search engine.
In the vector skin, if a page exists, and you search from the searchbox present in every page, you should be taken to it by default unless you add ~ before your search, you click or select 'containing', and perhaps one or two other tricks I don't know about, or if you change your skin, probably some of your user JS or CSS files, you enable a gadget or other user preference which forces the search to do a proper search by default.
Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I know this isn't the right venue, but I had the same issue the OP reported on Safari on my iPhone today, but now that I'm logged in using Chrome, I've had no issues. Hot Stop 04:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I was thinking of that after my post. It's also possible you encountered a hopefully temporary bug. In that case while it's possible that the issue is known and discussed somewhere, it's also possible it's some random thing which will very rarely if ever repeat and will be difficult to track down. Unless it does repeat, it's probably not worth worrying about. These sort of stuff happen at times, there are a few I've experience relating to other stuff that I can't recall off hand. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I think the search is a little buggy, but it would be nice if they fixed that. --Masonly (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is fully reproducible, and is not random nor temporary. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Searchbox_is_broken_.26_Search_is_overloaded. (javascript off, FF 23)192.12.81.1 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with this post

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.

Birds

[edit]

Is it just me, or does it seem like Wikipedia has been taken over by bird-watchers? It seems like every other featured picture in the past two months or so has featured some sort of bird. Can someone clue me in on why this is? Has everybody on the planet decided that birds are now interesting? Did I miss something? EbolaRocks08 (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is one bird on the MP, the first bird POTD in a week. Other than that, see this, which is written about TFA but just as relevant to POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike TFA, POTD is done in an approximately chronological order of promotion. This means if someone uploads a large number of top quality photos of a subject at the same time, this can appear to swamp POTD when they progress through the system. I recall a few years ago, almost every other image was a macro close-up shot of insects. Optimist on the run (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's because pretty much all of the bird pictures are from the same man called user:JJ Harrison. Th4n3r (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nine images of birds during January and February 2014 may be a lot for someone, but it is not "every other featured picture". The images are beautiful. Thanks to User:JJ Harrison and others for their work. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_178&oldid=1151048268"