Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 191

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 185←Archive 189Archive 190Archive 191Archive 192Archive 193→Archive 195

Wikipedia blackout

The Wikipedia blackout, as POTD for Jan. 18, seems as a clear case of navel-gazing (WP:NAVEL), of scant interest to most readers. Besides, it's not a picture, it's a sort of computer notice board. Sca (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The protest involved is mentioned in the picture blurb as having significant impact on legislation in the United States, where a great many readers are located. The legislation in question was also described -- rightly or wrongly -- as having significant potential impact on the Internet itself, which is used by almost all readers.
Many images which become POTD are not pictures (paintings, photographs) in the traditional sense. Some are diagrams, animated or otherwise. Computer notice board or not, this has the attribute that it is difficult to understand exactly what the protest looked like, without seeing the picture. MPS1992 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And whether you think it's a picture or not, it's still a "featured picture" and as such eligible for main page exposure, as are all other FPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Whether you think it's a picture or not
– Do you think it's a picture? Sca (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of which definition of "picture" you think WP:POTD/WP:FP should use, the one that those projects operate clearly includes screenshots, or it wouldn't be a FP. And if you're also complaining about the timing, how is it different than having someone as TfA on their birthday? ansh666 02:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Where did I say anything about the timing? Sca (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
as POTD for Jan. 18 could be interpreted that way, sorry. ansh666 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I was coming from a slightly different angle with my 'WP's birthday' (going by the infobox article on WP) thread above.
Shall we say that there should be room on the MP for an occasional WP self-referential mention (and it is coincidence that the two discussions occurred together). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Personally I think Wikipedia needs to be far more self referential. Abyssal (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Two points:
  1. The screenshot went through the Featured Pictures process at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stop Online Piracy Act Blackout. As such, it is qualified (just like any other image that has passed FP) to run on POTD.
  2. We have other screenshots that have passed the FP process, such as File:Charlie Murder screenshot 5.png, File:IncredipedeScreenshot35.jpg, and File:The Splatters 03.jpg. As such, it is clear that screenshots qualify as "pictures" for the purpose of FP and POTD.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, yes, we know all that. But the fact that it went through the fallible process at WP:FPC doesn't alter the self-indulgent character of its content – which point I know Chris never will agree to. It's still narcissistic. (⇒) – Sca (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I know you know that, seeing as you have been a commentator at FPC for going on four years now. My reply was for the benefit of other readers, who may not be as familiar with the process or with images that have been promoted in the past -- trust me, not everyone knows.
As to your point about navel gazing, editors obviously have different approaches and views. When Howcheng was selecting FPs before 2013, he put our FP of Mike Godwin at WP:POTD/Unused for a little over two years as Godwin had been general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. I ultimately ran Godwin in 2013, both because he had not been involved with the WMF in three years and because I consider it acceptable to occasionally run images related to Wikipedia/the Wikimedia movement. Since that image ran in September 2013, to the best of my recollection we have not had a Wikipedia related POTD before the blackout image. Two images in four and a half years (1/1643.5 days) is far from my definition of "navel gazing", and this rate is far below that for DYK. Others, such as yourself, take a zero tolerance view, which is fine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Footnote — It was obvious at the time that it was going to be promoted, so I didn't see any point in opposing it. But in general I don't see computer screenshots as being "among Wikipedia's best work" in the image/graphics realm, since little or no visual information is conveyed. They lack reader interest. Sca (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The questions are, perhaps, given the significance of the protest movement - was there any alternative image or text that was more appropriate which could have been used, and to what extent did the WP MP image show/define what the nature and policy of Wikipedia was and is (especially given that the event happened six years ago and a proportion of Wikipedians may not have been using it then)?
Wikipedia has been around long enough for it to make occasional reference to significant events in its history and its place in the wider cultural context (eg Magna Carta (An Embroidery)) - and there are going to be occasions when there are 'two or several Main Page references to or discussions on the same topic (it was chance that I had spotted the launch date the day after the event: and any longer than that I would not have mentioned it, quite independently of the blackout reference).
The next occasion for continuing this discussion is as we approach '6 millionth English language article' (and whether it will be before or after the next Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day). Jackiespeel (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

complain to admins in fa.wikipedia

Hi. good morning.

the page .

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D9%81%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85 has been removed by admins, while the article is about introducing a great Persian documentary film making company with a lots of known works, also showed on national TV in Iran for times.. the discussion page also shows users know and confirms this. but some admins has political directions and ignore the the reality and just confirm and act as what they like! you can see the discussion page : 

 https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی_برای_حذف/سفیرفیلم

there are lots of sources that show وپ:سرشناسی for the article. is wikipedia like this? or is a independent free encyclopedia ?


tnx for checking this. Onw4y (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Onw4y, this page is to discuss the English Wikipedia's main page, your comment is about something else. in any case, each language wikipedia is independent and we can't help you at the Farsi version, sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
So when the admin band there , is not responsible for this acts , and there is NO where to complain, in fact the whole wikipedia is being questioned! isn't it? Its not independent. Just because of the personal or political benefits of admins! right? Onw4y (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
As Jimfbleak told you, this is the English Wikipedia, which is separate from the Farsi Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia has its own policies and procedures. You need to discuss any issues with the Farsi Wikipedia on the Farsi Wikipedia. If no one there will listen to you, there is nothing we at the English Wikipedia can do. Sorry. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Onw4y: what 331dot and Jimfbleak have told you is, unfortunately, correct. However, one place on the English Wikipedia where you may get more attention or possibly action, is User talk:Jimbo Wales or one of the contact methods listed on that page. That's assuming that the Farsi Wikipedia and its administration is hopelessly broken -- I don't know if that is true and you would need to present good evidence of it, probably beyond just a single film not being adequately covered. MPS1992 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

OTD - - - February 1, 2018

Rather surprised that the 15th anniversary of the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster is NOT listed. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not posted because the quality of the article is inadequate. Feel free to improve it and then it could be considered for inclusion next year! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how "the quality of the article is inadequate." Only one section had a citiation issue, but none of the facts were actually being questioned/challenged.

Granted, there is quite a bit on the "Talk" page, but it seems more concerned about what to include and how to include, not so much about the info's veracity/factualness.

Also, I'm not clear on why an article's 'adequateness' should have any effect on its listing. Regardless of the 'adequateness,' it is still a notable event/anniversary for that date. If the 'adequateness' is an issue, just don't include any links to the article in the OTD listing. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of OTD. It is not to list every event that ever happened on a day, or even the important ones. The purpose of OTD is to highlight quality articles. If the article quality is a problem, it will not appear. That's all. If you want to fix the problem so it never happens again, we could use the help. Just improve the article to a state where it would be appropriate for the main page. Thanks!--Jayron32 16:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
It does appear on the relevant 'More anniversaries' list though. Should this line be given slightly more emphasis so that people are less likely to comment on absences on the MP. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm NOT asking for "every event" to be listed. I also was NOT aware that the OTD had parameters/limitations/requirements in order to be listed. However, I DO think that the important ones should have priority over the less important ones.

Also, no one has explained exactly why the Columbia "article is inadequate." 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D: the re-entry timeline section of the article is inadequately referenced. Once this is fixed, it should be eligible. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
But which ones are the "important ones"? Who decides? What are the criteria for choosing? Were the deaths of those astronauts more or less important than the beheading of a single journalist in an act of terrorism the year before? Were they more or less important than the hundreds who died during a religious pilgrimage the year after? There are many events listed on February 1, which ones are the "important ones]"? And does your list have a good distribution in both space and time? And how much space does the OTD have to begin with? --Khajidha (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Isn't there some amount of rotation (even with anniversaries)? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Re-entry timeline" section has an orange maintenance tag. That excludes it from OTD's main page selection. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

POTD

Is there any significance in today's POTD being the same as that on Commons, or is it just coincidence? Optimist on the run (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The term "butchered" is very informal in the context in which it appears here. I have changed it in the article to "slain" and suggest the same be done here. Primergrey (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In the news -- lunar eclipse

I was under the impression that the TRIPLE occurance of a total eclipse, blue moon, and supermoon hadn't happened for a little over 150 years. Many media outlets -- radio, publications, TV -- really hyped how long it hade been with some headlines stating something like "The last time this type of lunar was seen, America was recovering from the Civil War."

So, I'm kinda curious as to how "35 years" came about as the time frame. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The ITN blurb is correct; the last time such an event happened was in 1982, which is about 35 years ago. However, it was only visible in the Eastern Hemisphere, aka not America. The last time it was visible in the Western Hemisphere (and therefore America) was over 150 years ago, in 1866. Essentially, if whatever media you're looking at says that this is the first "super blue blood moon" ever since 1866, they're wrong. SkyWarrior 18:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Not seen in the US for 150 years, but there have been similar events visible from elsewhere on the globe. the wub "?!" 18:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. The media in my area made no mention/distinction of the 1982 event.

Could a clarifier be included/added about the "Eastern Hemisphere" aspect? Maybe something like ". . . . a coincidence of events not seen since 1982 in the Eastern Hemisphere."?

Also, since there are different types of lunar eclipses, shouldn't the bolded part say "total lunar eclipse"? Just a thought.2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I would say no to mentioning the Eastern Hemisphere, since we already get battered enough for our supposed Western bias. Also if the disparity between what Wikipedia's Main Page says about the event and what the mass media says about the event encourages people to learn more about the event, then that assists in fulfilling our educational purpose. MPS1992 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand, though disagree with, the supposed "Western bias." I really didn't think that being FACTUALLY CORRECT would ever be a "bias."

On the other hand, "99.9%" [to use a common percentage used in advertising -- ;-)] of the people take at face value what the media reports. It's extremely rare that they're encouraged or interested enough to learn more. For most people, based on my experiences, they prefer to be pablum fed any news like a baby.

Pardon my "ranting" and "venting." 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, how about this possibility to avoid "Western bias" - - -

"... a coincidence of events not seen in parts of the world for 35 years."?

I still think that if some sort of geographic parameters are NOT mentioned, any reader will think/assume that the "35 years" applies to the ENTIRE world. Especially considering that most other ITN items mention specific geographic locations. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop using caps in your contributions, it is considered shouting and is bad form on Wikipedia. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

As I just posted on 'my' "Talk" page, that's how I emphasize words since other forms of font manipulation don't get the desired results.

And it obviously worked since you're responding; though not for the reasons I capitalized the words. (Dare I say, "possibly proved a point" again?) 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you are getting it backwards. We use "35 years" because it does apply to the entire world. This phenomenon was not seen anywhere for that period of time. That it had not been seen in some places for longer periods of time is irrelevant.--Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
PS - far from clarifying things, your suggestion of "a coincidence of events not seen in parts of the world for 35 years" actually implies that it was seen in other parts of the world during that time.--Khajidha (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
And 'the practical reasons' - there is a limited amount of space in the ITN box, and the MP is designed for a wide range of potential users (and anyone sufficiently interested will go to the relevant page and learn the geographical specifics).
What coverage do other-language Wikipedia Main Pages have, and what usage do they have? (I know all the different-language Wikipedias have their own policies, but they can contribute to a consensus.)
Possibly 'An event that has not been seen/occurred for 35 years' would suffice - where else could be referred to apart from 'the world/Earth'? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

carrying Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster as a dummy payload?

The horse has bolted. People who care about this are cordially invited to spend more time at WT:ITN and related pages to ensure that upcoming hooks meet their expectations, but this will be off ITN before the discussion has reached any kind of conclusion. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

why mention this on itn? tesla advertising?--70.26.63.167 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It was nominated at WP:ITNC, as it was in the news, and since new rocket launches are on the recurring events list WP:ITNR it was presumed notable, and posted once the article got a quality update. No more, no less. If you disagree with what is posted, feel free to participate at ITNC. 331dot (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Just wanna point out that the second half of that sentence is unnecessary and looks like advertising for Tesla. --70.26.63.167 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Part of the reason this was newsworthy, aside from the rocket itself, was the unusual payload. That fact was mentioned in the sources and news stories. It isn't advertising any more than the story on the Super Bowl is advertising the Super Bowl or NFL. The blurb does not encourage readers to buy a Tesla. Musk might be advertising, but as long as RS discuss it, that's immaterial as far as we are concerned. 331dot (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Great! Musk does it again. --70.26.63.167 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Although I neglected to participate in that segment of the nomination process, I do also think that mentioning Elon Musk's expensive payload is also unnecessary and just advertising on his behalf.--WaltCip (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that the BBC is advertising for Elon Musk. The fact that the car was the payload was widely reported. We didn't put that in ourselves. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that, too. Not useful or necessary information. zzz (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the sources disagree with you that the payload of a rocket isn't notable. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So is the issue people have that the car was mentioned at all, or that it says "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster"(the title of the article on the car). If it just said "Elon Musk's car" would that be better? I do note that the article has a merge discussion underway. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No, that would not be better. The dummy payload is not worth mentioning at all. zzz (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
In fact it would be even worse because the focus would then be on Elon Musk. Just say "sports car". It would be like, instead of a blurb that says "earthquake in Chile," instead saying "Donald Trump reacts to news of an earthquake in Chile."--WaltCip (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I respectfully do not understand at all as to how the payload of a rocket is not worth mentioning or how it is "advertising". No one is being asked to buy something and it doesn't promote Tesla or SpaceX to simply state what the payload is. It would be like not mentioning the teams that played in the Super Bowl. It is integral to the story as reported in reliable sources. If you disagree with it being written about in reliable sources, you should speak to those reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@WaltCip: I could live with "sports car", especially since the article on the car may be merged, but I think it slightly disingenuous to readers to not simply state what the car is just as reliable sources do. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah we could just delete that entire clause. There's no good reason for us to advertise his marketing stunt, the rocket is the reason why this got onto ITN. Or just say 'carrying a dummy payload'. Modest Genius talk 12:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No one is advertising anything, unless the BBC and all other reliable sources are in the tank for Elon Musk. It doesn't advertise the Philadelphia Eagles to post that they won the Super Bowl. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. The Eagles were intrinsic participants in their event, whilst the Tesla is a product which was tacked on for marketing purposes. What the BBC chooses to put in their headline is up to them, it doesn't determine our ITN blurbs. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The motivation of Musk isn't relevant to us. We just do what the sources do. It's not "advertising" unless Elon Musk called up the press and paid them to write about his car being the payload. I'd be happy to see any evidence of that. The Eagles are making quite a bit of money hawking merchandise after winning the Super Bowl; posting it to ITN certainly helps them, too. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not the same thing. Being a football game, there needs to be a team on one side and a team on the other side. It's an integral part of the game. Strapping a car to a rocket is not integral to the SpaceX project.--WaltCip (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The superbowl blurb makes no mention of the "US Bank Stadium", which would just be tacked on and quite frankly useless information. It makes no difference where it was played and what sponsor name the stadium had. Just like this dummy payload is trivia. And i am sure many reliable sources made mention where the superbowl was played as well. 91.49.79.204 (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It would be trivia if there was an overabundance of cars orbiting the sun. This is the first one. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Which would be fair if getting a car into space was the actual news story here. It isn't though. The news is that the Falcon Heavy had its first launch. Hopefully it will carry important, even groundbraking, payloads in the future but this is just a factoid tacked on to the important part, the launch. Although i admit a great factoid and a great bit of marketing. But important in the grand scheme of things... probably not. 91.49.79.204 (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I know when consensus goes against me but I still feel that the blurb should at least say "sports car" as WaltCip suggests. It's disingenuous to readers otherwise, which is who we should be thinking about. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think we have to change anything. I am unconcerned that the name of a company sometimes gets mentioned on our main page. Stating facts is not advertising. Leave the blurb as it is.--Jayron32 13:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I found it newsworthy that the dummy payload was such an object of absolutely no use sciencewise and with a personal and commercial link to the boss. This is quite a contrast with what we are used to from NASA, for instance. This must also be why news organisations reported it. So I would like to see the blurb left as it is with the information retained. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Which would be okay if the object being satellited was just reported as a "sports car". But the fact that it's a Tesla Roadster is neither relevant nor helpful to the reader.--WaltCip (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's fine. I'm expecting my complimentary Model S to be delivered this afternoon, so please don't delete from the main page! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Change it -- of course, it is advertising - and we certainly don't have to use it to get the information across that it is a sports car made by the owner - in fact, if that is the information you want to get a across, that is exactly the way you should say it (not use product names) . Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Seriously? You think those words on the main page of Wikipedia is going to suddenly drive someone into making a $150,000 purchase? SERIOUSLY?? Actually, a very important part of the story was that it was Musk's own car, the first car in space (that'll be quiz question in a few years, what was the make of the first car to fly past Mars...?) and has formed the basis of a considerable element of the story. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Obviously irrelevant - the whole point of the stunt is advertising. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Obviously not. The whole point of the launch is to sell commercial satellite launches via SpaceX. Getting all worked up about a Tesla car being mentioned but not about SpaceX being mentioned, both having commercial interests, is somewhat bizarre!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
If the whole point of the launch is selling commercial satellite launches, you have just emphasized again the make of the car is irrelevant and just advertising. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you missed the point again. Why bitch about super-cheap Tesla cars being advertised and not super-expensive SpaceX launch vehicles? All or nothing. I don't see you complaining about the free publicity to Musk's commercial space business which is worth orders of magnitude more than the fun car stuff, why is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No. I got your point, you like this advertising, so let's advertise away ('sexy', I think you said, at one point). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you missed it for the fourth or fifth time. SpaceX is ok but Tesla is not? You're joking, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Not joking at all. I got your point, again. The objection is it's advertising, you response is 'yes, its advertising but it's good advertising.' Evidently ITN likes to run advertising. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
"ITN likes to run advertising"? Like ITN is Skynet or something, determined to ruin human life by naming the brand of the car. Yet your objection is still half-baked, no objection to SpaceX in the title, yet a full-bodied objection to Tesla Roadster? The former will make billions, the latter not. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Space rockets are out of people's pockets. Cars are not. Even though very few people can afford a Tesla Roadster, it's still an affordable brand for many. It just promotes it as a product. There is no need fo this in a so-called encyclopedia. 86.187.161.74 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Quite bizarre in Wikipedia that you call compromise, 'half-baked', - especially when your contention is 'it is advertising', so take out the product placement, under NOT. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you missed the point again. It's not a "compromise", it's half-baked. Either we allow Elon to advertise his rockets and his cars, or we don't allow advertising on the main page. I would go get an RFC if I were you, this conversation (and consensus) is strongly against you and it's only getting worse (for you). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I got your point again, you've made it abundantly clear it's advertising - you just want more of it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
you just want more of it where do you get that idea from? Some people would call that .... a lie. Or more lightly, an unsubstantiated claim. Or something worse, something which could see somebody being blocked. Be careful here... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
What? You said the purpose of this launch is advertising, and somehow that means we have to also place the Tesla product -- that's product placement - that's more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No need for what? The endless diatribe on so-called promotional posts by ITN or something else? I don't follow most of this, absolutely nobody who reads Wikipedia will suddenly go from not buying a Tesla Roadster to buying a Tesla Roadster based on the two words tucked away on the main page. SpaceX is a fully commercial organisation and promoting its rocket launch is by far more profitable for Elon than the chat about his Roadster. And best of all? All you complaining about the inclusion of the name of the car, see Streisand effect. You're doing by far more damage here than the two words on the main page!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No one reads this slop. Not even Barbara. 86.187.161.74 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Google does though, so the more people bitch about it, the more it's up there. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Not even the first electric car in space. The lunar roving vehicles did that in the 1970s. Modest Genius talk 14:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    A rover is not a car! And certainly not as sexy as a Tesla! Nice try though. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Oh yes it is. Like the wonderful Rover 75. Don't insult the cream of British automotive engineering. 86.187.161.74 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    The "first car in space"? Are we going to be putting more up there? Is there some sort of scientific rationale behind orbiting cars now? Seems a bit puzzling to me.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Of course we will, especially when we develop off-earth civilisation. It's just a matter of time. And besides, we're already advertising a commercial organisation by saying that Falcon Heavy was made by SpaceX. I think it's time for people to find something else to do! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    I seriously doubt orbiting the CEO of Tesla's car is going to be the "one small step for man" towards off-earth civilization. At least Sputnik opened up the possibility of traveling to the Moon.--WaltCip (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'm finding it hard to follow your line of argument. It's an interesting element of the story. I'm not sure anyone said it was like Sputnik? I thought this was about advertising, which of course we're doing much better for Elon by noting SpaceX (I'm certain he's going to make more money from that venture than his nice cars!!!). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    It's not hard to follow his line of argument at all, it's only interesting if one finds advertising interesting, which is actually the whole point of advertising in the first place. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    No, it's fine. After all, we put a disco ball into space even though it's basically junk. Why not a car on top of it? If that's what SpaceX wants to blow money on instead of doing actual aeronautical research, good for them. And as it turns out, Wikipedia will gladly be their shill.--WaltCip (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is only choosing to be a shill here -- we can choose not shill (it is in our NOT policy after-all). 17:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If you agree the main story is "The SpaceX launch vehicle Falcon Heavy makes its maiden flight" then you can quite simply remove "carrying Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster as a dummy payload", which is just a car advert. Can someone please explain why that hasn't happened yet. zzz (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Because asserting something doesn't make it true. You and others have asserted that the section you want removed is "just a car advert", but anyone can type any random set of words, and just typing those words doesn't instantly make them true. Specifically, other people disagree that the phrase you want removed is a form of advertising, and consider it a vital part of the story. You can't just get your way by asserting something and then demanding that because you wrote it, it must be the truth. In this case, a consensus-building discussion will take place and see if action needs to happen. Give this discussion time to play out. If enough other people agree with your assertion, then it will be acted on. If there is not consensus in that direction, it will not. But consensus building takes time. Give it time. --Jayron32 18:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"A vital part of the story". No, the dummy payload is not a vital part of the story. zzz (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • You have suggested that it is not. Others have suggested that it is. Repeating yourself doesn't give your vote more weight. Like I said, this is how WP:CONSENSUS-building works. Repeating yourself doesn't mean you win. We'll see how the consensus goes over time, and after the discussion has reached a natural conclusion, then we'll make a decision on how to go. --Jayron32 18:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This news story has come up in conversation with friends, family, and coworkers. Nobody cares that a new kind of rocket was launched. For every single person the story was the car launched into space. The Tesla isn't just a part of the story, it is THE story. TimBuck2 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For most people I know, the story wasn't that rocket, the story was the car. I have heard from more people "He did you hear about the car that was launched into space?" than I did "Hey did you hear about that large rocket they launched?" -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think that I am repeating myself? zzz (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Because you have now multiple times indicated that you think that the dummy payload portion of the blurb is not vital and should be removed. The first was at 11:39, the second at 12:01, the third at 17:24 and the fourth just now at 18:04. Since you wrote all four of them yourself, I am quite surprised that you have no memory of doing so. Very odd. Anyways the first time you mentioned it was enough. --Jayron32 18:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that was the first time I saw someone saying the dummy payload was "a vital part of the story". But you just keep up the personal attacks, that might work for you. zzz (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't attacked you. I've disagreed with you. If you want to be taken seriously, you should recognize the difference. You can't just go around claiming that people call out errors in your logic are personally attacking you. Saying "personal attack" is not a trump card that you pull out to win. You still have to actually make a reasonable, logical, and evidentiary-based argument to do that. --Jayron32 20:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I think I know what a personal attack looks like, and what "call out errors in logic" looks like. This was the former. zzz (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Could you perhaps quote that then? Because I've not called you any names, I've not said anything about you as a person; I 've not attacked you at all.--Jayron32 12:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Musk used a car for two reasons: 1. advertising, and 2. the same playful reason he used the "Don't Panic" slogan, and named previous drone ships "Just Read the Instructions" and "Of Course I'll Still Love You". Musk doesn't profit from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. So it isn't either advertising or not advertising. It's both. Art LaPella (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The BBC also reported on how the payload was used in an educational context, viz. teachers showing the amusing images of the Earth as seen through the car windscreen, to inspire interest in science and technology in their pupils. (Before dismissing it as just a silly picture showing part of a dummy payload, consider the cultural impact of Pale Blue Dot, and, earlier, the purported links between the first photographs of Earth taken from space and the development of the environmental movement.) Such contexts are reasons why the dummy payload is a story, and such contexts are not just advertising. And Wikipedia does have an educational mission. MPS1992 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with some of the comments above. When people are talking about this, it isn't the launch itself, the size of the launch vehicle or even the fact that the boosters landed themselves it is about the car. That is the part of the story that people think is imporant. ~ GB fan 18:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The story is the advertising? Well you're comment managed to say all that "important" stuff, without any product placement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No, GB fan said that people are talking about the car. No-one could really care less what Tesla it was, what PS it develops, what in-car options it has, they care about seeing a dummy in a spacesuit driving a car in space, and a nice car at that. But it was Musk's own Tesla that he sent out, so why skim the facts just because we're somehow feeling precious about "advertising" Tesla and not SpaceX? Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
So, then Wikipedia is presenting it as advertising -- you just said, no one cares about the car's make and the cars make is not important. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you missed the point, Wikipedia is not advertising Tesla cars, if anything it's advertising SpaceX. In either case, what % of of audience do you truly believe it will significantly impact? Then look back of the swaths of text and realise this is a classic example of flogging a dead horse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is advertising -- that's the reason Tesla is there, instead of a 'block of metal' or just saying, 'car'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is what brand managers call "product placement" par excellence. Surely a pinnacle has been reached here. There will be millions of people all over the world who will now be asking not "how much money is saved by re-using those rockets?" nor even "why did the third rocket recovery fail?", but "what's a Tesla Roadster"... the first car in space! Wikipedia is just feeding that product inquisitiveness. Don't kid yourselves. 86.187.161.74 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
And how many can afford one?!! And how many can afford a Falcon Heavy? Man alive, this is stretching product placement to the extreme. Think of the readers please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Except that part of the story was that it was specifically a Tesla... -DJSasso (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It was just claimed that no one cares about the make of car and the make of car is not important. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No it was claimed that no one cared about the options of the car or what model of a Tesla it was. ie the things you would be told about in an advertisement. Just stating the brand of a car is different since the reason the story was a such a big deal was that it was a Tesla, specifically HIS Tesla. -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Your claim is that his product placement is important to the advertising stunt, so we agree it's advertising - all of it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia has already placed product by mentioning the commercial company "SpaceX" on its main page. But apparently that's of no concern? Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Seriously. Things can be written like ad copy, and things can be written less like ad copy - that's what NOTAD is for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Which, given his current wealth, he could probably replace within 30 seconds.--WaltCip (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
But that's nothing to do with it! It's about the story, it's about what's in the news, and that's his Tesla rocketing past Mars. Come on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
If only they put a Coca-Cola bottle inside the car's cup holder. Then they could have put the first soda into space while they were at it.--WaltCip (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, and this is really important, they didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
And why it's stating that commercial company SpaceX has launched a big rocket depositing a Tesla into space. Perspective people. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The story that most people are talking about is the car in space, not the rocket that launched it. Just because it may have started out as advertising doesn't mean it can't end up being newsworthy. There are plenty of cases throughout the years where an ad itself has become a news story. A recent example is the Burger King commercial that triggered everyone's Google Home devices. Just because something was intended as advertising, does not stop it from ending up a news story. In this case the car orbiting the sun ended up a much bigger story than what the rocket was. -DJSasso (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
And you managed to say all that, without any product placement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Turning quickly into WP:POINT. I suggest an uninvolved admin take a look at this and judge whether it's an error and/or close it down. We're not gravitating to consensus, and the fact that people are all worked up about advertising a $150,000 car but not worked up about advertising a $10m rocket which will make orders of magnitude more revenue for Musk means that there's clearly a misunderstanding about the ideas of "product placement", "advertising", etc here that are current intractable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
POINT has nothing to do with anything, here. The objection has been made to tone down the advertising, not ramp it up. It's a compromise between the ITNers, who somehow believe everyone is talking about this and reigning in the advertising-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Alan, you're wrong again, you're making a POINT by saying things like "And you managed to say all that, without any product placement.", "so we agree it's advertising - all of it.", "Well you're [sic] comment managed to say all that "important" stuff, without any product placement." etc, that's a problem now. I suggest you do "reign" (sic) it in a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the misspellings and word choice errors -- your POINT about English is pointy, the rest is just compromise between those who support more advertising and those who support less. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said before, go get an RFC, this isn't the place to debate it as it's clearly something that some people get extremely exercised about. We name commercial companies and their objects on the main page from time to time, this one happens to be the most dramatic and worldly story of its type, yet all it seems to have created in some quarters is a bunch of heat and no light. The genuine excitement in children around the world (and in those I have) about a Tesla in space is all the definitive proof I need to know it's a good blurb. Obfuscate it if you like, make it "A large rocket takes off" if you wish, but there are still going to be some of us out there who would like detail and who realise the difference between putting a Coca Cola logo on the outside the rocket and mentioning the actual vehicle type which is heading towards Mars at 11 km/s. I'm through arguing over nothing here, this won't change, but seriously, if you're that bothered, I'll look forward to the RFC which considers this kind of thing across all of the main page. I won't hold my breath (sadly for you all). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You are excerised about this, that's . . . odd. Your children's story is touching but also quite irrelevant to it being product placement. You somehow think that discussion cannot ameliorate ad copy in Wikipedia - that's just how its done, all the time. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Alan, re-read, I'm not exercised at all. I'm not the one making all the POINTS, all the fuss. For the third or fourth time, you're in the minority, your continual badgering just helps Elon, your extrapolations are unwelcome (and actually getting close to NPA), you're really looking for an RFC which I know you won't file. So here endeth the debate for us! Good luck with your journey. In the meantime, TESLA!!!!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You mean, you were not talking about yourself when you said people are very excercized - your lack of knowledge of other's feelings is clearly not something you should speculate about then. Your appeal to some slight voting majority is basic logic fallacy, and has nothing to do with anything. POINT does not mean saying something you do not like. There is no NPA, here. As for whether discussing the advertising is helping or hurting Elon Musk, that's totally irrelevant to everything, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If the car in space really is an important part of the story to many people and is used to get kids intersted in science and space exploration then i change my 'vote' here (also to just get this closer to being over with lol). No issue with the 'advertisement' myself but thought of it as a mere factoid with the main story being the maiden flight. But it seems it is a big deal to many people and hence more than just a tacked on factoid. 91.49.77.187 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The unusual test payload was a huge part of the notability of the event. The text absolutely should mention that, since reliable sources clearly saw fit to cover it very extensively as a major part of the event. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus check

Just so we can keep track of the consensus over the clash of personalities. --Jayron32 20:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Status quo (9)
  • The Rambling Man
  • Tone
  • Jmchutchinson
  • Jayron32
  • MPS1992
  • Djsasso
  • 91.49.79.204
  • Seraphimblade
  • Fgf10
  • (331dot see next section)
Edit in some way, but retain mention of car/dummy payload/etc. (5)
  • 331dot(as a compromise, but prefers status quo)
  • WaltCip
Falcon Heavy's dummy payload in space, pictured with Earth in the background
Get rid of it entirely, just mention rocket (5)
  • 70.26.63.167
  • Signedzzz
  • Modest Genius
  • 91.49.79.204
  • (Alanscottwalker - actually, per above - adding a bit of rationale for clarity we are featuring (bolding) the rocket article in the blurb, so that's the consensus focus, and presumably if the article is done correctly, it will give people everything else -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC))
  • 86.187.161.74
Remove the SpaceX blurb (1)
People who understand this is not how we arrive at a consensus in Wikipedia discussions (1)
  • The Rambling Man

Why are we even discussing this? Let's face it, if it hadn't been for the quirkiness of the Tesla, most mainstream news outlets woulnd't even have bothered covering the launch. The car is an intrinsic part of the newsworthiness of the story. Fgf10 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah its pretty crazy, considering the reason it is a news story in mainstream sources is because it is a Tesla. -DJSasso (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, much like the U.S. federal government shutdown, this has dropped from the news cycle. It was a novelty, but that was all it ever was. I suggest we pull from the main page. WaltCip (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Vanishingly close to 100% of the stories posted on ITN roll of the news cycle in 24-48 hours. If you were consistent to apply this logic to every story we post, ITN would have zero stories. But, of course you aren't interested in being consistent. You just have a personal reason why you just don't like this one story, and have decided you'll throw anything against the wall to see what will get it taken down. Stop wasting your time and energy. It isn't getting pulled, and it probably isn't getting modified.--Jayron32 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Why aren't you advocating pulling the entirety of ITN? None of them are in the next cycle any more. Also, the fact that you describe it as a novelty shows you don't understand the story at all. Fgf10 (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm more highlighting the absurdity of the process, where "consensus" that is applied to one story can, in a matter of a week or month, suddenly vanish when it comes to another story. You're right. I don't like it. But as we've seen, if enough people don't like something, that can be sufficient to get a story taken down.--WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Why #shouldn't# ITN have the occasional 'quirky, peculiar or out of the usual run of things' entry? After all the rest of the Main Page covers topics we-the-readers might not otherwise have looked at. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Does anyone still participating in this discussion honestly believe that anything useful will happen? It's time someone uninvolved boxed this up and sent us all away to do something useful. --Jayron32 13:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm also intrigued at how long this discussion has become. This might be the longest post-posting discussion we've ever had on an ITN item, though I note that, as you say, most of it has devolved into unproductive bickering. Ironically, the discussion on this car might have provided far more advertisement for Elon Musk's Tesla brand than the posting which generated said discussion.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. --Jayron32 13:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remember

The Main Page will, at least once a week, contain a mention of something you consider too obscure/not interesting enough to be so promoted, no matter how well the article is written. The equivalent pages on topics you think fascinating and worthy of mention will rarely appear on the MP. (They may, however, appear on the other-language Wikipedia MPs). Take on the challenge of developing pages on 'your' topics (making use of relevant places for necessary Original Research).

The MP is not the front page of a newspaper/weekly equivalent - so stories In The News (with its limited space) may not be those filling many column inches in Actually Existing News Publications; WP is also a global presence, so may pick up on things outside your geographical area.

On This Day can also only pick out a few entries - and may rotate the selection over several years. The full list for each day can be readily accessed: find ones that occurred #4 and #9 years ago, and improve them for the 'round figure' #5 and #0 anniversaries.

Wikipedians' interests are individually interested and collectively likely to be concentrated in particular areas (which may vary between different language versions). Thus some topics are likely to occur more frequently than would be expected - and there will always be chance groupings of mentions in a particular field.

Some topics will generate much discussion on the talk page - either because they 'startle' people/are not considered 'work and public library' safe etc, or for 'no obvious reason.' Most will be exchanged for new topics within a short time anyway.

Most people find most coverage on the MP 'reasonable or vaguely interesting or just neutral' or there would be significantly more debate here or in a suitable equivalent page.

And, above all, Wikipedia is there to be used, developed, entertain and occasionally startle or annoy. Keep on developing it, so that the theoretical page 'Last persons born before (our predecessor) Wikipedia' can be created.

Written partly to allow the archive bot to work. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Footnote: Yes. As to the topic that prompted the above note, it's incredible that putatively reasonable [citation needed] people would expend 6,200 words on such a minor, passing issue. Sca (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
added necessary cn tag--Jayron32 14:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want this perennial speech to last beyond the next archive, you could edit the FAQ. Art LaPella (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said, partly to help the archive bot - and saying what most people probably think when these discussions happen.
And nobody says my 'Last surviving pre-Wikipedia people' idea is too implausible (though will be fully discussed a century hence). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we pin this to the top of the Main Page? Better yet, can we mandate it so that every reader/editor must read this opus before they can make a comment about video games, Gibraltar, birds, insects on the main page, etc.?--WaltCip (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Make that Asian birds. ;-) – Sca (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • We could theoretically require all posters to pass a test on all the Very Important Things that have accumulated at the top of this page, from Question Help to daily page views. But even our regulars would fail that test. We could make the FAQ link bigger. But that would make everything else relatively smaller. Art LaPella (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Adapt to taste - though I would like 'a honourable (or at least a passing) mention' for doing the summary.
Most people take the points as given, and accept that the primary functions of the Main Page are to (a) shift material from the vast field of unknown unknowns on Wikipedia briefly into the area of the known unknowns, (b) to remind them to 'do something with their pet topics' so they will feature on the MP eventually, and (c) occasionally annoy or pique readers sufficiently to comment 'why, oh why... (was this inflicted on the Main Page which has never done us any harm) when it may annoy children/make me choke on my tea-break drink and biscuit and ruin my keyboard as a result etc.' Jackiespeel (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm more partial to coffee and doughnuts. There's nothing like your desk and keyboard smelling like old coffee for days after a Main Page-induced expectoration catastrophe.--WaltCip (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
'Teabreak/lunchbreak incident' then :)
We all know what a 'startling entry' is when we see it (and a spaceship with a car attached to it is probably startling enough to wander over from 'some astronomy/spaceship themed wiki') even if we cannot define such beforehand Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Period! Sca (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
How is it that more up to date news items are not on this page? Such as the tragedy at the high school in Parkland, Florida.Dogru144 (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dogru144: Items are not posted immediately to the "In the news" section because the article's quality (among other things) must be assessed first. Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Florida_school_shooting. –FlyingAce✈hello 00:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Tragedy is the wrong word. At this point, it's a statistic.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
School shootings in the entire rest of the world - so rare as to be notable: in the US they (and other 'guns on legs' incidents) are 'merely a statistic.'
A legislative suggestion - do not annoy the gun lobby with constraints on guns - license 'owning bullets.' 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Now, people critiquing are people reading, and no one is forced to read such critiques -- some critiques can even prove useful,Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells complaining about Final Fantasy 9¾ appearing on the Main Page is not especially useful.--WaltCip (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Surely Disgusted... should be complaining about FF 9 3/4 #not# appearing on the Main Page?
Even if there was a wiki for displaying different versions of the Wikipedia MP with the ITN- and OTD- equivalents being used to display material not appearing on the WP MP there would be claims of material omitted.
If everybody was happy with the Main Page all the time then there would actually be something wrong with it. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Balance in the featured article choices

I have absolutely no objection to today's FA (Space Seed Star Trek episode) or yesterday's (Fantastic magazine) - fine pieces of work both - but the choices aren't balanced: having American science fiction articles as the FA two days in a row isn't a good choice, considering the huge breadth of articles there are to choose from, covering different topics and geographic regions. Need more balance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.127.211 (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

How ironic it is to see this thread directly below one in which editors are opining their frustrations with complaints about the Main Page.--WaltCip (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The selection of TFA pretty much reflects the balance of topics which are at featured status. Not much to complain about really, if the IP wants different topics and geographic regions featured, the IP should write some FAs. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
IP user, if you dislike what appears on the MP, please participate in the processes that determine what appears there, or work on articles so that there is a greater variety of articles to choose from. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if 'a considerably wider range of WP articles' were in the pool there would be occasional statistical flukes/a group of articles being updated together.
IP - on April 1 there is likely to be an excess of bizarre entries.
There is a slight case for ensuring an apparent randomness on the MP where it is feasible. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It is random, every day, almost without exception, particularly as each section is produced in isolation from every other section. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, random selection of articles would guarantee that there would be more occurances (not less) of topics repeated on consecutive days. That's how randomness works. --Jayron32 17:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I said 'apparent randomness' - and there can be some 'observing of other sections' and reordering occasionally.
As Abraham Lincoln might have said - you cannot please all the people all the time. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
But you can't pick your friends' noses. --Jayron32 18:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
You can, but you probably shouldn't. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Only if you go with them to the rhinoplasty clinic and they ask. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page, which immediately demonstrates why the TFA schedulers cannot fully balance the section. The problem isn't with the TFA selection, but the pool of featured articles they have to choose from. The best way to address it is to write more high-quality articles on under-represented topics. Modest Genius talk 14:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Szacik, do you see the enormous This page is for discussing the contents of the main page. It isn't for general questions unrelated to the main page or for the addition of content to Wikipedia articles. banner at the top of this page? It means what it says. ‑ Iridescent 20:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

My definition of neutrality is similar to that of 'neutral'. It is having the absence of strong views to eliminate biases.

New Definition- Presenting a neutral stance to eliminate biases to preserve personal opinion and interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szacik (talk • contribs)

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.

Wikipedia news

Why did it take so long for wikipedia to put the South Africa president resigning on the news yet it was quicker to put the shooting on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.93.190 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@72.73.93.190: Usually it depends on the quality of the article. The article must be suitable for linking from the main page, including being properly referenced and not containing unsuitable material. Including it as a news item also relies on the article being updated to fully include the topic that is in the news, again properly referenced. I assume that in the case of the SA president, it took longer for that to happen than for the Florida shooting story.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@72.73.93.190: I would add that the English Wikipedia in general likely has more contributors from the US and/or interested in US news enough to improve the article, than we have contributors from South Africa. This is part of Wikipedia's systemic bias. If you don't like what is posted to ITN, or want things posted faster, I invite you to participate at the nominations page, WP:ITNC, so you can help work to address this bias. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Another thing to keep in mind is that it is not really news in the traditional sense. It is new encyclopedia articles that happen to be in the news when nominated. When quality is good enough and there is consensus that any given event is noteworthy enough, it gets posted(which can get quite heated with a lot of bickering). In other words, it is not a news ticker. Small note to the posters above, i am quite certain pings don't work for ip editors. At least i have never noticed any effect when someone pinged me, haha 91.49.67.34 (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
And as has been said on previous occasions - there is only space for 4-5 one line entries, the world is a big place with lots of events, Wikipedia is not a news-site, and there is a discussion prior to posting. Chances are 'the item you consider particularly newsworthy' will not appear, and if it does there will be a delay. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
A change in national leader is usually considered newsworthy by ITN wherever it happens, particularly if it's quite unexpected, like this one was. But yes, the more general point applies. Not everything is "newsworthy" enough for ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, as has been previously said, there are practical limits to the 'size' of the Main Page, and of users' devices' screens - and the same would apply if the entire MP (or that of Wikinews) were devoted to news one liners and there was a band of busy Wikinewswriters devices constantly at the ready there would be actual or perceived omissions. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Any comments on the current 'prompt update'? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to know that why the news of death of Indian actress Sridevi is not there in the news section. There is news about death of American preacher Billy Graham in that section. She was the first female superstar of Bollywood and was a very popular actress in India. Wiki.editAnshu (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD/Blurb: Sridevi <--Discuss it there. --Majora (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
What is needed is a 'Not on the Main Page (yet) but should be' page.
And if Wikipedia had been around in 1963 there would have been long discussions on 23 November as to why CS Lewis and Aldous Huxley were not mentioned on the MP. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The answer, @Wiki.editAnshu:, is that the article is of substandard quality right now. There are specific, fixable problems that have not yet been addressed after over a day of people noting those problems. If YOU fix the article right now, it will be posted on the main page right now. If, however, you don't think she's an important enough person to put some effort into writing a good article about her, then you can ignore this recommendation. --Jayron32 11:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we have a picture other than Billy G - he has been there long enough. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure; just write and nominate an article at WP:ITNC which has a valid, free-to-use picture. If the article quality is good enough, we'll post the article and change the picture. Easy as pie. --Jayron32 13:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Purposes of the Main Page

this discussion has drifted out of the realm of both usefulness and humor. --Jayron32 12:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Through a systematic and neutral policy towards all MP readers to have or omit at least one entry in any 12 months that will annoy them through said presence or non-presence or delay in appearing.

When an entry on the main page causes discussion here there is an inverse relationship between the significance of the topic of the article and the amount of heated discussion and number of participants on the talk page. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why does Wikipedia have yet another Van Gogh image as the Featured Picture? It's clear Wikipedia is systematically biased against Neoclassicism art in favor of the Post-Impressionists. I'm shocked, appalled, and disgusted.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as "disgusted", nor am I surprised. Neoclassicism hasn't been fashionable for 150 years, and this is a volunteer project. " systematically biased" are clever words, but ignores the reality of how these things come about. What other outcome is likely other than popular taste? Ceoil (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I feel that my Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells harlequinade may have been lost on some people.--WaltCip (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm appalled that your obvious disregard of Poe's Law has gone so badly. We need to prevent such problems from happening in the future. --Jayron32 14:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Certain politicians are said to be living embodiments of Poe's Law. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The output of the Postmodernism Generator is indistinguishable from what it is parodying. 13:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

How long is Billy Graham's picture gonna stay up? His death is old news by now. Blakut (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, he is a man of extraordinary importance to the entire world. It seems only appropriate that his picture should be up for a considerable length of time.--WaltCip (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
You forgot your smiley again. GCG (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ITN suggestion

Wikipedia develops an equivalent of these as a placeholder for those occasions when there is no relevant image for any news entry/any given picture has been up for 'several days.' Jackiespeel (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Who replied? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
No, that's silly. Why replace a relevant image with a test card, how is that in any way encyclopedic? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Just as silly as complaining that a given image has been up there for X amount of time... (not saying that you in particular are complaining, just a general observation based on the thread above) –FlyingAce✈hello 12:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I was merely making a slightly tongue in cheek suggestion to counter the 'why has X been up there for Y days' discussions. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Billy Graham

Off the main page. --Jayron32 16:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

So, how much longer are we going to keep glorifying a homophobic religious extremist on the front page? Do we really need to publicise such odious figures even after their death? I wonder what would happen when a prominent Muslim extremist cleric dies, would they be allowed to be up this long as well? Marvel at the bias.... Fgf10 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You would prefer this picture again?
We cycle items down ITN as new ones come in and the linked articles are judged appropriate quality for linking from the Main Page. If you have some better ideas for new stories, go over to WP:ITN/C and suggest them, or support others' suggestions.

"Extremist" is a little subjective, I think ... you want that, try Jimmy Swaggart. But chacun son goût ...

And at least be glad it isn't Lugo ...

(ducks, or maybe doesn't; we'll see who remembers this running gag). Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Many people would share the opposite opinion to the one that the original poster holds. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
​Whether he's a paragon of virtue or the most loathsome person ever to walk the earth; all we care about is significance. There's less scope for Islamic figures to get blurbs, as the leaderless structure of modern Islam means there are fewer leaders that meet the "transformative world leader in their field" standard required for a blurb (plus English Wikipedia's systemic bias inevitably means articles about people in English-speaking countries are more likely to have decent-quality articles, and those people are more likely to be Christian), but on those occasions where significant (in Wikipedia terms) Islamic clerics die and their articles are of adequate quality, they certainly get posted. ‑ Iridescent 11:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess, the point that fgf10 tried to make, is that he's been dead for over two weeks now. Personally, I have no idea who that guy even was and I do not see the need to point out the news of his passing anymore over the many issues in other recent news like Germany finally agreeing on a government, several updates in Chinese policy, etc. 89.27.175.163 (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
If you want to see certain things posted, I invite you to participate at WP:ITNC. We can only consider what is nominated, discussed, and updated. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Not convinced that either al-Zarqawi or bin Laden is an "Islamic cleric". No doubt different views could be taken, but neither of the articles describes them as such. And one was posted in 2006. 213.205.198.52 (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You would prefer this picture instead? Let us have a serious beard, at least.
Indeed, and let us hope that the author of To the Youth in Europe and North America will likewise appear on this our main page, with his image, if he should die. There is a freely licensed image available! Apparently the Tasnim News Agency provides all its content under CC-SA compatible licenses. MPS1992 (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
That one is not by the Tasnim agency and is a copyright violation needs further review. Tagged as such on Commons. --Majora (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to correct myself. It needs a direct link to the original. It could still be under a good license. We just can't use a third party to prove that. --Majora (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome. How about this one? It is used in many different articles and places. MPS1992 (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Khamenei will get a blurb. He's lead a very important country for 30 years. GCG (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah not really sure why you would call Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as clerics. AFAIK neither they nor their followers generally considered themselves as such. I mean technically under some definitions, you could call them clerics, but then again you could also call a lot of Christians as religious leaders of some sort. They were religious extremists sure, but not clerics. I do agree that the original complaint is nonsense BTW. A good example which would clearly fit the OP's criteria would probably be Mohammed Omar. I don't know if his death was posted. If it wasn't I imagine it was either because of the weird circumstances or maybe the fact he wasn't seen as important by the time of his death. Nil Einne (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugo. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Next time Lugo is up for OTD I am so going to use that photo again. —howcheng {chat} 18:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent deaths

David Ogden Stiers? Foreignshore (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: David Ogden Stiers. It still has huge chunks that are entirely unreferenced, and as such can't go on the main page. ‑ Iridescent 21:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

All(most) all female main page

This is a really good way to mark International Women's Day. Congratulations to the editors involved in making it happen. Hopefully for next year we can also have an all-female ITN to mark the day as well. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It is hard for ITN to do something like that, as postings to ITN are dependent on recent events(with improved articles) which don't always involve women or women's issues. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of a special ITN for the day including only news about or focused on women. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I realize that. As I said, that would be difficult because ITN and its process is not set up for it. I don't believe ITN has ever done a themed day of any kind precisely for that reason. If there are no recent events involving women, we would have nothing to post. Events must be nominated once they occur and once an article is written(or an existing article updated). That is difficult to plan out ahead of time. OTD and DYK are much easier to plan out as those postings are decided ahead of time, as opposed to ITN where things are decided after they happen. I also don't think the standards or process could(or should, frankly) be changed for one day to post things which otherwise wouldn't be posted. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • To add to that, TFA and POTD are likewise really easy to arrange, as only a minimal number of people are involved in the process. That being said, I don't think there was any coordination between the different sections. Ruby Loftus, for example, has been scheduled since January.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
International Men's Day is held on 7 Feb each year. The main page on that date this year looked like this. I'm not drawing any conclusions, just making an observation. Optimist on the run (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I've never been aware of any effort to celebrate IMD on the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you're reading Optimist's comment backwards – or at least I hope you are. Little on the main page on the day had anything to do with men specifically. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow you at all. I noted that there's been no effort to celebrate IMD as far as I can remember. What does that have to do with reading Optimist's comment, backward or otherwise? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
It looked to me like you were replying to Optimist's comment about IMD, not making a separate observation. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
As over-represented as white males tend to be in main page content, it doesn't seem like anything along the lines of IMD representation on the main page is at all necessary. In effect, it would be redundant.--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
White men are not over-represented. White men are responsible for the vast majority of everything, both good and bad. People tend to forget that absolutely everything you see was built by men. Every building, road, park etc... all built by men. Most major technology invented by men. All wars are fought by men by a vast majority. I think men are represented relative to their contribution just fine. After writing this I actually agree that there is no need for IMD. Everyday is Men's day because we live in buildings built by men, work in buildings built by men, commute on roads built by men, use technology invented by men etc etc etc....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.63.2 (talk • contribs)
I'm just going to let this sort of mentality speak for itself as to how and why systemic bias exists here.--WaltCip (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
And there was me thinking that this was a neutral encyclopedia. Britmax (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
They're all items that would have run anyway, so it's not a neutrality issue; all that's been done is collate them onto a single date (and consequently cause a very slight drop in the female-to-male ratio for the next couple of weeks to counterbalance the queue-jumping, but it won't be anything noticeable). ‑ Iridescent 10:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Surely we can weight the front page in favour of 51% of the human population (and yet are under-represented in most aspects of Wikipedia) for one day a year to celebrate the day? We weight the front page towards Australian-stuff most years on Australia Day, and there aren't many of us Australians. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Per the above, the fact that we feature women on the main page 0.27% of the year, and men on the main page the other 99.73% of the year doesn't seem to me to be specifically non-neutral; indeed if we were striving for neutrality, we'd work harder in the direction of actually doing so, instead of bitching that white males have to endure a day of realizing that people who are not white males are actually people. --Jayron32 12:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
No, that's fake news, bogus stats. IWD is not the only day that women have been on the main page. And precisely zero effort is put into "featuring men" at any time. So less tabloid, more fact! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
That's because the default assumption is "male". --Jayron32 12:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
And I know you know what people say about you assume something... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
That both you and WaltCip are talking about "white" men, indicates to me that you have racial biases. Not all men are white, where's the racial representation of men? the majority of whom are non-white. <sarcasm>It's really quite racist if you think about it.</sarcasm> Furthermore, I didn't realize that the USS Lexington was male or female. Here I was thinking it was an object. For that matter, who is bitching? We feature content that is nominated. The imbalance can't be addressed unless people are writing new articles, and improving existing ones about women. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Boats have always been female by tradition. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
It was the only object based ITN entry. I was more pointing to the fact that not everything featured on the main page is even living, let alone man or woman. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
How about having regular 'no people of any kind on the MP' days?
Don't forget there is another snarkfest coming up on this page in just over 3 weeks time. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
And today 4/5 of the pictures are 'not people.'
There is a case for occasional themed MPs (whether or not they provoke 'This is a Good Thing'and 'Why oh why?' debates on the talk page) - whether to commemorate something (as here, or eg the centenary of the end of WWI) or 'just because it seems a good or amusing idea'- and there will be occasional days when different parts of the MP coordinate by chance. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Elliot Spitzer was never "Governor of New York"

Your Main Page for March 10, 2018, incorrectly names Elliot Spitzer as a Governor of New York. He was the Attorney General of New York, not the governor.

Not according to his article or our list of governors of NY article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Laughter

DYK ... that laughter, a signal of amusement, helps us cope with stress?

– Thanks for the sagacious advice re dealing with life's little crises. Sca (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, after I used "amused" once too much in an edit summary in 2016, and keep being reminded of that mistake again and again, I smiled ;) - I took care not to review the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 • LAUGHTER, n. An interior convulsion, producing a distortion of the features and accompanied by inarticulate noises. It is infectious and, though intermittent, incurable. — Ambrose Bierce – Sca (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
We were very much amused by it. The Royal C (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent deaths

I know it's pretty full there already, but IMO Stephen Hawking should be added, he was the only person who ever played itself on Star Trek - and also a famous astrophysicist who helped making complex physics a mainstream understandable phenomenon with his Short History of Time. --Constructor 10:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

His death heads "In the news". I don't think he also needs to be mentioned in "Recent deaths". —Bruce1eetalk 10:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There have always been complaints about the confusion of the ITN template, specifically the top-most story not relating to the image, but it's pretty hard to miss the blurb and image that Stephen Hawking currently (and rightly) has up there.--WaltCip (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Conspiration: I think you mean A Brief History of Time. Perhaps you were confusing it with A Short History of Nearly Everything, which is also well worth reading but quite different.

Sorry, not a native English speaker, I have that book in German. That is what I meant. And yes, I didn't see the "In the news". Please close the discussion here then, I apologize for my oversight. --Constructor 14:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(Incidentally, your signature is a little confusing, as it gives the impression that you are an editor called Constructor. That would appear to be someone else, although not registered on the English Wikipedia.) 31.72.233.253 (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wie, bitte? – Sca (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, used it for ten years without complaints. --Constructor 14:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, changed it to avoid confusion. Apologies! --Conspiration 14:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Foul Language

article is off the main page. Discussion of the use of the word "fuck" at Wikipedia can happen on other, more relevent venues. --Jayron32 23:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm here to register my puzzlement as to why Wikipedia is okay with "fuck" appearing so often on the main page. I understand that this sort of language is commonplace in The New Yorker and other publications, but those publications have policies for foul language that are maintained by professional editors who have a good idea of who their audience is, and how any particular language usage fits the image and needs of the publication. For Wikipedia's front page to say that a tv show episode's choice of setting is a "fuck you" to some demographic is entirely unnecessary and displays Wikipedia's amateur editorial attainment. Cellodont (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)cellodont

Wikipedia isn't censored and since the "fuck you" is a direct quote from the show's creator, it's not gratuitous. And Wikipedia does in fact have "policies for foul language that are maintained by ... editors who have a good idea of who their audience is, and how any particular language usage fits the image and needs of the publication" (see WP:NOTCENSORED). freshacconci (✉) 18:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an essay on this subject, Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page, which I think is worth quoting here - "While having the word in a neutral manner that is relevant is unlikely to cause a massive uproar, using the word deliberately in an immature manner in an attempt to be funny will." The example today definitely falls into the first category.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It is just a word. Any 4th grader would know worse words. Wikipedia is not censored and anything can appear on the main page. And often content will, or at least could, offend someone from somewhere in some demographic. And what image does Wikipedia even have in regards to editorializing? But anyway, i do agree that the DYK hook is awful. Not because of the 'foul language' though. 91.49.80.164 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean what next? Will someone complain about a picture of Uranus... Sorry, i could not resist that one... 91.49.80.164 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It's been a good and polite conversation, and thanks. I've learned that only "censorship" can keep "fuck" off the front page of Wikipedia, and that "Black Mirror" has achieved nothing more interesting for the purposes of today's Wikipedia front page than its insulting send off to some, presumably, anti-American demographic. Another comment points out that the use in this case is "neutral," "relevant," and not "immature;" I entirely disagree. Also, it comes as (good?) news that all forth graders know/use the word "fuck" (don't remember that one myself, but hey...), and that Wikipedia doesn't expect to avoid offending "someone, from somewhere, in some demographic." Gee, I've always found myself to be utterly average, so now I know that I'm actually very obscure and unusual. Cool. Cellodont (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)cellodont
Oh give it a rest. No ones goal is to offend anyone. But when you have people from many different places and backgrounds view it, someone is most likely to be offended by something specific to their cultural background which is perfectly fine with anyone else. And in what dream world do you live where 10 year olds are not able to curse like sailors? The only one really acting immature right now is you with your passive agressiveness. But we each make our choices i guess. Have a good evening anyway. 91.49.80.164 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The question has been asked and answered, whether or not the OP found the answer satisfactory. I suggest that the IP (seemingly emerging only to engage in this discussion) drop the stick rather than resort to insults, which are clearly prohibited by policy. General Ization Talk 20:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes i'm an SPA only here to argue with someone on main page talk, not that my IP changes every day. Clearly i am here only to make trouble...(obviously sarcasm) But i guess calling someone an SPA is not an attack, right? Or not assuming good faith is alright? Pot meet kettle. But one thing you said i do agree with. And that is leaving this discussion be as there is no arguing about it anyway. Things are as they are and will stay that way until it changes, lol. 91.49.80.164 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you're satisfied, Cellodont, but I do need to point out this: in WP:NOTCENSORED -- which is not an essay but policy ("a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow") -- it states "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."
I believe the main issue in this policy is that it is impossible to not be offensive as someone somewhere will find something offensive. The best analogy is to consider what was offensive in the 19th century in Western culture (for example The Kiss a film from 1896) and what is accepted now. Who is to say that the word "fuck" is offensive? It may be to you but not to someone else. Is it Wikipedia's job to police language? The safest, most neutral approach is a reasoned no censorship policy, with the usual exceptions. Wikipedia:Offensive material is a guideline that covers this very well, stating in part, "Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner." In the end, we can only go by a standard that understands that what is offensive to one person is not offensive to another and we cannot accommodate all possible positions of what offends. freshacconci (✉) 20:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I was more offended by the lack of attribution for the quote, which runs afoul of the MOS point that states "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice." It should really be worded like "that according to writer Charlie Brooker, the Black Mirror episode "San Junipero" was set in California as a "fuck you" to people complaining that the show would become Americanised?" The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I've fixed that, though it's only on the MP for a few more hours anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more offended by children being shot to death on a regular basis because gun law enables it. But instead all we get here are complaints over the odd "bad word". How fucked up is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If no one ever complains, then no one ever knows. The front page doesn't need to offend anyone for the sake of this reference, especially since it could have been worded differently and served the same purpose. Is it true, by the way, that this kind of complaint is "all we get here?" Good. Under that assumption, you can save us time and aggravation, editors, by leaving this junk out. Cellodont (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Cellodont
So you chose to basically ignore what people have said here and refused to read the links provided and maintain that your sense of propriety represents what is normal and average: what was written was clearly not meant to offend people for the sake of offending people and it's bad faith to assume antagonism on the part of the editors involved. freshacconci (✉) 23:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
There are some words and topics which it is obvious beforehand are likely to cause much discussion of the 'what is Wikipedia coming to (and/or I don't wish to read this during work time while having a drink and/or crumbly foodstuff)' - and until WP has Main Pages for 'work and public space safe' and 'more wide ranging and prepare to be surprised' they will occasionally 'escape on to the Main Page.'
A balance has to be made between showing the diversity of the universe and people's 'activities and viewpoints' and allowing for the diverse range of WP readers' tastes as to acceptability and reading environments (and whether, if there are never any complaints, whether WP is doing it right). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Holy grail of waterfalls?

Catlin Brook article shows no "holy grail" waterfalls or watershed. Sorry I got this mixed up with another article. --2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's right there in the "Geography and geology" section. Third paragraph, second sentence: "These falls have been described in Jeff Mitchell's book Hiking the Endless Mountains as the "holy grail" of Pennsylvania waterfalls." --Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WT:TFA#Blurb note

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of Edits

I just noticed that the Edit Count just hit 827 Million. I think it will hit 1 Billion by the end of 2018... --198.111.211.002 —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Place yer bets: Wikipedia:Billionth edit pool. ʍw 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:Statistics - and it would be amusing if the 1 Billionth edit was on the 6th Million English language article. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove disambig pages from article count

{{NUMBEROFARTICLES2}} lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? Seems simpler to include them. SnowFire (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Dunno where to put general feedback on Wikipedia

All of the new stuff I'm seeing in articles is awesome. Keep it up! (like new features etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Well thanks! We try! You're also invited to help out anywhere you care to, Wikipedia:Introduction is a good place to find ways to help! --Jayron32 14:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

On this Day issue

The "On This Day" section is very America-centric and Western-centric today ... three articles about the United States out of five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.98.155 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted to fix these sorts of problems, you can help out in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries to make suggestions to upcoming dates. --Jayron32 14:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It's also unusually biased towards 1850 onwards; I think there were several items that had to be removed at the last minute, and US/recent articles are often in better shape than average. (The Viagra item isn't really American, though; it will have been the first major approval globally.) Espresso Addict (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the pool of eligible articles for today contains a whole lot of American items (8 out of 14 that aren't being used), including everything before 1977, so in trying to find a balance between chronological, geographical, and topic diversity, I sacrificed geographical today. —howcheng {chat} 22:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
If someone had wanted to fix this problem, they could also improve articles that would expand the pool of eligible articles from other times and geography.--Jayron32 23:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Do what WiR did basically - if you want more coverage of non-american and non-western news and events, add it! current events has been great in this way - lots of worldwide and american news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

5.6 million

Congrats! The 5.6 millionth article is Raymond C. Morgan. – Nixinova ⟨ T | E ⟩ 04:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

LAND DAY????!!!!!! And no mention of Good Friday

Not constructive. Isa (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

To mention something like Land Day in Palestine yet not mention Good Friday in Western Christianity smacks of being anti-Christian. Biased if there ever was. DavidSteinle (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Stop jumping to conclusions; land day is there and good friday isn't because land day is a set-date holiday and good friday is variable. – Nixinova ⟨ T | E ⟩ 03:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@DavidSteinle: The Good Friday article would have been put on the main page, but the problem is you didn't fix it in time. See, we can't put up sub-standard articles on the main page, and right now the article has far too much text which lacks citations to qualify as good enough for the main page. Since Wikipedia articles only get better because someone who cares fixes them, and since you clearly care about this article, there is no one in the world more responsible for fixing the problem than you. If you can fix the issues with the article, just ping me, and I'll post it as you seem to want done. It's very easy at Wikipedia to correct horrifying injustices such as this: all your have to do is make the article good enough yourself, and you don't even have to involve anyone else. You just do it, and the problem will be fixed.--Jayron32 04:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh the humanity. Completely agree with Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
And as I have said before - one of the functions of the MP is to bring unknown unknowns to people's attention - rather than highlighting generally available information. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Why do people constantly assume that every decision about what gets put on the main page is motivated by malicious bias? "Nyah hah hah! We here at Wikipedia hate Christians. Let's really rustle their jimmies today by not posting Good Friday on the Main Page!" It seriously doesn't work like that. Also, I see that your account has been around since 2006. Surely in the time you have spent here at Wikipedia, you would have become aware of how the selection process on the Main Page works.--WaltCip (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Also seems odd not to be noting that this evening marks the beginning of Pesach, when most/many Jewish families will be gathering together for their Seder. But perhaps those articles weren't in good enough shape either. Jheald (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
And even if the Main Page was large enough to fill (whatever the largest TV screen is) and all the many language MPs were taken into account there would still be things that people would complain were omitted. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
No that is not odd. - DePiep (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christ is Risen

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.

Hi, I don't know where to write this, and I'm not too sure it's an error that's why I'm posting here. Anybody should feel free to archive this if I'm wrong. The seventh DYK hook reads that some people know Christ the Lord is risen today from Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch?. I don't seem to see the correlation between an hymn written by Charles Wesley and a city something..... Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

See Christ the Lord Is Risen Today#Tune. General Ization Talk 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Oops, my bad! Thanks. Can anyone kindly archive this! Mahveotm (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Boat Races 2017

Why were the 2017 races featured just a week after the 2018 races were completed? I was reading the section as if it were a news item until I realised that the results were all wrong. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It was the one year anniversary. Stephen 09:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Click Bait Tactics or April Fools Day Joking

no longer on the main page. --Jayron32 13:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

I really hope the cheeky way of expressing items in Did you know... and On This Day... aren't a anything more than an misguided attempt at April Fools jokes. Sollupulo (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sollupulo: yes, they are just April Fools items - factual, but unusual. — xaosflux Talk 23:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sollupulo: We always do April Fools jokes on DYK, to be honest this year's was also the cleanest (given it was Easter too!). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, misguided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main Page history for February 12 and 13, 2016?

I've noticed for a while that Wikipedia:Main Page history is missing pages for February 12 and 13, 2016: these are last two remaining articles from 2016 and beyond that don't have such pages. Can this be fixed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No 07Alpha55 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
At least not without significant work. You would have to combine versions in the page history of each transcluded template. There are many snapshots at https://web.archive.org/web/20160701000000*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page but they show the rendered html page and not the wikitext we need, although it could be used to check the work on template histories. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Daily mentions of China and about China in the "Did you know" section

Someone keeps adding facts about China in the Did you know section everyday. This has happened for awhile, and it wasn't the case four years ago, so was wondering if this is the work of Chinese Wikipedia editors, or a concerted effort to make China more interesting to Western readers. --1.203.80.200 (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Or someone's on a kick writing articles about China, just how at my peak I was turning out one or two articles on Indonesia per day. In the case of the Lin Hu article that's on DYK right now, it was written by an editor who has penned almost a thousand articles on the country (including quite a few four years ago).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • To be more specific, the user page at User:Zanhe lists many of the articles that this editor had contributed over many years. 213.205.240.198 (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Considering that China contains roughly 18% of the entire World population, it's hardly unreasonable for articles about Chinese topics to be flagged by DYK quite frequently. If we were trying to allocate DYKs proportionally (which of course we're not and probably shouldn't) one would expect an average closer to two per day. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Portals links on the main page

A request for comments at the village pump concerns a proposal to end the system of portals and this would require the removal of the links currently on the main page (possibly including the community portal, which also has a deletion notice, though the inclusion of this in the proposal is unclear). The consequence for the main page would be the need for a redesign, and serendipitously I see that one the perennial redesign proposals is currently active on this page! So I'll leave a note there as well. What to do with the space on the main page relating to portal links probably needs to be discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Miloš Forman

He has died yesterday; pls add to the "recent deaths" section. Litwin Gorliwy (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Litwin Gorliwy Hello, recent deaths are not added automatically, they must first be nominated at WP:ITNC to evaluate the quality of the article and update. I invite you to do so. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

same article that appeared on the same day in 2012

Why did you put the same article on main page that was in 2012 Abote2 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It was decided last year that Featured articles may appear on the Main page more than once, provided that at least five years have lapsed since their last appearance (see this RFC). Today is the anniversary of sinking of the Titanic. —Bruce1eetalk 13:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Currently only "strike" is linked to the 2018 Damascus/Homs Bombing article. To make more people aware, why isn't "strike multiple government targets" all linked to the article? Ultimograph5 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like house style to me, we don't need to add more and more bold text "to make more people aware", I think that its prominence on the main page is doing that just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

a suspected chemical weapons attack

I don't know who wrote this nonsense abour 'suspected'. There WAS a chemical weapons attack. There may be doubt only about who was responsible. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you supply us with reliable sources which state definitively that this was a chemical attack please? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The main page reflects what reliable sources say, and currently all of the reliable sources say "suspected" and "alleged". Pretty straightforward, really.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why does a STH game deserve to be on the Main Page?

Aiken D and PrimeHunter have answered this question sufficiently, and this is not Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

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

I really think it doesn't deserve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuniorRocketScientist (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There are many Featured Articles on video games. Topics which are popular tend to attract a lot of editors to them. But you're welcome to find a topic that interests you and get it to FA status.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't care. Video games aren't encyclopedic. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:C3 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
According to this view, other works of popular culture created for the purpose of entertainment would also not be encyclopedic, for example the Iliad. That's silly. MPS1992 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
No, according to this view, video games aren't encyclopedic. How much more clear can you get? We're not making any comparisons to classical works that stand the test of time here. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:C3 (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Have you recited the Iliad in its original language to a large audience recently? 23 years is a long time in video game terms. The Seven Wonders of the World did not do very well in standing the test of time, but we still have articles on each of those. Anyway, the problem here is that it's your view that video games aren't encyclopedic. You haven't told us why. MPS1992 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article is picked from Wikipedia:Featured articles which are quality articles and not based on importance. If editors choose to spend their volunteer time on quality articles about video games then they can become featured just like any other article. Lots of video games satisfy Wikipedia:Notability and can get encyclopedic articles. We have five million articles and space is not an issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
To the OP, your view is irrelevant as Featured Articles are based on quality, not whether they will stand the test of time or not. Aiken D 20:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Featured articles reflect the amount of research, time, and loving concern 'person or persons' are prepared to work on particular topics on Wikipedia - and bear very little relation to the said topic/articles place in the grand scheme of things.
Anyone - newbie, expert, article-polisher... - can acquire the superpower of transforming an ordinary article into a FA. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sister page and gender neutral language

Nothing good will come out of that. Isa (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

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

The sister page should be named sibling page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this pertains to the Main Page, but issues with the article title should be discussed at the article talk page, in this case Talk:Sister- though I think your proposal is extremely unlikely to succeed. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the IP may be referring to the "Wikipedia's sister projects" header. —Bruce1eetalk 11:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Political correctness... Ugh...
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.

It appears that ZHwiki has crossed the 1,000,000 article mark. Can an admin please update Template:Wikipedia languages accordingly? (Requested based on an edit request placed at Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors/footer). Thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added an edit request with {{edit fully-protected}}. Double sharp (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. Rmhermen (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The main page has looked the same for over 12 years and I think its overdue for a redesign. The main page is still using == Default Headings == which looks quite ugly and unprofessional for use on the front page. I was thinking of something like the "executive" design (or even the "regal" design), in which everything has the coloured heading and text background.  Nixinova  T  C  19:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nixinova: Not to dampen your ideas, but dozens and dozens of people have come before you to propose redesigns of the Main Page. The problem is that while you could probably get consensus that a redesign is needed, you would not get consensus as to what the redesign should be exactly. I wish you luck, but this is a very steep hill for you to climb. You would probably need to start a formal Request for Comment or some form of very broad and publicized discussion, as well. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
You can use the textbox at the top of this page and search for 'redesign' for all the gory details. It took years of discussion to get a picture caption for ITN, so good luck with a redesign. Isa (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
And one could argue the reverse: the present design is the instantly recognisable Wikipedia 'brand' (see any number of contemporary-set TV programs and films where WP is used for research) - and we can all think of several cases where changing the design has been a marketing failure.
When, eventually, it becomes necessary to change the MP design (for whatever reasons) there will be (a) a long discussion involving wailing and teeth-gnashing on all sides on this talk page, (b) people become familiar with the new setting and wonder what all the fuss was about, and (c) several persons will suggest ways of improving the page again (none of the redesigns resembling each other). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:BROKEN.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Isanae (Isa): I know. But again: is there no support anyway anyhow to make this change? Some 'consensus construct'? How ever could this en:WP be taken hostage? - DePiep (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: What I remember from previous discussions is that there is a consensus that the design is outdated. The problem is what to replace it with. There were various alternate designs, mock ups, etc. that were done, but people have different tastes. My personal conclusion at the time was that unless there's some executive action from the WMF, a redesign won't happen. Still, it can't hurt to talk about it, so have at it. Isa (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"unprofessional", "ugly", and I'd also add drab and dated. It would look great if we were in 2006. Professional websites, especially ones with our readership do not look like an old geocities design. All signs it most definitely is broken. Aiken D 23:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

So do you support Nixinova's "executive design"? To repeat: "The problem is that while you could probably get consensus that a redesign is needed, you would not get consensus as to what the redesign should be exactly." Everyone expects everyone else to support their own particular redesign. Nothing will change unless enough people endorse someone else's. Art LaPella (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No I don’t as they are too similar to the current design. I’d overhaul completely and probably get rid of in the news and anniversaries and make it more like Google’s homepage. But as you say, just my opinion and as it’s so open to variation it’s going to be very difficult to change. Some people still think it’s fine and will oppose any change. Aiken D 10:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you're right about less on the Main Page. Editors want to be read, but readers come here for the search box to choose what they want to read about. If they wanted someone else to choose, they could go to any other website. Mainly it makes the search box harder to find. Art LaPella (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You mean like this? Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't looked at that lately! Looks good, but of course a version customized for English Wikipedia and versions for the alternatives would be better. Art LaPella (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Every redesign I've seen is at least as ugly as what we have now. And the 2 the original poster mentioned are especially hideous. My question iz, if you know about the alternatjve pages (as the OP obviously does) and like one of them, why not just set that as your home pasge? Or make your own and use that? That's what I do. --Khajidha (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

But - the main problem with ITN seems to be only 'why have we had image X/Y's ghastly face up for Z days now?' and for OTD 'Why was anniversary X missed out' - and one of the functions of the MP #is# to lead the reader to topics they did not know they wished to know more about.
Anyone care to design a 'customise your WP MP viewer experience' widget so anybody who does not care for the current design can change it to taste (on signing in)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
But it's almost identical. There'd be no point in changing it to something so similar. I'll have to see if there's a suitable design from the alternatives or make my own. Aiken D 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the several sections could be made slightly more distinct?
If there was a grand poll of WP users on redesigning the MP there would (a) be only a fractional component responding, (b) a number who state that they are reasonably happy with the layout/want only minor rearrangements, and (c) a very large number of completely different alternative versions (many of which will be impractical to set up). There will be much discussion and disagreement (possibly enough to fill several archives pages) and we will be left with the MP as is/with minor tweaks, followed within a few months by the next proposal for reform. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, we’re stuck with it forever. Aiken D 18:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
It might be possible to have subtle changes over time so that people get used to them.
To what extent does the WP main page-as-is and its venerable age (in webpage design terms) provide part of WP's brand image? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The reason I chose the executive one is because it is similar to the current page and I thought it wouldn't need as much discussion as a complete overhaul.  Nixinova  T  C  20:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If the request for comments at the village pump about a proposal to end the system of portals goes through, that might be a good time to do a full main page redesign. See also section below on this ('Portals links on the main page'). Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I changed the Main Page! It can be done. . Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I am creating a mockup here (It is constantly getting changed) but have not received a good response up-till now. I am just linking it here so that it can catalyze other people to have better ideas. One of the major advantages should be that it does not use tables but one of its drawbacks is that it mimics the current page too closely. — FR+ 11:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I find this new design largely inferior to the present one. In fact it is less a design than a list. I don't see how one could improve the present design in the first place, and changing for the sake of changing is irrational activism. But beside that you proposition seems to me to be a real worsening, with too much place assigned to any banality: here for example "in the news" and "on this day" are screaming for half so much width each. And when tables are the more flexible and powerful instrument for designing layouts so we should be using tables whatever our dear html5 fetishists could say. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
@FR30799386: I really, really like your design, although I would like the headers to be emphasized for easier navigation. Other than that I love it. EDIT: You know what I changed my mind I like it without the bold text. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
But it's so similar to the current design, there'd be no point in changing it. Aiken D 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Itsquietuptown:-Ill try to do it . I am currently working out a way to make the design responsive but am finding it difficult to implement it — FR+ 06:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't reinvent the wheel. The 2016 exercise, sadly abandoned, included a responsive layout without touching the visual design. It was excellent. I can't remember, offhand, who did the hard work on that; perhaps someone else can? Bazza (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Eureka! Done. Thanks for all the feedback@Bazza 7:-His name was User:Edokter as far as I can make out from the archives. Btw thanks for the inspiration.@Itsquietuptown:-I bolded the headers as per your advice — FR+ 11:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to confirm: let's not grave-dance this. Isa (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm still alive. And I occasinally check in. For the record: I'd be thrilled if anything form my design, styled or not, was incorporated to any redesign. The responsive layout is the biggest change. The problem was no-one had any idea for the styling, despite my continued calls for input. The whole plan fell apart not because of the design, but because of insistence on process, only ensuring that nothing would ever change. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I'm glad to see you're still around :) Isa (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@FR30799386: Why not add a faded wikipedia logo background on the background of the top box thing, like Edokter's top box? ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 06:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Edokter:-I found the css file especially use full. Thanks for giving me more ideas.@Itsquietuptown:-I feel that keeping it simpler would help me if I had to build consensus. I personally don't like the faded logo, myself. — FR+ 11:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(reset) People are used to the existing set-up (though they may not notice/comment on minor changes), and probably collectively rather than individually find all the components useful. There will always be much discussion on changes to the MP that are actually noticeable to WP users even if three months later nobody will really remember how the Main Page used to look.

To what extent is 'being bold' in redesigning the MP likely to involve people not noticing the changes or responses to the effect 'I know you have changed something, but what is it?' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we do the same process as with the 5M Articles Logo discussion? ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 06:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As there are now 5.6 million English WP articles - at what point should the '6th million article' debate begin? (My suggestion would be - just change the strap-colour and the number, ditto for 7-9 million: but have more 'bells and whistles' for 10 million (making due allowances for any redesigns in the intervening periods.) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that we keep looking at it AS a redesign. Maybe we should start with figuring out how we are going to do layout. Not what will be in that layout, but the actual mechanisms. This is where all that talk abut "default heading" and "tables" and such comes in. Think not of what we'll be putting on the page, only the mechanism of doing so. As an analogy, are we taping things to the wall, hanging them on nails, or using those detachable putty mounting things? Once we have that locked in, we need to ask about presentation. One column? Two columns? Three columns? Are the columns the same width? Do we have a mixed format of multiple columns with some items going all the way across? Again, not what those items are, just the pattern of dividing up the real estate. Then, we start thinking about "does X belong on the main page?" One item at a time. No "guaranteed" slots for anything. Every section has to fight for its life and right to be on the Main Page. And each item HAS to be agreed upon before the next one gets its shot. No bringing up "Featured Articles" if we are still debating "Portals". Once we have a final list of what we think belongs on the Main Page (which might be very different from what is now there), THEN we can say where each bit goes. Forget redesign, design from the ground up with no preconceptions. --Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I honestly don't know why I am even bothering to type this, but let me tell you one thing for free. A very simple way to improve the appearance of the front page, and make it look less like a beginner's web page from about 1998, is to redesign the pastel boxes "From today's featured article", "In the news", etc. I could go into more detail about how, but what's the point when the owners of this page seem fixated on refusal to change anything. 86.173.132.143 (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Would be nice if you gave us some idea of what you mean by "redesign the pastel boxes". Make them bigger? Smaller? Change the colors? Change the fonts? Saying "change the pastel boxes" tells us absolutely nothing, what do you want changed and in what manner? --Khajidha (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
What is the point when history shows that no proposal to improve the appearance of the main page will ever be acted upon? Why should I waste my time looking at it in any detail? 109.145.3.91 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not that people here are being stick-in-the-mud - but no proposal has yet been made that is sufficiently attractive to Wikipedians in general to make those who actually have to 'redesign and reprogram everything' actually take on the task (especially as various types of access and ages of computers used have to be considered).
My minor proposal would be to make the border lines of the various sections slightly stronger. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Category problem

Just a heads-up, because I accidentally added the {{uncategorized}} template to this page a few days ago before reverting myself. JaGa (talk · contribs)'s old uncategorized pages toolserver, which was programmed to automatically exclude Main Page if it somehow showed up in the toolserver list, has not been functioning at all for several months — so those of us who do uncategorized-tag runs have had to rely on Special:UncategorizedPages instead, which does consistently keep Main Page on the list. What happened the other day is that I tried to skip the page, but accidentally hit the save button in AWB instead of the skip button — so I ended up tagging the page in error and had to revert myself.

If possible, I'd like it if somebody who knows more about the technical aspects of Wikipedia than I do could find a way to keep Main Page off Special:UncategorizedPages entirely, to minimize the risk of this happening again. But in the meantime, just be aware that something like this might happen again if somebody working with UncategorizedPages accidentally clicks the wrong button or didn't know they were supposed to skip it. I know this has happened before, for one or the other of those same two reasons — so it would be preferable if someone could find a way to make UncategorizedPages automatically exclude Main Page from being listed there at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Main Page does belong at Special:UncategorizedPages so removing it would be odd, and could probably only be done with a change to the part of the MediaWiki software which generates the page. That's outside control of the English Wikipedia. It would be far easier to just code {{uncategorized}} to check the page name and do nothing on Main Page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, the core purpose of Special:UncategorizedPages is to detect articles that are actually in need of attention from the categorization project — so I'm not sure I understand why a non-article page that falls outside the categorization project's purview would somehow "belong" there. I also don't believe that it's possible to code a template to act differently on one page than it does elsewhere — I know it's possible to make templates behave in a namespace-dependent way, such as displaying an error message if it's added to a category instead of an article, but I don't believe it's possible to make the template "do nothing" if it's added to one specific page. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia has its main page in mainspace. Special:UncategorizedPages is a feature of the MediaWiki software and lists mainspace pages. MediaWiki is used by thousands of wikis which can use their mainspace for all sorts of things. You can file a request for MediaWiki developers at phab: but I'm pretty sure they would reject it. It's simple to code a template to depend on the specific page: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Main Page|(do nothing)|(do something)}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
And what nothing or something is it possible to make the template do, exactly, that would change anything? The only option it's possible to do with that function is "show an error message that would still require somebody to manually remove the template afterward" — there is no value of "something" or "nothing" in that equation that would make it possible for the template to preemptively prevent itself from getting added to the page in the first place. But if the template can't be coded to make it impossible to even be added to Main Page in the first place, then there's exactly nothing else it can be coded to do that would have any value whatsoever as a solution to this problem — because it can't be coded to do anything that doesn't still require human removal of the template after the fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I think PrimeHunter is suggesting to change the template so that it returns null value on the main page; then it could sit there indefinitely without causing any problems, because no one would be able to see it outside source. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. If it does nothing on the main page then it doesn't matter whether somebody accidentally adds it there. I assumed your concern was that readers would see the normal message box and category on the main page. My suggestion would avoid that by only adding those things in the "(do something)" part away from the main page. If your concern is that the page history may get a couple of unnecessary edits then it really isn't something you should request a MediaWiki change for. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Item is off the main page. Content dispute should be taken to the article's talk page. Isa (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

"Did you know ... that riot shields (example pictured) may actually encourage protesters to throw things at police?"

Yeah, I know, how dare people carry around things that only have a defensive purpose, don't they understand that's just begging to be attacked by someone?

That's pretty embarrassing, Wikipedia. Don't you dare tell me that "science" has proved it's legitimate to blame police officers for carrying shields to protect themselves. Don't you dare. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask a similar question? Are you kidding us? Your progression from a perfectly reasonable DYK to silly inferences is drawing an extraordinarily long bow. The embarrassment lies with you. Moriori (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like an interesting article/study. (Who said anything about blame, btw?) Drmies (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
So that is interesting: "A chief superintendent in the UK stated that while protesters were generally reluctant to assault police, that reluctance seemed to disappear if officers had riot shields. It has been observed that protestors may not throw objects until the police bring in shields, and some people will deliberately throw objects at the shields themselves, indicating that they do not actually want to injure the police." In a book published by Cambridge UP, so that's pretty solid. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Unintended consequences are often ironic. Abstinence-only education actually results in higher teenage pregnancy rates is another widely covered one. And yes, the source for the claim is absolutely solid.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, every attitude I was worried would surface pretty much did. I imagine we'll be seeing more "science" like this in the future gracing the front page. Here's another weird psychological inference, I may have enabled you to go ahead and post more spurious crap like this by complaining about it in the first place, just like police officers "get themselves attacked" by carrying things to defend themselves with. And in both cases, no one takes any personal responsibility whatsoever for their own actions, everything's been "caused" by the actions of others. (*sigh*) Things can be factual and still be stupid, folks. This is a good example of that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if there had been a peer-reviewed article that said that women who carry mace are more likely to be attacked, would you have put that on Wikipedia's front page as a "neutral" science article? Or would you have recognised that as a way to explain away attacks on women? Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey, what happened to the DYK in question? Did it get removed? L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
They do change them routinely. I'd like to think people understood this DYK was pointlessly harassing, but more likely it was just time to change it for a new one. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please add a permanent link to the Category:Wikipedia glossaries and then let readers know they can turn the glossaries into flashcards when using Page Previews mode

I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time. I have never made a suggestion for the Main talk page until today. I humbly and respectfully ask that you add a permanent link to Category:Wikipedia glossaries on the very top right section of the Main page. I think glossaries are one of the most important features of this encyclopedia but a lot of people don't know about them. The reason I am asking now is because Wikipedia has recently implemented the Page Previews feature. This powerful tool is able to turn all the glossaries into a flashcard studying tool simply by hovering over the terms. I truly think readers all over the world will love this. I made the request for the link on the Wikimedia Page Previews talk page and someone suggested that I make the request on this talk page. So please add the link on the top right of the Main page. If it doesn't work out, you can always delete it. Thank you very much for your time. LearnMore (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnMore: it may help if you mock this up for demonstration, perhaps at Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (editable). — xaosflux Talk 14:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Good idea! I went ahead and did a mock up demo on the editable Main Page. I hope it inspires some sort of permanent link to the glossaries on the real Main Page. Page Previews is so awesome as a flashcard tool. I hope it catches on! LearnMore (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"DYK next next"

I see recently the "next next" DYK section is part of the MP. That is: the day after tomorrow is frozen too. (DYT is a 1/24h refreshed page these days, it was more often before). That also involves cascade protection etc. I can understand DYK-specific reasons for this (it is a multi-stage, multi-article, write-for-MP, queu-staged, bot-handled, and also heavy-editing-energy well done :-) process producing the hooks). But does this really help the DYK process? Part of the fun is, that it is about "fresh articles".

So I ask: any discussion I can missed? What problem is being solved? How can we improve & simplify this process elsewhere? And also: please remove the childish "next" wording. Just use "tomorrow" etc. - DePiep (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Your first assertion is incorrect. DYK (not DYT) is refreshed every 12 hours. Once sets get moved from prep to queues they become protected. And often as not, there are far more eyes on ERRORS than on WT:DYK, hence the need to look further ahead than just the next set. The problem being solved is the poor quality control being applied by the DYK process to hooks en route to the main page. This is manifestly worse when we have an increased rate, e.g. two sets of eight hooks per day, as is the current cadence. The wording is not "childish" in the slightest, you could possibly replace it with "next +1" or similar, but honestly, that's the least of our worries. Do you have any other questions? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't have any other questions. But I do have the same ones (IOW: no need to talk down on me, really, after evading the issue). OK, you are right: DYK is new every 12 hours (finally I found it {{here}}, not at WP:DYK btw). Now how can we help the WikiProject:DYK? - DePiep (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
If you're trying to help DYK, the main thing that is needed is quality control and fact checking. Verify that the articles meet minimum expected quality standards of referencing and quality writing, assure the blurbs are interesting without being misleading, and fact check especially the claims being made by said blurbs. If you could do that before they hit the queues, it would make everything run smoother. --Jayron32 00:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
re If you're trying to help DYK: isn't that a bit too paternalistic? Why write "help" not "improve" for example, as we all do here at Wikipedia? Why do you think I am not "helping" otherwise? - DePiep (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Look, dude, you just asked "how can we help?" And then you have the gall to complain when I answer your question exactly as you asked it? You know what, don't help. It's from your completely rude response to me when I gave a simple, honest, and polite answer to you that you have nothing useful to do around here. You know what, don't help. There's someone else who will be able to help and won't do what you just did right there. Vaya con dios, amigo. --Jayron32 02:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, Jayron32. I must have mixed up my talks and thoughts badly. I apologise, and I struck. - DePiep (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
So are we done here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
No, duh. Read he OP. - DePiep (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
[clarification needed] MPS1992 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Has censorship has become de rigueur at Wikipedia?

Not about the main page. We can all meet at Oshwah's to continue this instead. Isa (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(This topic is something I might have otherwise posted at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but since I just experienced a re-revert here, and since I want to reach the person who voiced their concern here, I'm posting it here.)

In reply to a comment concerned about white men's propaganda on Wikipedia, I had written the following reply, which I could not post due to an edit conflict.

user:Whhhhiteeeemaaanspropogaannndaexposed, do you have a reason for saying so? We have plenty of articles exposing genocides; would it help if someone pointed you to some of them? Wikipedia is The Free Encyclopedia; it is the ideal for many people here to include different viewpoints. Of course, there are some people who don't support that goal, but if you're one of the people who support it, then you could help those of us who do. Please, therefore, let us know what concrete problem you have seen - can you point us to an article that you feel is wrongly written, or to a historical fact you feel is missing?

The edit that reverted me cited WP:DENY as a reason for the revert. But that's only an essay - as it clearly states on that page: It "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. [It] is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

How far have we moved from our ideals, if we now re-revert edits that follow the ideal that used to be our biggest pride? ◄ Sebastian 06:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: It was no surprise that the problem persisted, and that the hard core faction again had no other solution than DENYing the problem. Do you guys really think the problem is solved when the page is "protected"? Do you think you have changed one heart, convinced a single person by building the wall higher and by deepening the moat? ◄ Sebastian 06:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed the title from a statement to a question, since it's actually a concern I have from this one situation here, not a fact I can verify. That said, it is further evidence of censorship that even the content and edit summary of the edits was hidden. ◄ Sebastian 06:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the material in question was unquestionably eligible for RD3 or RD2 as it compared a living person to a blood drinking vampire and Adolf Hitler, yes, Oshwah and Zzuuzz made the right call. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the reply I had written clearly shows that, while it wasn't helpful, it had relevance to the project. ◄ Sebastian 06:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I will repeat: BLP violations that compare a living person to a blood sucking vampire and Adolf Hitler are unquestionably eligible for revision deletion and should be removed on sight. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
SebastianHelm - I'll be happy to discuss this with you openly, and I'm sorry that my dummy edit cut you off from responding to this person. You clearly wanted to help this user and you put a lot of time into your message - and for it to get cut off with an edit conflict.... and now it's too late because of the actions that I took after that. I just wanted to start by saying that I understand how frustrating this probably is for you right now, and I didn't intend to do that to you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice reply. Yes, I would like to talk some more with you about this. What would be a good place? How about your talk page? ◄ Sebastian 06:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
SebastianHelm - My talk page is perfectly fine. I'll await your message there and I'll be happy to talk and discuss this with you completely - speak to you soon ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, censorship is surely of the essence here on Wikipedia, and inevitably so, but what we need to avoid is political bias, and I see an awful lot of it. But it's hard to follow what you are complaining about without a few links and diffs. Moonraker (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Moonraker: a troll left a long rant about Elizabeth II comparing her to Dracula and Hitler. Sebastian Helm restored it after Zzuuzz reverted. He was reverted again. Then the troll added it again, Oshwah reverted, and (correctly, IMO) hid it under RD3. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, TonyBallioni. What you say underlines my point about censorship being the essence of Wikipedia, but censorship by trolls or removal of defamatory material aren't kinds I would get steamed up about. The kind that matters much more is when a small group of editors, often opinionated people with an agenda, take control of particular pages. What can be done about that is much more of a puzzle. Moonraker (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Moonraker, that's a problem, too. And often even in areas that have nothing to do with politics. Back to the problem here: There are people who are deeply hurt in the world. Of course we can't help everyone here, but we do have an ideal that we proudly post on our main page. Betraying our ideal does not make anything better.
TonyBallioni, you are the first who explicitly writes "Elizabeth II" here. Of the six texts that were hidden, only 3 allegorically referred to her. There was no need to make even the summaries invisible. And even if it wasn't a valuable text, arguing with RD2 (assuming that's what's meant, rather than RD3) and by consequence WP:BLP is far from the motivation that made that policy necessary. And those were only written for articles; it is already generally less necessary for messages on talk pages completely unrelated to the person. What you're doing here is Wikilawyering: Abiding by the letter of one barely applicable policy while violating its spirit or underlying principles - and not only the spirit of one policy, but even the main spirit of Wikipedia. ◄ Sebastian 07:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No space before ellipsis "..."?

Our Main page has sections named "Did you know..." and "On this day...". I note that the ellipsis ("...") is not preceded by a space. I myself woud expect one: "On this day ...", but I am not a typograph. Is there any easy clarification? (Could be a discussion link ~2007). - DePiep (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussion here. Art LaPella (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, in U.S. publishing and journalism an ellipsis takes spaces before and after it (or a fourth period at the end of the sentence). Seeing it without the initial space looks like an error to me. Sca (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
But to me, no space looks correct, and imo better, similarly to how you wouldn’t precede other types of punctuation with a space. Aiken D 16:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
But hey, each hook starts with a ellipse-space sequence: ( ... abc). So, the after-space is accepted?! - DePiep (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Feels like it's "find a problem" season at the moment. What we should be focused on is the hook, its veracity, and the overall quality of the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
No. It is simple: why omit the space in the title, and use it in the hook? - DePiep (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion link I provided is far from simple. Some editors distinguished an ellipsis at the end of a passage from an ellipsis in the middle. Art LaPella (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the AP Stylebook says, "Treat an ellipsis as a three-letter word, constructed with three periods and two spaces" (my emphasis). Sca (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
And yet, the University of Oxford Style Guide says Use an ellipsis to show that some text is missing, usually from a quotation – do not surround it with spaces. We need to be consistent in both places. Aiken D 09:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sca: I think the two spaces it refers to go between the three periods, as in period-space-period-space-period, with no reference to spacing on either side of the elipsis. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. In U.S. English, it's space-period-period-period-space. Sca (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
In all my experience, no it isn't. Master of Time (talk)
This may be an WP:ENGVAR issue. Sca (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Not so, I think. Which ENGVAR (UK? US?) says to omit just one in this situation? - DePiep (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought perhaps 'twas British. It's certainly not U.S. Sca (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
As used on Main Page, the ellipsis is not an indicator "to show that some text is missing". It is used to create a list which has continuous sentences (red marker _ are the spaces positions in play): "Did you know_... • ..._that something happened". Nothing wrong with this construct imo, it's just that the spaces are applied uneven (only the first one is omitted). - DePiep (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC). (added red markers - DePiep (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC))
When omitting text in the middle of a quote, I place a space before and after the elipsis. This is convention. In other circumstances, such as to indicate a thought trailing off, or in situations like we have here, I'm not particularly aware of the existence of a formal convention, and choose spacing at my own discretion. I don't believe, however, that I've ever seen a space before or after an elipsis in the context of "Did you know…", and believe it looks nicer to omit the space. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Why not? Conserving white space for use by future generations? Sca (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ellipsis does not have a space after the word. Unless, of course, you like also putting a space before a period? Do you? You like putting a space before your period? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Blather. Sca (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it the case that there are the conventions for different English variants and whether the ellipsis is 'within' or at 'the end' of the sentence, and then there is 'the mechanics of the Wikipedia Main Page' where the ellipsis is actually a link and a space is convenient (especially if the immediately previous word(s) are also (blue)linked? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Malaysia General Election

Something about the Malaysian election should probably be added to the "news" section. Specific details of it are that the country just had its first transfer of power and elected the new oldest world leader.PerhapsXarb (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)PerhapsXarb

@PerhapsXarb: It has been nominated and is under discussion at WP:ITNC, where ITN nominations are discussed. The article just needs a good quality update to be posted, as general elections are on the recurring events list(meaning notability is presumed). I invite you to participate in the discussion and make needed article improvements. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking article count to statistics

Seems like a MOS:EGG problem. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you to the large group of dedicated editors who put this main page together every single day. Most don't understand what a huge undertaking this is. I appreciate your work. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 09:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia article book

This is not related to the Main Page. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for how to reuse Wikipedia articles. Modest Genius talk 11:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I would like a license to use wikipedia articles on a book that would cost rs 1000 rupees i will pay 2 lakh rupees to wikipedia per 5000 book units sold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.114.101 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't the correct venue to ask this question. Try the Help desk or the Teahouse next time.
To answer your question, most of Wikipedia's content is licensed under CC-BY-SA, and you do not need to pay to reuse content here. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for more details. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_191&oldid=1085461108"