Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 202

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 195←Archive 200Archive 201Archive 202Archive 203Archive 204Archive 205

Link to Biographies of living persons/Help on Main_Page

It should be very easy for subjects of articles to get help on those pages. Biographies of living persons/Help is very hard to find, especially for non-editors. I think a link, either in the menubar or the footer, on the main page would be appropriate. Rklahn (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That help page gets only around 30 hits a day, so does not seem to be widely used. I do not recall anyone posting here for help on their biography, so this does not appear to be an intuitive addition. I would think it more likely that they post on the talk of their article. Stephen 00:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I think part of this is a chicken and the egg problem. The page does not get a lot of hits, because it's hard to find. I am working with someone who tried two different ways to get help on getting her page deleted (an anonymous speedy delete, and a teahouse question), and got help from no one but me. In fact, she got resistance instead of help. People who are the subjects of articles, and are not editors, and unfamiliar with the general Wikipedia process, probably don't even see the talk tab, even on the main page. Rklahn (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a priorities problem. I'm glad the person found the Teahouse – that's the ideal page for beginners' questions about editing. If the Teahouse failed in that mission (I haven't looked), it should be fixed. The Main Page is for directing readers, not editors. For that mission, it has too much clutter already. Art LaPella (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Already linked on main help page...in bold. Wikipedia:Contact us has information on this as well but its format deters participation. We could make a few shortcuts/redirects with normal search parameters people would look for.... like Wikipedia:My biography. --Moxy- 17:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I see your point, and agree (but not enough that Im going to withdraw this section). But Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects needs a rewrite to be effective. It presumes that subjects have no problem becoming editors, particularly talk page editors. This is not at all true. Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects should put the email contact address far more promptly on the page, 2nd paragraph at the worst, then discuss what editors would consider the more traditional routes. If I get motivated and find the time, Ill propose the rewrite on Wikipedia talk:Contact us Rklahn (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
In general the help pages direct people to take action themselves...but agree other options should be more visible.--Moxy- 18:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the rewording of Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects as discussed in the second bullet point is the way to go here. Ill bring it up on the talk page over there soon. I no longer think a new link is necessary, and will be archiving this section. Thanks to all who participated. Rklahn (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Short description

Should the Main Page have a short description? I was looking through the code and noticed it didn't, which may cause it to appear odd or confusing to users with some various browsers. Generally, short descriptions help readers, and it's advised that all articles eventually have short descriptions. As such, I would support adding one, but I want to hear what you all think. Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

And this short description would have what in its contents? How would that be any different from "main page of Wikipedia"... which is in the title? --Izno (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The main page is not an article. --Jayron32 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Jayron32, Wikipedia:Short description doesn't suggest that's an absolute decision point. Stephen 00:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that a short description would clutter up the page more than anything else. There's nothing that could be written in one that wouldn't be redundant, and there's no point in doing something useless just to check off a box. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Stephen: Yes, but the OP did. Furthermore, because we can doesn't mean we should. Not every allowable thing is a good idea. In this case, it isn't because it adds nothing of value. --Jayron32 12:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

George overload

It seems unlikely that anything truly relevant will be added at this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2021 (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.

There are currently two paintings of George Washington on the Main Page. I find this rather strange and at odds with Wikipedia's global mission. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Is your objection to Washington in particular or there being two depictions of the same person?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
two depictions of the same person --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree: the left hand should let the right hand know what it's doing more often :) ——Serial 08:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The paintings look better then the photo of Kim Hee-chul on the Main Page that looks like a PR photo 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nricardo: I understand the undue stress this is putting on your life. Can we put you in touch with a crisis counselor in your local area so that you can get through today? --Jayron32 14:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Wikipedia:Don't be a dick --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a bit much, even if it's his birthday. An 'UNDERCOVER' agent (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: How now, Jayron, that's unnecessarily snide.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
There needn't be a hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, Chicken Little post every time someone notices a random confluence or coincidence. Not every odd coincidence represents an evil conspiracy against decency that needs to be rooted out or something. Sometimes, we can just say nothing when there is such a coincidence. --Jayron32 14:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
This guy is an admin? With a temperament like that? Jesus. -- Veggies (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one George. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two - one in DYK and one TFP. --Tone 12:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah yeah, I never scroll down to TFP, dreadful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Today is George Washington's birthday, I assume that's why. Hut 8.5 12:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I got a kick out of the header name for this topic - "George overload". Sounds like the name of a 90s comic antihero.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Now I'm imagining a Main Page with all the entries dedicated to autopilots. :D --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2021 (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.
  • It seems no one above has brought up the way we could actually address this: have a group of editors who monitor Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, look for overlaps, and encourage changes when they are found. It'd help to have a bit of hierarchy so that people would know which section to change; based on a combination of visibility and temporal sensitivity, I'd suggest ITN > TFA > OTD > TFL > DYK > TFP. Overall, I'm not sure there are enough overlaps for this to be worth it, but I can think of plenty of Wikipedians who spend their time in less productive ways, so anyone who wants to take it on is welcome to. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    The presumption that anything needs to be done has not really been established, has it? --Jayron32 17:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    Jayron32, I'm disinclined to engage with you given your behavior above. Agreed with Veggies that it's rather shocking that you are an admin. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add Telugu

I request to please add Telugu Wikipedia on 50,000+ articles wiki site's as it has 70,000 pages Kasyap (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kasyap: You may wish to request that at Template talk:Wikipedia languages, which is the correct place. --Izno (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Keeping up to date with the news

I find it incredible that only 2 items of world news have been deemed worthy of inclusion in the News section since the end of the Australian Open. Leaving aside the British Royals, there must be some more recent items worth featuring. Downsize43 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

If I never hear of Meghan and Harry again, it will be too soon. – Sca (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Downsize43: please see WP:ITNC to nominate articles for this area, or to participate in discussions of others' nominations. — xaosflux Talk 01:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, ITN is not a news ticker. Items are not added based on importance, but on whether we have a (reasonably decent) article on the event. --Khajidha (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Boy that's a load of guff. The principal reason for the Murray Walker blurb being opposed is lack of importance. WaltCip-(talk) 14:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No doubt pure coincidence that fresh items are being found more regularly than in previous weeks, but serendipitous nevertheless. Downsize43 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Buruli ulcers

Off MP. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2021 (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 can't wait to read the complaints about the FA picture. -- Veggies (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Template added, just because ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I am in the minority by thinking that a certain level of censorship should exist on the mainpage. Obviously not in text content, but media. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 01:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course when I visit an article about a rare disease, I'd expect to see graphic imagery, as Wikipedia is not censored. But having it thrust in your face when simply visiting is another thing entirely, especially since there is nothing for the average person to gain from seeing it. It's common decency, similar to why you wouldn't put massive spoilers for a movie in the first sentence of the article despite the fact that Wikipedia is not kept spoiler-free.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Graphic medical images are a poor choice for the front page, and I'm surprised that someone thought this was a good idea. Fredlesaltique (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

My, we'd never see such a thing at, say, the movie theatre, would we? And to think; real people spend years walking around with these wounds. Such compassion! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how being forced to look at a picture of a wound would inspire compassion in people. More likely they would just be disgusted. I recognize that it is a tragic problem, which has nothing to do with wanting to see a close up image of it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
While I am aware of WP:NOTCENSORED, the spirit of WP:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images (and the principle of least astonishment it embodies) is also relevant. In particular, a person who clicks on an article about a medical condition can usually be expected to know that there might be shocking images; a person who navigates to the main page of the project is decidedly less likely to.
There is an argument to be made that the image is warranted to help people understand the subject. There is also an argument that the principle of least astonishment is more important in this situation. I'd tend to agree with the later position, but I can understand the other one. I do not see how compassion is relevant here. Not that compassion isn't important, simply that I don't think either showing or not showing the image provides more or less compassion. Tamwin (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@TFA coordinators According to the Wikimedia Foundation here: "We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain." The same principle is expressed in guidelines here and here. To echo Tamwin. the expectation of readers of the main page is not graphic medical images. Fredlesaltique (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

So far, no one has written anything that helps me understand why they are troubled by these images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Images of wounds are shocking. They tend to make people who see them intensely uncomfortable. Common reactions include disgust or vicarious pain. Not every one will react negatively of course, but many will. The concern that is being raised is that people shouldn't see such images unless they are in an article that one would expect to see them in (this is called the principle of least astonishment). The main page is not such an article. Does that help? Tamwin (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Most people tend to have a visceral reaction to seeing graphic images. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "graphic". This has nothing to do with their compassion towards the subject of the images, and in fact it is common for news articles to warn about this simply out of courtesy. I wouldn't want to see such images on my landing page, and I'm sure that most people wouldn't either. Trying to force them out of a desire to elicit "compassion" would violate WP:ADVOCACY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Just in case my prior explanation was confusing, the principle of least astonishment actually says that no one should be surprised by the images they see on a page. Yeah, if you click on a page about sex, you can expect to see sexual images. Sexual images would not be appropriate on a page not related to sex. For instance, the principle is the reason a picture of a clothed person standing in front of a car would be acceptable on car, but a picture of a naked person standing in front of a car would not (that one is actually drawn from one of the guidelines). Tamwin (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
We can probably agree that images of “some” wounds are shocking; I don’t think these particular ones are. (I wouldn’t want to see, for example, a decapitation.) Having seen the kinds of images that led to the need for the guidelines cited above, and some of the smut hosted on Commons that finds its way into articles, I don’t think these are those. But what do I know: @Keilana and Ajpolino: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean, for reference, I've been avoiding clicking on the main page as much as possible to avoid seeing them. I'm aware that I have a lower tolerance for such things than most readers, but I'm fairly confident that at least many and quite possibly most of our readers would find these shocking. Tamwin (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, the fine and conscientious editor who wrote the article should weigh in soon (since I just pinged him) and I am certain he will not disappoint as he is not the sort to want anyone to feel uncomfortable about anything. Meanwhile, would anyone care to say something nice about the article? Or shall we just keep running hurricanes, coins, ships and video games on the main page because, you know, medical articles are so easy to write ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
First time editing from my phone, so apologies if I break anything. I assembled the image in question, though admittedly not with the main page in mind. Nothing illustrates Buruli ulcer better than, well, Buruli ulcers. But I get that skin wounds aren’t for everyone. If folks decide to swap the image, I might suggest the image of the endemic site that’s also in the article? I’m happy either way. Sorry for the ado here, but hopefully this helps us all remember something about Buruli ulcer! Ajpolino (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Ajpolino, thanks so much for jumping in, even from your phone. I can’t help with the swap question, since a) I don’t speak images, and b) I am not yet understanding why these are offensive. I hope you are enjoying yourself wherever you are, wish I could be more useful, but I am sure someone will come along shortly who can make sense of it all. And thanks for the fine article to bring awareness to Buruli ulcers! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I just think we could use any of the other pictures. Only the lead image is objectionable, I'd say. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 05:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the one Ajpolino suggested, should a swap be agreed on. It is still a mystery to me why that image offends, but ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I've a strong constitution, and though it didn't gross me out too much, it is shocking. I think in general that we should avoid shocking images on the main page. That other picture seems pointless, though. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 05:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Yea, that’s probably how we got here ... the other images do nothing, and this one seemed to be the best. It pulled me in when I first encountered the article, and got me to help prep the article for FAC, and it never crossed my mind that it would gross out anyone. So, Ajpolino is iPhone editing, and we will have to wait for a TFA Coord to make the call here. Meanwhile, if there is a swap .. to what ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why not this one? Slightly off-putting but not nearly as objectionable in my mind. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 06:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought of that, too, but my concern is that anyone who thinks the first is offensive will probably also be bothered by that one. I think that’s why Ajpolino suggested the endemic site instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think so. What makes the first image so shocking is that it has exposed muscle and bone. The other one doesn't. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 07:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I genuinely have difficulty believing that. It may not offend you, but are you seriously saying that you don't understand how any person, of any age or background, would not appreciate seeing this image? Especially in the one part of our encyclopedia that is expected to be hyper-polished and of the highest quality possible? The Main Page is supposed to be easy reading, like sitting in a library, listening to Top 40 radio in your car, or flipping through a magazine at a barbershop. This image is uninviting – and if we don't fix this soon, have no doubt that Sanger or at least one of the Fox News "journalists" will use this as the next thing to bug us about. Actually, I'm a bit surprised none of the WMF people have tried to intervene yet in an attempt to save face. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Allegedly, I am not in the habit of lying. And you should not be in the habit of telling people on Wikipedia that they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
In that case, the overwhelming sentiment expressed by editors should tell you that your view is in the minority. (Grotesque images are, in fact, grotesque.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The question isn't whether grotesque images are grotesque; the question is whether this is a grotesque image. It appears that the belief is not universal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough! I'm not looking at the article because, you know, pictures. I would like to say that I applaud the efforts of everyone who worked on it. Getting an article to FA status is no ordinary achievement. Work in medical areas is especially important, and also especially tricky. Tamwin (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat as you. Just because I'm physically able to look at images like that doesn't mean I like to. When I go into an elevator, I don't expect thrash metal, I expect light muzak. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the passive aggressiveness is really unnecessary, no one here is suggesting that video games are more important than a medical condition, just that the image is uncalled for. It's ridiculous to suggest that graphic images are necessary for public understanding of such a condition.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The owner of these ulcers probably spent all day calling their friends and family to share their excitement about being on the main page and you all want to rob them of that small joy in their otherwise painful existence. For shame. Primergrey (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, if you read the article, you'll see that the ulcers aren't painful at all! -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 05:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You just made my day. Primergrey (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Like childbirth, maybe; not a lot of fun, but not as bad as it’s cracked up to be. Glad you read the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

As initially pointed out to me by Rockstone35, all other images on the page are non-graphic. I have no idea why editors, supposedly keeping in mind WP:GRATUITOUS, did not elect to use one of those images, or no image at all. (This also seems like a good time to share this relevant and extremely insightful essay.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  • The main page currently contains an image of a political assassination, in which warriors with swords are cutting each other up. It's the usual systemic bias in which graphic violence is not even noticed while sex and bodily images are taboo. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Good point! Let's all remember the Main Page editors' terrible judgment today: to show an image of three ulcerative arms, with open wounds and bone and muscle visible, an artistic rendition of multiple people being mauled to death, and a DYK featuring the phrase "Tits and Ass". Incredible job – a perfect trifecta! Censor Main. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content Wikipedia:GRATUITOUS Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED_and_the_Main_Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2204happy (talk • contribs) 05:58, March 24, 2021 (UTC)

  • Coordinator note I'm aware of the discussion. If there is to be a switch, I'd prefer to continue to illustrate the subject of the article. Is there a less-graphic one that would suit people?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I was not offended by these images and am pleased that they are there on the main page for me to see. I learnt something from them that I wouldn't have done from any other less graphic sort of image. This knowledge is valuable in making me better understand the problems of the world. Moreover, I want other people to learn about this, even if that leads to some mild discomfort among some of them. The images are honest, not gratuitously offensive. Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The images are certainly honest, and they make perfect sense – on the article. (Presumably, if one is going to search up articles on ulcers, one is expecting to see them illustrated.) I rather think the complaints are coming from the fact that people just visiting the Main Page (maybe as a navigation tool), and not really in the mind to search up articles on ulcers, are hardly expecting to see this. In fact some of the commenters (e.g. Tamwin, Zxcvbnm) appear to have said exactly that. Double sharp (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
      • There is an advantage to having these images on the main page: they are educational in a way that a less graphic image would not be. There is a disadvantage in that some people feel some discomfort when looking it at them. I suspect, but cannot judge for sure, that most people are not so badly discomforted by these images, but of course it is disproportionately those that are bothered that will comment here. It is obviously a value judgement, but I still favour leaving them up. Jmchutchinson (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator note I have changed it for the biopsy image suggested above.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert change The biopsy images are useless in explaining the nature of the topic clearly. And they don't match the blurb text now. We have a clear policy WP:CENSOR – just stick to it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on whether this should be removed or not, but as per the last time the issue of content in TF came up, that policy says "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable." The Main Page is not articlespace. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:CENSOR is a clear policy, but it applies to articles, not to the make-up of the Main Page. In this case, WP:CENSORMAIN (even if it is only an essay) is more relevant.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with change. I'm a proponent of NOTCENSORED and consider myself difficult to shock, but the original images were highly graphic and unpleasant. The question is whether we should show such images to people who were not looking for information on the disease, and whether doing so provides an overall benefit to the encyclopaedia. These decisions are never clear cut, but in this case I think the benefit of showing graphic images of open wounds was less than the cost of unnecessarily shocking and revolting our readers. Leave the graphic images to the article itself, the MP should show something less upsetting in this case. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support change - I personally don't see the issue here... unlike images of genitals, sexual scenes or overt violence, this isn't to me a completely obvious case where large numbers of people would find it offensive. This is a genuine medical condition after all and, as it affects the arms, it's something you easily could see in real life if you happened to pass a person in the street with the condition. I am reminded a little of the prejudice faced by a children's TV presenter who was missing part of her arm, and some parents thought it might "traumatise" their darling children. I'm also not convinced that a newspaper would shy away from publishing the image if the conditions were right. But then again, I am definitely of the view that WP:NOTCENSORED does not extend to main page content - sexual content is right out for example. And clearly this has made a lot of people uncomfortable, judging from the comments here so that means many of our readers will also think the same way; therefore on balance I think it's probably right to steer away from that controversy.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said, I'd never argue that the image should be outright removed from Wikipedia. I think it's informative for people who want to visit the article, and Wikipedia shouldn't be censored. However, people who enter the article are well aware to prepare themselves for gruesome images. Appearing in an unexpected place, it then becomes a "shock" image.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with change I couldn't put it better than Modest Genius did. We're not censored, but we're also not here to unnecessarily upset people. The Main Page is not the right place for overtly graphic content. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt, this is the image Ajpolino suggested in the discussion above; I really dislike the one that is up, and I am wondering why you did not prefer the one he suggested? (Since I don't speak images, you probably have a reason I am not aware of.) Sorry to re-bug you this late in this (most unpleasant and unanticipated) encounter with the mainpage, but a) I was sleeping when the image was chosen, and b) I wondered if you had missed the suggestion above. The one that is up now is, to my eye, jarring and irrelevant in terms of mainpage interest. At least the one Ajpolino suggested gives some context for the condition (where it occurs). I hope you are in time to reconsider, because what an unpleasant slap in the face this has been for efforts to promote diversity in content on the mainpage, with exactly two editors so far bothering to acknowledge the fine article rather than focusing on an image kerfuffle. This after me trying to encourage medical editors for over a year to re-engage with the Featured content processes :( I guess I won't be convincing any medical editors any time soon to put themselves through this again :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I felt this image was better. Nothing complicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This comment, for example, from User:Sca shows the problem. Questioning the choice of Buruli ulcer as a featured article because of disagreement over the image chosen for the blurb? How deeply insensitive and demotivating for editors who work to improve articles to our highest assessment level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with change: Voicing my opinion as one of the people who are sensitive about seeing graphical bodily-related imagery. Yes, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED but as many mentioned earlier, placing an image like this on Wikipedia's landing page essentially feels like a shock image. I am not asking it to be completely removed from the article, but have a less graphical image instead be used for the Main page -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 18:05, 24 March 2021 (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.

Heads up

To avoid last-minute issues: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2021. This went through WP:TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Love this. —Collint c 17:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
At last we at DYK won't be alone again! Good work!. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The C of E, thank you. But please don't take this as an endorsement of what you all are doing at DYK—I proposed it precisely to provide an example of a more responsible way to celebrate April Fools. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Further discussion at TFA talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks good. Is there no better target for the final link than Wikipedia:April Fools, which is an index? Modest Genius talk 15:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Modest Genius, I don’t think your query will be seen here; it would have a better chance if you posted it at the discussion at TFA talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
So glad so see TFA is getting back into the April Fools Day spirit this year! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Only two hours before absolute chaos descends upon Wikipedia.--WaltCip-(talk) 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the "Did you know" section so goofy today because it's April 1 in some time zones?

Given their coverage of Cthulhu's presidential aspirations, intercourse at different times (which doesn't work with humans or "you"), pizza funerals, "all-ugly" teams, Cake and Cunnilingus Day and litigation towards golden cocks, it seemed somewhat jarring on this Wiki. Like it would be more at home on Uncyclopedia than a professional encyclopedia. But its simply because it's April 1 in some times zones right? J390 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

That's right. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 00:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@J390: Bruh. We've curbed AFD from ITN and OTD in the mainpage. Please don't reduce it. We are humans, we would love to have some productive fun sometimes. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Requiring disclosure on the main page as we do everywhere else was discussed after last year, but unfortunately, there was no consensus, and DYK refuses to add it in any form. I agree that the deliberately misleading hooks that DYK uses without any disclosure is irresponsible. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
April's Fool has extended to the featured article section, as the three previous featured articles are exactly the same as today's featured article. LOL werldwayd (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Remember that Wikipedia is on GMT/UTC so making April Fools jokes would be correct. I think we can rely on common sense and a bit of WP:BLUE from our readers. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
As we in the UK now have lovely confusing BST, there would be a whole hour when British men might be mistakenly rushing out to buy cake in preparation for 14 April?? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Citing WP:BLUE is based on the assumption that all English-speaking (or English-reading) cultures observe April Fool's Day, which is not necessarily the case.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
We should have added a disclaimer to it or at very least gave some sort of takeaway to hint at it further (changed format). J390 (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a "professional" encyclopedia. It is, in fact, "amateur" by design. Dylath Leen (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. And it goes "on and on". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That logo still needs to be updated according to the new Mediawiki logo. Coldbolt (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not part of the Main Page coding, but the site-wide skin. I too saw the old logo, but the screenshots on Wikipedia:Skin all have the new one, so I did a hard refresh to clear the browser cache. Now I see the new logo. Modest Genius talk 15:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, in that case my apologies for bringing it up here. Coldbolt (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Bugs

There is a bug in HTML list elements. Please check the last section: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page. Dinesh (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dineshswamiin: the use of list elements isn't a "bug"; if you have a specific improvement to propose please create a mock up in a sandbox then bring it up here. — xaosflux Talk 15:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
These list elements have special styling which could not be achieved if they were converted to wikicode, so there's nothing I think we should do here. — The Earwig (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

section #8 LANGUAGES list is muchoutdated

Hey Folx the list of Wikipedia in other languages is outdated by far (unless there is some special way of counting articles from EN perspective). Consider to fix it as it is misleading ;-) --Zblace (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is Template talk:Wikipedia languages. Note that some Wikipedias with large numbers of bot-generated stubs are excluded from the list - Dumelow (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugo!

He's back. What a great day to be alive. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it?! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Who doesn't love a bit of Lugo? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This flashed me back to my reader days, long before I registered an account. This fella was on the MP for quite a while. See WP:LUGO for the backstory. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Whoohoo! --Jayron32 15:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm pleased we used the same image, despite having other options these days. Modest Genius talk 15:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Glad to see I'm not the only one who is nuts for Lugo. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
niiiiccceeee.... Lug(o)nuts.... --Jayron32 18:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This made my day when I opened the page in the morning :) --Tone 17:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy day :') —Collint c 17:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Nice! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Did anything interesting happen to Lugo on 21 April? It would be an honorable goal if we could keep this as the OTD image for a few weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Does having his photo appear on ITN on 21st April, 2008 count? ;-D --PFHLai (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I will never not use that image of Lugo when the opportunity comes up. :DDDDD —howcheng {chat} 07:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
It would make a nice (or awful) April Fool's Joke for ITN if we had a "Fernando Lugo is still impeached" blurb -- with, of course, the accompanying image.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Any news about SpaceX Crew-2 mission (destination ISS)...?

May be we should mention the flight...? --CiaPan (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Nominations for the In The News box should be made at WP:ITN/C. See the instructions at the top of this page. (It's probably a good idea to expand the Crew-2 article before making a nomination, as it has very little prose content.) Modest Genius talk 11:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Correction in the Wikipedia of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.

While going through Wikipedia of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj I noticed he is addressed by his single name. Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is an emotion and respected leader of India. Addressing him with single name is kind of an expression of disrespect. I request to correct it with the "Upadhi (Title) " that is being used before his name everywhere. Respecting great warriors of India while sharing their information on platforms like Wikipedia is of utmost importance. This is how the next generations will know them and remember them. Hope this change will not harm but will spread the sense of respect. Meghalisankholkar (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please raise this on the article's talk page. —Bruce1eetalk 11:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Black background on File:Bodashtart 1.png

All I see where the Bodashtart image should be is a solid black box. The png has a transparent background, so my guess is I've got a black background showing through for some reason. It looks like this whether I'm logged in or not. This is in Firefox 85. I have uBlock origin installed but it looks the same if I turn it off. It looks fine in Chrome. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

See the WP:ERRORS report above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Chloe Zhao next Lugo?

Zhao's image is no longer on the main page. Disaster averted for now. We shall be ever vigilant for her return, however. --Jayron32 14:12, 30 April 2021 (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.

How many more days would it take for her to match Lugo? She's on the main page twice --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Zhao's image had been up for less than 24 hours at the time you wrote that. Lugo managed 13.5 days in one visit. No idea how long Zhao's first visit was, but it certainly wasn't close to Lugo. Modest Genius talk 11:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I wonder what the record for a pic on the main page is? At least when it comes to ITN, it definitely isn't Lugo, because the composite of Djokovic and Osaka after they won this year's Australian open was posted on 23 Feb and not replaced until 15 March. (Djokovic and Osaka had had individual pics up in rotation for a couple of days prior to that as well).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Wow, I certainly didn't notice that - could well be a record. I'm amazed we weren't inundated with complaints. Modest Genius talk 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Especially considering that people will complain over stuff like the ITN image not relating to the topmost blurb. WaltCip-(talk) 14:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I remember there was some grumbling at WP:ERRORS, to the point that a corporate logo mislabeled as under CC license was put up for a few hours... oops. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The licensing (for this) ended up not being an issue, but there was also objections with displaying a logo for the blurb.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Huh, I didn't see how that one concluded when it happened. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm no copyright expert, but I think the decision to allow that logo is quite dubious under copyright law. The US courts have held that the "amount of creativity necessary for copyright protection is "extremely low"; even independent elements that are unprotectable may be protected by copyright when selected or arranged in an original way" and that "only those works that are "garden-variety," "typical," "obvious," reflect "an age-old practice" and are "commonplace" are not copyrightable".[2] The only potential saving grace is that apparently the copyright office has a much higher bar than the courts do, and generally refuses to register such logos. In any case, I agree with the decision not to post it. Even if it's in copyright, the fact that we're declaring it "uncreative" should in itself be an indication that it's not a sensible thing to be putting on the main page, since it adds nothing to reader understanding of the topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Clarify: By licensing "not being an issue", I really meant it never got deleted and is now marked as being in public domain.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If you claim the copyright requirement in US is low you should consider that in the UK and China is even lower since logos with just text can be copyrighted in those countries unlike in the US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 April 2021 (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

snark magnet and time sink. --Jayron32 15:25, 30 April 2021 (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.

Stop posting so many recent deaths of barely notable athletes on the front page, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:3:5ea6:ba0e:d4d9:723f:82ee (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  • No.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. Your wish is our command.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @WaltCip, Jeromi Mikhael, and Amakuru: I'm disappointed by the bitey snark. The IP's feedback wasn't particularly long, but their point is perfectly reasonable. Systemic bias toward sports topics is something we should always be on the watch for, and while I don't follow RD that closely, ITN as a whole has definitely over-covered sports. Looking at the current RDs, 50% of them are athletes (and all are male); I don't know how representative that is, but I certainly don't think that 50% of the notable people in the world are male athletes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's completely beside the point. RDs are listed once they are of sufficient quality. If you or anyone else thinks it's not diverse enough, the way to fix it is to fix up articles, not just complaining or attempting to tell people what to do. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Sdkb: you link to that discussion as if it proves some point, but in the end it looks like yet another tiresome argument about why there's a supposed imbalance in ITN topics when all it really boils down to is whether people put the effort in to bring articles up to scratch and/or nominate them for ITN. That's even more the case for RDs, in which inclusion IS automatic if the article is up to snuff and someone nominates it. As for WP:BITE, I certainly take that seriously and it's very wrong when established users are rude to newbies who don't know the ropes yet. I'm not so sure in this case though. Even if you're a newbie you can present your point better than coming to main page talk making blunt demands, without even so much as a please. I'm happy to engage with the IP of they want to, but I'm sceptical. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    I know you know enough about the limitations of anecdotal evidence to know that a selection of RD items at any given time on any given day in any given year does not constitute a general pattern. Just because 50% of the entries now are male athletes, that doesn't mean they will always be male athletes. WaltCip-(talk) 20:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man and Amakuru: I've objected strenuously to the "well then just write more articles" line in the past, and I'm going to do so again here. That line is invoked all the time when systemic bias issues are raised as a way of shutting down the discussion, and it's wrong on several levels. First, I am one contributor out of thousands, so even if I spent the rest of my wiki career improving underrepresented bios in preparation for their death, that would make only a tiny dent in the issue. Systemic reforms are needed (see #3), and individual action will not be the solution. Second, pointing out problems is a valid way to contribute to Wikipedia, even if one doesn't solve them, and requiring that editors solve them in order to talk about them means we'll never talk about them (and also goes against WP:VOLUNTEER). Third, you take ITN's current functioning as a given. There is no divine law requiring that the criteria for RD be a quality threshold and that every notable enough article that passes that threshold be listed. I'm not saying we should be putting stubs on the main page, but merely checking our biases about how truly significant someone is before !voting at ITNC would go a ways. Remember that ITN should be serving readers, not editors, and I would guess that readers assume the RD listings are chosen based off significance rather than quality. When they see a ton of athletes, they don't go "oh, the athlete articles are in better shape," they go "Wikipedia really places way too much focus on athletes and that's not the only kind of article I want to see". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Feel free to object to anything you like. It won't actually improve anything. If you want to change RD, propose something. If you want other articles at RD, improve and nominate them. Otherwise it's just moaning and trying to tell other people they're wrong and that's a recipe for being completely ignored, just like now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Sdkb: OK so in fact, per your point 3, there is a second possible solutions to your issue in addition to the proposal to which you "strenuously object", and that's to propose a change in procedure at WT:ITN and convince enough people of your change to get a consensus. The floor's yours - make it as reader-centric and systematically unbiased as you like, as long as it will convince people. But until that happens, I'll continue pushing back when you complain about the status quo. Because it is working the way it's supposed to work.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    There is a quality requirement that is set by ITN being part of the main page - articles that are featured (which include those listed on the RD line) should be considered examples of WP's best work. We're not going to put sub-quality bios on RD just because the implication that our quality requirements appear to bias against certain types of individuals. --Masem (t) 00:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    so even if I spent the rest of my wiki career improving underrepresented bios in preparation for their death, that would make only a tiny dent in the issue. I'm not showing off here, but in January 2021 — just for a month — I've spent most of my wikitime creating (not fixing) RD articles on Indonesian people. Although I only did it alone, (CMIIW) in that month I saw that there is mostly no less than one Indonesian in the RD, as opposed to the lack of Indonesian representation before (and after the month). That's only one person and one month. Imagine if we expand it into two person and two months. Yes, I believe that we could achieve the IP's goal! You could make a moon-sized dent on this issue, even with only one person. But what we need more is commitment, commitment to fix RDs, check the news for dead persons, searching sources through thick and thin, accept inputs from others. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    One of the challenges RD faces for biographies of people from non-English speaking countries is the lack of English language sources for contributors. For example, User:Zanhe was a prolific updater of RD bios from China and had access to Chinese language sources. However, since s/he's stopped editing, the number of Chinese bios on RD has dropped drastically. SpencerT•C 21:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Sdkb: Yes, no problem. If you'd just like to inform every barely-notable athlete in the world who has a decent Wikipedia article that they're not allowed to die at the moment, that should sort the issue out. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow, articles supported on WP:ITN/C gets put on the main page? How is this not on ITN yet, this is a groundbreaking discovery. max20characters 🇺🇸 20:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Currently on the main page:
  • I think we should be bloody proud of such a diverse set of individuals. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A month ago (roughly):
  • Lovely. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Two months ago (approximately):
  • Yeah, these bloody non-notable male athletes ruining the main page for everyone.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sdkb, even if we're to accept that you're right here about the volume of athlete postings, which I disagree with per TRM above, it's a problem without a solution. Grueling consensus determined that all articles on people are eligible for RDs. Any effort to slow the rate of athletes (or any other grouping of people) from being posted goes against that consensus. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    If that consensus is untouchable, then there is indeed no solution. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    No, consensus can change. However, it doesn't mean that people will accept what one is proposing. Maybe it's not better? Maybe it's not persuasive? Or one could assume the worst and blame "them".—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    Also, one of those "non-notable athletes" on the front page now is an Olympic gold medallist who set 26 world records. Definitely not notable... Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hard to believe we went five whole years before someone made a stink. Kind of reaffirms the original RFC doesn't it? If Sdkb or the IP or someone wants to kick off a new RFC, here is the old one Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/2016_RD_proposal have at it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Main problem isn't the number of athlete deaths on the front page; the issue is that there aren't enough people nominating or fixing up the articles of non-athletes for RD. Putting any sort of artificial cap on athletes in RD won't change that. Approximately 20 people with Wikipedia articles die each day; maybe someone could organize a WikiProject to improve all recent death articles. That would solve this problem. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    20 per day? Surely a decent portion of those are high-quality enough to pass RD, so maybe the issue is mostly with tendencies about which bios get nominated. That's absolutely something that the ITN folks could work on, but from the replies in this thread so far, most of which are along the lines of "this isn't a problem and how dare you bring it up", I don't get the impression that there is much interest. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's absolutely something that the ITN folks could work on ...: Feel free to make a compelling argument that wins supporters, while being respectful not to sound like you are giving orders or that people have been volunteering wrongly. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY reads: Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
If people like sports, they'll edit sports articles; so it goes with every other topic. The WikiProjects are a good way of grouping by interests; if editors in them are made aware of ITN/C and put in an effort to polish the articles on recently deceased figures in their respective fields to Main Page quality, then problem solved. Just because one area of the site's being productive doesn't mean we should discourage that behavior, though. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sdkb where is the evidence that there is an actual problem here? The three random examples I gave have been conveniently overlooked. What are your proposals for "fixing" this "problem"? Is it to mandate which kinds of articles people work on? Is it to limit the number of a certain gender/nationality/vocation at any one time on RD? Is it something else? Just making some kind of vague claim that there's some kind of systemic bias specific to RD and then ignoring evidence to the contrary isn't a good look. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have some silver bullet, otherwise I would have suggested it. But how's this for something concrete: it would be nice to have some solid data on RDs, so that it's not just my anecdotes vs. yours. I imagine that if someone has enough technical skill, it'd be possible to take the list of RDs and analyze the categories/Wikidata information to get percentages by gender/nationality/vocation/etc. If we find that those values are representative, excellent, no need to take any action. If we find that they're wildly skewed, even moreso than the rest of Wikipedia, that might prompt us to change our behavior. There would be a bunch of possible ways to do that—based on what NorthernFalcoln said, a task force to nominate RDs from underrepresented groups might be a good approach. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    Um, mine aren't anecdotes, they're real. I didn't think we needed to do such an analysis, you'd already declared there to be a systemic bias problem specific to RD that needed to be fixed, right? Here's things you won't change here (a) what people want to edit (b) which topics have wider coverage on Wikipedia. I don't see what "behavior" (sic) you are looking to change. You don't need data to create a task force to nominate RDs, you can just do it. It would be simply marvellous to improve other areas, but that's nothing to do with RD per se, that's something Wikipedia would benefit from. People coming here and demanding we stop posting certain demographics to RD or making unsubstantiated claims of some kind of enhanced systemic bias at RD without any kind of evidence are not being helpful in the slightest. Indeed, get the evidence before making such a fuss. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes indeed. Don't wait for others to start the "task force", go ahead WP:BOLDly create it yourself. Let's see how it goes and improving more articles is obviously a good thing. To be clear, I agree with the general principle of WP:Countering systemic bias, and I'm neutral on whether we actually have a genuine problem right now. But I just don't agree with the notion of deliberately restricting particular types of RD as a means of "rectifying" the problem, if indeed we have a problem.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose change yes sometimes there are 2 or even 3 sportspeople on Recent Deaths, but that's not always the case, as there's ebbs and flows. All people who die are eligible for RD, and it might just so happen that lots of sportspeople die in a short space of time. If we're trying to implement a rule against multiple sportspeople on there at one time, then we would also have to limit it to one American article at a time too. Because, by the same logic, we're not all American. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    ... we would also have to limit it to one American article at a time too: The U.S. has the largest English-speaking population in the world at ~300M. Setting a quota of 1/6, and other complaints about the MP being "too American", don't account for this.—Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think he's just pointing out that having a "sporting quota" would be as unfeasible as having an "American quota". Which it would. Skdb is actually approaching this from the wrong direction - the issue is not that we have too many sporting biographies, it's that we don't have enough biographies on people that aren't sportspeople, and we don't have enough biographies on people outside the Anglosphere either. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • And right now, on RD we have 4 males and 2 females, from 6 different nationalities. That seems pretty balanced to me- we shouldn't be enforceing quotas. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sdkb is being given a hard time here, somewhat unfairly I think given the reasonable tone of their comments. Their positive suggestions are to quantify the systematic biases in RDs appearing, and to think about a way to encourage ourselves to improve/nominate the articles about recently dead people in neglected categories. Just pointing out that there is a need to address a specific bias in this way may make some people think, "Oh, OK, if that would be appreciated I can do that occasionally when I read a relevant obituary". It's not completely hopeless trying to engineer a change in behaviour. Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    What positive suggestions? Initially he they had NO suggestion but to grouse at us. He They just said "something needs to be done" and it took another editor to suggest a task force before he they would finally commit himself themself to any given proposal. WaltCip-(talk) 12:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    I would AGF and say it started fair but digressed from 20:53 on with charges like "That line is invoked all the time when systemic bias issues are raised as a way of shutting down the discussion, and it's wrong on several levels"—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose change As above, there's no need for such a thing. It's part of the natural ebb and flow of the world today. All that matters is the quality of the article, not labels or artificially forced positioning. I understand where Sdkb is coming from but I do feel that it would require a full RFC to bring in what he is asking for. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Personally, the incidence of sports RDs sometimes does strike me as excessive, but trying to police RDs according to some subjective criterion of interest would lead to endless argument, as it did – how many years ago? Our system many not be perfect, particularly during this lethal pandemic, but at least it's consistent – the best we can do under the circumstances. – Sca (talk)
  • Comment I think it's best to drop this quote here: The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river. In our case: The editor is not the man who says the RD is dirty. The editor is the man who cleans up the RD. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    Jeromi Mikhael, here's an essay: Wikipedia:Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    Which might be of interest if there was a problem that had been identified. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    Consider where your essay says ... deemed by prior consensus to be a necessary evil. RD currently, by design, posts any article with quality content. It's up to editors to nominate and improve them as required. It's not a bug, it's a feature, that posted RDs are not subjectively approved for "balance" or "importance". There's no barriers to what gets promoted other than what the editing community neglects. However, WP is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so it's not wrong for an individual editor if they choose to mostly work on a specific category of RDs.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm feeling ya, Sdkb. I've gotten to the point that I am reluctant to work on articles about white men because soooo many other editors are willing to do that. I'll do it when I see a real issue, but otherwise I'm like "where are my women and people of color?" :D Unfortunately there aren't a lot of people who are willing to do much work outside their own highest interests, and for many editors their highest interest is sports. I mean, it's good when our coverage of a particular area is really comprehensive, as it is with men's sports. But it's unfortunate that so few editors are interested in, for instance, Indonesian activists. I laugh sometimes when I see editors arguing with one another about when we can create, say, 2036 Summer Olympics! :D —valereee (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    The thing is, we have an article called Deaths in 2021. It's easy to find minority and/or female recent deaths. If anyone really thinks we have a problem, just head there, pick an RD which hasn't yet been nominated (we do sometimes get up to half a dozen RDs, sometimes more, nominated in a single day), get it up to the quality expected to make it to the main page, and bob's your uncle. It's all there, for those who are worried about it, start there. Problem solved. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's some non-athletes currently being nominated for RDs:

Have a field day. And you want to know how many athletes I had to leave out? TWO. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but watch out, next up we'll have to leave out Americans. Or musicians. The humanity!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the two athletes in this case were a Soviet Olympian and a Czech hockey player. These things balance themselves pretty well... suppose that's what happens when you have six million articles. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Barely notable non-Americans. Shouldn't be allowed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Had they been Brits, that would've been a different story. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Well who knows who's verboten these days. This non-problem came with a set of non-solutions based on non-data and non-explanations. The humanity. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 29 April 2021 (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.

Chernobyl?

it is no longer April 26 --Jayron32 15:26, 30 April 2021 (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.

It's April 26, 35th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. I don't see a 1986 date thingy on "On This Day" talking about the Chernobyl disaster, so I just wanna point that out. Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. That article on the disaster has seen better days. Level-4 vital article and it's not even a GA. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:29, 26 April 2021 (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.

Copyvio

Off the main page. --Jayron32 12:44, 3 May 2021 (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.

Please remove Marad massacre from OTD, it is poorly written and has copyvio (date confirmed with Wikiblame, addition was a year after newspaper article). Removing the copyvio stuff removes a massive amount of info from the article. (also, are OTD entries not normally vetted for copyvio like DYKs and GAs?) W. Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 11:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

We normally list issues like this at WP:ERRORS for faster service. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Right, thanks, should I shift it there? (It's the 2003 entry btw) W. Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 11:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I would, just in case an admin is passing by there ... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:13, 2 May 2021 (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.

hmm

what the heck is the point of putting a "read full article" button on featured articles if you can just click on the page title?. --ILove2Type801 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • It is likely for people who read through the blurb and find it interesting enough to read the entire article so they can just click a link at the bottom of the paragraph rather than having to go back to the top and finding the link there. I do not see any real issue with having two different ways of accessing the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"HomePage" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect HomePage. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 4#HomePage until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 54nd60x (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Another Jesuit....

Hiya. I've noticed a certain preponderance of American Jesuit priests as the front page featured article over the past few months, and there's another one today. Who decides what gets featured on the front page? Could we maybe have a wider range of articles? Chris (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Brichcja: You can refer to Wikipedia:Today's featured article. The best way to get heard is to volunteer there.—Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Brichcja:: I can't answer accurately as to why there are lots of American Jesuit articles... it is likely that there is an active editor, or a group of active editors, who work tirelessly on those articles. Once articles pass the relevant review process, they are graded as Featured Articles, or FAs for short. An article cannot be denied promotion as FA simply because there are too many just like it. After review they can be nominated to appear on the Main Page at any time - this is something that is flexible, and you can select for more 'diversity', but it would be unfair to exclude/inordinately delay any single genre of article. The decision-making for what Featured Article appears on the front page happens here. Usually articles are queued a month in advance. Hope that helps. Kind reagrds, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 09:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not contesting their right to be GAs; it's just that they seem very over-represented on the front page. The link tells me there's another one queued for July 1st....Chris (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
They're FAs not GAs. If you object to the TFA listings, WT:TFA is the place to raise that discussion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Brichcja - There are only really so many FAs, so if there is a lot of articles in one subject meeting this, they get scheduled. TFA and the coordination behind it is very short staffed, the best way to avoid this, is to comment on them at WT:TFA before the articles go to the main page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I guess it's down to the work of Ergo Sum that we have all these very-well-written articles on Jesuit priests to exhibit. Maybe he can be persuaded to start writing about Indonesian female gymnasts or villages in Mali instead?! But until then I'm assuming the priests are the topic which he finds most interesting and has knowledge and sourcing for, so I for one thank him for bringing them to our attention. And every FA is entitled to its spot on the main page at some point. Other than that, the only solutions are to (a) write some featured articles yourself, or (b) work with the WP:TFA guys on scheduling. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be me. I've been working on these articles as part of this project. Someone else mentioned the frequency of Jesuits on TFA (I can't recall who). I have to admit that I find it a little bewildering, since they generally appear at TFA once every two or three months, sometimes longer. 1.7% to 1.1% of TFAs doesn't strike me as terribly frequent. I think that has to be less frequent than, e.g. hurricanes appear at TFA. Naturally, I'm open to discussing the appropriate frequency of a class of articles at TFA, but not at FAC or GAN, since that has nothing to do with publicity and only quality assessment. Ergo Sum 13:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, now I know how to find the list of front-page articles, there do seem to be fewer than I thought - maybe they just stick in the mind more. Chris (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

TFP

I greatly appreciate today's featured picture. Obviously. Props to Adam Cuerden. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 09:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Coming from the man himself, this is praise indeed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI and Amakuru: Glad you enjoyed it! I have to admit realising the shadows perfectly matched was one of the most exciting discoveries during restoration. I tried a rough assembly at User:Adam_Cuerden/sandbox, and it explained so much - Mathilde and Arnold are reacting to each other; the weird shadows intruding into the frame are from other characters. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 03:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Selby

This one is CC0 and seems quite clear to use on the MP, even at 200px

How long is Mark Selby's face going to stay on the MP? Not that I have any objection to his face - indeed, I have nothing at all against his face - but he was in the TFA blurb the day before the ITN blurb, and has been on ITN for five days. Why don't we use a picture to illustrate, say, the metro car collapse in Mexico? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 10:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe he's trying to be the next Lugo?...... The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Lol he's still there, now in a different pose Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 05:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Lugo!
Might be just me, but I'm a bit iffy about putting pics of disasters up unless there's a very good educational reason to do so. We're not censored, obviously, but there's no need to cause gratuitous distress to people who were involved in the incident.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
How about the 2021 Colombian protests then? People don't seem to be dying, in the first pic at least... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 05:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: you may want to vote on WP:ITN/Candidates#Attempted_assassination_of_Mohamed_Nasheed. Joofjoof (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Mohamed Nasheed in better times

How many different pictures of Mark Selby are we going to have? Has ITN become a vanity project?--WaltCip-(talk) 15:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that the uproar among Wiki-Royalty, shot down Prince Phillip’s death, being featured beyond one single day; but a snooker player’s win, is worthy of more than a week of display.

If you would like faster turnover of articles in ITN, or less turnover, or whatever, please join us at WP:ITNC in evaluating nominations, or improving articles and making your own nominations. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
It's hard not to get dispirited when you scroll down ITNC and see heaps of oppose !votes on so many nominations, often based on reasons that are quite minor for (what is supposed to be) a transient blurb box. Sometimes the discussions read like we're trying to curate a museum rather than follow current events. I wish there were some mechanism in the ITNC process to better prioritize freshness over curation, rather than banking on the sheer will of a new crop of editors to push items through faster. Einsof (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Only solutions that involve making Wikipedia articles better are worth pursuing. I'd love to have a day where we have such a glut of super high-quality articles ever day that we can't possibly get them on the main page. If you want to help fix the ITN problems, literally every one of them goes away when you make Wikipedia articles better. --Jayron32 02:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems totally backward to me. The way to make Wikipedia articles better is to put them on the main page so that they get more attention, thus increasing the chance that someone will hit the edit button. The part of the main page for "super high-quality articles" is the featured article section. Einsof (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I haven't observed a noticeable correlation, if any, between ITN posts and number of editors after its posting. However, making the posting more likely, I believe, would incentivize editors to improve more articles in hopes of being rewarded by seeing it posted.—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the way to make Wikipedia articles better is to make them better. There is absolutely NO WAY to cause any other person to make an article better. The only way I can make an article better that I want to be better is to make it better myself. There are no incentives at Wikipedia. No one gets paid. There is just making it better because I want it to be better. Doing things like putting it on the main page to attract attention to it, or cajoling other people to make things better, or complaining that things are bad, doesn't make Wikipedia articles better. What makes Wikipedia articles better is if I make them better myself. The same sort of thing applies to others as well; the only way they can make Wikipedia articles better is to make them better themselves. I only know that other people, such as yourself, want Wikipedia to be better is because I see people making statements that would lead any reasonable person to believe that THAT person thinks that Wikipedia needs some improvement. The only way that THAT person can effect the changes THEY want to see is to do it themselves. This is a volunteer project. No one here gets paid. There is no way to incentivize the work of others. --Jayron32 11:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, an article can be fully referenced and well-written and still be rejected at ITN because the regulars don't consider it important enough. Zagalejo (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
There are no incentives at Wikipedia: Not monetary, but some editors would be happy simply with seeing "their" article posted and collecting talk page credits. Do not underestimate that.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

George Floyd

not on the main page anymore. --Jayron32 14:23, 28 May 2021 (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.

OTD should replace the random show milestone factoid about Oprah Winfrey with the far more notable murder of George Floyd. Mewnst (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

After only one year? Again so soon? No, thanks. Let's let the dust settle a bit. Wikipedia has a lot more other stuff to put on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point, I didn't see any mention of George Floyd in the Main Pages of several other languages. I know recent anniversaries tend to be avoided, though I don't know how hard of a rule it is. Mewnst (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2021 (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.

Spread positive news

Today's ITN is all about bombings, shooting and clashes ! Aren't there any positive happenings in the world ? -- Parnaval (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to 2021. [FBDB] Just for fun, though, Indonesian teacher dons clown costume to inspire children to learn the Koran might be the best headline I've seen all day. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
A combination of 1) what sources tend to cover to lure readers 2) what WP editors like to update.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The other thing is that we don't make the news. I'd love to fill ITN with items that were much happier, but general media are a lot more doom and gloom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennifer and the like further limits our options.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The fact that ITN (and news media in general) is so negative is something to think about. I'd say it flows from the fact that bad things tend to happen at a discrete time (hurricane struck at X, shooting happened at Y), whereas positive things tend to happen more as a long-term trend (poverty has declined from Year A to Year B) and to be less likely to be seen as news. There's a lot more potential for OTD to focus on positives, so perhaps that module could serve as a counterweight to ITN. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Please be encouraged to propose positive news items at WP:ITN/C. --PFHLai (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Parnaval: A number of media organisations have dedicated good/positive news sections that may provide source material, and there are also some aggregators and dedicated subreddits you can find with a little bit of searching. Must of it tends to be niche stuff that doesn't generate the kind of coverage needed to have a chance at ITN and is unlikely to even pass GNG for an article in the first place, but if you keep an ear out and subscribe to a few feeds you may eventually find something with a chance of getting up there. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: I could've phrased it better but what I meant were subreddits that aggregate such content from many media sources save you the time of searching; there are also independent aggregators. The primary purpose of checking in on those would be to see if several media outlets have reported on the same thing. When you see that at least you have a good starting point for an article. Admittedly the very fact the people aggregate such news in the first place and that some media sources have dedicated sections for it when they do no such thing for bad news is a pretty good indicator of the disparity in reporting such things which of course bleeds over into our ITN, hence the earlier points. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Today we have football results, a Mars landing, and an arch (albeit a collapse). Without analyzing over an extended period, I'm wary of confirmation bias using just one given day as a sample.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

If only we didn't cover so much sports on ITN.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Better promote other news stories than suppress sports stories. We could use a little more of everything on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Has been showing both "Wikisource" and "Multilingual Wikisource" lately. Should be only either one. 184.98.3.96 (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It was added at Wikidata in [3] by Liuxinyu970226. At Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1100#Request to remove "Multilingual Wikisource" link from Main page template he opposed removal at Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about it but it's not completely silly to list both. The multilingual Wikisource is a distinct project of its own, not just a front page, and both the English and multilingual Wikisource have material relevant to English-speaking Wikipedia readers. Texts in multiple languages, which might include English, are often found at the multilingual Wikisource: see Stelae of Pepi-Sennefer for a random example. @PrimeHunter: You mention in the discussion you linked that Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikisource are the only projects with multilingual front pages—Wikisource is as far as I know the only one with a multilingual project, not just a front page. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 13:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Multilingual Wikisource is not a distinct project (at least that's not what is linked to): The link is to the front page of wikisource and when you're there and click on "English," you get to the exact same page that you get when you click on the wikisource-link that's also on the sidebar. You don't do that kind of double-listing for wiktionary, wikivoyage, wikinews, wikiquote, wikiveristy (they all have front pages with the logo in the middle and language-links in a circle). 184.98.3.96 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
No, it is a distinct project: I already gave an example of a page there, and more info is available at the Multilingual Wikisource Community Portal. (Not to suggest that's a reason to keep the link, just explaining—and we can't really do anything from Wikipedia about them using the language index as their front page.) —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should Celebrate Autistic Pride Day

Discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 18#Please make Autistic Pride Day a regularly celebrated anniversary. Modest Genius talk 12:08, 9 June 2021 (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.

Upcoming 18th June is Autistic Pride Day. Can wikipedia celebrate that day, such as by showing an infinity badge on the front page? Where is the right forum to discuss this proposal? Regards. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps make a new section here. I see at least one other person made the same suggestion in 2006.130.233.213.61 (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2021 (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.

Did you know diversity

Nice to see a museum in Iraq, a South Korean musician, a novel from China and a Hindu goddess alongside the four American Did you know articles. Usually I only see one or two articles from outside the Anglosphere and Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.107.21 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a good change, yes. The usual lack of diversity is usually because of poor coverage in English of non-Anglosphere subjects and the lack of editors from outside the Anglosphere on this English-language project. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 02:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Wording of Selected anniversaries?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries
11:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing other language project

Just noticed that the list of non-English projects at the bottom of the main page is missing the Armenian one (hy.wikipedia), that has +250,000 articles. Can we add it? Or can you show me the right place to post this? - Kevo327 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#In what order are the other Wikipedias displayed? Where's my language?. Requests can be made at Template talk:Wikipedia languages. Modest Genius talk 11:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

New design

No offense, but other wikipedias have better front pages, like French Wikipedia. Maybe consider a redesign or maybe just design consistency? 26zhangi (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

26zhangi Probably most editors agree (and have for years) that the main page should be changed, but the issue has always been that there is not agreement on what to change it to. Many have tried and failed. If you wish to embark on such an enterprise, be aware of what you would be getting yourself into, trying to persuade hundreds if not thousands of editors with different ideas to agree with a consensus. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I recall one brilliant and enterprising user who claimed to have a consensus (which he did, albeit it was a small consensus), tried to enforce it on the main page, and threatened users with blocks if they tried to go against it. That was messy. I think that was the closest we ever got to having a main page redesign, which speaks to your point about how immensely difficult and arduous a task it is. WaltCip-(talk) 15:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
26zhangi What do you mean by "better"? In my opinion, the French Wikipedia front page is not as good as the English one, which I find much easier to scan and read. Bazza (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
And so it starts. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
"We shall fight on the beaches", etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Don't fire until you see the whites of their diodes. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Therapyisgood, Martinevans123, and Randy Kryn: You're comments aren't clear in meaning or intent. I was pointing out that "better" is subjective. The reference to the French Wikipedia was because that's the one the OP used as a comparison. I do find it less easy to scan, not because it's French (or any other version) but because of the way it's designed. I'm assuming you're showing some good British-style dry sense of humour, rather than an oblique dig at my comment. Bazza (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Oblique dig?! As if. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't say why, but the French wikipedia's home page doesn't even render properly on my browser. (Firefox 89.0.2). ApLundell (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I find the French main page rather ugly. But, then again, I don't use the English main page either. I have my own custom one.--Khajidha (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
You can have a custom Main Page? Please teach me your ways, sensei.136.185.73.100 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives for the general idea and Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(Khajidha) for what I use. --Khajidha (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for that.223.178.121.235 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Something I like about the fr.wikipedia main page is that is has a "Comment contribuer ?" section (How to contribute?) We have an "Other areas of Wikipedia" section, but not that. It might be helpful to include something like Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia or Wikipedia:Task Center, especially since the main page gets a lot of traffic and a potential editor to Wikipedia is likely to look there first. I also think it would be useful to have a link to the Teahouse near where the help desk is linked, because the Teahouse is specifically geared towards helping new editors edit Wikipedia. Clovermoss (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia has an anyone can edit link in the banner, and a "Contribute" section in the left-hand sidebar, including Learn to edit. Bazza (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Bazza 7: That's definitely a good thing to have, but I still think that my idea has some merit. I didn't know that that link existed and I've been looking at the main page regularly for years. In contrast, I've only visited the fr.wikipedia's main page a handful of times and remember the seperate section on how to contribute. I think a seperate section would be useful and have more visibility compared to other places, like a wikilink hidden within a catchphrase. However, I also realize that any changes to the main page would be hard to get consensus on. I'm assuming that just throwing ideas out here on the talk page isn't likely to change things by itself. I'm assuming I would need to do something like start an RFC, which I don't really have experience with. Clovermoss (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Although the learn to edit page on the sidebar pretty much suits the same purpose, you're right. There's specifically a contribute section, so anyone looking for how to edit would probrably find it. Clovermoss (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
First; the "Main Page" is not the same as a front page. Second; you must remember that a lot of editors and administrators are accessing Wikipedia with computers and devices that predate contemporary technological standards, for a variety of reasons. Any functional changes to the main page will need to bear that in mind. Because aesthetic "make-this-look-good" changes tend inevitably to clash with these precepts of functionality, the likelihood that any sort of large-scale redesign for the Main Page will ever reach consensus is minimal. It has been for years. It is likely to remain so for the indefinite future.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hey, I am thinking of using a banner with a picture of the wikiepdia icon. 26zhangi (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Also, the categories/topics should have icons besides them. 26zhangi (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, no icons. What, aside from ugliness, would they add to the page?--Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Longer load times ;). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No idea where else to ask this

So I'll ask it here. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why, when I press play on any video in Wikipaedia, it dunt play? If I can be bothered to download em, they're in some bizarre file format that I've never heard of & that I need half a dozen plug-ins to work. Why can't the videos just be put in mp4, which most things use? Ta for any help with this. SquidSix (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Help Desk is probably the best place to be asking this. —Bruce1eetalk 22:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Messages in Welsh?

I'm noticing some messages appearing in Welsh: "support us" on the sidebar, greeting in the mobile interface, and some tags in edits. I haven't been able to debug this. Kaihsu (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen this discussed elsewhere, apparently the solution is to change your language preference (at Special:Preferences) from "en-GB British English" to "en - English". DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Technical details are here. Several people (me included) have asked about this in various places, but, although the solution is as described above, there's been no answer as to why it's suddenly started happening. Bazza (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
It happened because one of the translators working to translate interface messages into Welsh accidentally wrote them all into the British English messages instead. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll continue to use en-gb, because that's the language I actually speak. If someone screwed up entering Welsh translations that's their problem, not the fault of users who selected en-gb in their preferences. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Do what you want, just keep in mind there are almost NO localizations in en-CA or en-GB, and the fallback chain doesn't support variants so you are likely to miss out on local improvements. — xaosflux Talk 13:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand what most of that means. en-gb does have text in British English (except the new Welsh items...) Modest Genius talk 17:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: for example say you follow a redlink, if you choose an english variant interface language you should see this page which has the mediawiki default text, whereas if you were using non-variate English you would see our localized extra information at the top of the page as seen on this page. That is because while mediawiki has some generally useful default messages, each project can localize them to include special or additional information which is normally only done in the default project language. — xaosflux Talk 17:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
That's a completely different message, not just a translation. Shouldn't those be the same? Though tbh I think the shorter 'en-gb' version is better than the overkill 'en' message. Modest Genius talk 13:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, WTF @ the assertion that American English is the true "English" and everything else is "British English" or "Canadian English". I get that Wikimedia is based out of California, but still - this is a global project.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
You're the first person to make such an assertion. Perhaps you should stop inventing windmills to tilt at. --Jayron32 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
But Sancho Panza, those are clearly giants. WaltCip-(talk) 13:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, we have WP:ENGVAR which treats all varieties of English equally in articles. Why not in the interface too? Modest Genius talk 13:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
That is exactly what I'm suggesting with fixing the fallback problem where this same topic is being discussed at VPT. — xaosflux Talk 13:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Can the interface localize by IP address automagically? That would be helpful. --Jayron32 13:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
That would assume everyone in, say, Canada wants to use en-CA. Which is probably not true. Bazza (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No, but it would be more true than assuming that 100% of humans on earth wants to use en-AM. Don't let perfection get in the way of better. That's not helpful. We want to give people a choice, but also have a default system that makes sense for people who haven't yet made a choice. The complaint seems to be that the default is American English and that all other varieties have to make an active choice to opt out of that. Localizing by IP address is better than the current system. Until we have a mind-reading system that can accurately predict exactly which variety of English everyone on earth wants to use before they tell us, which is what you seem to be needing, it will have to do... --Jayron32 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
But in this case it shows why it often wouldn't work. If you gave Welsh to everyone who geolocated to Wales, 95% of the people will be completely lost. It's very much a minority language. The actual language of Wales is English. Fgf10 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
A good point but an exaggerated one: according to our Welsh language article, 29% of the population of Wales can speak fluent Welsh. Presumably many more have moderate knowledge of the language so wouldn't be 'completely lost'. But I agree it would be safer to default Wales to British English. Modest Genius talk 11:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Careful! The figure of 29% is reported in the article as the proportion who said that they could speak Welsh, not the proportion that can speak it fluently. Jmchutchinson (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Could be a WP:VPR proposal? ―Qwerfjkltalk 10:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

About removing today's featured article

The TFA is not going to be removed because of the presence of a few bare-breasted women in oil-painting form.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2021 (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.

Hi. I request to you that please remove the featured article of today (02 August 2021). Because it is a nude photo. I hope you remove it. Thanks. >> Tajwar — thesupermaN! Let's Discuss! 09:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Tajwar.thesuperman I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen. The subject of today's features article is a nineteenth-century oil painting; the picture is not a nude photo, it's a detail of that painting. Girth Summit (blether) 10:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Poor Etty. Even the notoriously prudish Victorians only criticised this painting because of the dead bodies, not the nudity. See WP:NOTCENSORED; there's nothing offensive about this image. Modest Genius talk 11:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
You have not provided a good reason for removing this article from the page. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Can't see a good reason to pull the entire article at all, can see an argument for changing the MP illustration for the article - but I don't agree with that argument. — xaosflux Talk 14:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Won't somebody think of the children? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
If you were actually thinking of the children (specifically their welfare, body image, and mental health in later life), you would be teaching them there's nothing wrong with average human bodies and nudity, but I digress. Fgf10 (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2021 (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 namespace of the Main page

The perennial proposal and FAQ's linked have more information on this. Going to stretch AGF for the OP, despite their multi-project disruption blocks, and just close this. — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 9 August 2021 (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.

Hello! I believe that the Main Page needs to be moved to another namespace. Let it be called Wikipedia:Main page. This decision has already been made by the Russian Wiktionary!-- Энциклопедист свободного контента, talk, deposit 06:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the English Wikipedia! This is a perennial proposal, meaning that it is proposed unsuccessfully quite often. You can learn more about its history at WP:PERENNIAL#Move the Main Page to another namespace, such as "Wikipedia:" or "Portal:". — 🦊 07:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I understand, but why is the page not being moved?!-- Энциклопедист свободного контента, talk, deposit 07:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Энциклопедист свободного контента: There are explanations on the linked page, the largest of them being that such a change would cause huge disruption for not much benefit. — 🦊 07:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
What kind of failures?! After renaming, we will leave the redirection!-- Энциклопедист свободного контента, talk, deposit 07:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Main_Page#Why_is_Main_Page_in_the_main_namespace? Modest Genius talk 12:47, 9 August 2021 (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.

Add Albanian Wikipedia to the bottom of English Wikipedia page - section 50.000+ articled

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Add Albanian Wikipedia to the bottom of English Wikipedia page - section 50.000+ articled
 –  ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia!

Please can you add Albanian Wikipedia page link to the languages with more than 50.000 articles which is found on the bottom of English Wikipedia page. Since this Wikipedia language has more than 50.000 articles and we are unhappy that our language isn't listed there for going faster to that encyclopedia.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARBENTUZI (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Wikipedia languages. Art LaPella (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at that talk page makes me think that whoever is managing the template needs to pay more attention to it.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Aye, I am not sure why Template talk:Wikipedia languages doesn't simply redirect to Talk:Main Page Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Cromwell

articles in question have been off of the main page for 3 days. --Jayron32 15:22, 7 September 2021 (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.

Wow. Did Cromwell do everything on September 3rd? -- Veggies (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you pointing out an error? WaltCip-(talk) 21:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Possibly the result of coordination between TFA and OTD? Or just coincidence. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Spooky; He died on September 3rd too!. (Surprised not to see that on OTD's birth/death anniversary list today as well) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
LOL - FlightTime (open channel) 22:15, 3 September 2021 (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.

On this day

Could Stanisław Lem be added to today's OTD births? Today is the centennary of his birth. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@BasileusAutokratorPL: unfortunately, according to the article his date of birth is actually uncertain - it's dated to both 12th and 13th September.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Deaths

Can you link Amanda Holden as Amanda Holden (writer). There's a very well known celebrity in the UK by that name and I'm sure most British visitors are being misled seeing the name initially!.† Encyclopædius 17:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I reposted your request at WP:ERRORS where these types of issues are dealt with. --Masem (t) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you know

Has anyone watched The Hamburg Syndrome? The plot is not really a reflection of people's reaction to the concurrent covid-19 pandemic... And it's gross too. I did not get the point of the whole film after watching it just now. Who proposed it to be added here? Theanonymity.de (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

First ever all civilian space flight

I know this is a subjective opinion (and I'm not sure if photos are chosen by ojective importance), but can the photo of a historic milestone in human history, the first ever all civilian space flight stay up for more than a few hours before getting replaced? JanderVK (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The photo was nominated for deletion, per the thread immediately above the one that you started. WaltCip-(talk) 14:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia languages" section

What's the criteria for a language Wikipedia to show up here? I was just taking a look and some rather notable languages are missing despite having more than the number of articles listed here -- for example Hindi, Urdu, and Swahili. Wyverald (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but I believe that large numbers of stubs have disqualified some languages from appearing before; that's not to say that the examples you provided would be affected by this but I seem to recall editors not wishing to include stubs in "article" counts. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Shouldn't the "Wikipedia languages" section be categorized differently? and discuss any proposed changes at Template talk:Wikipedialang. Modest Genius talk 16:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the info! Wyverald (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries § Image placement

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries § Image placement. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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 following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2021 (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.

Hi, I have launched a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) arguing for the removal of links to portals from the main page's top banner. Your feedback is welcome. Direct link: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removing links to portals from the main page's top banner. JBchrch talk 16:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Other areas of Wikipedia

Can we add a link to the Teahouse to this section of the Main Page please? Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, I suppose see here: [4]. Consensus for doing so was gained but unclear of how to do it. Maybe a new discussion at [5]? The template doesn't appear to be highly watched or experience much traffic, though. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jip Orlando: what is the actual template in use? Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Scrub that, found it. Will see what I can do. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, link added. Same wording and link as at top of this talk page. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mjroots: For consistency, can the The Teahouse: to ask be changed to The Teahouse – To ask? Bazza (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I'm fine with the addition, but maybe we could do without "The" in The Teahouse, for further consistency with e.g. Help desk or Village pump, which could also be preceded with "the" but aren't. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I've taken another look at the section and realised that the links are in alphabetical order. Could we reposition the Teahouse link to conform with this convention? This might be worth another discussion as to what order we should present them in, but I think alphabetical works at present. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: - reordered. I'm just happy that the link is there. Makes finding the Teahouse so much easier. Mjroots (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Why the sustainable energy article won't appear on the main Page

The Sustainable energy article won't appear on the Main Page because it is frozed. The Charles Green Wikipedia article replaces Sustainable energy. Because if it continues to persist, go to the Sustainable energy article--Bernardwebb357 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Try bypassing your cache. Hut 8.5 08:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Juventus as the 'most successful Italian football club'

article is off the main page. Please carry on the discussion at a more appropriate venue, such as an article talk page. --Jayron32 11:41, 2 November 2021 (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 entry, which was presented as if it was an established truth, doesn't seem correct or looks neutral. What is the measure for 'the most successful football club' in a country? Many would disagree with the statement that Juventus is the most succesful club in Italy and they can back it up with facts and criteria such as, for instance, relevant and international titles, which would not rank Juventus as the most succesful in Italy but Milan, who is Italy's most succesful and the world's second most succesful team in international competitions.

Such bold and arguably not neutral claim in the front-page instantly caught my eye and I think it should be edited. CaptainKaptain (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It's cited within the article itself to a FIFA source; furthermore Football records and statistics in Italy#Most successful clubs overall (1898–present) also presents the case statistically. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:21, 1 November 2021 (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.

Add links to more Wikimedia projects in the Main Page

I saw two extra projects listed in the Wikibooks main page, which are not listed on the Wikipedia main page. Add them! TylerMagee (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Phabricator and Labs are both developer tools, not official projects or likely to be of interest to readers. Modest Genius talk 13:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

KrinkleBot down

c:Special:Contributions/KrinkleBot is not currently protecting main page files on Commons, files that are going to be used on the main page should probably be uploaded locally and protected or made sure that they are protected on Commons before being used, to avoid unprotected files being used on the main page. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The bot is working again. Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

For as much as Wikipedia relies on volunteer work, the main page is surprisingly absent of anything that would help newcomers learn to edit and contribute. This is why I an suggesting adding a second column to the "Other areas of wikipedia" section and add the following help pages: Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, Help:Your first article, Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Help:Editing, and Wikipedia:Why create an account —JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The left sidebar on every desktop page already includes a "contribute" subsection that links to Help:Introduction as "Learn to edit", and a multi-column approach would look awful on mobile - that would really be advocating a new section aligned vertically, similar to how mobile view stacks sections rather than uses columns. The main page is aimed at readers. Editors are rare. Would-be editors who decide to read the documentation rather than just dive right in are even rarer. And would-be editors who want to read the documentation first, but need to be directly prompted to do so with a Main Page link rather than digging up the info themselves, seem to me to be an insanely rare case. I don't think it'd be that fruitful a use of main page space, which should probably cut more things out (IMO) rather than add more links. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The Main Page is deliberately designed to be useful to readers, not editors, because the vast majority of users never make an edit. That's weakened slightly in recent years e.g. adding links to 'nominate an article' and the teahouse, but it's nevertheless the underlying design philosophy. The MP isn't really the place for helping new editors - the sidebar does some of that, as do the welcome templates for new users. Most people accessing the MP are looking for encyclopaedia content, not how to start their own article etc. Modest Genius talk 13:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you know ... that

Is there a reason "that" is repeated eight times; wouldn't it be easier to retitle the section "Did you know that ..." instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5cc:8300:a7f0:d576:4211:3f12:c0b2 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That comes with the bullet-point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.58.95 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that it did say "Did you know that..." in the past but this was changed for some reason. Probably in the DYK archives somewhere. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
There was a discussion about that last year. Armadillopteryx 00:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that's what I was vaguely recalling... so not implemented then. Thanks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
"a discussion about that last year" ... well played. Anyway I'm not quite sure I understand how it would uproot anything exactly, but I guess it doesn't make any sense to rehash the same thing twice over. I don't know how to formally withdraw the request like the last one was or even if I ever properly formally requested something in the first place, but anyone should feel free to dot the Is and cross the Ts on whatever forms are needed to end this inquiry if desired. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:91CE:D324:F0BC:EE54 (talk)

edit request: please add a hatnote

Maybe add

Due to technical restrictions, titles like # redirect here. For # and a disambiguation of similar-looking symbols, see number sign.

or

Due to technical restrictions, titles like # redirect here. For the # symbol, see number sign.
Not to be confused with the sharp sign ♯, the Viewdata square ⌗, the equal and parallel to symbol ⋕, the Looped square ⌘, the Chinese character Well-field system 井, or the game Tic-tac-toe's grid. For uses of number signs within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Number sign.

or

"#" redirects here. For #, see number sign. For ♯, see Sharp (music). For ⌗, see Viewdata square. For ⋕, see Parallel (geometry) § Symbol. For ⌘, see Looped square. For 井, see Well-field system. For the similar-looking game, see tic-tac-toe. For uses of number signs within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Number sign.

Thanks. 96.244.220.178 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean on the Main Page itself? While it's true that # does redirect here, the Main Page isn't an article, and a hatnote would look rather jarring and out of place. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 Not done Sorry no, while we would do that on articles - it would be to intrusive and take up too much high-end screen space on the Main Page. — xaosflux Talk 14:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Belle Delphine GIF

Off MP. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (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 can't imagine anyone would object to this being on the main page. -- Veggies (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The DYK gif really seems wrong for wp; there must be a policy that covers this. What a poor decision. Maneesh (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
How did this get here? horny jail bonk Holidayruin (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Zero idea why anyone thought the front page needed a gif of a woman imitating an expression from Japanese porn cartoons. What's the next Did You Know, a diatribe on the rise and fall of sales of scatological porn? It's not that culturally significant and it's not even an interesting factoid, it's just saying what kind of porn she sells. 166.182.80.87 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
It was apparently put there to drive traffic, which is an incredibly worrying precedent for wikipedia. What's next, YouTube-style clickbait thumbnails with open-mouthed shock faces and yellow arrows? Asystole (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Remove image. What the fuck is this? This image is WP:GRATUITOUS offensive material that has no place on the Wikipedia's main page. Also, has anyone considered the BLP implications of placing this image on the front page? JBchrch talk 06:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I am more concerned by the fact that it was put on top of a hook about the Pope. Normally we avoid the two being next to each other in a set The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
And directly next to the on this day section where the trans day of remembrance is today DogsRNice (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Could you explain what is offensive about this? —Kusma (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you need me to explain what's offensive about a pornographic actress' signature orgasm face? JBchrch talk 07:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
It is a fully clothed woman making a funny face. The only thing relating this to sex to people who do not already know her or this facial expression is the hook text. —Kusma (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kusma: "Ahegao" images specifically have a history of unwelcome public display which makes me, at least, uncomfortable to see one on the main page of Wikipedia. I don't know if that's offensive enough for you, but the nomination discussion that put this image on the main page cited "sex sells" and no other reason for favoring it. That seems to match WP:GRATUITOUS to a T. Autumnontape (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
In the name of Jesus H. Christ, when did wikipedia become such a place of idiocy? Forgive me for the language. But this is apparently unacceptable. We need to preserve the pure nature of wikipedia away from the erosion from youtube, fb, etc... Theanonymity.de (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Can anybody point me to how this section got its place on MainPage in the first place? Theanonymity.de (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

To avoid having competing threads, please discuss at WT:DYK. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: I disagree. The gif is in the jurisdiction of the Main Page since it currently appears in there, instead in the Did You Know? nom page. And the fact that this page has more viewership compared to the DYK talkpage. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Many more editors are involved in the thread on WT:DYK. I assume interested editors will see this thread and follow the link. But you may be right regarding page watchers. Honestly, no strong preference for one page over another but we should definitely avoid having the same conversation in parallel. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Wikmoz and Jeromi Mikhael: I have now notified WT:DYK of this discussion [6]. That will take care of it. JBchrch talk 06:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Pull it. This was extremely poor decision making on my part as a promoter, and I take full responsibility for what I did. NOTCENSORED, yes—tasteful and informative, no. Just hunting for attention. I don't care if consensus decides that NOTCENSORED means this has to stay up—I still say pull it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Replace image. I'd supporting swapping the current image with File:Belle Delphine - 2020-c.png. Remove “(example pictured)” and the image caption. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Pull it - Who thought this was a good idea? Saucy[talk – contribs] 07:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You can't just uncritically cite GRATUITOUS. The subject is treated in an encyclopedic manner and describes what is happening an links to further information. Your only argument so far is that you don't like it, which is explicitly contradicted by the essay you keep linking to: "Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers." — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Read the rest of WP:GRATUITOUS. It is a very relevant guideline. I agree that removing the DYK entirely or removing the GIF from the topic page would go against WP:NOTCENSORED. However, I genuinely don't see how swapping the main page image with File:Belle Delphine - 2020-c.png would go against WP:NOTCENSORED. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The hook is specifically about the cause of her popularity as it relates to making faces like that. Replacing the image as suggested would require reworking the hook just so people don't have to see a fully clothed woman making a silly face on a podcast. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
You're damn right that I don't like it. I don't like the way porn seeps into every aspect of our culture. I especially don't like how a pornographic actress whose business is selling the image of a sexualized pre-pubescent child is being promoted by our media and culture, and projected onto the minds of millions of people as something that's fashionable and noteworthy. Was that clear enough, you think? Ok, so with that in mind, I encourage you to return to WP:GRATUITOUS and read the sentence Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. It's pretty obvious to me how we should apply such a principle to the DYK section of the main page, but perhaps, you know, it's just because I don't like it. JBchrch talk 07:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
well ... if it wasn't going to run the twelve hours before, it definitely is now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't like porn either, but it's an encyclopedic topic like any other and has a place on Wikipedia. The GIF in question is not itself remotely pornographic, it's a parody of a parody of an orgasmic face that nobody actually made at the height of orgasm, ever. It also happens to be an excellent illustration of the hook in question, so not in the least "unnecessary, irrelevant or gratuitous" in my view. Again this is not a pornographic image, it's just an image of a young woman making a silly face to poke fun at a particular phenomenon. With all due respect, I think you are overreacting to what is a pretty innocuous image. Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
That page is about offensive material. This is a gif of a woman making a weird facial expression. I only learned from the hook that it has sexual connotations in some cultures. Educate me what is offensive about it. Do you think the word "orgasm" should not be on the Main Page? —Kusma (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
No Kusma, as I have already explained to you above, this is a GIF of a pornographic actress showing her signature orgasm face. JBchrch talk 07:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Wugapodes, I could not agree more. Gatoclass (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The first one is not a terribly strong counter example but it's not worth getting into WP:WHATABOUT. As I mentioned elsewhere, the question in my mind is whether we need to apply a higher standard to main page content that is pushed into view of young readers. Personally, I'm not offended by the image but everyone can draw their own line (I know it when I see it). Looking forward, maybe there could be consensus to follow something along the lines of the Miller test or another standard that more clearly defines what is acceptable on the main page. I think it is definitely worth a broader discussion. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Obviously don't pull it (although at least apparently we've gotten to a centralized discussion finally, after eight hours of people running around yelling in different places). Wugapodes said what I came here to say -- this is in no way worse than other things that have passed through the main page without issue. A gif of a clothed person making a sexualized facial expression is obviously not worse than a nude image -- of which we've had many go through both DYK and TFA -- or uncensored swearing, which also routinely goes through both processes. Vaticidalprophet 08:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    this is remarkably wrong my friend... we are indeed in the end time now. RIP the wikipedia I used to know. Theanonymity.de (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Really? This puts us in the end times? - Wikmoz (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for linking these! All are very helpful examples but I think they are very different from the GIF in question. Read through the Miller test for an example classification test that would put all of the above well within the acceptable range. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
(Indent one level further, by adding another colon : or asterisk * to the line, to reply to a message.) I personally don't think the gif fails the Miller test, which is admittedly quite dependent on where its observers draw the line of a "reasonable person". I can envision images I would oppose at DYK or TFA as Miller failures, but I think it takes a fairly extreme situation for a clothed image to make it there. (There are clothed images I would oppose on that premise.) Vaticidalprophet 08:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this fails Miller either... specifically, the "patently offensive" requirement. Just citing it as an example of a standard along the lines of what we could apply to potentially prevent something like this image from making it to the main page--without preventing an oil painting or most of the other examples from coming remotely close to being censored on the main page. - Wikmoz (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Please remove this GIF. It has no place in the DYK page. It is insulting, stuff that belongs to social media. Wikipedia should stick to higher standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivima1 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Look, I don't know what policy this would fall under, if any, but puritanical rants and comparisons to big swear words aside, can we just acknowledge that it's kind of fucked for Wikipedia to use a sexualized GIF of a living woman for the express purpose of drawing clicks, on the legal grounds that a podcast has the rights to the video and not her? My objection to this isn't that I don't like porn or don't think it or imagery related to it should be on the main page; I love porn and think it's culturally important. But an encyclopedia shouldn't be deploying it in this way and these circumstances. Autumnontape (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Ugh, I'm sorry for the strong language. I just want to distance my stance from the anti-porn position here. Autumnontape (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
      This is where I'm at too. I'm not anti-porn either, and I'm not a prude, despite my asexuality. But there was a pretty clear purpose to this hook, and it was to shock for attention. As Urve pointed out, arguments about censorship and the anti-porn crowd aside, how are editors supposed to pull this on a Saturday and ask women to join this community on a Sunday? Whether or not this should be pulled is one discussion, but I'm firmly of the belief that it never should have come to that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, only you would know why you chose to promote this hook to the image slot, and if it was only "to shock for attention", it's hardly surprising that you might be feeling a bit sheepish about your decision. But I had no dog in the fight, and I did not see this image as "shocking" at all and still don't. Eye-catching, yes, shocking, not at all - though clearly there are some who disagree. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Who said anything about page views? I simply said it was eye-catching, which it is - GIFs on the front page usually are. I've never suggested that we should run hooks solely based on how many page hits they are likely to get - that would be turning the project into a tabloid. On the other hand, it isn't bad to run hooks which get a lot of attention, because that helps engage people with the encyclopedia. If overall page hits are down, maybe it's because our main page content just hasn't been interesting enough lately. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: These kinds of things like page views, fluctuate for a myriad of reasons that go beyond even Wikipedia itself. Societal reasons, internet trends, national and international reasons for a site as big as Wikipedia. I highly doubt it had anything to do with the main page being dry, considering it always has been. And to reiterate, Wikipedia it not here to pick up a crowd with an "entertain-me" mentality, it's here to be an encyclopedia. Heck, changing Wikipedia's M.O. to something more tabloid-esque could in the long term risk losing people as it is not what they come to expect from this site -- it's hard to say. Lastly, I never said hooks were bad, although I believe that certain kinds of hooks are. Holidayruin (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I'll link the nomination discussion once more: Given the combination of a sexuality topic and a freely licensed gif, I think there's a very solid chance this could become one of the top-performing DYK hooks of all time. [...] I think ALT0 is definitely the stronger choice for a hook. (Link: "sex sells.") I'm not plugged into the "do you know" process, but my impression is that performance is measured by increased traffic to the linked page. Let me know if that's not the implication of that quote. Autumnontape (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Why did page views literally halve in the last days of April 2020? Page views are weird man, don't do stuff based on that. Do stuff based on being an encyclopedic reference site. A site with so much interesting information to be uncovered by the site's users. Holidayruin (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, you've the resolve and sanity of ten editors, Gatoclass, and i'm not sure why you think i'm trying to stick you with the blame for this. There's an argument in "we're not censored, shocking for attention to then show something real is okay". Forgive me if I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're saying "i didn't think this hook was shocking, and didn't take into account the fact that a strong objection from a lot of people at WT:DYK might be a reasonable indication that this hook will be perceived as shocking". Which makes me feel like you're talking about the hook based on how it should be perceived (which would, i understand, cast it in a more favourable and educational light) and not about its actual (short-lived) impact on readers. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I really don't want to spend any more time on this, but when people keep mischaracterizing my comments it's hard to do otherwise. TLC, I have never suggested that I think you are trying to "stick [me] with the blame for this" - indeed I thought I'd made it clear that I think nothing blameworthy has occurred. As for "shocking", that is your word, not mine, but regardless, when a discussion revolves around perceptions, I'm entitled to express an opinion just like anybody else. Ultimately though, questions of this kind are resolved according to the relevant policies, and apart from the fact that some folks evidently object to a porn actress pulling a face in a main page GIF, I haven't seen a lot of those. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: damn, I'm sorry, I meant to cut the blame line—I kept rewriting and rebodging the response as i reinterpreted your reply. As for everything else, I'll say that we'll just leave it here—this comes off the main page in seventy minutes. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and i value it even when I disagree. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with all the dissenters above. The ultimate thing this comes down to is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference material; not an entertainment social media site like Twitter, Facebook, or even in many cases YouTube.
Most of the precedence examples for past "controversial DYK content" don't really apply here because most of them did have encyclopedic value that someone could reasonably gain greater valuable life information from to some extent (except the thirst trap one), and even those did have well-reasoned dissent.
I'm sure you all know how Wikipedia used to be considered an "unfit" site for citing as factual reference material. This site has built a stellar reputation over many decades at this point and things like this chip away at Wikipedia's encyclopedic reputation.
I worry that I cheapened the discussion over this with my earlier "horny jail" comment, which was meant to be funny. I realize I set the wrong tone for this discussion. Sorry. Holidayruin (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • My issue with it is that it makes the front page look like something you'd find on a 14-year-old boy's Geocities web page circa 1997. And people wonder why we have a gender gap ... sigh. But whatever, carry on, it'll be gone in an hour or so. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I found the little movie not only harmless, but rather charming. It's a bit of fun that made me smile. Thank you! Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    There are plenty of other websites that can provide you with that type of "bit of fun". Asystole (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    If you mean porn, that is not my cup of tea. The clip was not porn: it was a joke about porn. Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Long time Wikipedia reader here, how is this not considered free advertisement for that person? You irresponsibly exposed millions to her business that would otherwise probably never heard of her. This is not some word that everybody knows and some people are offended by, or some 18th century painting (as some people tried to argue above). I don't care about the article or her person but I find extremely tasteless to have allowed this to happen to the Main Page of Wikipedia. To be honest, I fought at first that the DYK template got vandalized (and was planning to find a way fix it) because the image and the text seem completely out-of-place, unless Wikipedia is planning to compete with fetish subreddits. I was surprised to learn that this was not the case; whoever was in charge of this should lose their privileges immediately. FDN (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    The same happens for any DYK hook of any company or person with direct consumer value. Assuming this is actually a problem, unless we want to exclude hooks about any existant company or living entertainer, this is not solvable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not just companies and people, also books, films, characters, ... featuring any of these could cause people to become interested and spend money that they didn't want to spend. The only real solution (if we consider this a problem) is to remove all content from the Main Page and to keep only the search bar. (I'm opposed to that solution). —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • People seem to have forgotten that "I'll have what she's having" was considered quite groundbreaking as feminist humour. See the Washington Post: 'Not everyone understood the joke. “When the scene was shown to a Las Vegas convention of movie distributors, the men in the room did not react at all. They didn’t get it,” Cohen wrote. “The women, however, did. They laughed, and their laughter became infectious until, one by one, the men joined in.”' This is knowing satire of a similar sort but some people still don't seem to get it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 20 November 2021 (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.

Convert GIF to JPG

Off MP. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (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.

Does the image really need to be in GIF? Some phones don't render GIFs properly. My dad's phone, for example, renders the gif as a still image, and it only displays her smiling. A lot of readers would be confused with this and it would probably be better if we convert the image to a JPG. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

think there might be other issues with your dad seeing the porn gif mate 166.182.80.87 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Welp, the gif is in the main page now, and apparently, an average of 5.5 million people are seeing Wikipedia's main page every day. I hope that doesn't mean that 5,5 million are having "other issues" for looking at an image placed on the main page. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I would second the suggestion to use a static image on the Main Page instead. I have no opinion on the content as such and whether it is unfit for being on the Main Page in the first place, but I find the fact that it's animated very distracting: it constantly draws your attention when you are trying to read the rest of the page. 188.108.121.147 (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep, me too. I would like to weigh in on the discussion above, but social repercussions etc. So, this suggestion is the only thing I could do in regards to the GIF. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
But then you would lose the cheeky smile at the end of the GIF that makes it clear she is just kidding around. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This...thread....needs more participants. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
A valid point, but since the hook on the Main Page is not intended to convey everything there is to know about a subject to begin with, I don't think that this is much of an issue. In fact, the text itself says “[…] orgasm faces (example pictured) […]”, so a static illustration depicting what an “orgasm face” is, for the benefit of those who're not familiar with manga/anime (the majority of our readers, I would presume), would suffice IMHO. 188.108.121.147 (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that "it is replaced by a still for some people" is a convincing reason to replace it by a still for everyone. —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2021 (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.

Solution to Belle Delphine GIF Problem

Off MP. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (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.

For the ones who are, like me, personnaly offended by GIF, but don't care much about what millions of readers will see, there's a script that hides images. Here: User:Anomie/hide-images. Hope it helps you. Arado Ar 196 (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody cares. This is Wikipedia, not a Disney movie. 211.47.88.109 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If you don't care, it doesn't mean that nobody cares, and it's not exactly civil to speak for all. Look slightly above the header of this thread and you shall see the ones who care. Plus, I don't quite understand what you mean by "not a Disney movie" (you'll be laughing but I find some Disney movies offensive too). I know that Wikipedia isn't censored, thank you very much for reminder, friend. But I haven't proposed to remove anything, I just suggested easy solution for people who don't tolerate such content for whatever reasons. If you don't need the script and have no interest in it, then I kindly ask you to find something other to do than being spokeperson for all readers and editors. I beg my pardon if previous phrase is kind of rude. Have a nice day, comrade. Arado Ar 196 (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2021 (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.

POTD: time limit on nominations?

Editors watching this page may be interested in WT:POTD#Time limit on nominations?. IznoPublic (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In The News/Ongoing redirect

Redirect appears to have changed so links to Portal:Current_events/Sidebar#Ongoing_events instead of Portal:Current_events --acox00 (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct. There is also a link to "other recent events" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Was this a recent change? Doesn't feel right (for lack of a better word) --acox00 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:In the news#Other Current Events — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Zulu

Why there is no Zulu language on Wikipedia? Mazwanyana (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you not find it in the list at meta:List of Wikipedias? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this it? [7]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mazwanyana: Main Page#Wikipedia languages says: "Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below." Zulu is not one of the largest but can be found at the link on "other Wikipedias are available", currently at number 154. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What readers click on

Mostly, I think people who are viewing the Main Page use the search bar to find the article they want to read. However, https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Main_Page (warning: takes more than one minute to load) says that if they click on a link, it is likely to be a link from Wikipedia:In the news, and specifically likely to be Deaths in 2021. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Well, this data is all clicks during the month of October. Most links were on the Main Page for only a day (TFA) or twelve hours (DYK). ITN has the longest stay on the Main Page, and Deaths in 2021 is always linked. So there's no surprise there. It's a cool tool, but the Main Page isn't a good page to analyse with it. —Kusma (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ha, ha. I suppose the lockdowns are causing a lot of extra morbidity. FactMaster007 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It was not the case, as far as could be determined (according to The Guardian, reviewed end of last July). This study found an enormous discrepancy between excess deaths and Covid 19 related deaths in the U.S. for 2020 - not linking the phenomenon with lockdowns under any aspect. --Askedonty (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What was a contributing factor? --FactMaster007 (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Pre-pandemic healthcare conditions are highlighted in the study. Given the scope of the discrepancy it is probably considered a matter of some time before detailed conclusions are drawn. Regarding morbidity as an attitude, maybe this situation (drug abuse) will be in the end considered a corresponding match. --Askedonty (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Fundraiser

Just some constructive input. The most irritating thing when I visit news sites like The Guardian is that they've monitored exactly how many articles I've read. I find it creepy and intrusive. I think it's a bad idea monitoring how many times you've seen the fundraiser. That would make me less likely to want to donate than donate. I don't know how others feel but I find it intrusive and annoying.₪ Encyclopædius 15:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is fixable by rejecting all or some cookies in the pop-up message on their website (as the European Union now legally requires all websites to offer such choice for the readers). Brandmeistertalk 08:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I remember this being complained about last year, too (I think). Surprised it's still here. Anarchyte (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@Encyclopædius: the fundraising team is gathering feedback at meta:Talk:Fundraising, please feel free to let them know your thoughts on that page. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Cascade-protect the Main Page?

I did a quick scan through the Main Page, found out that there are quite a few templates transcluded into the Main Page that aren't protected, and realized that this is a security hole: any vandal that has had prior experience can easily throw something malicious into the main page even as an IP. I know something like this has happened before in an LTA before, replacing a template used in the Main Page with gross image vandalism, but unfortunately I cannot find the case. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Which templates are these? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Cascade protection has been in place for a long time.[8] If you're looking at the template information at the bottom of the page, these cascade-protected templates don't show as protected when they are not individually protected. And often there's no need for individual protection, due to their transitory nature. However if you've found a loophole we'd sure like to hear about it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Fundraiser banner

Some feedback on the banner which I don't find very intuitive. Firstly it always shows me £2. I am not from Europe, am not aware of Euro rates, and I don't have the conversion rate handy. There are no other helpful links for more details or FAQs in the banner (they are actually hidden, and show up only after we click on one of the payment modes). After some effort I managed to find my country-related link to make the payment, and got the values in my currency. On trying to make the payment there, it lists many mandatory fields (name, street, city, email) but gives no explanation of why these are required, or how we can make a payment with minimal information. Jay (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jay The Wikipedia community has no control over the fundraising banners, they are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). You can raise concerns at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) or meta:Talk:Fundraising. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Dear all,
Just to let you know we now answered this on the talk:fundraising page. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_202&oldid=1085461170"