Talk:Main Page/Archive 175

Archive 170

←

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

→

Archive 180

Doubts on "Today's articles for improvement"

I am quite late; never noticed that such section was planned to start on main page. Should have been here (or somewhere) while it was under discussion. I have a doubt here. What is the purpose of this section? Is it to encourage editors and readers also to join in and help make the article better? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It have been extensively discussed about implementing WP:TAFI on to the main page. See the archives of this page and VP and WT:TAFI. TAFI's goal is to use widespread collaborative editing to improve articles' quality over a short time frame. See WP:TAFI --Ushau97 (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There was also this notice on this talk page for more than four weeks: from 16 March 2013 to 15 April 2013, with code to prevent archiving (in addition to the extensive discussion mentioned above) - Evad37 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well.... it surely went out of my sight. My mistake; i am not complaining about it. What i want to point at is.... now that we are highlighting our not-so-good articles on main page, why should we have strict requirements of no-orange-tags on articles which are main links in other sections. Recently i nominated Pran for ITN and i was asked to clean it up before it could be presented on main page. I don't mind cleaning it; in fact i loved it as many people helped in over night cleaning. Also, the DYKs are not promoted until they are thoroughly checked and cleared of citation needed tags. I also know of at least one featured image which is not being displayed here because its article is not upto the mark. Looking at strict requirements of these sections, adding a separate section of so-so articles looks bit double standards to me. Shouldn't these strict requirements on articles of other section be made lenient? What's the harm of having a citation needed tag in a DYK/ITN article as long as the hook/blurb itself is well referenced? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

TAFI and TFN (or DYK, or ITN) have hugely different goals, and with hugely different goals come hugely different priorities. —Theopolisme (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

In the case of TAFI, the goal is to ask readers to improve an article. In the case of all the other articles on the main page, the goal is to highlight the article for readers to read it. We don't want readers reading bad articles. Ryan Vesey 15:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

TAFI exists specifically for the purpose of facilitating article improvements, particularly via the recruitment of new editors. It isn't a random assortment of "not-so-good articles"; it has its own inclusion criteria (intended to ensure that the articles listed are conducive to such engagement) and support process in place.

The other sections serve different purposes, which shouldn't be conflated with TAFI's. —David Levy 15:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that all sections serve different purpose. But if we are displaying such articles for readers believing that they will take up editing and clean it and make it an FA, i am not able to understand why that belief is confined only to this box of TAFI? Won't some editor help us by providing a reference to a cn-tagged line present in DYK article? Rather than deleting that line altogether, it should be kept with such tags. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you do know that "all sections serve different purpose", then it follows that whatever the criteria is for TAFI articles only applies to articles on TAFI; FA standards don't apply to DYK, ITN standards don't apply on FP, etc. Also, AFAIK DYKs shouldn't have tags the moment it goes up; it may get tags while it's on the Main Page, though. –HTD 15:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Rocket image

Am I the only one who has been looking at the image and seeing a pair of blue jeans??♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes, when I first saw the main page today, my first thought was "why is there a pair of pants in ITN?" But I thought it meant I was a goofball, so I kept it to myself. Glad to see that either (a) I'm not a goofball, or (b) there are at least 2 of us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You both have really weird trousers. Or very long legs. Modest Genius ^talk 21:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I also saw pants. Coincidentally, I do happen to have both weird trousers and long legs. The above hypothesis seems to be correct. 132.162.84.149 (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I wear River Island jeans and have 36 inseams, so yes I think you're right!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you wear pants like those how do you not get arrested for indecent exposure? The top would not adequately cover the pelvic region. --Khajidha (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Very short legs, surely, and an inordinately long zip. Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(Reset) 'The innate tendency of the human brain for creative misinterpretation (especially if it can produce something inappropriate'). (Or 'it is about time for the next main page entry to produce "the usual complaints".') Jackiespeel (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

At least this one was funny and didn't involve name-calling. --Khajidha (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Is that a rocket in your pants, or are you just happy to see me? Jonathunder (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, it's both.--WaltCip (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sick of the frontpage being jean-centric. Every day, it's Levi this and denim that. America isn't getting a look-in any more! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

OTD

1913 – The Woolworth Building (pictured) opened in New York City as the tallest building in the world at the time.

— As opposed to at some other time? And did it open as the tallest, etc., or as the Woolworth Building? How tall was it? Sca (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote. —howcheng {chat} 16:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Paladox2014/Main_Page

hi I am desning a new main page for Wikipedia and I would like some of users on here to help edit and improve it please go to User:Paladox2014/Main_Page I also think User:Paladox2014/Main_Page is ready to put in main page Paladox2014 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:2013 main page redesign proposal. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

problem with category

hi theres seem to be a problem with category because it isent showing any category at the end of the page Paladox2014 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

We do have hidden categories. If you need further technical help, please ask at the help desk. matt (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the Main Page has no categories, would it not be sensible to hide the category box? — Edokter (talk) — 11:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Err, it is hidden, or at least I can't see it. Modest Genius ^talk 13:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I do see an empty category box, but that is because I haven't disabled the HotCat gadget. — Edokter (talk) — 13:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you know... is trolling?!?

among the Did you know fact, today i've seen this:

... that Anthony Musgrave, the son of Anthony Musgrave, was related to Anthony Musgrave?

something like i know you like boxes, so i put a box in your box?!?

Awesome. I was trying to write a DYK with the hook that "Player played for Team A and Team B with an identical name with Team A." Got lazy lol. –HTD 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice :) And DYK hooks do that sometimes! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That sort of confusingly misleading blurb would be suitable for the April Fool's DYK, but not for the rest of the year. Modest Genius ^talk 17:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If there were regular 'twisty-links' on the main page it would stop 'the usual April 1st debate.'

I suspect that it was submitted for April Fool's Day, but too late, after all the queues for that were full. The same thing happened with my Stoner v. California hook (which wound up running on April 20 of that year, making it even funnier). Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK's maintainers simply insert surplus April Fools' Day hooks into other days' queues (without modification)?

I don't mean to offend you (or anyone else), but there's no delicate way to state that I find your Stoner v. California hook embarrassing, irrespective of whether it had appeared on 4/1 or 4/20 (which I see was deliberate).

Even on April Fools' Day, the main page is supposed to contain facts that seem unbelievable but are completely true. A bit of careful wording and slight ambiguity is one thing. Manufactured cannabis puns (entirely unrelated to the article's subject) are quite another. ("Their bud"? Really?)

I don't know what gave you the idea that the rationale "The guy's name was "Stoner"! Let's make weed jokes on 4/20!" was consistent with the community's standards, but you were mistaken. I don't wish to debate whether the hook was "funny" (an entirely subjective manner), but it wasn't encyclopedic. —David Levy 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Had that attitude predominated at the DYK discussion, I probably would have withdrawn the nomination (but take note that it was only the possibility of getting a hook like that to DYK that prompted me to create the article (on an inherently notable subject) in the first place). That case name has often been identified as among particularly funny (inadvertently, of course) ones in legal circles, along with United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins and Schmuck v. United States, which I did manage to finish in time for April Fool's Day in the past two years.

I actually agree with you that hooks like that generally should be limited to April Fool's Day, or other special occasions (like, maybe, from the file of court cases with humorous names, something on United States v. Vampire Nation for this Halloween? (although I think that one can be played straight without recourse to puns). Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The aforementioned discussion evidently comprised your self-nomination, Kiefer.Wolfowitz's opinion that "this should be saved for April Fools' Day, dude, because its combination of marijuana-terminology and jokes and your scheduling of it on a marijuana-celebration day do not seem to advance the WP project", and your response "Better this than something Hitler-related."

You certainly are entitled to focus on whatever subject area(s) you wish, but I find it unfortunate that notable court cases are less likely to receive Wikipedia articles if they lack litigants with "funny" names.

My point isn't merely that such hooks should appear only on April Fools' Day. I regard the Stoner v. California hook as unsuitable on any day.

Perhaps the name's perceived humor is a noteworthy element of the subject, with reliable sources covering this longstanding reputation within legal circles. That isn't stated in the article, nor did the hook have any such basis. It was simply Wikipedia making "stoner" jokes on 4/20 (in reference to a subject unrelated to cannabis) via contrived wording whose informality is inappropriate outside direct quotations. —David Levy 18:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It happened once; it probably will not happen again. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other "4/20"-related DYK jokes, if that's what you mean. The overall problem obviously runs much deeper. —David Levy 20:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If the DYK problem keeps spurring people to make quality articles on notable subjects that give a laugh to visitors, then I hope the problem runs deep indeed. SnowFire (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone asserted that "[making] quality articles on notable subjects that give a laugh to visitors" is problematic? I certainly haven't.

I'm referring to the problem of inaccurate/misleading/colloquial material appearing on Wikipedia's main page. —David Levy 19:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was being silly. To be more serious, I'm just saying that "misleading for the sake of being funny" hooks are just fine, just as some of the older April Fools FAs that stretched the article in crazy ways are fine (a la George Washington (inventor)'s blurb). It's a DYK hook, it's supposed to get you to click on the (serious) article. Wikipedia and "encyclopedic" is whatever we the editors want to make of it. Humor is healthy, deadly seriousness all the time is boring. (Okay, drug culture references are a little edgy, yes, maybe best not to do them ALL the time, but this one seemed pretty harmless.) SnowFire (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for making DYK engaging, including by highlighting information that people find funny. I also accept the fact that the main page's style is bent on 1 April. I prefer the "too weird to seem true" material, but I realize that some will fall into the "carefully worded to exploit double meanings" category (which still is vastly preferable to the random hoaxes that formerly appeared on that date).

But a DYK hook always should be written in formal English, and it never should contain humor manufactured out of thin air (with no connection to the article's subject, even when spun). The Stoner v. California hook failed in both respects.

I don't object to drug culture references in the slightest, provided that they actually relate to the article's topic. For an article that has nothing to do with cannabis, we made fun of the name "Stoner" by stating that the police could not depend on "their bud" (an outright fabrication, even if we accept "bud" as a valid alternative to "friend") to help "smoke out" a suspected robber. This is the sort of material that I'd expect to find at Uncyclopedia. And it didn't even run on April Fools' Day. —David Levy 05:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I had hoped that it would originally but I couldn't create the article in time, and then it occurred to me that it was even better for 4/20 (although I would have felt even better if there had been other weed-themed hooks around it that day. Maybe there could have been, if the people at WP:Cannabis had been able to get themselves off the couch and create them :-)).

David, I think it's time that you either drop the proverbial stick or restart this discussion at, say, WT:DYK, where you might be able to influence policy and propose a new rule that hooks shouldn't be based on puns. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I had hoped that it would originally but I couldn't create the article in time, and then it occurred to me that it was even better for 4/20

Again, I regard the hook as inappropriate even on April Fools' Day. It certainly isn't the type of content that the community has discussed and approved for that occasion. (And has there been any discussion of enacting special main page rules for 4/20?)

(although I would have felt even better if there had been other weed-themed hooks around it that day.

There was absolutely no justification for making the hook "weed-themed". The article has nothing to do with cannabis. It isn't even about something that readers might think relates to cannabis due to superficial similarities. You invented the connection out of whole cloth, inspired solely by the fact that a litigant's name was "Stoner". Your hook didn't relay a fact that could be taken more than one way; you bastardized a fact by wording it in a manner devised to mimic slang terminology unrelated to the subject, falsely claiming that a hotel clerk was the police's "bud".

On neither April Fools' Day nor other days is it okay to fabricate information and insert slang (not terminology that seems like slang, but actual slang) into Wikipedia's voice. If you disagree, feel free to initiate a proposal to that effect.

Maybe there could have been, if the people at WP:Cannabis had been able to get themselves off the couch and create them :-)).

If we can compile some DYK hooks about cannabis-related subjects, I have no objections to running them on 4/20. Your hook wasn't about a cannabis-related subject.

David, I think it's time that you either drop the proverbial stick

I'm merely replying to others' comments. Why haven't you haven't advised SnowFire (who opined that your hook "seemed pretty harmless") to drop the proverbial stick?

or restart this discussion at, say, WT:DYK, where you might be able to influence policy and propose a new rule that hooks shouldn't be based on puns.

That isn't my position. Puns can be based on wording that actually relates to the article's subject.

No new policy is required. We just need a small subset of DYK's maintainers to stop ignoring our current standards.

You haven't answered my original question. Are they simply inserting surplus April Fools' Day hooks into other days' queues (without modification)? —David Levy 23:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

On neither April Fools' Day nor other days is it okay to fabricate information and insert slang (not terminology that seems like slang, but actual slang) into Wikipedia's voice. If you disagree, feel free to initiate a proposal to that effect.

I'm merely responding to your comment, as you said about mine below.

I'm merely replying to others' comments. Why haven't you haven't advised SnowFire (who opined that your hook "seemed pretty harmless") to drop the proverbial stick?

Because I think he was hoping you'd see things the same way. That said, reading your latest round of comments, I think I know why you haven't dropped the stick ... you're not holding it in your hand (figuratively speaking), but rather another part of your anatomy where it may not be so easy to just, uh, drop.

You haven't answered my original question. Are they simply inserting surplus April Fools' Day hooks into other days' queues (without modification)?

If I answer it, will you promise to drop the stick and go away from this thread and never come back? Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't interweave your replies with my message, thereby orphaning most segments from my signature. If you wish to respond in a point-by-point manner (a practice of which I'm fond), please use one of our talk page quotation templates. (I've refactored accordingly.)

I'm merely responding to your comment, as you said about mine below.

And I'm not replying by advising you to "drop the proverbial stick".

Because I think he was hoping you'd see things the same way.

Who doesn't hope that others will agree with them?

That said, reading your latest round of comments, I think I know why you haven't dropped the stick ... you're not holding it in your hand (figuratively speaking), but rather another part of your anatomy where it may not be so easy to just, uh, drop.

How are such comments constructive? As strongly as I disagree with you, you don't see me commenting on you as a person. I've criticised your actions.

If I answer it, will you promise to drop the stick and go away from this thread and never come back?

No, I won't. If you don't wish to answer the question, that's your prerogative. —David Levy 02:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How are such comments constructive? As strongly as I disagree with you, you don't see me commenting on you as a person. I've criticised your actions.

You have done so in a way that makes it clear you do not know the dancer from the dance, nor does it seem that you care to learnWhy, after over a decade of Wikipedia, do we not have an article on this classic poem?You write as if to you, this was the only thing I've ever done. You don't need to criticize me with specific words; contempt drips from your tone, your pedantic need to fisk everything I write here as if it were some sort of papal pronouncement (come on—I don't even take myself that seriously) rather than an idle discussion about two DYK hooks now long gone from the Main Page.

If you don't wish to answer the question, that's your prerogative.

Fine, I won't. If you were someone who actually had some experience researching, creating and expanding article content, I might have sufficient respect for you to answer your question even after all this. But, I look over your edit history and see very little of that in mainspace. You do things that do need to be done, but I get the feeling I'm not the only veteran content editor you've alienated in the process. I can take this from someone who's been out at the spear point themselves; I'm not going to take it from one of Wikipedia's REMF harem eunuchs. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You write as if to you, this was the only thing I've ever done.

I don't know what I've written that came across in such a light, but I'm truly sorry that it did. It would be ludicrous to suggest that the hook in question represents or typifies your contributions as a Wikipedian, let alone as a person.

You don't need to criticize me with specific words; contempt drips from your tone,

Obviously, I strongly disapprove of such DYK blurbs (and I'm not going to pretend otherwise). But contempt? Absolutely not. I don't even know you. I'm merely expressing disagreement with your actions.

your pedantic need to fisk everything I write here as if it were some sort of papal pronouncement

Having looked over my edit history, you should have noticed that I use this quotation style on a regular basis (and have for years). It has nothing to do with my feelings toward the person to whom I'm replying (or even his/her comments).

If you were someone who actually had some experience researching, creating and expanding article content, I might have sufficient respect for you to answer your question even after all this. But, I look over your edit history and see very little of that in mainspace.

You lack "sufficient respect" for me because I focus on areas different from yours? That's rather disheartening.

You do things that do need to be done, but I get the feeling I'm not the only veteran content editor you've alienated in the process.

What is your objection to that edit?

An administrator (not me) pulled the relevant ITN item, noting that most of the article's updated content was unsourced, resulting in an orange-level tag (a disqualifying factor). Instead of addressing the underlying problem, a user removed the {{refimprove}} tag (not originally inserted by me) and argued at WP:ITN/C that the missing references were unnecessary. (Fortunately, another participant in the discussion added them shortly thereafter, noticing in the process that some of the statements were incorrect.)

I can take this from someone who's been out at the spear point themselves; I'm not going to take it from one of Wikipedia's REMF harem eunuchs.

At this point, my main concern is that something I wrote upset you this much. I can only reiterate that it wasn't my intention and that I'm genuinely sorry. —David Levy 03:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I accept your apology and, for that, I will answer your question: As I said earlier, I don't know this for a fact. I haven't been heavily involved (which is to say, involved at all), with filling the DYK queues for a long time. I can only say that I suspect that some editors have submitted their April Fool's hooks after finding the main queue for them already filled up, and that some reviewers (I have seen people reject hooks like these as only appropriate for April Fool's), not all, don't see any difference and let them through, and that the ones (if they aren't the same) who put the queues together figure that if it got okayed they shouldn't second-guess the reviewer (which they should feel free to do; under the present, semi-automated system we have now we are not in any danger anymore of not having enough good hooks, and indeed more than a few times I've gotten a bad hook out of the queue or fixed it (I wish people would realize that the slightly looser editorial policies around hooks (WP:EGG doesn't really apply) are not an excuse to forget things like using {{convert}} for measurements and making it clear that a particular city is in the US or UK, by appending the state or "Nottinghamshire" or whatever). Really, the best place to do this sort of quality control is to patrol T:DYK/Q every now and then and bring up any issue you have on WT:DYK.

Can we move on now? Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It was clear that this particular hook's provenance was speculative, but I didn't realize that you were referring to a hypothetical mix-up (as opposed to a scenario in which leftover April Fools' Day hooks were intentionally run on other days as a matter of course). I certainly prefer the explanation that the hook accidentally escaped into the wild (if, in fact, that's what occurred).

You've touched on some weaknesses in the process (which sometimes result in badly flawed hooks — unrelated to any sort of joke — slipping through), but that's a matter for discussion at WT:DYK. Thanks again. —David Levy 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

See the Reuss dynasties on the Regnal Chronologies website [http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/gerN-R.html#REUSS] for several bizarre sequences. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Get away!

Did you know ... that the sea contains over 97% of Earth's water?

Sounds strange, like we're supposed to be surprised it's that much. 86.146.104.28 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• So you answer that question as "yes". Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, very droll.

• A somewhat more interesting hook, "... that Wikipedia's article on sea was fewer than 400 words just two weeks ago?" would be difficult to provide context for in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is far too detailed. Surely all that is needed is "big blue wobbly thing" MChesterMC (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, the joys of simplicity: strong hard thing, weak hard thing, soft strong thing, soft weak thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In equally surprising news: the Pope is a Catholic, rich people hate taxes, and money does not grow on trees. Modest Genius ^talk 14:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll blow your mind: there is a money plant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There's also a money tree, but neither of them produces fruit accepted as currency. Modest Genius ^talk 15:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• This one's seeds were — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's commodity money, not fiat currency. OK enough pedantry for now. Modest Genius ^talk 22:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Hook's off the main page anyways. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(Reset) Neither Pope Theodoros II nor Pope/Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria is Catholic.

The original point was that people tend to be 'vaguely familiar' with the seas covering 70% of the Earth's surface and don't think of the proportions of water. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think most of the people who were posting got that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Variety of English

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but what variety of English should be used on the main page? I thought of this in making a joke about it at ITN/C and MOS:ENGVAR doesn't give any clues.

We could use whichever variety of English is used in the linked article ("apologises" if we were referring to Cameron, but "apologizes" if we were referring to Obama), but that would violate WP:CONSISTENCY. This eventuality could lead to a potentially professionalness-threatening paradoxical situation.  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The current consensus is what you said: whatever variety of English is used in the bolded, linked article. WP:CONSISTENCY is not usually applied because the Main page is treated like a Wikipedia Portal, not an article, with several separate rotating sections. Yes, this has been discussed several times, but I cannot remember where it is archived at the moment. I remember one of the arguments was that it was hard to enforce because of trying to coordinate all the sections (especially when ITN does not automatically change at 00:00 UTC like most of the other main page section). And it would lead to inconsistencies such as, for example, a featured article, written in British English, with its Main Page blurb appearing in American English. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The same treatment as for factual content: the Main Page defers to the individual encyclopaedia article. We use whatever the bold article does. No idea if this is documented anywhere, but it's certainly long-standing (at least since 2005 when I started contributing here). WP:CONSISTENCY does not apply because the Main Page is not an article. Modest Genius ^talk 10:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably 'whichever variety of English the last user normally writes' also applies :)

To some extent 'people using WP'/exposed to the global media generally may well 'not really notice' which spellings are used (unless too obviously incongruous).

'Inconsistency' can arise in many contexts - eg Suits (TV series) is an American program, but on UK TV British spellings are used in the subtitles. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As in a British editor using the American spelling of 'program' when describing a tv programme ... 86.158.107.93 (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As the series is American, which spelling #should# be used?

Consider the talk page associated with 'theoretical SpeakWikipedia' :) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There are some instances where blurbs are reworded into a "neutral" form of English is used (ITN: In <sport>, <Team A> wins competition by defeating <Team B>".), or to just to end the argument, British English is used on subjects which are not country-centric. –HTD 09:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Hanneman death

Jeff Hanneman, the guitarist and founder of Slayer, passed away today, is it possible for us to have him featured on the main page? Here is a list of citations for it. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is under discussion at WP:ITN/C, so you may like to contribute there? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

UK county elections

Sky News has different final figures. For example it gives Labour on 560? Has the page been updated for the final results or is Sky wrong?

This isn't related to the Main Page. You'd be better off asking on the associated talk page. — foxj 10:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page design

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 have created a new look for the main page at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox it has the same content but in an updated look and updated colours Paladox2014 (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, that looks nice! They're small changes, but it makes things look nicer. I especially like the icons next to the name of each section. I'd be in support of this new look if it was a proposed change. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks I copied it from some off the looks from Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal/Evad37 because I thought it was a cleaner and newer look I just thought ad d it to sandbox for everyone to see his or hers design I just did a little modification to colour and added an icon to other areas of Wikipedia where can I ask for proposal of the main page Paladox2014 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2013 (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.

DYK typos

... that seeds of the fossil yew genus Diploporus are larger then Taxus seeds and smaller then Torreya seeds? - "then" should be "than". Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made the changes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it the intention of the DYK editor to inject a degree of humor into this section by making the (otherwise dry) facts regarding Dolly Madison and John C. Calhoun's simultaneous interments in the Public Vault appear to be salacious? Gulbenk (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Did You Know -- Where every day is April Fools' Day. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

On this topic - is it neccesary to advertise for Pussy (energy drink)? How is it being advertised as 100% natural vaguely encyclopedic? 46.115.123.137 (talk)

Today's articles for improvement

I'm just wondering. Where did this new main page section get discussed? Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 08:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Type TAFI into the enquiry box of the large peach coloured box at the top of this page: that is the search the archive tool. Kevin McE (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

On this day: 6th of May

I just feel the On this day content is unbalanced with American items, no offense. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 08:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to think of myself as trying to be aware of systemic bias here, and am in no way a US apologist, but of seven items, three have some link to the US: a comedian from south London, an aircraft from Germany, and one destination for emigration from China. There are many days on which your concern would be much more founded. Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the section. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 09:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There is one day (I forget which) where there were only 5 eligible items and all of them were US-related. Surprisingly, there were no complaints about it that day. —howcheng {chat} 15:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian cinema

Is there some reason why today's featured article, an "on this day" item, and two DYKs currently on the front page are all related to Indian cinema or is it just an amazing coincidence? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming here to complain about the top item on DYK, ITN, and TFA all being Indian. But light-heartedly :-) World's biggest democracy hits back! I guess some may consider the Raja Harishchandra anniversary to be important. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. it is actually the centenary of Indian cinema. TFA, DYK, On this day -- all were planned. ITN is, of course, coincidence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And the Asian Openbill (POTD) is from the Indian subcontinent. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Among others. That one was a coincidence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have 'theme/flavour of the day' on the main page - so people comment when it does not happen? :) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A regular Main page 'theme/flavour of the day' is probably not realistic. Creating and getting material qualified to appear in the various Main page sections takes a lot of work. Throw in the extra effort of coordination needed to have a group of articles ready on the same day is even more work. There are times when random chance has a couple of submissions arrive with fortuitous timing, but large scale efforts such as today's almost always require a group of contributors working towards a common cause. Historically this has required either a widely celebrated holiday (such as April Fools, Halloween, Christmas) or a significant anniversary to bring a critical mass of editors together. While you are welcome to try and bring other coordination efforts together, don't be surprised if others do not join in and the labor pool needed to pull off a regular theme day does not form. --Allen3 ^talk 15:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Tongue in cheek - as there are regular comments on the main page having too much of (insert topics of choice) on the main page. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Could we get some sort of banner add on that would only appear on "theme days"? --152.27.33.1 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean like Google Doodle? Or some background change? Pink & red on Valentines? Green on Saint Patrik's Day? I wouldn't mind that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion / icon requests

[formerly separate sections]

Featured portal of the week

Hi I would like to suggest that we test featured portal of the week an idea from Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Icon for Today's articles for improvement

Hi does any one know an icon representing for Today's articles for improvement I am testing a new look in Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox Paladox2014 (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Icon for Today's featured list

Hi does anyone know an icon representing Today's featured list please it is for Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox Paladox2014 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Icon for Today's featured picture

Hi does anyone know an icon representing Today's featured picture please it is for Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox Paladox2014 (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the section above and the closure notice on your last posting before adding these? Kevin McE (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

yes I thought that was for ideas not for asking question on what icon should I choose for that subject Paladox2014 (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what he was trying to tell you is nobody knows why we would want or need an icon for these purposes. Perhaps if you could explain why we would want to have them at all this discussion could get somewhere, but asking for something that, as far as I know, we don't have isn't going to get you very far. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I also don't get why the work is going on in the sandbox anyway. If Paladox2014 wants to make versions of the main page or make another random proposal for a new main page which is almost definitely going to be rejected, there's nothing stopping them but they should be using a subpage of their userpage or somewhere else suitable rather then using the sandbox which is intended for testing changes to the main page that are going to be implemented. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OTD terminology

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 German zeppelin Hindenburg caught fire ....;

On English Wikipedia, I think it would make more sense to call it a rigid airship or simply an airship. The German word Zeppelin (capitalized as a noun in German) is of course from the German name Ferdinand von Zeppelin, but would not normally be used in English as a generic noun — at least, not in American English. Sca (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, 'zeppelin' is the standard term in English, American English included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And who are you?

I don't agree. Webster's defines 'zeppelin' as "a type of dirigible," and indeed dirigible also would be a more typical generic English term.

PS: Linguistic factoid — The German word Zeppelin is also the etymological basis for the Lithuanian Cepelinai, a greasy meat-filled potato dumpling popular with winter-chilled Lithuanians ... but not with tourists! Ha.

Sca (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And who are you?

He is somebody with just as much right to edit and discuss as you have. Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A zeppelin is a specific type of airship, the type involved in this incident. It is genericised to the extent that I would venture to suggest that it is for very many people the name given to any airship by those lacking specific knowledge. Kevin McE (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Duh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh, nuh nu nenunenu nuh nuh da da da da doo dum dum. Now that's some Zeppelin.

Seriously though, "Zeppelin" is hardly an unknown term and is closely associated with any German-made airship. That and it clearly is the most accurate term for the Hindenburg in particular. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll grant you this much: Perhaps, due to the memory of Zeppelin raids on Great Britain during World War I, the term zeppelin has greater currency in the UK than in the U.S.

However, let me point out that Graf von Zeppelin died 96 years ago, and the original Zeppelin Co. completed its last airship 75 years ago. I would venture to suggest that nowadays, among the general English-speaking public (and not among amateur historians), the word zeppelin is more likely to engender thoughts of Led Zeppelin than of dirigibles or airships.

May I request that you not interweave your comments with mine?

Sca (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mark up one American who sees absolutely nothing wrong with this usage of zeppelin. In fact, far from engendering thoughts of Led Zeppelin, the name of that band has always reminded me of the airships. Which I assume is the effect the band members were going for when they chose that name. --Khajidha (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My view seems to be going over like a lead balloon. Nevertheless, may I point out that the article LZ 129 Hindenburg quite properly describes the ill-fated dirigible as "a large German commercial passenger-carrying rigid airship .... built by the Zeppelin Company" (emphasis mine). Sca (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How, in your view, does that support the argument that the term "zeppelin" (the lowercase form of which appears in dictionaries) is contextually inappropriate?

For the record, I'm American too, and if asked to identify the type of aircraft involved in the Hindenburg disaster, "zeppelin" would have been the first word to come to mind (followed by "dirigible" and "airship"). —David Levy 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And all this time I thought you were a Brit.... Sca (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Also an American here (from Sca's native Minnesota no less), noting that I am aware of the definition of zeppelins. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 23:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeder hat seine Meinung. Sca (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(reset) Either people will know zeppelin is 'something to do with rigid balloons' (and Zeppelin is the eponymous person 'whoever they are' (I do know) or 'some pop group isn't it') or they will be intrigued enough to read further and find out (being one function of the main page). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This American wouldn't have the term "dirigible" in his vocabulary, although I know the word. It would either be a zeppelin or a blimp. RNealK (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

People sometimes use the term "blimp" in this context, but a blimp actually is non-rigid airship. —David Levy 00:30, 9 May 2013 (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.

Shock Horror Main Page imbalance!

Four/five religious themed entries.

Can we have an excess of something else (preferrable avoiding the US) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not even worth the bother really. On Wikipedia the US is king. 68.101.71.187 (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the main page. To be quite frank, one has to be overly persnickety to point out the supposed "imbalance". Where is the problem here? Coincidences are bound to happen when several elements of the main page are working separately.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying a humourous take on the recurring MP trope of 'too much emphasis on ....' (hence the section heading).

Can a suitable summary descriptive/words be created - covering 'shock horror/MP imbalance/not in front of the children/pointless topic/WP is not censored/US-bias/tomorrow another topic selection' (this might be Tomatoes) etc. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Humorous takes" in written communication fail vanishingly close 100% of the time. See Poe's law, which in a nutshell says that if you're merely pretending to be an extremist, a large proportion of your audience will earnestly believe you are an extremist. Or more to the point: you can't make fun of extremism by parodying it because people will genuinely take you at face value. It would be best to not do things like this, because you will always be misunderstood. Instead, write plainly and directly state what you believe and what you would like done, so no one can misinterpret. --Jayron32 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Ascension Day, but that was left off the Main Page so as to avoid offending you. Jonathunder (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Readers may have come across 'Political bingo' (played in the run up to elections) and variants thereof - players have a list of key words and tick them off as they are mentioned by various candidates/in party political broadcasts. The winner is the one who clears the list/has the most ticked off by election day.

Could something similar be developed for the main page? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page bingo! Collect them all! Imbalance of content // WP:ENGVAR // something completely unrelated to the main page // request for a redesign which ignores Wikipedia:2013_main_page_redesign_proposal // attempt at sarcasm re: any of the above. Organics^LRO 08:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the few pastimes where 'gaming the system' would be encouraged: improving and developing articles and images so they get a mention/your pet interests dominate. :)

What would the 'prize' for completing a scorecard be? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

US-BIAS

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 too many pages related tothe USA on this website.

The articles pertaining to India should also be better written.

India ia a beautiful country, this website does not capture the beauty and wisdom of this country. The people are very nice and it has a very ancient culture. I think there should be more to do with India on the main page. Indian music is very good and tyhe archetect ure is very pretty. And the movies are the most popular in the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.1.61.129 (talk • contribs) 23:06, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

The DYK section routinely includes information related to India. Usually you will find these postings in the 00:00 and 08:00 (UTC) updates (the times of day when most people in India are awake). The update at this time of day, which runs from 16:00 to 23:59, is usually dominated by information related to those parts of the world currently awake (Europe, Africa, and the Americas). The practice of featuring postings with geographical affinity during daylight hours at the related location is done because most people tend to be more interested in items closers to them then those on the other side of the globe. --Allen3 ^talk 23:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

People all around the world should see the importance and interesting things to do with India. India already knows about India. Maybe people in USA should be enlightened about this country. 1/3 of the worlds population is from India descent, I think many people in USA are from India.

(Following the unsigned remark) Don't complain - get an 'India on WP development group' going so more India-related articles appear on the Main Page. (Ditto for any other under-represented topic on the MP/Wikipedia in general.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Or try doing a lot on your own. Most of the Indonesia-related articles which have reached the main page were done by one editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• As I recall, the main page had plenty India related topics on 3 May. 1, 2 and 3. Robvanvee 11:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

On the site overall, there aren't too many articles about the USA; there are just too few about India. But it's a work in progress, so don't despair! AlexTiefling (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I like how it suddenly became about India. Being frank as ya'll can be I'd say the front page is mostly even. --82.8.226.105 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think India is a beautiful country and its the origin of world civilization I think India should be in a prime spotlight on this website.

• The people in Gibraltar are very nice too, and indeed there's some interesting architecture there as well. If these are the criteria, we should probably have more material about Gibraltar on the front page as well as just India. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibralter is not an important country. 1/3 of the population of the world is originally from India, can Gibralter say so much? India is also the origin of all civilization and of languages of Europe. many important minds acknowledge that India is the source of much of human civilzation, People from Europe and USA actually migrated from India. Gibralter did not contribute so much.

• Considering the comment this was in response to, that was actually quite a measured response. Most mentions of Gibraltar now lead to insufferable bickering. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2013 (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.

More than one million articles

The Russian Wikipedia reached today one millionth articles. Please add it to the correct line on the Main Page.Porbóllett (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Edokter. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Edokter. Porbóllett (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Plurality"

When is the English WP Main Page going to stop this pedantic and ridiculous use of plurality to mean relative majority? Show me one serious news outlet that uses the term. Contact Basemetal here 11:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How about three from the 24 hours: The Miami Herald, BBC News, and The Globe and Mail. --Allen3 ^talk 12:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I happen to favour this usage, and I don't think 'relative majority' is at all clear; but in all honesty, the BBC article is not an example of the contested usage. The man quoted is not referring to vote results, but the a broad characterisation of the council's mandate. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to post the BBC News link, but noted Alex's observation, so here's another. 129.234.252.65 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My reaction was to the sentence regarding the Bulgarian elections. I should have excluded things like "a plurality of people think/favor/do X" (Miami Herald and second BBC examples) which sound less pedantic. As to the first BBC example, as pointed out, plurality is used as a synonym for diversity. So only the Globe and Mail example is one of "winning/having won a plurality in an election", but ok, the Globe and Mail is a serious news outlet, and I suppose you could find other examples. I still don't like it, but you have convinced me WP is not alone. Contact Basemetal here 13:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it sticks in the craw, it's certainly meaningless to people from the UK, but hey, it means something to most other English speakers so it's good to go... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's never used in Australia either. Must be an American thing. (Does it mean anything to Indian folk? An awful lot of them speak English.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "plurality", in the US sense, is in my view very well understood by many people in the UK, though it is true that it is not used routinely. It is most certainly not "meaningless". The term "relative majority", however, is almost never used, and is certainly not well understood. UK old-timer = Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't English wonderful? The real issue here is not who is right, but how do we write our articles so that ALL English readers can easily understand them. I'm a native born English speaker, been watching elections for 50 years, and the only place I've ever seen plurality used is here on Wikipedia. (Yes, it IS educational!) But we really must make an effort to not just impose one country's usage on the rest of the unfortunate, linguistically mixed up world, but to try to find words that work for all of us. Plurality, on it's own, doesn't. As an Australian I have to consciously avoid some very common (to me) words when I write here. So should we all. How can we write plurality so EVERYBODY will understand? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As an Irishman (I admit we make up only a small fraction of worldwide English-speakers) I'm more than familiar with the term "plurality" in the sense it's being used here. I could be wrong as I'm speaking anecdotally, but I believe one of the major newspapers here uses it when it's appropriate, although voting systems up north (and in the whole UK, which I believe it where the issue might lie) don't use a system when "a plurality of votes" matters, but a plurality in terms of elected legislators does come up—I'm 99% sure that The Guardian used the term when discussing the possibilities for coalition government versus hung parliament after the last UK general election, though again I could be wrong. Though, in all fairness, it doesn't take a lot of extrapolation to assume what the word means, especially in the context it's being given. GRAPPLE X 00:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The flip can also be argued - how many "serious news outlets" use the phrase "relative majority"? I don't believe I've ever run across it before. A quick search of Google news shows only four results, only two of which are clearly talking about elections/poll type situations. In contrast, searching for plurality shows a large number of hits (well over 300), and at least six of the first ten are clearly talking about election/poll type results.-- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Today the BBC website BBC News has this title Gerb party in Bulgaria, which won biggest share of vote in Sunday's election, seeks cancellation of poll due to 'violations'. So no "relative majority" but "biggest share of vote". Doesn't "won biggest share of vote" sound better to you, less pedantic, less technical, clearer, than "won plurality"? And also better than "won relative majority" incidentally. It does to me. Just a matter of preference then. In any case I again admit I was wrong in believing that only WP used the term. That was indeed incorrect. I don't know why, I had never noticed it except on WP. Contact Basemetal here 13:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Pakistani elections?

I nominate Pakistani general election, 2013 to be a featured current event. This is big, folks, bigger than the verdict in Guatemala. --Smack (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated on the big box at the top of the page, check out WP:ITN/C for the reason for hold-up. –HTD 14:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The nom is stalled I think pending official results. --IP98 (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked a non-involved admin to follow this up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear all citizens from the world of freedom

It is not the purpose of the English Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Concerns should be taken up with the Wikimedia Foundation, not on the main page talk of the English wiki. --WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am here to told you a horrible story about Chinese wikipedia registered users removing "unwanted" contents systematically such as "the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" and "Tank Man" from the related articles, for example "Type 59 tank". In these articles they remove everything about Tiananmen or tank man, including links, pictures, or even just text, they won't let any wordings (such as "1989" or 64 which represnts "June 4") survive in these articles. Any content about June 4 had been removed recent years, and it seems no one would dare to change the condition. In some cases, they even request for deleting the whole articles. For example, in the talk page of "Tank man" Chinese version, you can even see how they attempted to delete the whole article. Here are just some of the notable examples. Recently they even tried to remove an article about Masanjia Labor Camp by laying "there is no report by western media." Then a guy added some links such as Huffington Post, Daily Mail and CNN. A user from China then questioned if The Huffington Post and Daily Mail of British "reliable sources of news". That Chinese user kept on saying "you should not write such article just after reading those bias reports" and "those are not reliable sources of News". That guy keep on blaming and another user from China also join. They also talk of removing links about june four protect. They consider those adding or talking about june 4 as bad guys damaging the Chinese wikipedia. Sorry for the inconvenient I caused, as all links I post are all Chinese only. I just hope to raised the attentions. There is no inconvenience. Your warning is very useful and everyone should thank you. This is very serious. What other places on the English WP can this be posted in order to raise the attention level? In such cases on the English WP such articles would be made protected articles. But what is the situation on the Chinese WP? Have those registered users who do those things, stooges of the Chinese government apparently, also succeeded in infiltrating the admin ranks? If that is the case then it will be difficult to protect articles since admins can override protections. That might not be a problem that is specific of the Chinese WP but maybe the Chinese WP is the largest WP with such problems. If nothing is done and governments see that it is easy to censor a WP then watch out for the Russian WP next, an even larger one. Contact Basemetal here 13:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on TFA images

Readers of this talk page may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs. All views welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations to Square Enix

For maintaining their record of a Main Page ad every six months. [1] We exist to serve their company, which is one of the 180 most important topics in the whole wide world. Wnt (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And your point is? Next up you'll be moaning about the number of bird images or Gibraltar topics on the main page. Perhaps you should get involved in helping decide what goes on the main page rather than sitting back and just moaning about it! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the article was nominated at WP:TFAR on on 8th April and remained there under discussion until 10th May, when I scheduled it with unanimous support. Wnt, would you mind explaining what I'm meant to do in such circumstances as a TFA scheduler? Please come along to WP:TFAR (a page you have never edited, I notice) and join in the discussions in future, rather than complain after the event. I see that I made the same comment to you last time as well, without success... Bencherlite^Talk 09:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

How could we possibly have too many bird images or Gibraltar topics on the main page? Don't be ridiculous. In fact, combine the two by putting List of birds of Gibraltar in the featured list spot in perpetuity! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Try 'creative and allowable vote-rigging' - creating, developing or improving articles sufficietly for them to appear on the MP. Jackiespeel (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that, or are you just assuming foul play is afoot because you don't much care for video games? I don't much care for roads, battleships or tropical storms, but I'm yet to assume that the writers of those articles are acting in bad faith. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

On the Internet, no one recognizes sarcasm. Jackiespeel referred to 'creative and allowable vote-rigging'. That wasn't an accusation of bad faith, but suggestion to create, develop, or improve articles, such as the article on a video game that is now the featured article. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As previous postings on this thread were to do with influencing what appears on the main page ('getting involved', 'helping decide') my comment was along the lines of what RM said (and my explanation makes clear). Jackiespeel (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry. I read it as an accusation that Square Enix had been creating content and then rigging votes... J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(reset) I have made variants on the suggestion on previous occasions: and others have suggested 'don't complain, do something about it yourself.'

If things can be possibly misunderstood they will be (especially when computers are involved). :) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Purple Swamphen pic

Shouldn't it be "purple swamp hen"? For a minute I was trying to figure out what a Swamfen was.

The one pictured looks like it was painted by Marc Chagall. Sca (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the article title, please bring it up at Talk:Purple Swamphen. —howcheng {chat} 19:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notification: Should Hindi Wikipedia be included among our mainpage interwiki links?

Please add your comments on whether or not we should link to Hinid Wikipedia here. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

TAFI removed

Details at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Failure. —David Levy 14:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

New photos of Emmelie de Forest

The current photo of Emmelie de Forest on the main page is probably one of the least flattering photos of her, and it was taken (by me) a few days before she won the Eurovision Song Contest. I took 48 photos on the press conference that was held minutes after she won.
I suggest the current photo is replaced by one of these:

• 
  ESC2013 winner's press conference 03 (crop).jpg
• 
  ESC2013 winner's press conference 05 (crop 1).jpg
• 
  ESC2013 winner's press conference 06 (crop).jpg

--abbedabb (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually think File:ESC2013 winners press conference 20 (cropped).JPG would work better, I don't see the necessity for the trophy to be included. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Tripura

I think this counts as the very first time that random requests on the Main Page Talk have speedily been granted. (Two anons in the last week or so demanding content on India.) Huh. 108.180.204.90 (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh? I selected the article for TFA because it was one of a batch recently promoted, not because of any complaints here. Tripura is the second India-related article within three weeks, in fact, after Mother India on 3rd May. Bencherlite^Talk 10:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is excellent that India is getting more coverage on this website.

Avoid unlinked obscure terms on the main page.

The DYK for Caldey Abbey quotes someone as saying "simply the best lavender soliflore on earth". There's no explanation of "soliflore" in the linked article, no article on "soliflore" in Wikipedia, and no entry for "soliflore" on Wiktionary. I think it's a little inappropriate to have a DYK entry which hinges on a term that is left completely undefined. Even having it in the article unexplained is a little on the edge, but picking it to be featured when the likely majority of the audience has no clue what it means and has no easy way of finding out is not very good. -- 71.35.111.68 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Defined here. I suspect whoever wrote the article didn't know what it meant, as if you look at the source it's actually a review of the book not the book itself so they probably just cut-and-pasted it without knowing what it means.

I feel like the DYK reviewing process is not functioning well lately. We've seen one cheesy-joke hook after another, and regular errors like this lately. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial reviewers generally focus on the quantifiable aspects of the article, like its length, history, originality, copyright status of the image (if one is submitted), and of course whether the reference checks out. Because of course that's what we've prioritized. And It's easier. Very infrequently do I see people focusing on the textual aspects of the hook, which of course is just as important. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How dare you show US tornado but not London attack

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 am disgusted that the United States is once again given special status on this website and the rest of the world is ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 May 2013‎

As a Londoner, I must have missed the bit where dozens of us were killed. The Tornado in Oklahoma is a highly significant event; the London murder is arguably less so. However, if you want to put your case, the ITN candidates board is thataway. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is only one example of a reoccurring problem. Tornadoes happen all the time, they kill people, it isn't news. It doesn't deserve this attention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 23 May 2013‎

Please sign your comments. And seriously; things get posted on ITN because we discuss them and reach a consensus. There's no 'how dare you' about it; there is no 'us' the editors in contrast to 'you' the readers. If you want something included, get over to the discussion page, read the guidelines, and make your case. For what it's worth, top-category tornadoes with multiple fatalities in built-up areas happen a lot less frequently than single murders in the UK. But I'm not an admin, and I don't represent any kind of consensus. If there's a consensus to post the Woolwich story, it'll get posted. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it necessary to note that 2013 Woolwich attack has been marked [Ready] at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. It will probably be up soon. These things take time. hajatvrc @ 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly ready as to article quality; it's debatable whether there's a consensus to post. Perhaps an uninvolved admin will be along shortly to decide. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly a more significant event worldwide that some common natural occurrence in the middle of nowhere USA. The nature of the attack will probably result in problems with Muslim/non-muslim relationships around the western world, and may incite more violence. It is an importance sociopolitical event. What is the long-term importance of a tornado in the middle of the US? None. But USA editors here certainly think it must be important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 May 2013‎

How often do I need to repeat that I am a Londoner, and I disagree with you? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How dare you restart the same unproductive rant for at least the seventh time ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), without doing your share to produce the quality non-USA content you so desire to see? After all, every time you beat this old horse, you're eventually given the same ultimatum. It's time to drop the stick and do something productive; put up or shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.211.99 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 May 2013‎

I thought this crybaby routine was familiar. Resolute 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible for one individual to fight injustice, but it is possible for one individual to find fellow travelers through the act of protest. I protest for the creation of discontent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 May 2013‎

So, then, that's basically a fancy way of saying you'll keep complaning, but won't bother actually doing anything productive? Have fun with that.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Many significant articles are uneditable, it is not by my design that I cannot edit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 May 2013‎

Many more are. It is by your choice that you add nothing of value. Resolute 23:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you would have created an account a year ago when you were complaining you could edit almost every article by now. GB fan 23:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to put my information into a server located in Florida where the CIA & FBI have their Patriot act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 May 2013‎

You already are every time you edit. The only difference is that with a username people wouldn't see your IP address. GB fan 23:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a Canadian, I am sad to see that this troll is posting from my country. Given the obviously silly nature of a post arguing that "the US is given special status" at a time when 80% of the ITN entries are European or Asian themed, I think it's high time we simply start applying WP:DENY. Resolute 23:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'I can't edit' defence fails completely here as the Woolwich article was never protected. And I'm fairly sure ITN/C is not protected either although if you post long rants you may eventually find your contribs reverted. BTW echoing Resolute's earlier comment, since you were also demanding India related articles, the TFA a few days ago on Tripura also appears to have never been protected except for the brief move protection while it was TFA. It has a number of IP edits, but none of them appear to be you unless you were editing under a different IP. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Every article on this site, whether about the US or some other place, was started by a single individual. Seems that even if some articles are locked for editing, there are still innumerable articles you could be working on or creating to remedy this bias. Or even just take part in the discussion as to which items get posted to the front page. Complaining about the darkness doesn't get the light bulb changed you know. Do something or go away. --Khajidha (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to apologize for this clown. This is the IP for a Community College's computer lab, which I also use to browse this site, and I've been noticing this idiot's periodic rants through the edit history. I hope I can say that s/he does not represent this institution. 72.28.82.250 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to state for the record that it was here on Wikipedia/ITN that this American learned about the 2013 Stockholm riots, currently the lede item. They haven't gotten any coverage in the American media (although I haven't been able to dig into The New York Times lately, which I see has only run a wire story). The people at ITN/C must be doing at least that much right. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2013 (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.

Who let this grammatical atrocity onto the main page?

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.

---

"Layout scheme of a Sukhoi Su-25 (details), a jet aircraft designed to provide close air support for the Soviet Ground Forces and used by various countries since. Since production began in 1978, [...]"

?!? Who let this through?

• "used by various countries since." - Since what? since the Soviets designed it? since it was designed for close air support? since it was for the Soviet ground forces? since it was produced? since the Soviets stopped using it? (and please don't tell me "this is specifically designed to make people question it" so they read the article)

• "[...] since. Since production began [...]!" - well, that is just self evident. Either this was written by two or three people and no-one oversaw it, or it is by someone who does not speak/write English very well - either way, someone needs to fix it. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? This is the solution you came up with?

"fixing this. Please don't tell him, because his rant makes him look silly if no one tells him it was fixed." [8]

And you are a sysop? Nice!

You should be ashamed and instantly de-mopped.

Next time, try admitting you cocked up and don't attack someone trying to help. Idiot. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Jayron32 is not normally involved in POTD but the joke was funny. Meanwhile the wording has been there since 7 May [9] so if you want to talk about people who 'cocked up' by letting this 'atrocity' through, should be 'ashamed' and 'attack' volunteers.... Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And after your edit to reword that (ec):

And how did I cock up? Because I didn't say to myself:

"I just found this, but it has been like this for a while, so I should leave it and not say anything."?

More importantly, if it has been like that for months, the people who cocked up were those involved with POTD - not me.

And you should have not tried to make out it is in any way my fault, it is not. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Chaosdruid, I'm here, so what do you want to say to me? Because right now this thread seems to prove my thesis about a new rule for the internet: in the case of a mistake by an unidentified person, the amount of forum/talk page drama is inversely proportionate to the size of the mistake being discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And so you are adding to it? I said what I had to say: I pointed out the mistakes; asked who had let it through; explained why I thought it was wrong; and suggested someone fix it.

End of (or so it should have been)

I am turning off email notifications for the next few hours ... I have RL stuff to do. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Who let this through?" - Ask and you shall be answered. If you have nothing more, so be it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2013 (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.

Unsigned Posts

I see some unsigned posts on this talk page. Is this talk page set up for the bot to sign unsigned posts? If not, I suggest that it should be. If it is so set up, then maybe the bot was malfunctioning and is working again. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

SineBot was turned off a couple of months ago (after this discussion), to make it easier to undo spam. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

TAFI's entry

Requesting that TAFI's section be restored on Main page. The queue page has been updated (see Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21), and it should post correctly at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As discussed before TAFI was placed on the main page, this was a trial (the failure of which would result in TAFI's removal, with a new consensus required to restore it). I'm biased in favor of TAFI's inclusion, but even I must acknowledge that the attempt was unsuccessful.

Users weren't editing the articles to a significant extent. The implementation likely played a major role in this, but a different one would require a new consensus anyway. It simply isn't feasible to fit a more elaborate presentation into the space allotted. I wish that I'd noticed the original discussion before the decision to use the column was made, as this jumped out at me as a big problem.

But the missing week 21 queue was an even bigger problem. As you noted, remaining up to date is key. We knew this from the beginning. (NickPenguin was quite right in stating that "once this goes on the main page, there best be content set up and ready to go.") We can't rely on last-minute scrambling (or, in this case, after-the-fact scrambling that wouldn't even have been possible if the protection were still in effect). We need to ensure that measures are in place to prevent something like this from occurring again before we can even consider another main page trial. —David Levy 04:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a functional comparison, it would be useful to view statistics for how many articles listed on Did you know... at Main page received improvements during this time period, and to what degree. This would provide an objective comparison regarding actual success versus failure of TAFI's presence on Main page during the short time it was there, compared to other content that had similar exposure. As of this post, my proposal at TAFI talk to use a bot to automatically update the queue has received unanimous support, which would solve the above-stated queue problems in entirety. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal at TAFI talk

A discussion is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page regarding this matter at: Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

TAFI summaries

• See: Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement – Articles were being improved! Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

As 'excess of items relating to topic X'/'bias towards theme Y' are regular topics of discussion on this talk page perhaps there could be a text at the top suggesting that 'people actively engage in rectifying the situation.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I tried. I was burnt. May not bother again. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Also add a giant picture of a bald eagle draped in the American flag. You know, just to irritate people. 75.156.70.207 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame we can't have a more mature conversation about Wikipedia's several systemic biases, one of which is created by the simple fact that a high proportion of our editors are American. It's not a revelation to say that the bias exists. It's widely and officially recognised here. How to address it is the problem. And it's not solved simply by saying that non-Americans should nominate non-American items for ITN. The systemic bias gets in the way of them being accepted. I'm not angry about the problem. It's a difficult one to solve. And I suspect that there was a Roman bias to most European writing 2000 years ago. But I do get a bit angry at people who think there's a simple solution. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, one thing that would help reduce bias in the ITN section specifically is to move ITN from the Main Page to a new, dedicated page where sections could be set aside for different continents/regions. --Khajidha (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Which would defeat the purpose of ITN -- providing links to timely articles on the main page. Hot Stop 04:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The current purpose of ITN, but the entire look and purpose of the Main Page is being discussed for a potential revamp.--Khajidha (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sickening how German-centric the frontpage is today.... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Centralia mine fire

We should insert on the On this day mini section for May 27th that the Centralia mine fire is ignited beneath the town's landfill. This was featured before on the Main page and I believe should be featured again. Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It was included last year for the 50th anniversary. This year, it is simply out of rotation. On May 27 we have 11 additional articles that can be used (click "show" to expand the staging area), so not every article can be included every year. —howcheng {chat} 00:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

London attack is not notable for listing in "In the news".

Of course it's notable in the UK news because the homocide rate is only 1.2 per 100,000 people (compared to 4.8 in the US) and most murders end up in the news here because of that, with this case being rarer again haven been a soldier on home ground. But is this really notable for world news? Off duty soldiers get targeted and killed somewhere in the world every day and I've never seen them listed on here before. 82.42.161.70 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue this is a case of US centrism. Only Americans would be this incensed over "Islamic terrorism"68.101.71.187 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd agree with you and state that the rest of the world is A-OK with terrorism. =P 205.122.217.233 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you'd like to solve this problem, the way to do it is to improve Wikipedia by contributing content to articles from places of the world other than the UK and US and to nominate them at WP:ITNC. Complaining after the fact will not produce the results you appear to seek. If your goal is to fix the problem, that is how you accomplish it. If your goal is simply to publicly express your outrage after the fact, merely to make yourself appear morally superior, but not to actually make any difference in solving the problem, then congrats, you've been successful! --Jayron

32 23:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that this isn't going to get removed after-the-fact, let's assume good faith on the part of 82.42.161.70 and not bite the user. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a massive case of US-centrism in ITN anyway. I have no idea how "gay basketball player" was less controversial than "most influential manager in history retires". Sceptre ^(talk) 03:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I forgot London was in the U.S. Or do people feel a need to piss and moan about the U.S. every time ITN is mentioned now? Hot Stop 03:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

People need their excuse to be pissed off about trivial things. The US is convenient and widely disliked. Although it takes impressive mental gymnastics to believe that giving attention to London is US-centricism. 75.156.70.207 (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is too US-centric, can we bash some other countries? I don't like Uraguay, for no real reason. Ban Uraguay from the main page!!!!! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

!NO! Ban Sardinia! They've invaded the page, it's Gibraltar MKII! (No seriously, when was the last time anybody saw anything Sardinia related...?) --85.210.99.191 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There's an Argentine entry under TFA and OTD! WTF! First they get the pope now this! Hot Stop 21:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This page is incredible human-centric! As a Swordfish, I am extremely offended by this selfish behaviour! Shame! Shame! 75.156.70.207 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

On the Internet, no one knows that you are a swordfish. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Imbalance

At least on my 1920x1080 resolution the main page is quite imbalanced, with a big blank space under DYK. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Things look fine with my browser. The issue with imbalances such as you describe is that they are highly sensitive to an individual's specific setup. Minor changes to font or display width can, and frequently does, cause significant differences in the way your browser's line wrap functions. As a result, blocks of text (like seen in the TFA section) can see the number of lines of text increase or decrease by several lines by just changing the width of your display by a couple of pixels. --Allen3 ^talk 14:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK...

Moved to WP:ERRORS LFaraone 02:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I Think That The Historic Monsanto Protests Should Be In ITN.

Even though they are not reported by major media outlets, they are a significant step in the fight against global domination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to make a proposal at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not you again. Got bored of the United States, have we? 75.156.70.207 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cricket

Why is cricket such a hot topic all of a sudden?

• Today's featured article:
  • Percy Fender (1892–1985) was an English cricketer...
• In the news:
  • In Twenty20 cricket, Mumbai Indians defeat Chennai Super Kings to win the Indian Premier League.
• Did you know...:
  • ... that Cyril Smart, an English cricketer, was ...

In my humble opinion somewhat one sided, not proportional. There is so much interesting to convey; let's keep it diverse! Dvh369 (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That was merely serendipity. --69.158.116.5 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

See Apophenia. Come back if you have any questions. --Jayron32 02:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK item on Byzantines

it mentions that they are of "Dejanović" without specifying what that means. It isn't immediately clear that it is a Serbian royal house. Perhaps this should be made clearer? 75.156.70.207 (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• In this case it appears to have been deliberate, to get people to click through and learn about the royal house. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Featured pix

Is anyone else getting a bit tired of pictures of Asian birds? The photos are fine technically, but enough is enough, at least for a while. Sca (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There are no more bird pictures scheduled until June 8, and those are a pair of Australian ducks (And, by "Asian birds", are you also including the Girls' Generation pic from yesterday :-)? Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Birds or boids? ;). Yeah, there's a good stretch of avian-free time coming ahead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• As a side note, the Korean boids got almost 31k hits yesterday. I think we need more boids, or maybe some cool cats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a mother and a fireman, I like the birds. MORE BIRDS NOW!!!! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a firewoman? Or a firefem? Sca (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• You could solve this problem by uploading more high-quality pictures of non-birds. --Jayron32 18:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I am no expert in photography or even judging it. I also don't know how FPs are seleted. But one fact that i do notice is that Commons doesnt feature birds as much as we do it here. Can't we just pick their FPs and nominate them here and then feature those? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, numerous files on Wikipedia (including some featured) could not be on Commons as they are not PD in their host country. Besides, POTD and WP:FPC are slightly different processes. Some featured pictures, such as those featuring sexualised nudity and extremely disturbing imagery, are not going to be featured on the main page. Others are not selected as their articles are not up to par (defined by the person who selects POTD) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Confusing! If i am not wrong, all POTDs of Commons are FPs at Commons. There might be some technical differences in nomination process at two different projects. But both gauge an image on its quality and i dont think the gauging parameters would be drastically different. I dont understand why we have two different process anyways? Its okay to have two processes for images which cant be hosted at Commons. But majority of images that appear as TFP are also hosted at Commons. I know some editors simply detest Commons for its complicity. Maybe thats a reason to keep these two different processes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• First point: on the English Wikipedia, all POTDs must be featured pictures but not all featured pictures can be POTDs

Second point: Commons =/= Wikipedia (as patently evident from discussions at Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere). The English Wikipedia is large enough to maintain its own FP process, although some smaller Wikipedias which do feature pictures on their main page just use the Commons image. Others, like the Indonesian Wikipedia, have a "picture of the week". That Commons hosts these images does not diminish their value to the English Wikipedia or necessarily mean that there is no need for an English Wikipedia FP process (see point 3).

Third point: A major difference between the English Wikipedia and Commons FP criteria is "encyclopedic value", or basically what an image contributes to an article. Hence why many of the POTY candidates at Commons are not featured (and may not be featureable) on the English Wikipedia. Commons doesn't care how an image is used, but it's one of the criteria here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your comments led me to examine Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused. I must object, in the strongest possible terms, to barring the appearance of images on the basis that their content is objectionable (by your standard, Howcheng's, mine, or anyone else's).
  It appears that Howcheng (and you, in one instance) skipped some images because they were likely to elicit immature jokes/catcalls. While I'm not sure that I agree, I understand the logic.
  Other images, however, have been deemed "too graphic". By whose proclamation? Is the encyclopedia bettered by not making this image (one of those hidden from display even on the aforementioned page) TFP on International Holocaust Remembrance Day?
  If we're setting aside neutrality in the interest of cultural sensitivity, I'll note that I'm offended not by the photograph, but by its suppression from a place of prominence (the main page slot that it would have received as a matter of course, had it not been singled out for exclusion). It's unpleasant to view, but that discomfort pales in comparison to the experiences of the victims depicted, their loved ones, and those who will never meet their murdered relatives (myself included).
  To be clear, I don't believe that this is a valid rationale for displaying the image (and those skipped for similar reasons) on the main page. I believe that the fear of upsetting people is an invalid rationale. Every image is going to upset someone. The aforementioned Girls' Generation photograph is objectionable to cultures in which images of unveiled women (or even women in general) are considered indecent. Our goal is to educate, not to keep everyone happy (an impossibility). —David Levy 14:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I skipped that image (easily likened to tentacle pornography) after consulting with HowCheng; if you want to know how I feel about the image, check who nominated it for FP. If you think Unused should be limited to images which have technical issues, issues with the article, or possible accuracy issues, feel free. You might even find me supporting a less stringent standard of decorum. However, an unwritten code does exist (even if I disagree). TFA has its fucks and porn stars, and POTD has what is on Unused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As for why it shouldn't be on the main page: principle of least astonishment (which has long been invoked against nudity on the mainpage), and principle of least drama (which really should be a consideration at times; if DYK can't get by with a reference to poop on April Fools, how can TFP get away with showing actual guano as it's coming out of a seagull?). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• The TFA exclusions were determined by one person, who believes that his position as featured article director (from which he's currently MIA) includes the authority to unilaterally decide anything and everything related to Wikipedia's featured articles (even when this entails overruling consensus). I can't say that I understand his logic, under which the Gropecunt Lane article is fine and dandy but the Jenna Jameson article is downright scandalous. (For the record, I support running both.)
  To my knowledge, we don't have an official featured picture director, so Howcheng's decisions carry no special authority (no disrespect intended toward Howcheng, whose management of that section and OTD has been admirable).
  As I noted above, I can understand (even if I don't agree with) skipping images (including the Japanese woodcut and the defecating seagull photograph) on the basis that they're likely to elicit immature jokes/catcalls. My main concern relates to those skipped on the basis that they're unpleasant to see. Life can be unpleasant. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of pleasant topics. Would readers really be "astonished" to encounter Holocaust imagery on International Holocaust Remembrance Day?
  I'll note that Wikipedia:Follow the principle of least astonishment, a guideline proposed in response to this WMF resolution (in which an interface design principle was cited in an unusual context, leading some to believe that it relates to censorship), was rejected. —David Levy 16:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the claim the exclusion was decided by one person isn't particularly accurate for the Merkin pic which I believe was one of the first excluded. There was discussion in various places e.g. User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD, Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Michelle Merkin POTD which was advertised in various places e.g. Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 3#Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Michelle Merkin POTD, Talk:Main Page/Archive 112#Michelle Merkin POTD, effectively Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive109#Michelle Merkin POTD. While there doesn't seem to have been consensus to exclude there was a resonable amount of opposition and no clear consensus to include it on the main page so I would say it's a rather complicated case. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the claim the exclusion was decided by one person isn't particularly accurate for the Merkin pic which I believe was one of the first excluded.

I made no such claim. I said that the TFA exclusions were determined by one person (Raul654). —David Levy 16:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you on the potentially disturbing images (Holocaust, mass suicide, etc.), actually, although I think we should at least get Howcheng in on the discussion before we start using them. Would you mind, How, opening a few chances for special occasions at the very least? (This has gone a long way from birds now, hasn't it) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Howard's input certainly is welcome, but we don't need him to "open" slots or provide permission. He simply volunteered to schedule images for a while, exactly as you've done. He doesn't hold (and never held) a special position of authority in this area. —David Levy 00:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, but, as he is the one who first started the "Unused" page and was the only one updating it for years, his input would probably be pretty useful. As a side note, how do you feel about testing one of them on an anniversary? The 51st anniversary of the last natural case of smallpox is in October, and this picture (though not the same patient) is featured. I am not aware of any closer anniversaries relevant to the images deemed disturbing at POTD/Unused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea, though we already know what sort of reactions to expect here (primarily complaints from users outraged by our failure to censor the main page in accordance with their personal preferences). We usually receive some positive feedback too, but non-regulars rarely bother to comment here unless something irritates them. —David Levy 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, assuming there is no major opposition over such a posting before it is posted (including at this discussion) then I shall schedule the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are some images whose promotion was contingent on them NOT appearing as POTD. Most of the death-related ones, I believe. —howcheng {chat} 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• To be checked before scheduling, naturally. No issue with such images reaching the main page, Howard? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The "featured picture" designation reflects images' quality and encyclopedic value. The attachment of such a condition (i.e. refusal to apply the valid criteria unless a censorship demand is met) has no basis in policy and should be disregarded. —David Levy 04:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the consensus to promote to FP status for certain voters was contingent on its omission from POTD. If those !votes went the opposite way, then the FP status might have to be revisited. —howcheng {chat} 06:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is that such opposition would be entirely invalid. An image's featured picture candidacy can't be legitimately voted down on the basis of a concern with absolutely no relevance to the criteria by which the images are judged. "I don't want this on the main page." carries as much weight as "I don't like [image's subject]." does. —David Levy 13:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

David, just because something is a featured picture, doesn't mean that it has to go on the main page. It's worth making careful editorial decisions about what we choose to display- images which may be conceived of as navel gazing (like a picture of Jimbo), potentially deeply shocking and/or offensive without a correspondingly high value payout (say, a barely notable porn star in a sexually provocative pose) or something which could be conceived of as advertising and/or ultra trivial (a free content depiction of a character from a minor video game, perhaps) may be best kept off the main page. If you want to call that censorship, I suppose you can- to me, it's just about judging what is going to show Wikipedia in the best light. We're trying to display our best work, but we have enough featured pictures (and they're promoted quick enough) that we don't have to display every single one. J Milburn (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't assert that every featured picture must appear on the main page or that there can't be a sensible reason to skip one. I'm saying that it's inappropriate for an image's "featured picture" status to be granted on the condition that it not appear on the main page.

An image either meets the featured picture criteria or doesn't. When determining whether it carries the "featured picture" designation, this is the only valid consideration.

If someone believes that a featured picture shouldn't appear on the main page, it's reasonable to discuss the matter. This is very different from withholding an image's "featured picture" status unless such a promise is made. —David Levy 13:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I take your point- I mostly agree. I've made exactly the same argument with users who used to come to FP with "Oppose, there are better things to put on the main page". I suppose the fear may be something like this: Let's say I don't want a particular image on the front page. When it's nominated, I can either support it and later argue that it shouldn't be on the main page, or oppose it. It's going to be easier for me to just oppose it, and it seems a surer was to keep it off the main page. Alternatively, if I can support on the condition it's kept off the main page, at least the image is likely to get promoted- better to have another FA than to see it shot down because of fears about the MP. (Alternatively, as has happened in the past, Howcheng may have already said that the image would go on the MP if promoted. In that case, I think it's pretty reasonable to oppose based on the fact you don't want it on the MP. The case in point was this one, which had a lot of backing and forthing. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the fear may be something like this: Let's say I don't want a particular image on the front page. When it's nominated, I can either support it and later argue that it shouldn't be on the main page, or oppose it. It's going to be easier for me to just oppose it, and it seems a surer was to keep it off the main page.

...except for the fact that an image's featured picture candidacy isn't a simple majority vote. To carry weight, support or opposition must have a legitimate basis in Wikipedia's standards (as outlined in our policies and guidelines). "I don't like the subject." and "I don't want this image to appear on the main page." are invalid rationales (as are "I like the subject." and "I want this image to appear on the main page.").

Alternatively, if I can support on the condition it's kept off the main page, at least the image is likely to get promoted- better to have another FA than to see it shot down because of fears about the MP.

Under no circumstance is it appropriate for an image's featured picture candidacy to be "shot down" on that basis. Such input should be disregarded.

Alternatively, as has happened in the past, Howcheng may have already said that the image would go on the MP if promoted. In that case, I think it's pretty reasonable to oppose based on the fact you don't want it on the MP.

I disagree. Again, whether an image is labeled a "featured picture" is simply an indication of whether it meets the featured picture criteria. If someone disagrees with a plan to display an image on the main page, the appropriate course of action is to discuss the matter and pursue a consensus to the contrary, not to withhold the image's rightful designation until demands are met. —David Levy 15:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In practice "good composition" "illustrates the subject in a compelling way" are subjective enough that you can always find an excuse to oppose. And while "wow factor" isn't per se an criteria you can probably get away with using it an an argument. As a result its best not to give people an active incentive to be less than entirely honest.Geni (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You believe that we should accept invalid rationales to discourage editors from inventing lies about valid ones?

How far should we take this? Should "Keep, but only if the material that I find unpleasant is removed." be deemed a valid position at AfD, lest we encourage its participants to lie about a subject being non-notable so the entire article gets deleted?

We must assume that editors are being sincere, which usually is the case. And if someone at FAC raises a concern about an image appearing on the main page, I'm not saying that it should be dismissed. It's acceptable to acknowledge the objection and agree that the image won't enter the main page queue without further discussion/consensus. Conversely, making the image's "featured picture" status contingent upon it not appearing on the main page actively prevents such discussion from occurring (as demonstrated above).

I'd rather take the chance of dealing with occasional dishonesty than tolerate community decisions directly contradicting Wikipedia's principles and impeding its normal practices (however openly and honestly this occurs). —David Levy 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Err wikipedia's principles don't require any images on the main page and in this case normal practices is not to include such images on the main page.Geni (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to our featured picture criteria and reliance upon consensus. As noted above, making an image's "featured picture" status contingent upon it not appearing on the main page directly contradicts the featured picture criteria and preempts further discussion intended to establish consensus regarding the matter (which, of course, can change). —David Levy 02:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused falls into the category of if it isn't broken don't fix it. We've got enough featured pics that we can afford to be somewhat selective with regards to what turn up on the main page and the selections have so far been pretty accurate. The other thing to remember is that POTD pics are used in a range of places including by some third parties. Apparently people were somewhat upset when they found File:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg as their computer wallpaper. Its best not to unnecessarily create such issues in future.Geni (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused falls into the category of if it isn't broken don't fix it.

I decline to apply that description to the suppression of Holocaust imagery from the main page (even on International Holocaust Remembrance Day) on the basis that it's disturbing. Is this an encyclopedia or an entertainment site?

We've got enough featured pics that we can afford to be somewhat selective with regards to what turn up on the main page and the selections have so far been pretty accurate.

By what metric?

The other thing to remember is that POTD pics are used in a range of places including by some third parties. Apparently people were somewhat upset when they found File:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg as their computer wallpaper. Its best not to unnecessarily create such issues in future.

Agreed. And we can accomplish that by eliminating the misconception that POTD includes nothing but happy, sunshiny, G-rated images. —David Levy 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

1)fallacy of the excluded middle (the main page is a portal) 2)by the lack of complaints since 2007 3)oh look america-centrism on the talk page.Geni (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

1)fallacy of the excluded middle (the main page is a portal)

It's a portal to an encyclopedia. Are you disputing that?

2)by the lack of complaints since 2007

The lack of complaints regarding what? The featured pictures that haven't appeared on the main page, which are documented on an obscure project page that few editors (let alone readers) have ever seen?

3)oh look america-centrism on the talk page.

Because I wrote "G-rated"? On the subject of logical fallacies, that's a trivial objection.

Also note that "G" ratings are used in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and several other countries. I don't believe that it's fair to label my input "America-centric" because I casually used a non-UK term without stopping to consider the fact that you're British.

However, it's interesting that you'd raise the issue, as it plays a role in efforts to censor the main page.

Last year, on the subject of Raul654's Jenna Jameson blacklisting, I asked him about his willingness to schedule Murder of Julia Martha Thomas as TFA, with the blurb conveying that the killer "dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard". Surely, I thought, he didn't consider that less disturbing than a summary about a pornographic film actress would be.

Raul responded with an explanation that "society has different standards for how it treats violence and sexual content. Sexual content is treated far more puritanically than violence."

To me, this seemed to reflect an American bias. (My understanding is that many cultures, including yours, are more tolerant of sexual content in media and less tolerant of violence.) I noted this, but Raul offered no further response.

So if you're under the impression that I wish to base the main page's content on American standards, you're mistaken. I apologize if my use of an unfamiliar term inconvenienced you. —David Levy 02:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I said that the TFA exclusions were determined by one person (Raul654).

The discussion above is too long and indented for me to be able to indent this properly but you're right about that specific point. So sorry for the incorrect claim. However the general tone of your others posts strongly implied this was solely the decision of Howcheng and Crisco and the others involved in scheduling the pictures for POTD. E.g.

I must object, in the strongest possible terms, to barring the appearance of images on the basis that their content is objectionable (by your standard, Howcheng's, mine, or anyone else's).
It appears that Howcheng (and you, in one instance) skipped some images because they were likely to elicit immature jokes/catcalls. While I'm not sure that I agree, I understand the logic.
Other images, however, have been deemed "too graphic". By whose proclamation?

and

To my knowledge, we don't have an official featured picture director, so Howcheng's decisions carry no special authority (no disrespect intended toward Howcheng, whose management of that section and OTD has been admirable)

so I stand by the thrust of my comment since this implication was inaccurate in at least that case (one of the first ones). In fact as we now know not only in that case but it has happened in nominations for FP as well that people have objected to an image appearing on the main page (regardless of the validity of the concept). It seems clear while this policy has perhaps not been widely or properly discussed in an RFC, it was implemented at least partially as a result of some members of the community, including some I'm assuming actively involved in the selecting of FP images. Oh and I forgot to mention above but I know the 'Unused' has been linked in the POTD guidelines for a while, checking now it's since June 2009 [10]. I would also note that the Merkin picture in particular from a search is in 11 different archives (excluding this discussion) and it looks like possibly 8 of those are referring to it not appearing.

To be clear, I'm not commenting on the validity of the policy, nor am I saying that the policy was necessarily developed in the proper way (although I think the issue of what is the 'proper' way is rather variable on wikipedia) simply that it's genesis was more than simply Howcheng's personal decisions which was followed by Crisco and others scheduling POTDs.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC))

Howcheng created and maintained the list, ultimately determining what images were included and wouldn't be scheduled (a task that he almost always handled at the time). I'm not implying that he did so without any community input. (He did make many of these decisions on his own, but that's tangential.) I referred to "[Crisco 1492's] standard, Howcheng's, mine, or anyone else's" specifically to convey that my concern relates to no one's in particular; I'm objecting the concept of suppressing images from the main page on this basis, irrespective of who's behind it.

My point is that Howcheng isn't the "featured picture director", so his determinations (whether arrived at unilaterally or based upon others' feedback) are subject to normal review. (I believe that this is true of Raul654's actions as well, but that's a separate matter.) To be clear, this isn't a criticism of Howcheng, who doesn't claim to possess special authority. —David Levy 14:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

POTD has pretty much been a one-person show since its inception, whether it's been Solipsist, myself, or Crisco 1492. Mostly the problem with making it more of a consensus-based project is simply apathy. I'm sure you recall The Rambling Man's idea from last year to institute more standards in the selection of associated articles, but nobody has really been willing to charter that initiative. You can rail about it all you want, but if there aren't enough people getting involved, your proposal isn't really going anywhere. —howcheng {chat} 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that apathy is an issue, but general satisfaction is another significant factor. Had any of you done a poor job, this would have been a good reason for the community to intervene. That didn't occur (and isn't occurring now), so there's no catalyst for major change (which is a good thing). —David Levy 05:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And my point is whatever you were trying to say, the implication to me is that this was primarily something done at the direction of Howcheng and the others involved. Note that after the first mistaken post, I did not question what you were tring to say as it's an unimportant point. The fact remain until me and others pointed it out, no one and definitely you did not mention the involvement of the community in these decisions. The implication I got from the early posts primarily coming from you, again whether or not it was your intention, was that these were primarily decided by those involved in the scheduling whereas in reality in one of the first instances community review was attempted. In other instances, parts of the community have been pushed it, perhaps even mostly before it happened (I don't know). Therefore, in case it still isn't clear, I find the implication misleading, and frankly offensive. Again, it may not have been your intention, but the fact remains besides the 'anyone else' you concentrated on those involved in the scheduling. The fact that those involved in the scheduling may have made the ultimate decisions, and may have sometimes extended the communities suggestions, or made decisions, perhaps without seeking review of the specific issues at hand, probaly not helped by the general apathy when they tried to review and the recognition that apathy is likely to increase if they continually seek review doesn't change this. Note that whether or not those involved in the scheduling felt the same way is not particularly important since my concern is for those unfamiliar. I don't think there was ever any suggestion these decisons were not subject to community review, that seems frankly a little odd considering that at least one decision, one of the earlier ones did attempt to seek community review and what it got was some degree of apathy combined with probably more opposition to including then excluding and also the fact that some of the exclusions were partially pushed by others. And as I've made clear, it's not like this list or the concept is some super secret, it's been discussed here somewhere you've been active several times and has been linked from the relevant project page for a while. There's of course nothing wrong with being unaware, nor does it stop you disagreeing with the practice. Of course community review would need to find a way to get around the apathy wider advertising may help but it would also need someone to develop the neutral RFC and to some degree guide it and this includes working out what to do if those who currently deal with the scheduling don't want to continue to deal with it depending on the outcome of that review, not because they're in a huff because they disagree but simply because they do not want to have to deal with the outcome they may expect. Since Crisco has agreed to schedule one of these, I don't know what degree of review is needed anyway. And speaking of apathy, I feel I've adequately addressed my primary concern (I felt it last time hence the last reply, but decided after reading that I should give it one more shot). I don't really give a damn about the primary issue, i have questioned why so e people made a big deal over certain images or ITN items or other stuff before considering we have had people visibility dead and dying from horrific conditions on POTD before, images which I wasn't objecting to per se, which should tell you were my sensibilities lie. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And my point is whatever you were trying to say, the implication to me is that this was primarily something done at the direction of Howcheng and the others involved.

And I've explained that no such implication was intended.

Therefore, in case it still isn't clear, I find the implication misleading, and frankly offensive.

The nonexistent implication?

You've repeatedly qualified your statements with an acknowledgement that it "may not have been [my] intention", but that's how it came across to you. I'm aware of your inference, to which I've responded by telling you that it wasn't my intention. Why are you focusing on (and expressing offense stemming from) a misunderstanding that's been resolved?

I don't think there was ever any suggestion these decisons were not subject to community review,

On multiple occasions, I've encountered comments reflecting a belief that Howcheng is our "featured picture director" or similar, possessing special authority to which the rest of us must defer. As I explained above, I was addressing this misconception (which, I'll reiterate, Howcheng has never sought to promote). That's why I noted that Howcheng's determinations aren't set in stone. I was not implying that he made them without regard for others' opinions. —David Levy 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK copyvio onto the main page without basic checking

How did Idiom dictionary get onto the main page via DYK with a whopping great copyvio? Who's checking such obvious plagiarism? Do the promoting admin and the nominator go on doing this without let? Tony (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Later: it appears, strangely, that their own site copied old WP text, which was then retrieved to <cough> satisfy the "times five" eligibility for DYK. There were still significant faults with the article when it was exposed on the main page. Tony (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the inherent failures of much of the DYK nomination process it seems, unfortunately, unsurprising. Personally, I'd call for a exhaustive RfC regarding DYK as an initiative. 86.134.206.185 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So why don't you? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the process and was unaware that unregistered users were able to start an RfC; furthermore, I'd be surprised if many users took one started by an IP seriously. 86.134.206.185 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So why don't you register? --69.158.116.5 (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Because I don't want to. 86.182.35.55 (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, unregistered users can't start RFCs, not because of any policy, but because unregistered users can only create talk pages. (This, in my opinion, is dumb, and should be fixed.) Regardless, there's currently Wikipedia:2013 main page redesign proposal/RFC, so you should feel free to add your comments there. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not every RFC is on a separate page. It's not so difficult to start an RFC on Wikipedia talk:Dyk. See here for instructions. Garion96 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(reset) 'It used to be the case' that unregistered users could create articles - but there were 'a number of incidents notable at the time' which caused a change. Jackiespeel (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

... and also as 'a number of users' may be going via the same IP address confusion might arise. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Winningest" and other words to watch

Interesting BBC News article on WP:ENGVAR problems in sport. Some of them turn up in discussions about the main page occasionally. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Good read. And he didn't even touch on the issue of Australian English. We constantly have soccer fans insisting that their game must be only called football. That's in a country where there are four different games played professionally and called football by their fans (plus at least three other footballing codes not played at professional level). And it's sometimes quite difficult having a rational discussion with a sports nut. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of them even get upset when we refer to the sport as "association football" instead of simply "football", which I find difficult to understand. Even Americans, who tend to be ignorant of other countries' sports and terminologies, don't seem to take offense when "American football" (a term rarely used in the U.S.) is specified. If egocentric Americans can accept the fact that other football codes exist, those for whom "football" refers to soccer should have no problem. —David Levy 00:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Well yes. Take a look at any article about the sport, its teams or its players. In 9 cases out of 10, there is no direct mention that it is association football. We are usually left with a wikilink as an equivalent gloss. 'Soccer' sounds weird to some, but you can't argue that it's ambiguous. You can disambiguate to a degree using capital letters, as in 'football' (generic) vs 'Football' (proper noun), but although it's arguably the most popular sport in the world, the term is not universal enough for that sport, or there are just too many national football codes, for it to be a primary topic. Strangely enough though, 'football' or its directly or literally translated equivalent is unambiguous in many foreign languages. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing to remember is that, while we should always strive to use language which will be understandable to people in all parts of the English-speaking world, there will be some terms which are intractably tied to a a specific national variety of English and don't have an internationally recognized term (see discussion above regarding motor vs. auto racing). In those cases, while we should not favor one variety of English over another, that also means that we do need to sometimes pick a word, and if the word chosen doesn't have an internationally-recognized equivalent, there's also no reason to change it. The fact that one of only two alternatives was chosen does not mean we're snubbing the other alternative. Because if we had picked the other alternative, the same exact criticism could be leveled. --Jayron32 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Or even levelled: ENGVAR spellings could lead to colo(u)rful debate. Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We could argue for aeons/eons whether you've spelt/spelled that post correctly. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I take it there is no safe harbo(u)r from debate at the main page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

'The distinction to be made' is between those 'multiple near synonyms' and 'multiple usages' (ie where the reader is likely to know that more than one meaning has to be considered) and those terms where extra detail has to be added for an international audience. 'Robin the birds' and 'WP articles on April 1' might be examples of the former.

As an amusement - describe sports and games in one sentence - 'Tennis - keep the ball in the air longer than your opponents'; '(UK) Football - score more goals than the other side, do not annoy the referee and the offside rule is a matter of perspective and discussion.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Labourers of Herakles

While I don't mind the article, the author or anything in general about this topic, was it really necessary to use vulgar language (even if it IS a quotation) to have 'shock value' on the Main Page? Yes, it may be a correct quotation, but entirely unnecessary. It's like selecting the most vulgar snippet out of an entire speech just to get people to read it. Seems very juvenile and amateurish. And, considering how much I esteem Wikipedia, it is also disappointing. 19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You should know better than to "esteem" Wikipedia. All sensible people do.

Featured picture

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 loose letters spilling from the placed "bananagrams" receptacle contain the letters "DO ME" in a identifiable sequence, which may be misconstrued as obscene -- is there any certainty that this is not obscene content? Is there a procedure by which such a high-publicity photo may be peer-reviewed for 'latent obscene'ness? -Anaceus.

Wikipedia is not censored. The website does not screen content for obscenity. 72.28.82.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Or is it "dome"? I also see "red" and "road" and "dot". Anyway, it really is more "domre" since the "r" is in there. I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Chris857 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's somebody who looks for evil and debauchery and finds it. Somebody please think of the children! Also, it is clearly 'Domre,' if it is anything.72.28.82.250 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I see "sad" and "pour" and "sap". Maybe I should treat myself to pancakes? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Another example of the fiendish pro-flapjack bias latent on this website. 75.156.70.207 (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not as bad as the pro-bacon bias (for instance ... this) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow Bananagrams look really neat! Hours of wholesome fun for the entire family! I'm going to buy myself one immediately! Are you?122.167.168.194 (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Available at The Wikimedia Shop for the low, low price of $10.99 USD! FallingGravity (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• And if you order now, you'll get a transit of Venus for the low, low, low price of cryogenic freezing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I see "ur mother" which could also be misconstrued as offensive. I demand... um... attention? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, well I'll give you some... I see "Dear mother", which is so much better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• I see Apophenia. --Jayron32 13:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Could be worse. You could be seeing "London" or "France". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's nothing. I see "Europe" and "doom." Obviously, this is a message from the fourth dimension that Europe is doomed! Sca (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2013 (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.

D-Day doesn't make the cut?

Really? On this day...not one of the most important military invasions in world history? Eightball (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not every article is included every year. D-Day is simply out of rotation for this year. —howcheng {chat} 04:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

D-Day should always make the cut. period

I agree... Even if it is on rotation, it should ALWAYS be included every year... posty (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but no article is guaranteed a spot. —howcheng {chat} 16:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question: Where's is D-Day? Something this historically significant shouldn't be "out of rotation". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As explained at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries and on each date's subpage, the section isn't intended to function as a list of the date's most historically significant events.

If you disagree with the longstanding criteria, it would be more constructive to propose that they be changed than it is to complain when they're applied. —David Levy 17:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised not to see D-Day either, but if you click on the More anniversaries link for June 6 at the bottome of the "On This Day" section you will see D-Day listed for 1944.g.randolph196.3.39.10 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It will be more appropriate in 2014 as that is the 70th anniversary of the Normandy Landings.Martinvl (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would complain if it ran 2, 3, or even 5 years in a row. There are rules and there is common sense, and common sense says certain events should always stay on. Hot Stop 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. This only shows a bias. "This date in history" should always include the most important events. Smarkflea (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, including it every year would show a bias towards that event, which in fact has actually happened. It was only excluded in 2009 and now in 2013: that's 8 out of the 10 years that OTD has been on the Main Page. Articles get rotated in and out every year. D-Day has been disproportionately included as compared to other "most important" events (9/11, Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, Yuri Gagarin, Apollo 11, printing of the KJV Bible, etc), so it can take a break every now and then. —howcheng {chat} 00:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your claim of systemic bias is BS. If you really were concerned about that, why were two other items specific to the West included? Do you ever think to yourself 'self, what would a reader expect to see on the main page?' Hot Stop 14:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your claim of systemic bias is BS. If you really were concerned about that, why were two other items specific to the West included?

When did Howcheng say anything inconsistent with the concept of including items related to specific parts of the world?

Do you ever think to yourself 'self, what would a reader expect to see on the main page?'

Have you ever thought about participating in the OTD selection process instead of leaving nearly all of the work to Howcheng and complaining when his decisions fail to align with your idea of "common sense"? —David Levy 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would love to, except there is no selection process. In theory I could have edited the OTD page for June 6, but I would've kept d-day. And since he edited the page after it was fully protected, I would have no way off adding it back in. Hot Stop 19:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would love to, except there is no selection process.

Sure there is. Users edit the subpage to add and remove items. In the event of a disagreement, they discuss the matter on the talk page.

...in theory, that is. In practice, no human other than Howcheng has edited that subpage (or its talk page) since last year's main page appearance. No one else bothered to perform an update.

In theory I could have edited the OTD page for June 6, but I would've kept d-day.

But you didn't edit the page. Only Howcheng did. He didn't come along and undo someone else's work.

You stated above that "common sense says certain events should always stay on". If the section's purpose were to list the date's most historically significant events, I would agree. If you believe that this should be the section's purpose, you're welcome to propose such a change. In the meantime, you're criticising Howcheng for following criteria predating his involvement in the section's maintenance.

You referred to the question "What would a reader expect to see on the main page?". A reader operating under the misconception that OTD functions as a list of the date's most historically significant events probably would expect to see the Normandy landings on 6 June. But if someone already knows about a particular event, he/she can easily find its article via the search box, so I reject that rationale. —David Levy 21:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

David Levy, fearless defender of the status quo, ladies and gentlemen. Hot Stop 22:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How does "you're welcome to propose such a change" constitute a defense of the status quo? Are you suggesting that it's unreasonable for me to disagree with you? —David Levy 22:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know about D-Day. We could equally make a case for Armistice Day, which is related. I notice that the Tiananmen massacre didn't make the MP for 4 June this year either. I'd like to know whether September 11 attacks enjoy this rotation too? And did you have howls of protests from American readers when it didn't get posted? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A September 11 attacks item has been included six times (in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2012) and omitted three times (in 2008, 2010 and 2011).

Note that all three omissions coincided with the appearance of related TFA and/or TFP items. Nonetheless, I recall complaints similar to those above, which were met with the same explanation of the section's format.

Patriot Day, a related observance, qualifies for inclusion every year, provided that no major content issues arise. —David Levy 01:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why does Patriot Day qualify every year? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that might have something to do with lesser number of OTD posts for that day. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that had crossed my mind, that nothing that significant had occurred on 9/11. I wonder if we try hard to find other entries? Perhaps I'll look into it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For that date, we currently have fourteen eligible blurbs and six ineligible blurbs. Observances are listed separately, and we have four of those (including two whose articles are ineligible). —David Levy 22:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes there's a big difference between observances and events. From what I've seen, observences are far more likely to appear, probably partially because there are fewer and even among those we do have there are some which lack suitable articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 08:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct: Observances pretty much remain listed year after year, subject to article quality rules. There are only a handful of days where there might be too many to include all of them. In reply to The Rambling Man, yes we (meaning me) do spend a lot of time finding suitable articles for each day. The OTD update takes on average 45 minutes to do, depending on how desperate I am. —howcheng {chat} 00:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I also think events of the magnitude of the Tiananmen massacre, 9/11 or D-Day should make it to the main page every year, in line with readers' natural expectations. There are four other slots that can be used to highlight more obscure events in rotation. Andreas JN466 01:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

History of Gibraltar has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article on 13 July to mark the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Utrecht. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 10:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So? I don't think that's a controversial nomination at all. Modest Genius ^talk 10:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone thinks it is uncontroversial. As a TFA delegate, I rarely advertise specific TFA nominations, but with this one (if selected) I don't want people to say "Why weren't we told about this in advance given the whole "Gibraltar – Main Page" thing?" or something similar. If consensus is clear (in either direction) and the discussion has been well-advertised, then that helps me. The same notice has been left at the village pump, WP:AN and WT:FAC, so that should cover a number of bases. Bencherlite^Talk 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly there are a couple of dead-enders who are obsessed with this issue and continuing to stir up controversy where none should exist. That's mainly why Bencherlite is having to be cautious here. Prioryman (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that's overly cautious, but better safe than sorry. Modest Genius ^talk 13:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• In my experience, there is no such thing as being overly cautious when it comes to potentially contentious material on the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's only contentious because of bullshit Wikipedia politics. No one who is unaware of the whole Gibraltarpedia silliness would find the article controversial in the slightest. Unless there is clear evidence that the article itself is of substandard quality and doesn't deserve to be a featured article in its own right (which it does; it's a fine article) there's nothing at all controversial about the article or its making it to the main page. --Jayron32 17:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• "It's only contentious because of bullshit Wikipedia politics." - 100% true, but oh my those politics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Bullshit Wikipedia politics" only exist because some editors care more about fighting political battles than improving the encyclopedia. Prioryman (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't personally agree with the Gilbratar fuss but such statements which fail to follow such a core policy as WP:AGF are of course an example of "bullshit wikipedia politcs" themselves and also a very good example of why such debates can unfortunately get way more contentious than they need to be. I'm not of course making the same assumptions about the reasons behind such a statement but unfortunately good faith and attempting to improve the encyclopaedia doesn't stop people making a mess. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Tiny images

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.

---

Every one of the five images on the main page at the moment is too small—in some cases by significant amounts. These little blobs of non-text colour, smaller than postage stamps: what exactly is their purpose? Just to distract from grey text? Or to inform? The detail-rich featured pic should be at least 40% bigger. Tony (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• That POTD is already over 300px, if I'm not mistaken. Making it too big would make it too dominant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2013 (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.

RfC on fair-use images in TFA blurbs

There is an ongoing RfC on whether fair-use images should be allowed in TFA blurbs which may be of interest to regular readers of this page. It was advertised on WT:TFA but I don't remember seeing it mentioned here. Opinion is fairly evenly split at present. Modest Genius ^talk 21:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Main Page

The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. Please leave feedback regarding any aspects of the Main Page you like or dislike, and discuss the Main Page's purposes and aims.

Evad37 (talk) (on behalf of the 2013 main page redesign proposal team) 00:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN item: Slovenian PM convicted of corruption - request for comment

Please comment at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#[Posted] Former Slovenian PM convicted of corruption. Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't Kawaii enough.

This really isn't anything to do with the main page, is it? Thought not. BencherliteTalk 08:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Clearly, this is a serious project, not something done by pimply virgin boys. Let us never speak of this again. I think Wikipe-Tan and flowers should be on the main page. This is a super serious suggestion. --85.210.107.40 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC) If you can write a well-sourced article at Wikipe-Tan, that isn't quickly deleted as a self-reference, then it will be eligible for DYK and could have it's time on the MP. Otherwise no. Modest Genius talk 19:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Wikipe-tan (lower case t) and Wikipetan are salted. Don't circumvent this by changing case. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Both from 2007. If reliable sources have arisen since then (I'm not aware of any) then a user could request un-salting. I don't think that would be a good idea though! Modest Genius talk 13:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC) More realistically, you could get Moe anthropomorphism to Featured article status, then request that it be put in the main-page queue. That would probably result in Wikipe-tan being on the front page for a day. APL (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Don't we have flowers on POTD and DYK already? They don't appear on the main page every single day, but flowers do make appearances on the main page. --142.1.32.35 (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, but that just doesn't have the class and flair of having a creepy anime macot. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC) I added kawaii heart icons to the interface via WikiLove and Thanks, but apparently this means the German projects will never agree to use those extensions :P I asked a French guy why this was the case and he said that cute things make Europeans feel 'uncomfortable'. I'm not sure there are any reliable sources to back this up though :) Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

More re DYK

It's hard to imagine a general-interest rationale for promoting Jennifer Lopez's Viva Móvil in DYK. Sca (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Did you know for criteria. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Oldest living man in history"

I think not. Verified means that these men have been proven to be the oldest to have ever lived. This cannot be proven nor can it ever be proven. They are then the recent oldest men whose age has been verified. The title is misleading.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The title isn't meant to say that these are the oldest men to have ever lived, but that they are the oldest men whose ages have been verified. It did formerly describe this person as the "longest-lived verified male in history", but that makes it sound as though he was verified as being male rather than as being old. If you have a better wording let's hear it. Hut 8.5 14:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't have one because it is impossible to prove they were the longest lived man in history. The term used is very subjective.Maybe use Recent History.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that this person was the longest lived man in history. The claim is that of the men in history who have had their ages verified, he was the longest lived. Hut 8.5 17:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Not how I read it.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well that's what it's meant to say. That's why I asked you if there was another wording that would satisfy you. Hut 8.5 19:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

How about "Japanese supercentenarian Jiroemon Kimura dies at the age of 116 years, 54 days, making him the oldest ever man to have his age reliably verified." --Khajidha (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

His death didn't make him the oldest ever man to have his age reliably verified. Suggestion:

Japanese supercentenarian Jiroemon Kimura dies at the age of 116 years, 54 days, the longest verified lifespan of any man in history.

—David Levy 02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where 'colloquial English' (where people know what is meant) and 'formal Wiki-English' diverge. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiklish? Sca (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

When I saw that blurb when it was edited to the current wording, I also thought it isn't correct as written (even though the current wording corresponds to the article title). I agree with Degen Earthfast that the wording "verified oldest man" would mean that the person has been proven to be older than any other man ever, even those for whom there are no records (which obviously isn't the case . . . instead he is the oldest man among those for whom good records on their age exist). While the previous wording using "verified male" was also not good (since it sounded like it was his gender that had been verified), I don't really see this wording as an improvement. I think David Levy's suggestion would be an improvement, or perhaps something like "oldest man with a verified age" (e.g. List of oldest men with a verified age). Calathan (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've switched to the wording that I suggested above. —David Levy 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Language svenska has reached the million mark"

Time to update language section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.99.254 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me?

It seems to me that Bach's cantatas show up more regularly than any other subject in the "Did You Know" section. (OK, this is perhaps a slight exaggeration.) Is it just me, or does somebody in power have an absolute passion for them? :-) All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's probably more that someone with a lot of time and energy has such a passion and channels it into developing these articles. :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right. Let us hope that this someone has a few deadlines coming. A break from the cantatas would be welcome. Not that I don't respect Bach, but he does replace something else every time one of his works is included. Just for the fun of it: In my youth, a television programme started with a movement from one of the Brandenburg Concertos. (I can't remember which - I've avoided the concertos ever since.) This was Sunday evenings, and the boy, who I was at the time, was dreading the beginning of school next day. I've never been able to listen to that movement since without a flashback. :-) All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Just for fun and to satisfy your memory, the show was William F. Buckley's Firing Line with a theme from the Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 in F Major. :-) TjoeC (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Or depending on your age/location/choice of viewing in your youth you may be thinking of early versions of Antiques Roadshow, which used to have Brandenburg #3 as a theme tune. An optimist on the run!   08:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"he does replace something else every time one of his works is included" - I'm not sure this is entirely true.

Or at least, if you write one hundred new DYK-qualified articles per month on a wide variety of topics that are not Bach, then the Bach topics will appear considerably less often because they'll have to wait their turn. Thus, nothing is being denied a place in DYK, but rather, DYK has to use the material that's supplied. If three per cent of the material that's supplied is about Bach, then roughly that proportion of DYK will be about Bach.

To take a totally different view, maybe you're just imagining all these appearances of Bach-related material on the main page. A "reliable source" repeatedly insists that "topics rarely appear more than once" on DYK. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, they haven't noticed Indonesia then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• The answer is 1) Everything that's meets the requirements and gets nominated ends up getting posted at DYK, and 2) the sources of articles for DYK are constrained by who writes the articles and who nominates them. This is a fairly limited pool of editors, and as noted, if people are very interested in niche topics, we get a LOT of similar nominations from those same topics, not because people are deliberately ignoring other topics, but because that's all we have to work with. This is the exact same reason why we end up with so many bird pictures on the main page: There's a prolific bird photographer who's very good at what he does that contributes a lot of pictures to Wikipedia. There's a limited supply of other topics, because no one has created really good pics in other fields, so we get a lot of bird pictures. We could demand that people stop making Wikipedia better and more complete with their good articles about Bach or their really good pictures of birds, but really, the better solution is to provide your own articles about other topics, or your own non-bird pictures, because I'm not really comfortable asking dedicated editors to stop making Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 18:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I had noticed the birds as well - Australian more often than not. :-) 85.220.22.139 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm quite a fan of Bach (and I know German), I can see where the frequent blurbs on Bach cantata texts as DYK items may seem repetitive and tedious to general English-language readers. It would be great to see DYK notes about a broad spectrum of composers, related to historical context. Many of them had such interesting lives! Sca (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a general English-language reader. English was my third language, German my fourth and I'm equally fluent (or not) in both of them. I'd welcome a treatment of other German composers - Germany has produced a lot of them. How about Beethoven - the greatest of them all according to some? Or how about other peoples, Donizetti, Tschaikowski etc. You're right, the Bach entries get repetitive and dull. All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Chopin. Sca (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I love Chopin. Today we have yet another cantata. But according to Wikipedia, there are only 209 of them, so the material has to run out sometime this decade. :-) All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Three days later, another Bach cantata?? I think that makes five this month, and it's only the 8th of June. Das genügt! Sca (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to spread out the Bach cantata hooks, please consider contributing hooks about other things to DYK. This is the best way to get hooks about topics you like on DYK, and to delay having hooks about topics you don't like on DYK. --69.158.116.5 (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As the foregoing discussion makes clear, it's not that I don't like Bach (I do), it's that I don't think we should be subjecting our global Main Page audience to over-frequent expositions of his cantatas — all of which, of course, are religious in theme and thus broadly similar in import. Repetition is the soul of boredom. Sca (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Come to think of it, I know of two Bach cantatas that are secular in theme: BWV 211, known as the Coffee Cantata, and BWV 212, called the Peasant Cantata. (I see on German Wiki that there are four other secular canatatas.) Sca (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}. As Jayron32 points out above, the selection of topics that DYK is able to work with is restricted to the set of topics for which Wikipedia contributors are willing to perform article creation or expansion. If no one else is willing to answer your call to create articles dealing with your favorite topics then the answer is for you to perform some research and then write the article yourself. If all it took to cause someone to create a well researched article was a simple demand on a talk page, then there would be practically no backlog at Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Allen3 ^talk 14:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps there is something fundamentally flawed with the concept of DYK and it needs to be discontinued or completely revamped. As it stands it seems (to me at least) to be an exercise in vanity, rather than expanding knowledge. --Khajidha (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• How many do you read? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A fair number. And many of the ones I have read turn out to be things that are difficult if not impossible to find in the actual article or lead to articles that seem to have been written with no regard for grammar, spelling, or flow of text. Why not just post facts from ANY article (or at least, any article that can actually be read without feeling ones IQ drop by 50 points due to the quality of the writing)? That would seem to me to be a better approach to expanding knowledge, rather than the "Ooh ooh ooh, I just made this new article/expanded this old article, lets just pick some random sentence with no context and see if I can get it on to the Main Page" style I currently see. --Khajidha (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What I would suggest for a ground up revamp of DYK is an easily findable link in the sidebar where any user could post some factoid they had discovered and the name of the page. Assuming that their phrasing was acceptable it would then be added to the queue. I would prefer that the reader be able to reload the list and get a constantly randomized selection from the entire database of factoid that had been presented. --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Aha. And you have written... how many? Curious, as (to me) the one which stands for hat-collecting is ITN. "Oh, this is getting to be really big. Let's nominate this while it's still two sentences and I'll get credit". Luckily the articles never pass in such a state, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that ITN has many of the same problems (plus the added problem that this isn't a news site) but this was a DYK related discussion. To me most of these sections (ITN, DYK, TFA, etc) seem like little more than excuses for users to collect little notices on their talk pages that something they worked on is being put on the Main Page. There is little or no indication as to why they are being put on the Main Page. Or at least, none that really makes sense to me. "They're our best content we should showcase them!" just engenders the reply from me "Is it the showcase page or the Main Page?" To me those would be different things. --Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Khajidha that the random-tidbit nature of DYK and, to a lesser extent, ITN, mean that the English Main Page often presents little of genuine interest to the general reader — unless one considers trivia truly interesting. Sca (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I must say, Khajidha, I'm intrigued as to your idea of a main page which does not serve as a portal. As for TFA/DYK/etc., I personally write to help better myself. I first began extensive volunteer work on Wikipedia after several years of periodic activity because I felt my English was getting really rusty, and I must say my use of the language has improved a fair ways (past what is was before? maybe) through writing almost 500 articles which were DYKable. That and it's a pleasure to lead people to some bits of knowledge they would have had no way of knowing beforehand. I doubt even 0.001% of our readership has heard of Gagak Item before, for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• English point: a "factoid" is by definition something resembling the truth which is, however, unreliable or untrue – the "-oid" is the clue, as in "humanoid". The word does not mean small or trivial fact. If DYK deals in factoids, as suggested, it deserves to die, but as far as I can tell the facts are real, if on occasion inconsequential, e.g. Johnny Depp's Venetian walk. I'm uncertain here whether the highlighted "fact" is that he walks on hotel roofs, or the revelation that he wears pyjamas. Brianboulton (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To Crisco 1492 - My idea of the main page would have 3 sections: 1) a search box and random article link, 2) a "How to edit" section and 3) an other Wikipedias and sister projects. That's it. If you want "Featured Content", make a separate page for it. If you want "On this day" type content, make a separate page for it. If you want articles related to topics in the news, make a separate page for it.

To Brianboulton - Sorry, I had only ever encountered the word being used to mean "a true but pointless fact". Most of the "facts" I have read in DYK were of this type. Many of them were not the most interesting point in the article and several of the posts seemed to have been contrived simply to get something to put in the DYK slot. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of "factoid" from the news business is a minor but true and often little-known fact — similar to the concept of trivia. Sca (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the "news business" has got it wrong. Factoids are assumed to be true, often by by constant repetition, but are, as I stated, unreliable or plain false. So your understanding of the word is itself a factoid. Don't take my word for this; any good dictionary will say the same. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/factoid –HTD 12:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Brian, this may be a cross-cultural issue. It seems that in British English your definition is the norm, whereas in American newspaper journalism mine prevails. Even your (British) Oxford dictionary definition contains this secondary entry: "North American — a brief or trivial item of news or information."

"Factoid" may have acquired the connotation of spuriousness since it was coined in the 1970s, but that wasn't its original meaning. (In American journalism, a brief excerpt from an article often is, or was, employed as a graphic device, printed in larger or bold type. This could be a "quote box," or a "factoid.") Sca (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(reset) Perhaps there could be a banner headline - a snappier version of 'Don't complain about MP topic repetition - deal with it yourself by creating articles.'

And WP uses the main page to shift Donald Rumsfelds 'unknown unknowns' (and the unstated unknown knowns) to known knowns. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I sort of do want this discussion to go away; it's persistent and no action is ever going to be taken because of it here. A policy to immediately close such discussions with a pointer to the correct location would be nice. LFaraone 17:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

May I remind people that there is currently a RFC on the main page redesign linked above this? While the RFC is a bit unstructured and appears to be coming to an end soon, it still seems to be open right now and if you want to replace DYK or drastically revamp it or whatever there is a far better place than here where your chance of achieving something is slim to one. If you've already commented there then repeating is here isn't going to make it more likely to happen. BTW somewhat surprisingly to me there doesn't seem to be a section abiut removing DYK there only ITN. Nil Einne (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

At this stage of English Wikipedia's development, runs of topics in DYK are much more likely than they were earlier, since (almost by definition) they often represent topic categories which had been previously overlooked, usually more detailed topics which had previously been covered only in a general way. To even identify those kinds of "missing" categories, an English-fluent editor must previously have had an interest in that category, and since they are willing to write an acceptable article in a new category, that interest is likely to be passionate, detailed, and extend to related topics within that category. Thus we have (and can expect more of) individual works by composers/artists/writers (Bach, Chopin), non English language arts and sports (Indonesian cinema), etc. - Tenebris 02:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really - we have thousands (far too many imo) of articles on "individual works" and people, films etc, because they are much easier to write. Where we are weaker is broader articles on topics, like Italian Renaissance sculpture. Cinema of Indonesia doesn't look great either. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Still compiling my references for a couple of broad articles, to be done over the holidays. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but consider that you were able to think of a broad subject title which has not yet been used. That, by itself, is much rarer than you may guess. For the vast majority of people (and why would Wikipedia editors be any exception?) the only broad subject titles they can think of already exist. In fact, many of the broadest titles are on indefinite semi-protection, in part because of the numbers of people that can think of them. - Tenebris 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Women in (African country)". There's at least twenty redlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And here we go with Gibraltar again! Jeez! Ansh666 06:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC) (to be honest, as a history buff I like the Gibraltar DYKs! keep it up guys)

DYK Das neugeborne Kindelein (June 23) — is it Xmas already? Yawn. Sca (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Not even "Christmas-and-a-half" (25 June). --Khajidha (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Icelandic National Day

Every national day usually gets marked by why not Iceland's national day? (17 June) I don't understand it. Even smaller countries and dependencies get mentioned like the Falklands' Liberation Day. Was this just overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.135.88 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The omission is intentional. The Icelandic National Day article is ineligible for inclusion because its information isn't properly attributed to reliable sources. —David Levy 17:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's just sad. It can't be that hard to find actual sources... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't. Found one and added it, there's plenty more out there. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

how do u add someone to wiki

How do u add someone to wiki Jordanrhcp (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:YFA and WP:42. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Marred?

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.

---

"In sports car racing, the 24 Hours of Le Mans, won by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval, is marred by the death of Allan Simonsen."

Whether or not the event was "marred" is purely subjective. Some people many have been entertained by it. Sadists may have enjoyed it. Wikipedia is supposed to stay completely objective and only report factual information, not make opinions about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.53.35 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2013‎

I was about to write some long winded explanation here, but I think it is more to the point to state the obvious: this is one of the stupidest objections to main page content I have ever seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that saying the race was "marred" by a death is a little too much of an understatement? --Khajidha (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know basic human decency was a POV (are sadists covered by WP:FRINGE?). But at any rate, it doesn't violate NPOV to say the event was marred. Collins dictionary gives "'mar (v): to cause harm to; spoil or impair". The race was definitely impaired (since the safety car had to come out), and since the winner and the organizers both expressed their sadness at Simonsen's death, and news media coverage was tempered by the accident, it seems fair to say that the atmosphere of the race was spoiled as well. Smurrayinchester 10:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as objective "basic human decency". Certain Western values hold certain things sacred, but it is by no means universal. We should strive to remember that Western values do not equal universal human values. 97.89.55.148 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2013 (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.

Berlusconi underage prostitution scandal: is it noteworthy enough to be in the "In the News" section?

I am just wondering if the conviction of Silvio Berlusconi for underage prostitution sounds a bit like tabloid news. It really seems out of place compared to other news stories in the section. What do you guys think? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC for discussion. The general feeling is that when heads of state/government are sent to jail, it's notable. Calidum Sistere 05:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)