Talk:Main Page/Archive 104

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Erm, half Britain is underwater, and that's not news?!? :-S Neddyseagoon - talk 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[]

The place for this discussion is WP:ITN/C (I think) Algebraist 13:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[]
I think here is good discussion ground for that topic TaylorLTD 02:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[]
No, it's not. The list of candidates to be included in the In the news section is a good place to discuss candidates to be included in the In the news section. 17Drew 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Is there also a page about the current Chinese floods? I couldn't find it. --WS 19:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[]

There's no link from Portal:Current events or List of notable floods, so I would guess no. - BanyanTree 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Wrong number of Bulgarian nurses

The main page says that they are 6 Bulgarian nurses. In fact, the HIV trial/Libya nurses are composed of 5 Bulgarian nurses and 1 Palestinian doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elakhna (talkcontribs)

Fixed. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[]
In the future, you might get best results raising errors found in the In the news section (or, really, any section) of the main page at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, the contents of which transclude at the top of this page; although EM took care of this one rather quickly, posts about errors made to the more general main page talk page are less likely than those made to WP:ERRORS to be seen and acted upon with celerity. Joe 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Proposed proofreading bot

User:Art LaPella/Proposed Main Page proofreading bot Art LaPella 23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Sounds like the bot is a great idea, it makes sure that common errors are fixed and increases the quality of the page. --Credema 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Good idea, do you have any code or are you looking for a programmer? --ST47Talk·Desk 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[]

My plan was to submit it to Wikipedia:Bot requests, but whatever. But I wish the Main Page regulars whose names I usually see here would give me some feedback first. Is there a better place I should be advertising this? Art LaPella 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Well, I tested most of the stuff you have there with a script and got no warnings, perhaps I'll finish writing it to your specifications and see what we get. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[]

I correct such errors several times per day, usually before they get to the Main Page, so I must be thorough if you didn't find any more. Art LaPella 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Here's two that got by everybody: [1] The bot would have caught the question mark. Art LaPella 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]

What's with the symbols?

What's with all the symbols on the main page? (The funny à and the € sign) --Pezzar 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Please contact via my link.[]

à is for an accented "a"; € = Euro the currency of the Eurozone. --Howard the Duck 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]
More importantly, where are you seeing them on the mainpage? Atropos 03:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Sounds like a character encoding issue. What web browser are you using? --- RockMFR 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Picture of the Day

Is it purposely now left-aligned instead of centre-aligned, or is that just a problem with my browser/cache/hairdresser/etc? If it is on purpose, what are we about to do with all that free space? X.spasitel 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]

I've seen that before -- sometimes the CSS files aren't being read correctly by your browser. A force-reload (Ctrl-F5 for IE or FF) should take care of it. howcheng {chat} 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Yeah, it's back to normal now. Thanks X.spasitel 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Captions on ITN pictures

What do you think? I like it, and personally I want it extended to OTD and DYK pictures as well. Borisblue 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]

I think it's quite unattractive to be honest. Worse though it would mean a lot of extra work to add captions whenever you want to use an image on the Main Page. violet/riga (t) 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]
These images already have html title attribute, which suffices as a caption, in my opinion. GracenotesT § 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]


Can you help me I want to write a movie page and how can you put the title to the top of the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

You need to create an account to either create a new article or rename pages. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Where's the Quickbar?


Tomorrow's featured article photo

What's wrong with this picture?-- 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC) The photo for tomorrows main page featured article should be a snapshot from the episode, otherwise a real picture is just confusing; people'll think whatthe hell's that got to do with the simpsons[]

There's an absolute 100% no exception ban on using fair use images on the main page, which includes basically anything from any work of art or entertainment since the great depression. I can't say that I agree with that, but its the project's position. Atropos 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]
See, uh, this is the thing - there isn't. Some users enforce that, but it's a nonexistant ban. Copyright paranoia. 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Unfortunately, those users the people who decide what goes on the main page. Atropos 20:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Jimbo Wales personally removed a fair use image from the featured article blurb once, since then there has been a de facto ban. Dragons flight 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Policy ultimately works by implementation. Just because it is not explicitly spelled out somewhere does not mean it is not policy. Quite a number of editors feel that current policy prohibits the fair use images on the main page, especially if there is something remotely related that fills the bill and this is shown in the way the main page is handled by admins. BTW, in case any editors are unaware a very long discussion took place Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main_Page". You should read it if you haven't already Nil Einne 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Sigh. It's called "fair use" for a reason. Besides, I hardly think Fox and Groening would object to Wikipedia plugging their movie for them. --Nricardo 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Hmmm... maybe Mr. Waters gave use a better offer?--Pharos 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
If anything, you seem to be making an argument against fair use. If we don't have to worry about copyvios because we're plugging the movie so the copyright owners aren't going to sue us, then why shouldn't we expect that the copyright owners release a suitable image for our article, and if not, refuse to have anything not free? I'm sure some editors are going to jump in and say "THEY'D NEVER TO THAT, anyone could make derivative works then", do note I never said anything about releasing an image containing Homer. The character John only appeared in one episode so really there seems little harm if they were to release an image containing him and nothing else of substance. Who cares if someone decided to make a cartoon with a character that looks exactly like the John from Simpsons (even more so since John was basically a 'derivative work' of John Waters anyway). Or heck, even a sketch of John from their collection. Or whatever. The reality is, there is bound to be something they can release under a free license, without any significant compromise of their intellectual property if they so desired Nil Einne 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Except that they can't sue because fair use is legal and it would not be a violation of fair use to illustrate the main page blurb with a non-free image. The only argument against it that people seem to have is the moralistic argument that the main page is supposed to show the best of Wikipedia, and fair use is not that. I sometimes wonder how illustrating a blurb with a tangentially related image is really the best of Wikipedia, but whatever, I just have no motivation to nominate anything produced in the past 80 years for TFA. Atropos 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
We are here to make a free-content encyclopedia, not to make the main page pretty. It doesn't have anything to do with legality. Zocky | picture popups 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Links to WikiNews Articles

Maybe put some links to WikiNews articles? Just a thought, I know they are seperate projects, but in the news section, links to wikinews wouldn't hurt. Tomazzr 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]

The most important thing is to link to the Wikipedia articles; that's what people come to Wikipedia for. If there are corresponding articles on Wikinews, there'll be links to them in the Wikipedia articles. 17Drew 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]
in the news section, the first item on the bottommost line is indeed a link to Wikinews. -- 03:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Tomazzr, pls see also Wikipedia:Sister projects#Wikinews. Maybe useful. -- 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]

mention Wikimania somewhere

Hurmf! Not a word about wikimania on the whole Main Page.

Where do you think we should mention it, bearing in mind Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and given that there is nothing particularly noteable about wikimania (which AFAIK hasn't even started yet)? Only place I can think of is the MediaWiki:Sitenotice. That might be okay but we should at least wait until it begins IMHO. Nil Einne 08:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]
For all its glory, Wikimania is not going to be very interesting to the reader population in general. Since it is probably too late for anyone to go who wasn't planning to already, it probably makes more sense to simply discuss it in the Signpost. Dragons flight 10:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Win or Linux?

Hello peoples from !!!

I shall buy tomorrow notebook. What there to install? Win or Linux? What is exact assembly? Advise pls, tnx

Ask at the computing reference desk. This is not the right place to ask questions which are not about the main page of Wikipedia.-gadfium 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Vandal on the front page

Eeek! We have a vandal on the main page! Someone go block him! Quick!

Oh, I see the Kriegsmarine already did, indefinitely. Daniel Case 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[]

That was in bad taste. Jokes are supposed to be funny, but this isn't a suitable place anyhow. 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Bah, lighten up. I thought it was funny, at least :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Users are supposed to be helpful, TaylorLTD 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[]
I concur. Mindman1 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Lol..., but this is really not the place for jokes. Marco Alfarrobinha {chat}contributions 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Gee, thanks for the joke, but couldnt you have put it somewhere else? ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 18:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Yes. Joking as anathemic to our existence. Burn the jokes. Atropos 02:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]

I'm a considerate driver: when I run someone over, I back over them to make sure they're dead. HalfShadow 00:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Is there a vandal on the main page?

Ninja Turtles

Does anyone know why these guys keep appearing on the front page? Is anyone else seeing this? 07:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Testudinocentrism. 07:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]
It's a troll on the Commons, replacing images that we transclude on the main page here with TMNT images over at the commons, which, in turn, affects the main page. See this admin noticeboard report. Sebi [talk] 07:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Damn it! Don't they know they're supposed to use penises, not TMNTs? --Nricardo 21:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[]
They should use April O'Neil not these pizza-eating freaks. --Howard the Duck 01:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Main page news article request

Could whoever is in charge put the death notice for Ingmar Bergman on the main page news section? He is the greatest Swedish film director of all time and made dozens of award winning films. --Ted-m 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]

See WP:ITNMP particularly criteria #5. --Howard the Duck 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Please see also WP:ITN/C#July 30. --PFHLai 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]

IMO, Ingmar Bergman was arguably important enough to warrant an exception. Zocky | picture popups 07:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]

IMO, while the criteria should be slightly expanded, no one is/was important enough to warrant an exception. If a person's importance alone were sufficient justification, it would be a criterion (and we wouldn't need to make an exception). —David Levy 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Redirect of AotD

École Polytechnique massacre is the real title. Minor mixup by Raul here. Can we get an admin to change it? JHMM13(Disc) 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]

I fail to see the issue. ffm 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Pharos and Raul654 have already fixed the "minor mixup", ffm.
JHMM13, thanks for pointing this out. Please be reminded to make use of WP:ERRORS (at the top of this talkpage) to suggest minor tweaks on MainPage like that. You may get a quicker response there. --PFHLai 01:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

this is untrue - should be changed to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (unless the article is important)." 02:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Well, we wouldn't have to protect pages if people who think destroying another person's work is funny would stop vandalizing. Also, that is untrue. Many "important" articles are unprotected. --Boricuaeddie 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Or if the article is getting vandalized, or spammed, or trolled, or edit warred on. But that's too long to fit in a catchphrase. :-) Picaroon (Talk) 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't think that "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" necessarily means that anyone can edit any article. The whole encyclopedia would have to be protected for it to require any clarifier. Atropos 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Many people have already made good points. In addition, since anyone can register (unless their IP has been blocked) and keep an account for five days (whether they want to or not is a different matter), it's questionable whether a semi-protected article can really be said to be not editable by anyone IMHO. If we had included the qualifier 'without registering' then yes, obviously semi-protected articles are not editable by anyone without registering. But we just say that anyone can edit; nothing about whether or whether not they need to register and keep an account for 5 days. The number of protected articles is thankfully far smaller then protected articles Nil Einne 09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
I get what you mean, but that's flawed logic:
  • There is a person A.
  • A falls under the category of "everyone"
  • A has not signed up for an account and waited for 5 days.
  • A can not edit.
  • "anyone can edit" is not true. 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
As I have said, there is no one, excluding people who have been banned for their disruptiveness, that cannot edit any part of the encyclopedia. While some parts are not editable, the encyclopedia as a whole certainly is. Atropos 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
"A can not edit a small number of certain specific articles" would be more accurate, as others have pointed out. GeeJo (t)(c) • 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
And even those can be edited by proxy by placing a request on the talk page. --Monotonehell 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
"A" CAN edit. It just need 5 days to do it for the first time in some particular cases, as it needs few minutes for other pages. But the PATH "A" must follow to do it don't change this fact.
Maybe "A" can't edit just right now, but I still can't edit right now, let's say, Earth without doing some things, like opening the Earth page in my browser, clicking the "Edit" link, etc. Likewise, maybe "A" need to sign up and wait sometime before doing this, but there is no single person in the Earth that will never be able to edit Wikipedia a priori. Wildie 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Exactly. No where does it say that A must be able to edit right now or without registering. If we really want to get into this, I could argue it's far more misleading because you need access to the internet to edit which a substanial majority of the world's population does not have. (Of course, if you don't have access to the internet you generally won't be reading wikipedia but that's a different matter, we didn't say anyone who's reading this can edit and clearly those people can't edit or read it) For that matter, the majority of people who do have access to the internet still rely on dialup or get access through some other source (cybercafe, friends, school, work etc) and do not have access to the internet 24/7. Clearly these people can't just edit wikipedia at any time but this doesn't mean they can't edit wikipedia. Or a different example, if I'm on dialup and decide to download or open a bunch of pages and then disconnect, then I will not be able to edit until I reconnect and I can even see the 'anyone can edit' bit. Does this mean because I have to reconnect first (and perhaps my ISP is too busy and it will take 30 minutes before I can reconnect) that I can't edit Wikipedia? Of course not. Same thing if I print out a page... Indeed as monotonehell has pointed out, even a protected article is editable by anyone by proxy, by making a request on the talk page. Nil Einne 07:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Every Article is important in some way. TaylorLTD 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]

  • It's really simple. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is already perfect. It claims that anyone can edit, and they can. Anonymous IPs can edit (as did the individual who first posted here). New user accounts can edit. Administrators can edit. I can edit, I'm doing so right now. The point is, anyone can edit. It doesn't say anyone can edit anything. If I said, "Anyone can eat", I'm not implying in the least that anyone can specifically eat the pizza that is being delivered here right now. The encyclopedia is free and anyone can edit at least some portion of it, so the statement is completely true. Useight 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Whether or not you can edit all articles is not stated in the slogan - it doesn't say you can edit all articles! It says anyone can edit the encyclopedia - which is ambiguous because it could mean one article is up for editing or none or all of them.Tourskin 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
We should probably say this two or three more times just to be safe. :D Atropos 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]


Hey guys, what say you to this idea: You know where it says the catagories up at the top? Howabout we make them into pictures instead, each representing the respective catagory, lie 2 rows of four, and 1 large one for "all portals", just to give the main page a little colour and make it more interesting at first glance. I know that it would prob make making the box its in a little larger, but I think it would be worth it, what do you think?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Try a Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. MP has had a recent redesign. ffm 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Icons would take up considerably more space than words. Also icons rely on semiotics for recognition which are not interpreted the same way by everyone. While words speak "volumes", at least to an english speaker. --Monotonehell 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
And what about the blind? ffm 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Well, text readers read the comments behind pictures so it wouldnt make the slightest difference to the blind, bar the fact that clicking the link would prob be easier if anything.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Improvement in main page

Can someone put a page improvement blog in because [http:] the star wars wiki has one and I think it improves the overall site.

Please only post your message once. I don't see any page improvement blog on the Star Wars wiki. There is a page improvement drive. Many wikiprojects on wikipedia's have their own page improvement drives and there are also some without a specific subject e.g. Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive but I doubt you'd find much support for mentioning any of these on the main page. For starters there is unlikely to be any agreement which Template:COTWs to choose and I suspect many will feel choosing one give undue focus to it. Secondly, our main page is predominantly for our readers, highlighting our wikipedia and our articles to them. We hope they will choose to edit, but it is not the focus of the main page; whereas the purpose of COTW by definition is on getting editors. There is no real reason to highlight our COTW to our readers. If editors are interested in COTW, there are a variety of ways they can stay informed. In any case, a change such as introducing a COTW to the main page will require extensive discussion and is not something that any admin should just add Nil Einne 11:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]


Coincidence that a featured Simpsons article coincides with the opening of the movie? 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]

100% Atropos 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
No coincidence. It was specifically requested for that reason. --- RockMFR 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Although the movie was already released in quite a number of countries before this date (not talking timezone differences here, check the article under release dates) Nil Einne 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't like this - it's not wikiadvertising. 03:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Right, if it were advertising, some of us would be getting paid. 17Drew 03:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Of course, in the past, some people have been paid to edit Wikipedia, not that I approve. --Dreaded Walrus t c 06:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
The foundation is sometimes paid when we edit wikipedia Wikipedia:Bounty board Nil Einne 17:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Raul, I expect my 10% of the kickback ;) --Monotonehell 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Please, won't someone think of the children?! MarphyBlack 05:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Hmmmmm..... --Howard the Duck 06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
¡Ay, caramba! -- 05:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
BTW,, I didn't know that movie is out today till you brought it up. Thanks for letting me know. -- 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]
That's what they pay us for. I said nothing. 17Drew 07:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[]

My God, a hurricane article! Is Wikipedia advancing the NOAA agenda? Is Wikipedia advertising hurricane protection equipment? Or worse yet: Does Wikipedia support hurricanes and all they have done in the history of humanity? ~end sarcasm 05:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[]

It's not the first hurricane TFA. Not even the second I'm pretty sure Nil Einne 06:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[]
It's Mexicocentrism, that's what it is! --Dreaded Walrus t c 06:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Rubbish, it's a clear case of cyclocentrism! --Monotonehell 06:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Followed by Sinocentrism, and then Anglocentrism! When will the Main Page ever be unbiased!!!??? 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[]
When we just show random FAs, ITNs, etc. --Howard the Duck 07:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Right, play right in to the Randocentric agenda...--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Nooooooooooooooo. lol --Howard the Duck 03:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]


Wow guys, so a bridge and an incident with the Taliban is up there but the Russian submarine story isn't? Even when the latter's importance is greater in both scientific and international interest than either of the two? I mean, I even remember a story about an old museum boat that burned down a few months ago being on the wikinews. Think about it: An old boat and bridge that an amazingly tiny percentage of the world care/know about vs. a controversial land-grab by a country with already shoddy relations with other world powers that is getting people all over the world in a fit. And if your delicious American bias still isn't sated enough: This is the White House's #1 short-term alarming issue. So do put it up there, it's ridiculous what does goes up and what doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC).)[]

ITN is not just links to news. There must be a corresponding article that goes along with it. See WP:ITN and its related pages for more info. --Howard the Duck 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[]
2007 Russian North Pole expedition - 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[]
You'd have to post this on WP:ITN/C. But the article is still rather short so unless something is added you won't see this at the Main Page on its condition right now (well, except for some notable exceptions...). And not to mention, is that even news? I last saw CNN a while ago and they didn't mention it. --Howard the Duck 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[]
It's certainly news (it's the NY Times top story in the international section), but there's not enough info in the article (and maybe not enough info available to write a real article) to add it to the main page. —METS501 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[]


Can anyone explain why there's something about an unusual fish species, usually a catfish, in the Did You Know? section so frequently? Is someone in the process of cataloging obscure fish species? It seems oddly disproportionate. Ninquerinquar 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Someone or a group of someones is interested in writing about unusual fish. Atropos 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Because Wikipedia is Fishocentric. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:37, July 31, 2007 (UTC)
Would you rather have lots of articles about the Eurovision Song Contest in DYK? —Cuiviénen 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]
It's pro-fish bias, that's what it is! When will Wikipedia stop promoting the piscine agenda? I'm outraged, etc., etc., foaming at the mouth.Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Ha! Thats funny, I was just about to ask the same question. It seems that I have been craving catfish because of this its like subliminal or something :o 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Actually, Raul654's being funded by the fishing industry.  ;-) 17Drew 23:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[]
Really ? I always thought he was an electrical engineer....  :-p --PFHLai 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
That's just what they want you to think. It's all part of the fish's cunning plan. Think about it: electrical equipment doesn't work under water. And with global warming, more and more of the planet will be under water, where only the fish will survive. They're taking over, I tell you! —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Will the TFA director turn TFA into Today's Fish-related Article soon ? As only fish will survive under water, we need to learn more about fish and hopefully survive along with them..... --PFHLai 06:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
......Kickbacks *rubs thumb and forefinger tips together* --Monotonehell 07:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Um, dolphins and whales are able to survive/live in water by coming up for oxygen every so often. They are not fish... Nil Einne 10:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Um, I wasn't serious. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 13:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Um, so Raul654 is indeed an electrical engineer, eh? --PFHLai 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Honestly, I haven't a clue what Raul654's occupation is. Fortunately, his occupation doesn't appear to be relevant to his TFA choices. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 01:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Um, it's not exactly a big secret :-P "I'm a PhD candidate in Electrical and computer engineering at the University of Delaware, whence I also got my bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering. I'm working under Guang Gao in CAPSL, as a small worker bee for the Cyclops64 project." from User:Raul654 Nil Einne 01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]

I wonder, has anyone compiled a list of topics that people have complained appear on the main page too often? --Dweller 11:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]

No but from memory; Indian, American, football (soccer to some), American sports, sports in general, Eurovision songs, cricket, pop culture, pokemon and now fish. This is perhaps 3% of the complaints... And I'm not talking about the complaints people have of something appearing at all Nil Einne 11:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Check with Kate (& Wannabe-Kate). Maybe there is a counter... :-) --PFHLai 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[]
See! It's happening again! And it's a catfish again. Ninquerinquar 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Ah! So it is... a couple more weeks of this and I will know everything about every kind of catfish ever. Maybe after they run out of catfish facts they will start on dogfish :P 16:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]
DYK entries can be self-nominations, so if someone is making a lot of quality articles about unusual fish and nominating them, then I think it's fine. We should celebrate our prolific fish editor! Leebo T/C 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Nintendocentrism? --Dreaded Walrus t c 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Puppy-centrism? Raul654 19:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]
D'awwww. Atropos 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Complainocentrism ? --PFHLai 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Does anyone want to give a catfish barnstar to User:MiltonT? (who appears to be the one who created all the fishy articles everyone's complaining about) Nil Einne 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[]

He goes to my university... hrm... Raul654 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Finally! Confirmation that I'm not hallucinating. His page does indicate that there have been 27 DYKs about catfish since April. Far be it from me to criticize anyone who's actually adding scholarly articles to Wikipedia. Sadly, if he includes ten thousand catfish species, it still won't counterbalance the references to Paris Hilton. I'd just like to call upon the graduate students of the world to kick in the occasional DYK on an insect or a marsupial. Ninquerinquar 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Don't hate on the catfish, they can be rather interesting indeed. ;) I suppose technically I am in the process of categorizing obscure catfishes, because if they weren't so obscure they would perhaps already have articles. If it makes you guys feel better, most of my articles are actually about catfish genera, of which there are only about 500, rather than catfish species, which number over 3000. Even I don't have enough time on my hands to think of doing all catfish species, but I have thrown in a few in the process of writing genera articles. I suppose it's funny that a student with too much time on his hands can change the face (or main page, as the case may be) of Wikipedia. MiltonT 15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Adding nn.wikipedia

Could one of the administrators please add Norwegian (Nynorsk) to the "In other languages" section on the Main page (

--Sigmundg 05:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[]

I suggest we wait a few more days. Currently, it went back down to 24,765 articles, below the minimum 25,000 required to be listed. It will probably fluctuate for the next day or two above and below the 25,000 mark before the rate of article creation exceeds the rate of page deletion. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Making of Main Page

who makes this Main page? Just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The Main Page is made up mostly of templates (Did you Know, Featured Article, In the News) which are edited by administrators. ShadowUltra 03:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[]

That's the basics, but there are ways the general public can get involved. The most direct is probably T:DYK/N, where any editor can put together the template to be used on Did you know at the next update, using suggestions from the pool at T:TDYK. Slightly less direct, candidates for In the news can be proposed and discussed on WP:ITN/C. Further down the chain, you can get involved in which pieces will become Featured Articles or Pictures at WP:FAC and WP:FPC respectively. Finally, you can just start writing articles. Timely pieces may end up on In the news, other solid pieces may end up on Did you know through the work of other editors, and the very best may get selected as Featured Articles. GeeJo (t)(c) • 10:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Oh thanks guys, I have always wondered who made it-- 02:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Mauna Loa photo

The photograph illustrating Mauna Loa is a bit blah. can't we have one of the more interesting ones from further down in the article? Totnesmartin 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[]

I agree. I like this one: Image:Aa channel flow from Mauna Loa.jpg. Jared (t)  00:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Too late now... That was yesterday's pic. -- 02:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]
You can still get it change for the TFA blurb. It won't change history but at least people visiting the TFA this month etc will see the new picture. Try Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 5, 2007 or perhaps contact Raul Nil Einne 11:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]


I usually see Holy Days listed here on the main page (major ones, anyway). As the Transfiguration is one of the 12 Great Feasts, and it is celebrated today by both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, should it not be listed here (compare the listing of a civic holiday)? I'm proposing adding it in.--C.Logan 09:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the suggestion. "Feast of the Transfiguration in Christianity" is now on MainPage. --PFHLai 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Pheonix Spacecraft launch

How comes this keeps dominating the news area? Last time i checked, it was just above the highway bridge accident. Now, it is just above 2007 foot-and-mouth. 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]

The Template:In the news section is order chronologically, not by importance. Phoenix launched 4 August, while the foot-and-mouth outbreak was confirmed 3 August and the I-35W bridge collapsed 1 August. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Also, we have a sharp, striking, public domain image of the rocket; the pictured news article is almost always placed at the top of the section to line up with the image, so that's one reason Phoenix is at the top. Laïka 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]
In response to the latter, often the picture is there long after the news item has gone. 09:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Yes, in reality the picture on top often lags behind the newest item due to the availability of pictures with compatible copyright licences. --Monotonehell 12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Just to clarify what others have already said, as far as I'm aware we follow the chronological order no matter what. If the blurb is moved down, so be it, it doesn't matter. We still keep the picture at the top for compatibility reasons. We do try to use the most recent picture when we have one. However as far as I'm aware, we've never kept a picture when the item is no longer on ITN. I think we've always managed to find something before it got that far. Nil Einne 13:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]

another bias

i'm sensing some galaxocentricism going on here. -Violask81976 21:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[]

I think the joke is just dead now. 17Drew 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I was going to remark on the spacecentricism but never got round to it. I don't think it's fair to call it galaxocentricism tho since a supernova isn't a galaxy :-P BTW, I believe it was a conincidence, no special request was put in for either that I've found unless Howcheng and/or Raul654 noticed one was scheduled and decided to schedule the other for fun Nil Einne 10:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Yea well it's just my style to jump in on a joke only after it's worn out and not funny anymore, so live with it :P. Just kidding, just kidding. ~~

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Violask81976 (talkcontribs)

With William T. Sherman on the main page, Wikipedia is once again showing its well documented anti-slavery bias. Raul654 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]

If you want, maybe you should give Robert E. Lee's article some attention. KyuuA4 07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
And this is a problem because... why? Thanks for making me laugh! Gscshoyru 13:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Pschaw, Raul where's the money in that? Let's get back to the real money spinners, like advertising fair trade coffee organisations on the main page! --Monotonehell 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Then you probably don't want to see what tomorrow's FA is... Raul654 20:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Oh good grief. Dragons flight 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]

....It begins :) Raul654 00:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Re recent troll

Hey guys, that could have been handled a little better. Now we have a troll who's been blocked and gone off with magnified conspiracy theories regarding Wikipedia. It would have been better to let their comments stand and answer them. They had a major misconception (which btw is discussed above in errors) that The Wide World Web equals "online". Simply pointing that out would probably have put an end it it. (perhaps ;) ) --Monotonehell 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Simple and quick research would gave him the answer. For example, Internet says all he need to know: Internet > www. Usenet is a example of posting online without using www. And so on.
I TRIED to say it to him, but while I was writting, the trolling was removed - two times!
There is a good answer for him, in his usertalk. But, come on, someone really believe he at least know how to go there? He will never see that. wildie·wilđ di¢e.wilł die 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]
There's a giant yellow box at the top when someone says something on your user talk. And he posted an unblock template there. He's been to his talk. He knows, now. Gscshoyru 13:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Oh, I believed only loged users could see that someone edited his talk, sorry.
Well, (s)he is there, (s)he can read your answer, Gscshoyru, and still think is right (if I understood what means "I think you're up to no good.") wildie·wilđ di¢e.wilł die 13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]
In theory it should be shown but Bug 9213 evidentally hasn't been fixed yet so it is possible the anon didn't receive information they had new messages (or it was there constantly). As someone pointed out tho, the anon used their talk page to request an unblock so it seems likely they would have read the numerous warnings and explainations. Indeed 63 referred to WP:CIVIL but this was only mentioned explicitly in the post where an explaination was given that there's a difference between the internet and the world wide web. Nil Einne 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't really agree. He/she was messaged before he/she was blocked multiple times with an explaination and also told to stop which was sufficient. Even if he/she didn't read the messages (which I somewhat doubt), people need to learn that free speech doesn't in fact mean that you can post something where ever and whenever they want without civility and following common sense rules & stuff like staying on topic. If the post had been more civil I agree it should have been left and an explaination given. Just because some people seem to think that when you tell people they're idiots or are otherwise rude they should still be nice and polite to you and enter into an discussion doesn't mean we have to follow. Personally I don't see any harm in removing such posts and blocking such people if they continue after explainations and warnings. Perhaps an editor should have just removed the last 2 lines and given an explaination but I'm certainly not going to disagree without anyone that just removed it. BTW, I wouldn't be so sure that anon was serious. Many people do have the misconception of course. But do note the wording was different from the wording referred to earlier. The one 63 was commenting on refers to the internet and the world wide web seperately so it's more obvious to people that there's a difference between the internet and the world wide web. It still easily possible people will be confused, but it wouldn't surprise me if 63 notice the comment in error reports and decided to have some fun. P.S. Someone removed the "posts online" now anyway :-P Nil Einne 18:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]
From the start I understood that s/he knew internet =/= www. S/he just fail to see that before www, you already could put something visible, public and durable via internet, someting you can call a "post", not a e-mail (not public) or chat (not durable), for example.
Also, s/he quoted a affirmation that wikipedia is as accurate than other encyclopedias, as if it was the same as saying wikipedia is accurate, period. It says just that both groups ("we" X "they") have about the same level of accuracy.
What I think is that both points of his/hers objections don't were well addressed in the replies, and maybe that's why s/he want to continue arguing.
But I also think that a small research would prevent this all. wildie·wilđ di¢e.wilł die 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Perhaps there's a bigger issue here. Of course we don't have time to deal with every misinformed troll brutalizing this talk page, but perhaps there is a legitimate motive to his/her agenda. Is there some kind of Wikipedia public relations program that could explain to these people that this whole project is a constant work in progress, a perpetual battle between truth and falsehood which we (for the time being at least) are winning? I usually can shrug off these naysayers, but what (s)he said kind of hurt me deep down inside. we're FAILING?? Man, that's rough...Antimatter---talk--- 04:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Incivility aside, the point that they were basically attacking Wikipedia on is a well documented and admitted point (that the nature of the beast introduces the possibility of inaccuracies). And the example they gave was a ignorance on their behalf. All we needed to do was point out that incivility is inappropriate, that their criticism is well known and not disputed, and that their example was false. Their entire post would be moot from that point on. Any carrying on after that would then be pure trolling and dealt with appropriately. But getting into a blanking war just supports their preconception that Wikipedia is more akin to that conservative fork where detractors are suppressed. --Monotonehell 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]


...ah, the wonderful irony... X.spasitel 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Indeed :). —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Britocentrism? :D --Howard the Duck 02:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
LOL! Britannica has been based in Chicago, US since the 1920s!! Jooler 11:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
True, but I think Howard means Britannica, rather than British. As a play on words. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Exactly what I came here to say :) It seems incredibly ironic. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Maybe Wikipedia is moving to Taiwan and having the Britannica article as TFA is part of the Father's Day celebration ??? :-) --PFHLai 03:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia calling Britannica Daddy? No way! -- 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Haha! Nearly rolled off my chair seeing today's FA. I hope Britannica returns the favour. ;) Classic... Spawn Man 04:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Did roll off my chair! disclaimer ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Ha! Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
The Britannica article on Wikipedia may be of interest.-gadfium 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Never thought I would see the day. Way to go WP. You just promoted one of the biggest competitors. DragonFire1024 07:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Not to mention that half of that article (3 paragraphs out of 6) is devoted to criticizing us. Raul654 12:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Ah, but it could be worse... Chris.B 08:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Those thinking that we are advertising them seem to have not read the end of the blurb:
Certain earlier editions of the Britannica have been criticised for inaccuracy, bias and unauthoritative contributors; the accuracy of the present edition has likewise been questioned, although such criticisms have been challenged by the Britannica's management.
That's rather amusing! violet/riga (t) 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

To be fair to them, the Britannica article on Wikipedia is actually fairly true. Gavin Scott 09:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Promoting a competitor really doesn't matter when Wikipedia isn't for profit. It's not like we're losing money by doing so. 17Drew 10:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia's goal is to provide free knowledge to the world in the form of an online encylopedia. Promoting Britannica or Citizendium does not deter us from that goal. One shouldn't see them as rivals. Our ultimate aim is the same though our methods differ. If anything, we should fed off each other. GizzaDiscuss © 10:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
It is indeed a sign of maturity and balance that we were able to do this. Congratulations to the contributors - I know how hard it is to make it to the front page. SteveBaker 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

This isn't exactly an error with the Main Page, and I did not want to report it as one, but the Banner of Poland (featured in the Did You Know section) is indeed a national symbol. The article says itself it is used in the nation's Presidential Jack and in its Coat of Arms. This leads me to wonder if Admins read the articles they select for the DYK section. I understand that Admins select from an extremely large volume of articles for the DYK section, but it is unfortunate that mistakes like this slip through. Notecardforfree 05:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Well, the final sentence of the article's lead provides that a banner of Poland is not mentioned in the current regulations on Polish national symbols, from which I infer that the banner is not a de jure national symbol at present; indeed, the Third Republic section of the article suggests that whilst the banner serves essentially as the Presidential Jack and significantly as the Coat of Arms, it (qua banner, rather than qua assemblage) it is not itself such a symbol (the article indicates that the jack is identical in its design to the former banner, rather than, for instance, the banner is the jack). It is quite possible that the Banner of Poland is nevertheless generally understood as a national symbol (it seems undisputed that it was a national symbol for some time), however we are to construe that term, and that the article's sources go toward the proposition that it is in effect a national symbol, but the text of the article does not seem plainly inconsistent with the DYK item. Joe 05:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

2 Million articles

Last time I checked (many months ago) we deleted one article for every three that were created. Dragons flight 09:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[]
On That day, can we put a little party-hat on the wikipedia logo? TaylorLTD 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Which sadly doesn't appear to be enough :-P Nil Einne 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

We probably won't hit 2 million for another 3 to 5 weeks. Raul654 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Fair use image on the main page?

I thought it was bad form to have fair use images on the front page. Was there discussion to make an exception today? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

I don't believe there was. The image should be removed. --Boricuaeddie 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I think it's acceptable when there isn't a non-fair-use image that can adequately replace it. In this case, there isn't. - 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
If I recall past discussions correctly, that is a reason to have the fair use image at all. It's not a valid reason to have a non-free image on the main page of a free encyclopedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
There is a cadre of like-minded editors who always remove fair-use images from the main page. There has never been consensus on this as far as I know, and there has historically been an exception for featured articles. Especially for featured articles about works of art. Frankly, it's ludicrous that we aren't illustrating a paragraph on a work of art with a picture of that work. Fair-use paranoia and cultism, however, seem to have a loyal (if small) following, and that's why these images get yanked. — Brian (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Yeah it sucks. Atropos 01:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Do you have an example of an exception? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
No, because as pointed out it,s been a while since the hawks have let one slip. Circeus 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

This is ridiculous. If an image is good enough to have on Wikipedia in the first place, it's good enough to be on the main page. Someone put it back please. -- Hongooi 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

If someone finds precedent for putting it back, I'll do it. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Is there precedent for taking it out? -- Hongooi 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Yes. Not consensus though. Atropos 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I should clarify. I am certain that the proponents of illustrating FA blurbs with tangentially related images and keeping the pope on the main page for a week and all of the other effects of this decision (for which every argument seems to have been based in principle opposition to fair use) believe they have consensus. I think people stopped fighting it after Jimbo agreed with them. Atropos 02:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
You seem to be confusing issues. As T-rex pointed out, there has AFAIK never been any precedent let alone consensus to include fair use images for ITN which is what I assume the Pope is about. The legality of FU for ITN is mostly highly questionable anyway. Indeed, I personally believe there is a consensus for excluding FU for ITN. For a time, we did allow FU for TFA although in all cases we did generally defer to a less illustrative but free image. The thing that has changed in the recent implementation is that perhaps we are willing to go more tangentially then we used to and that we don't allow an image even when there is no current replacement. Even then tho, there was always gripes from those who felt it was unacceptable and I don't think you can say there was a consensus for that practice either. Nil Einne 08:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Well, a look at this page should make it clear that there's no consensus supporting an absolute ban on fair use images in TFA either. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 08:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
There has to be a consensus for an exemption for TFA images in general, not one case where a majority of opinion is on one side. Because the policy baseline (no fair use outside of articles) is clear, and a consensus would be required to change that. Such policy changes have been proposed in the past, and they have not met with consensus at all.--Pharos 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Consensus can create a general exemption but not a specific exemption? I don't really see why. Haukur 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
The wording of the policy is clear, and it has always been understood in one way. That there are certain classes of use that are approved by consensus as exemptions, viz. Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. It was proposed in the past in add the TFA to one of those classes, and consensus did not support that. The policy is not about specific exceptions.--Pharos 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
You're still ignoring that the page you're quoting says "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus". We also did have a de facto exemption for the main page for years. It is true that you keep reverting it when it's added [2] [3] but I don't think that's any indication that consensus is on your side. Haukur 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Then why does Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions use the phrase "on a case-by-case basis"? Surely that's what specific exceptions are! —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Fair use has always been permitted for FA's on the main page (if no other image is avalible), while fair use has not been permitted for ITN or PotD --T-rex 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

The appropriate replacement image for this sort of thing would be a photograph of Bacon himself. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any published examples that have fallen out of copyright yet—a 1928 shot by Helmar Lerski in Berlin is the closest I could find. And nothing on Flickr, either. The route therefore would be to write to people who have been in contact with him, to ask them to donate an old photograph.--Pharos 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Fair use was allowed when it was the only choice for the main page FA for a long time. Then a few months ago Jimbo removed a fair use image saying to keep fair use off the main page, and since then that's been the precedent. As is my understanding. --W.marsh 04:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

As far as I know, fair use on the main page doesn't meet fair use laws, and that was why Jimbo intervened. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't believe the legality of the use of the images had anything to do with it. --- RockMFR 04:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
It didn't meet our philosophy (arguably)... but legality had nothing to do with it. It was perfectly legal. --W.marsh 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
FYI: This is the diff from User:Jimbo Wales. Though, there was a suitable replacement in that case.... Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
While not so much in this case, with other FAs the issue of legality does in fact arise since often the image is discussed tangentially or not at all in the FA blurb and therefore whether it fulfills all the legal requirements for FA in the US is somewhat debated. In this case though, I don't think the issue of legality does arise and it is more a philisophical & policy one Nil Einne 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

For the record, I think that this is a prime example of Wikipedia allowing the free-culture ideology to harm the mission of being an encyclopedia. Yes, Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia", and yes, both parts of that are important — but when you can't include an image of a painting in the summary of an article about that painting, it should be patently obvious that an image of that painting is worth including, whatever its copyright status. I came here to work on an encyclopedia which would be free (gratis) to anyone who wanted to use it. That it is also free (libre) is an added bonus; I'm not here to demolish the cultural and legal construct of copyright. I also live in a country in which the ability to use images under fair use in circumstances like this is uncontroversial; Wikimedia's servers are also located in that country. "Downstream users" who use the front page, if they exist, will almost certainly be using them in the same circumstances (therefore allowing the same legal justification). What exactly is the point of omitting this image? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

I think it anything omitting this image, and other similar images, especially from a front page article, somewhat hurts Wikipedia's reputation. It's a painting, there's no way to accurately express a painting except by showing it, just like there's no way to accurately describe music except to just listen to it, or to describe a movie except to watch it, etc. It's ludicrous to omit this image from the main page. Unfortunately, by the time this argument is over, the next article will probably have gone up already. bob rulz 06:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I've been bold and restored the image. I think this is my first invocation of WP:IAR ever, but here it is:
"If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it."
A Wikipedia on which the front page featured article on a painting has an image of that painting is better than a Wikipedia whose rules prevent it from using such an image. For the benefit of pedants, I've even written a separate fair use rationale for the main page. If reverted, I won't edit war, but I think this was an important point to make. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Ryulong has fixed the image so it only appears on the main page now, and not the dozens of userpages which transclude the featured article of the day. Now everybody say "thank you" to Ryulong. :-) Picaroon (t) 06:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Thank you, Ryulong! If I knew how to do that, I'd have done it myself — but I don't. So thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Bravo, Josiah Rowe, I completely agree with you. Not only is the "no fair use on the main page" promoting the free content ideology (which I do fully support) over being an encyclopedia (which I do not support), it really doesn't produce any tangible promotion of free content. Atropos 06:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
"Downstream users" do indeed exist; everyone who reads Wikipedia on a CD because they do not have reliable internet access is such a downstream user, and so far all of our distributions have not been able to include fair use images. In this situation, it would of course not be possible to provide a free image of the painting, but it certainly would be possible to provide a free photograph of the artist. The fact that such a photograph does not yet exist is a reflection of the easiness of what's "good enough for us", rather than looking ahead to use by others who cannot enjoy the legal protections of fair use, which is the whole point of free content.--Pharos 06:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
When and why would the main page (with this particular article highlighted) be included on a CD version of Wikipedia? Incidentally, someone has removed the image again. Let the insanity continue. — Brian (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Brian is correct. I wasn't questioning whether downstream users exist; I was questioning whether downstream users of the Main Page exist. I said I wouldn't revert, and I won't; however, I still believe that there is no discernible benefit in not having this image on the main page, and claiming otherwise is a form of copyright paranoia.
Incidentally, Francis Bacon is dead, and therefore the potential for a free photograph of him is dependent on the good will of photographers who took photographs of him while he was alive, or their heirs. Similarly, the potential for the painting itself to become free is dependent on the estate of Francis Bacon. Therefore, photographs of Francis Bacon are as likely, or as unlikely, to become free as the image of the painting itself, and have no greater claim to "potential freeness" than the image of the painting. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Bacon was a very well-known artist who died in 1992. There are certainly hundreds or thousands of people who've taken amateur photographs of him, and these photographs would be of negligible monetary value, and very likely to be released. On the other hand, their is a virtually nil chance that his estate would release any of the rights to his highly valuable paintings.--Pharos 07:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
And leaving TFA imageless because we're waiting for someone to contact one of these hundreds or thousands of people and get them to freely license an image is promoting Wikipedia's mission exactly how...? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
The fact is that the easiness of what's "good enough for us" has in this instance mitigated against a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. If we had prepared for a free photograph of Bacon, there would be almost no complaints, and our content would be significantly enriched. That is why the policy encourages the exemplification of our free content mission on the MainPage.--Pharos 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I'd like to repeat what I say below that I think its a few notches beyond rude to suggest that people working on featured articles are only going for "good enough" because they didn't spend who knows how long finding someone with a photograph of the painter through some unspecified means that would release the image with a free license. However, you have managed to divert the argument away from the fact that the main page has no "downstream users" and that the obvious best illustration for a blurb about the painting is the painting itself. Atropos 07:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Unsurprisingly, I agree with Atropos — and would add that the provision of a freely licensed photograph of Roger Bacon is extraordinarily tangential to the question of whether a tiny thumbnail of one of his paintings can appear on Wikipedia's main page for one day. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
A free photograph of Bacon would result in "almost no complaints"? I find this a completely unsupportable assertion, given that the article is about an artwork, not about Bacon himself. Again, if a picture of the work in question is good enough to be used in a Wikipedia featured article, I see absolutely no reason that it shouldn't be good enough to be on the front page. -- Hongooi 08:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Right now, this image is only on the Main Page and the featured article itself (I used the parser functions on my userpage to do so). I agree with Brian in that there is no way that downstream users would be affected by copyright anymore than the image being on the article itself. The Main Page is effectively in the article space and there is critical commentary on the image in the paragraph it is next to. By all means, that would allow for inclusion of this image in an encyclopedic context.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Additionally, there would be no more damage to the copyright on the image than its normal use in the featured article of the day itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Shame on those editors who put all that work into writing a featured article about this artwork slacking off and not pestering people who knew the artist to get them to release a free image of him for the benefit of CD releases! They're clearly just going for good enough. Atropos 07:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't know if it's so much about the editors of the article but all editors. This has been on TFA since August 3rd and FA since late May, we really should have looked into a suitable free image earlier. In any case, it won't surprise me if a free image of Bacon does result from this. At least we know that more effort has already gone into looking for one then has likely been extended before which surely is a good thing whatever your view and illustrates an advantage of our policy Nil Einne 08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I agree that the image should be used, if it is good enough to remain in the actual article, it should be good enough to remain on the main page as well. I also don't see how downstream users would be affected more by the image's use on the main page then in the article itself. We must come to a conclusion on this and this edit war needs to stop, it seems like the image goes up again every five minutes, only to be quickly removed once again. --Credema 07:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Also, as Ryulong pointed out, the paragraph talks about the details of the painting, making a picture of the painting on the main page important. --Credema 07:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
That is IMHO a fairly poor argument given that at the res and size it's shown [4], it's fairly difficult to actually discern anything more then what the paragraph actually says from the painting. Nil Einne 08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
But it would still allow people to see a lot more than what a picture of Bacon would allow. -- Hongooi 08:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Also, if the picture is on the main page, you can click on it to enlarge it. The fact that it would be a tiny thumbnail is irrelevant. bob rulz 08:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Idiotic - an article about a famous visual artwork with no visuals! Let's show the world the hights of shittypedia AdamSmithee 07:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Also, people keep talking about this "policy" that fair use pictures aren't allowed on the main page. I'd like to see where this policy actually is. -- Hongooi 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

I nominated the article, and believe me I have tried to find a free image. Most published pictures of Bacon are by major photographers, and I was not able to find one where I might have a chance of being granted permission to use in the article. The oldest picture I found that might be suitable was taken in 1928,[5] but the photographer is unknown. Ceoil 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Common sense should be used in this case, a fair use image is far better than no image at all. Dave101talk  08:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Sadly, common sense appears to be in short supply among anti-fair-use hardliners. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 08:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I appreciate that you have made a search, which isn't easy, and I wish I was able to help you with this earlier. I've just spent quite a while today searching for a free image, unfortunately with no luck. The best chance here would either be a very old photo, or a crown copyright photo from before 1957 (maybe from a government museum?). In future, it might be a good thing perhaps to have a featured article "free image request" process that could start after the FAC passes. I would be glad to work on something like that. Thanks.--Pharos 09:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Pharos, Hongooi makes a good point above: where exactly is the policy that says that fair use images are absolutely verboten in TFA? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 09:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions says that fair use images cannot be used outside of articles.--Pharos 09:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
And yet they are quite prominent on image description pages, are they not? Haukur 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
From above article:"Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." Would the image's inclusion be in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy? Dave101talk  09:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't think there is anything in the licensing policy saying that the image cannot be in the main page; in fact it states that copyrighted images can be used "[...] to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." --Zvika 10:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
However, see a (very long) discussion on this in this page, where apparently it was decided that consensus is against fair use images in the main page (a decision which I oppose). --Zvika 10:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I wonder would it be a streach to use this; its free, it was a major influence on the work, and it is discussed in the article. Ceoil 10:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I think use would be justified in terms of relevance; if an admin could make the change I would appreciate it. Ceoil 11:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Illustrating information about a work of art with a different work off art would be worse than no image, for the obvious reason that I, the anonymous passerby unfamiliar with Bacon's work, would assume that that was the work of art in question. Atropos 14:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Whether a relevant free image can be found for the main page should be part of WP:FAC discussion. I see no such mention at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion. A few people, including myself, have tried to improve Lee Smith (baseball) to featured article status but sans a free image, it hasn't even been nominated. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Free images are not part of the FA Criteria. Excessive use of FU can be an issue, and that was not the case for this candidacy. Suitability for main page is not a matter for FAC to decide. Ceoil 12:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Having no free image available for the main page should be a criteria to prevent this type of argument. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Not a criteria for getting Feature Article status, but perhaps a criteria for being put on the Main Page. The decision as to when/if a featured article gets put onto the Main Page has a bit of discretion involved. Perhaps we should defer Main Page inclusion until a suitable image is found. (In some cases, this may amount to an indefinite deferral.) -- 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, someone put the image back. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit for advocating the virtues of free media. If I'm wrong, then perhaps it's time for someone to start an encyclopedia. -Harmil 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

"Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopdia". Says so right up in the top-left of my screen right now. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
This is one of the rare cases in which the values of "free" and "encyclopedia" come into conflict, and we're forced to choose which mission we value more: promoting the free content movement, or providing a useful encyclopedia. Although I do support the former, if forced to choose between the two I'll always go for the latter. An article on Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion without an image of Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion is a deficient article. The TFA box is a brief version of an article. In this case, it provides sufficient commentary on the image to pass the threshold for inclusion under fair use in U.S. law. The only reason to exclude it is to make a political point about free content. I think, and it seems that others agree, that in this case doing that harms the encyclopedia. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Wknight, that comment was dogmatic and not helpful. It's also the encyclopedia anyone can edit - should you unprotect the main page? The main page is special, it's by far our most visible page... stuff like this makes us look bad. --W.marsh 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
If we were assured that the main page wouldn't be vandalized, yes we should unprotect it. (Of course we can't so we shouldn't). The visibility that you speak of is exactly why the image shouldn't be used. "The Free Encyclopedia" is in the logo on every screen but the first page into the site has a non-free image. That's what makes us look bad. It's not "Wikipedia - The Pretty Encyclopedia". —Wknight94 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Much as I admire a snappy catchphrase, this one isn't relevant. Nobody in claiming we ought to inculde this image to make the main page "pretty". What's proposed is that it be included to make the main page informative.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

This is dumb. We have the pic sitting in the article itself where tens of thousands are going to click through and view it. And the logic for keeping it off the main page is what? That hundreds of thousands will view it there? Is there some order of magnitude threshold for when an FU image becomes really dangerous? Either the pic should be removed from the main page and the article itself or it should be acceptable for both. I don't understand the supposed compromise. Marskell 14:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Call it kafkaesque bureaucracy...--cloviz 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Ew, that text link is horrible. Also, it's a bit unfortunate that One, though informed of this discussion, decided to participate in the image war without participating here. Atropos 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Although the text link is ugly, and the reasoning behind it bureaucratic and obscure, I'd still like to thank the editors who put the link on the TFA page for at least trying to find a compromise — that's a valuable and worthwhile part of consensus-building. Thank you for showing that you weren't ignoring the arguments on this page. (Of course, as Atropos points out, discussion is also part of consensus-building, and it would be great if One would join the debate here — but the gesture of compromise is still appreciated.)
That said, I still think there's no good reason not to have the image itself. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
In fact, I don't actually see the consensus here to keep the image off the page. Who's seriously arguing for it? I don't want to wheel war, but One needs to provide a rationale for two reverts. Marskell 14:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
The current setup is not acceptable, the image either needs to be on the page or not. Lets keep in mind there is no policy saying we can't put this image here, and that this is definitely a possible case for WP:IAR anyway. It is not a legal problem either, this being a clear case of fair use. Prodego talk 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

I say put the photo back on the main page. The explanatory text on Wikipedia:Main page image just makes me go 'huh?', I don't want to think what someone who's never heard of the free information movement will think. This is even weirder than not having a photo at all, because it draws attention to the strangeness of the situation. --Zvika 15:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

This is looking like a consensus in favor of having the image. Anyone care to do the honors? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 15:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure how much consensus counts when an edit summary like this is used by the person that used it. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Fair enough, but see also Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Also, it may be significant that in that case a freely licensed image was available; in this case, it is not and shows no prospects of being so in the future (until the copyright on the image expires). —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Here's why I approve of using the link -- it's a suitable settlement between including the image and not including the image. They call this a Condorcet winner, where the winner is neither of the choices but a synthesis of the two. I like using them to solve edit wars, and One made an excellent decision in coming up with it. MessedRocker (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

While I honestly think an overall prohibition on fair use TFA images is utterly absurd, I do applaud the attempt at compromise, something to often missing when these debates turn to "us vs them". That said, One really should have gotten involved in the discussion here. Also, I'd like to say that Wikipedia:Main page image is, with no disrespect intended, ridiculous. If our rules are broken, fix them or ignore them, don't find sloppy ways to get around them.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions states: "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." There is a clear consensus here for the image's inclusion, so I fail to see why it there is any need for a compromise. Dave101talk  16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I find this argument persuasive; there is a consensus here, and there is no conflict with the licensing policy. Therefore the image should remain. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Just over 7 hours to decide... violet/riga (t) 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Or 7 hours to edit war...--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 17:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

This is rather embarassing, LOL... revert war on the Main Page?! --Howard the Duck 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Jimbo has, in the past, removed images from the Main Page explicitly saying that fair use on the Main Page is unacceptable. Whether or not this is against the letter of some rule somewhere, this is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. J Milburn 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

In your opinion, perhaps. Obviously, there are quite a few people who disagree.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 17:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Something that isn't free = the spirit of the encyclopedia. Yeah, right. J Milburn 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Its also in "the spirit of the encyclopedia" to be comprehensive and informative. When those goals come into conflict, we discuss what should be done and decide upon a course of action, which is what happened here.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Wait, what are you saying is 'completely against the spirit of Wikipedia'? The Use of the Image? Or Jimbo pulling rank and removing the image against consensus? The way you phrased it is unclear.
It is my impression that this user believes that disagreeing with Jimbo is Against The Spirit of Wikipedia. Obviously, that's far from true. Atropos 00:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[]

I don't understand the case for omitting the image. If it is to make an ideological point to our readers shouldn't we then at least explain that point to them somewhere? The legal case for using the image on the main page is solid. The editorial case for it is overwhelming. I don't see a compelling ideological case against it. What are we trying to say? "Copyright law is so evil that it stops us from using the image here!" No, we're not trying to say that because it's not true. How about: "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia - which means it uses only free images!" No, that's not true either so that can't be what we're saying. Exactly what point are we trying to make and is that point actually getting across to anyone? Haukur 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

  • The arguments being made here are indeed very confused. Most people are just using the slogan "the free encyclopedia" as justification - but that's not what people who really understand this would say. We obviously do have some fair use in articles, and we always will... so the reason to keep it off the main page isn't simply because we don't use any fair use on the "free encyclopedia", we do use some. When that argument has failed they've said "Well but Jimbo decreed it", which might be a fallacy, especially considering there was (sort of) a free alternative that time. But it's easier to wheel war in defense of the philosophy, it's hard to overcome them, even though they don't have consensus. Also, there was never a consensus to actually stop using fair use on the main page FA... we did for years, then Jimbo made that one revert, and since then it's all been different. --W.marsh 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen. A main-page featured article about a painting, without the painting? Words cannot explain how ridiculous this is. As for "fair use" paranoia, if its ok to have the picture with the article, then its ok to put it on the main page. What's next? Is someone going to find some licensing problem with the beagle? 6SJ7 02:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[]

About consensus

User:Pharos reverted the change which I felt was supported by consensus on this page. His edit summary was "you're misreading it; there has to be a consensus to -change the policy on MainPage images- not a majority of opinion in a parrticular instance". I don't see that in the current wording of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions, which says "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." "Case-by-case basis" would seem to refer to exactly this sort of situation: in this case there was a consensus to keep the image. "Case-by-case" doesn't refer to broad categories of articles or namespaces — it means case-by-case. Policy is formed by practice; this is the sort of case which causes policies to be altered. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

The wording of the policy is clear, and it has always been understood in one way—that there are certain classes of use that are approved by consensus as exemptions, viz. Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. It was proposed in the past in add the TFA to one of those classes, and consensus did not support that. The policy is not about specific exceptions.--Pharos 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Then why does Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions say "on a case-by-case basis"? What is a "case-by-case basis" if not a framework allowing for specific exceptions? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
A "case-by-case basis" refers to the specifically exempted classes of Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions, as I explained. The wording of the policy has always been understood in this way—look at the talk page archives.--Pharos 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
That just doesn't make any sense. What your describing is the exact opposite of a "case-by-case basis".--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Each class or category is considered a case and each is decided on a case by case basis. While perhaps it should be re-worded, if you read the whole text carefully, it seems clear to me. All exemptions must be listed in the Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions and the implied intention is that we only consider classes for exemption, not distinct images Nil Einne 19:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
The Main Page FA was exempted for a long time, as I recall, and that was changed not through consensus, but through Jimbo's edit summary. I don't know where the page was pre-4/07 but I'm pretty sure this is the case. --W.marsh 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Yeah, this was the version for a very long time, listing templates transcluded to the main page as one of those case-by-case situations that had been agreed upon as an exemption. --W.marsh 18:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
This debate is fascinating -- I'm making popcorn! Zidel333 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Yes -- and also an eye-opener. On the one hand there is a wide consensus, and on the other hand there is a single, contextless sentence in an edit summary by Jimbo half a year ago. Sheesh. I need a wikibreak. --Zvika 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Last time the issue was debated, there was no consensus either way Nil Einne 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Um what? You're telling me we've reached consensus for the image in this instance when the discussion has only been going on for 18 hours with a several people opposed? Nil Einne 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

It's clear that this discussion will not end when we move to the next TFA, so I've (re-)started the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#TFA/Main Page exemption, revisited. Everyone is encouraged to chime in there. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

One way or another, we have to get the repeated reversion of this image away from the front page - no matter whether you are on the side of fair use - or against fair use, we should all be able to agree that repeatedly swapping the image in and out in this most prominent place is doing nothing for our reputation. I would ask that we simply grab the next FA from the queue - stick it up there right now and debate this whole sorry mess somewhere other than the front page. SteveBaker 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Brilliant. We'll just ditch it so. Are we now saying that any article on a contemporaty artwork is excluded from being considered for the front page. Ceoil 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
No - I'm actually in favor of fair-use where appropriate (and this was surely appropriate) - I just felt that we should not 'debate-by-revert-war' - and certainly not on the front page! Take a look at the German Wikipedia article on Andy Warhol. They couldn't find a free-use image of the campbells soup can - so they they took a photo of a couple of soup cans and used that to illustrate the article instead. The photo of the artist has him lurking in the background of a photo of Jimmy Carter - and the other picture is of a really poor statue of him. The entire article contains not one picture of his work. Pathetic - just pathetic! We have fair use laws for a reason - we should take advantage of them. SteveBaker 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Thanks Steve; I'd just assumed at the end of a long, lousy day. It was more than a revert war though, only admins can edit the template. Dissapointed that today had to be the test case. If Jimbo's every action is law, fine, but it should be enacted in the statutes, and not left hanging until a public humiliation. Ceoil 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
No need, given that there is only about 3 hours left and the edit warring appears to have died down, hopefully for good. There is currently no future scheduled articles which have fair use images Nil Einne 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

So, why is it a bad thing to use FU art on the main page? From what I've seen, the argument is that WP users might take that art and go do stuff with it, like put it on web pages or try to sell it or something. So if that's the argument, then why allow FU art on articles? Surely someone who's out looking for art to steal, and makes it to the main page of Wikipedia, is going to be able to get to the article page too... Another argument I've read is "Jimbo says so." I've looked at Jimbo's revert on the Scooby Doo article referenced above. What I haven't seen is a rationale from Jimbo as to why FU art is acceptable in articles, but not on the main page. So if appeals to Jimbo's authority are the argument, let's hear from the man himself - Jimbo, WHY can't we use FU stuff on the main page? The main page certainly looks drab without a Featured Article image, and if a fair use rationale can be made to include an image at all, then that same rationale would seem to extend to the main page. Applejuicefool 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

  • I hope I'm proven wrong, but with this precedent we probably never going to see FAs with FU-only images ever featured on the main page in future. - Mailer Diablo 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Free alternative

Since the issue of a fair-use image on the main page seems to be causing so much trouble, I've gone ahead and created a derivative work based on the painting in question: Image:Three studies interpretation.PNG. I've released this work into the public domain, and I propose that, as the only free image that resembles the painting in question in any way, it should accompany the blurb on the front page. Sure, it may lack some of the subtlety and power of the actual work, but it's free! -- Super Aardvark 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]

  • I realize this is probably a joke, but you can't release derivitive works into the public domain without the permission of whoever holds the rights to the work of which it's a derivative. --W.marsh 22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
some of the subtlety and power, eh. Its a nice joke though, Aardvark, I salute you. Ceoil 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Really? I mean, I know next to nothing about copyright law, but... did Andy Warhol need permission from Campbell's? And if not, surely he could have released his paintings into the public domain if he'd wanted. So, yes, you're right, it's a joke, but I'd also like to get clear about the copyright status of derivative works. -- Super Aardvark 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[]
I grinned, and then deleted this. Uploading an image to determine the boundaries of derivative work copyright is a bit point-ish, mitigated only by the wit involved. - BanyanTree 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Warhol's use of Campbell soup cans was almost certainly legitimate fair use. WilyD 13:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[]