Talk:Main Page/Archive 181

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 175 Archive 179 Archive 180 Archive 181 Archive 182 Archive 183 Archive 185

– Gaza conflict – does not need mentioning of Israel?

At this moment, MP says "Ongoing: ... – Gaza conflict –". That is too short, into being POV by omitting the word "Israel". Actually I am astounded that someone made the link label this way, intentionally. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Well of course it was intentional. It would have taken quite a few monkeys randomly hitting keyboards to produce those 12 characters and one space in that exact order. Jeesh, did you expect that these words wrote themselves? --Jayron32 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
User:Jayron32 is an admin. -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Your skills of observation are unparalleled. How do you do it? --Jayron32 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
It's very common for the mainstream name of a conflict to mention only the location, rather than the protagonists. Vietnam War came to mind immediately. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
You say by WP main page, Vietnam War is ongoing? -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
No. But Wikipedia uses common names, all over the place. The entries in the "Ongoing" list are often shortcuts for real article names. I think you may be seeing sloppiness in the choice of a shortcut, rather than POV. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
HiLo refers to Hanlon's razor, for the record. A useful link in this current discussion. A more useful one is WP:AGF. But I'm not sure the OP is really bothered in considering the good faith in others here. --Jayron32 23:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict) re HiLo48. 'mainstream name' you say? How is that WP:COMMONAME? (you are spinning). Common names is for titles. Not for wikilink labels. common names does not allow to omit half of the parties (well, maybe you can in Vietnam: N/S). My point again: "Israel" should be in that link. Bad WP presentation. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Not sure I get the logic here. Instead of referring to the "Iraq War", should we say "United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and Iraq War"? Formerip (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict) The problem DePiep, is not whether or not Israel should or should not be in the title. At this point, you have done your own cause a disservice. Let's just say, for the sake of argument (I have no idea if this is true or not, but I will accept it as true for the purpose of moving forward with the discussion) that you main purpose is to see that the word Israel gets added to the title. The second you accuse people, whom you have never met, and whose internal thought processes you have no access to, of deliberate bad faith, as you did in your initial post in this thread you have hurt your own cause. Once you tell people "you're bad people", they no longer want to help you solve your problem. Now, let's rewind time for a minute. Let's pretend you had written "I think the link to the Gaza Conflict should also include the name of the other country involved, being Israel" or something like that, and then didn't say anything else. Well, what would have happened is we would have had a civil discussion of the matter, you would have presented rational, well thought out reasons why we should do that, people would have understood and likely agreed with you, and we'd have likely already changed it. Instead, when you say something that amounts to "You have to change it or your all bigots!", then what happens is no one does what you want, because, frankly, you have no proof that anyone intentionally kept Israel out (that is, that people considered the notion of keeping the word Israel in the link, and then for bigoted reasons, worked to remove it or prevent it from being added, which is what you just accused everyone of doing). What THAT tactic caused to happen was a) I made fun of you by pretending to not understand what you were saying b) HiLo attempted to explain why you're belief was mistaken, leading to a side debate with him that ALSO doesn't advance your cause. So you see, here's a life lesson for you DePiep, that I hope you take forward. If your goal is to get others to do what you want them to do, don't first tell them they are bad people. That doesn't work. Instead, ask politely, and accuse no one of bad action, and be prepared to make your case in a rational way. That works all the time. What you did never works. --Jayron32 00:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
"The problem DePiep, is ..." you say. I say: what are you talking about? Are you the problem-defining monkey in here, number ∞+1? And about the phrase "you have hurt your own cause": only an arrogant admin could write that unsolicited beforehand judgement. -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Well, it seems that you truly are helping out your cause here, my good/not-arrogant sir! –HTD 01:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Thanks for pushing an invented cause onto me [todo: here a picture of where it goes]. Now what is your response to my actual OP? -DePiep (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
It actually makes sense. The article is at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. If we're following "normal" naming procedures in ITN's ongoing ticker, the <year> is usually omitted, and the rest of the article's name as it appears as the title is the one that's being used. –HTD 23:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[]
So, since you haven't hurt your cause, I assume that means people have helped you? Because I haven't seen that yet... --Jayron32 01:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Hanlon's razor is nice Jayron. I have heard and even used some of the sayings in that article. Didn't know there was a name for the collection. Thanks. And I wish I could read Vietnamese. I have read elsewhere that the Vietnamese call what we call the Vietnam War, the American War. (That obviously points to something else.) It would be nice to check. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
It would, wouldn't it? Looks like they don't, though. (Note there's a section in the article about naming, though). Formerip (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Round up. So far, these editors have responded: User:Jayron32 (admin), User:HiLo48, User:FormerIP, User:Howard the Duck. The admin went about monkeys, and the others did not even respond to the OP. I remind us that this is the talkpage of English wikipedia Main page. Is this how we maintain quality? -DePiep (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
    You seem to want to maintain quality by accusing others of antisemitism. Howsatgoinforya? --Jayron32 02:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
If by that post you are saying that I "did not even respond to the OP", I call bullshit. Stop wasting our time here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Yes, I meant to say that you went off topic. You did twice, actually. -DePiep (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
That was not the offence you described and upon which I challenged you. Let's try again. Are saying that I "did not even respond to the OP"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
As the original suggester of Gaza Conflict for the title of the ongoing link (discussed here), the single only reason for the name suggestion was to attempt to keep the main page free of the NPOV discussions that are rampant on the talk page (and its article) of the linked article. My suggestion was simply as generic and neutral name as possible and anyone clicking through to the article is immediately told further details. As you will see there were no objections raised during the 36+ hours the nomination was active for before its consensus was judged. This really was a good faith suggestion and there really is nothing sinister to read into it. CaptRik (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[]
What NPOV? The link is to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. What you defend, CaptRik, is exactly the point I question: leaving out "Israel" is making it POV. (Can happen, but this is the MP of enwiki. How strange that there are people still defending this half-a-fact, instead of correcting it). -DePiep (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[]
How is this more POV than Vietnam War or Korean War? The link is talking about the fact that this conflict is over the Gaza region, not an exhaustive list of the participants. Especially since Gaza is not a participant, various Palestinian groups are. As for the name of the page the link leads to, I would argue that it is incorrectly titled. --Khajidha (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[]
LOL, Khajidha. Both Korea and Vietnam were a N/S (as I said before), and they have ended. This it actual Israel-Palestine obviously, and Wikipedia should not take side (especially not on main page or by omitting one side). -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]
What does either of those points have to do with ANYTHING? There were many countries fighting in each of those wars, the names refer more to the location than the participants and whether something is finished or continuing doesn't affect what it is called. To use another example, it is called the Iraq War despite having been fought by numerous countries. Finally, as you point out, this is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Notice that neither nation is mentioned in the link, only the location of the conflict. However, it is becoming clear that you are not here to discuss rationally, so I will not respond to any further posts of yours. --Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Reading the OP could explain something. Why do you thing I wrote it? -DePiep (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Had to correct this evasive redirect too: [1]. -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[]
I request that the page (Main page) be edited to the effect that the "Ongoing" subsection link (now saying: 'Gaza conflict') mentions Israel, like: "current Israel–Gaza conflict". The target page is 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Sure. Just explain why you think that title is superior to the current link, and convince enough other people to support it through your powers of persuasion. --Jayron32 23:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[]
This obfuscating editor is not really objecting. I have made a proposal clearly. As for code changes, because of the protection & chained transclusions I can not make the actual code change. Of course, most MP involved editors know. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Jayron's behaviour is disgusting and deliberately obtuse. That he is a moderator scares me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:44, 3 August 2014‎
We don't have "moderators". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • If this is going to resolved by !voting, then I say leave it as it stands, per Khajidha and HiLo48's earlier comments (if not his latter.) If we need further discussion on the matter, wouldn't it be better served by moving it to ITN's talk page? Rhodesisland (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[]
No it was not. It was hidden, twice. I could search & show the edit diffs (of course), but that only proves my point. -DePiep (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I closed it again because there is still no consensus. At your current rate of winning over hearts and minds, I doubt we'll have consensus anytime before peace in the middle east. WinterWall (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Extended content
I can't find any evidence this discussion was ever hidden, can you show the diffs? The only thing I've found is that the edit protected template was quite correctly removed or marked as answered. As an experienced wikipedian who has told people to read the docs [2], I'm presuming you understand that this was the correct course of action as the docs for the template you've told people to read say and simply got confused when you twice reverted the correct removal or closure of the template.
For the benefit of those less experience with wikipedia, since the edit request clearly was not an uncontroversial change with clear cut consensus (as shown by the resulting discussion), the editprotected request shouldn't have been added in the first place. An unfortunate mistake, I'm sure DePiep will agree but it happens. This doesn't of course mean that there was no reason for discussion, simply that there was no need for an edit protect request since there was no basis to request an edit yet. When and if a consensus is reached, the template will be readded if necessary (it's possible an admin will get to it before a template is needed if it comes to that), again as the docs themselves say.
Now that we've got that out of the way, can I remind editors that although DePiep made some mistakes with the template, it doesn't mean the discussion itself should have been closed? Yes remove the template or mark it answered or whatever, but the discussion itself can continue. (Ultimately if no one further responds, the discussion will be archived some time in the future). Just treat the template as an unfortunate but minor corrected error. Of course, if DePiep was mistaken about the discussion being hidden then it's all good and we can carry on.
Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
It seems I was mistaken and actually DePiep thinks the way the template was handled is a big deal. I don't understand why but in any case, although not an admin, I'm making sure that the template is handled exactly in the manner proscribed in the docs. Someone else has already marked the template as answered=yes, in accordance with the docs. The only thing missing is:
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.
So yes, the template has now been handled exactly as the docs proscribe. May be not in the order described but I think we all agree it would be silly for me to mark the template as unanswered so I can then remark it as answered. And yes, I'm not an admin so I couldn't actually deal with the template if I did have to carry out the edits, but I'm pretty sure I've done this before and of course it's well accepted that even if it's something that may require an admin in some cases, it's fine for a non admin to carry it out in cases where they can, provided they do so in athe manner an admin wouldthe community expects.
Can we now get on with the discussion rather than this complete daft aside about the way the template was handled? The template which of course was irrelevant since it was an editprotected template, not an RFC or whatever, and only intended to alert an appropriate editor (admin in this case) that there was consensus or believed consensus for an edit (which there wasn't so the template shouldn't have been added, but I can understand DePiep may not have realised this when they initially started this discussion)?
BTW, it seems the template has been moved around at some stage, so it's not at the beginning of this discussion. Which is unfortunate since it makes it appear like DePiep added the template when it was already clear there was no consensus. I don't know who moved it and frankly I've already wasted enough time on this to find out (I WP:AGFed that there was a serious problem here but it seems there wasn't). I don't know if this is one of the things which is getting DePiep so annoyed, but IMO it's fine for DePiep to move it back to the beginning of the discussion so it's clear it wasn't added later.
Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Extended content
Okay um WT? I really should have left this be but I didn't so now I'm even more perplexed AFACT, the template was actually indeed added here [3] long after it was clear there was no consensus which is as I've said several times in several places, completely against the purpose of the template. The template didn't seem to exist before then [4]
The template was then hidden using the tlx template here [5] which was changed back in 1h 11 mins by DePiep [6]. The template was then marked as answered=yes due to a lack of consensus by Pigsonthewing [7], which as I've said is in accordance with what the docs for the template themselves proscribe. The answering wasn't signed and the only mentioned of why the template was marked as answered was in a hidden comment that part is perhaps not entirely within the recommendations. Later the answered=yes was removed by DePiep [8]. Stephen quickly reverted/readded the answered [9] without further comment only to be quickly reverted again by DePiep [10] (albeit without removing the no consensus hidden comment this time). WinterWall readded the answered=yes [11] with an explaination why and I added a template to ensure there could be no further complaints about not following the docs [12].
There are a bunch of edits I didn't check. Is there anything I've missed or does that pretty much sum it up?
If so, it seems I've AGFed way too much here. First, the template was added when it was obvious it should not have been since there was clearly no consensus for the proposed edit. A formal RFC or whatever could have been used if it was felt necessary. An edit protected template as I've so many times now, is only to inform the appropriate editors there's a simple edit (i.e. one that has or is presumed to have clear cut consensus and is clear how to carry out) so there was no reason to add an editprotected template when there was clearly no consensus. I presumed this was understood by DePiep given them being experience and the way they were was making a big deal about the template and reading the docs. (So it seemed they must have understood the basic purpose of the template and when it should be added.)
And is DePiep really making a big deal over the tlx for about 1h:11m being some major error (for a template which should never have been added).
Or is it the other edits? Yes Pigsonthewing and Stephen ideally should have left a reply explaining answered=yes (probably the template I used) and signed. But it seems clear DePiep is no newbie and must have read the hidden comments probably the first time they reverted. So they knew why the template was marked as answered. (Of course it should have been obvious even before the editprotect template was added that there was no consensus.) So still a minor thing at most.
Of course, rather than continually reverting, DePiep was welcome to leave a message explaining that the editprotected template was marked as answered=yes because there was clearly no consensus in accordance with Pingsonthewing, Stephen and frankly Jayron32 if they felt it that big a deal for whatever reason. There was no justification to revert the answered=yes since there was never any consensus and pretty much anyone with some wikipedia experience could figure that out, without having to even read the hidden comments.
(As I said before, I don't see there can be any fault with the way WinterWall handled things.)
I really don't know what more to say here. While yes, I'm mostly responsible for this length diversion, I'm also at a loss for words since I convinced myself when I joined it couldn't be as stupid as it looks, but it seems it is. I still don't understand why someone would tell people to read the docs, and then so blantly ignore them themselves which it seems to me is what DePiep did here. For that matter why make such a big deal about an irrelevant template they never should have added, which wasn't doing anything other than distracting from the actual proposal even before I came in?
Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Close I say. Mostly because even serious editors do not know how to use |answer=. -DePiep (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]

But why, when the Schadenfreude is so delicious... --Jayron32 03:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I and others knew from the start: you are not a sincere admin. Let the record show that I was the one who closed this. -DePiep (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]

... and let us open the more wider enwiki bad habit

Let's forget about this minor MainPage issue - how important could that be. Silly me. 1M hits per day? In this topic of Israel-Palestine, we better we take a look at our enwiki habit of naming all of these Israel-bombs-Gaza pages: List of Israeli attacks on the Gaza strip. -DePiep (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]

I really should have kept my promise and stayed well away from here. But since I didn't this is Talk:Main Page? "minor MainPage issue"s are one of the things this page is for. "wider enwiki bad habit" are not. Frankly as someone who is concerned about our tendency to just follow Israeli operation names for articles about stuff which are more than just the operation while I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve, I'm pretty sure whatever it is you aren't helping achieve it. (And as much as I may have over-AGFed in the past, I will still AGF that isn't your intention.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Stop suggesting I am the dick. Quite simple: if you don't know how to handle a WP-level template like {{editprotect}}, then don't touch it. (On topic, I'll remember that Jayron32). -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Personally, since I ensured it was closed in exact accordance to the template instructions, I have purposely ignored the above discussion and any comments on your talk page. When I came to the Talk:Main Page a few days ago to see if there was anything new, I risked checking out this new subtopic thinking that perhaps you were discussing something worthwhile. Instead you seemed to be forgetting this it Talk:Main Page not WP:VPP or something else so I pointed this out. Annoying but meh. I come back here a few days later to find more discussion about editprotected.
I don't get why you're still so worked up about the editprotected template which I long since correctly closed, but personally I don't want to talk about editprotected anymore and I have to wonder if anyone else does. Either way you can count this as another discussion I won't be back to. To be fair, I probably shouldn't have checked it out after my first edit but I thought you might have some explaination of why you were raising this issue here. Instead we get more crap about the template which was long ago correctly closed and which is completely unrelated to this subdiscussion and should really have stayed in the main discussion where it started, if anywhere.
To put it a different way, if you're going to start an offtopic subdiscussion, you could at least stay on the same offtopic subdiscussion rather than harping about boring old irrelevant stuff from the main discussion. (Okay I guess you could argue both would potentially belong at VPP or would fit under your current subject heading, but that's really pushing it.)
Extended content
BTW, to answer the question of why I'm here, I often check out Talk:Main Page in general although nowhere as much as I used to. I risked checking out here in particular not because I'm a masochist. The I-P area is one I care a fair bit about in general. But also an area I usually stay well away from both because I'm not sure I actually help the discussion but also because I tend to get quite annoyed about stuff relating to it so it's just not worth it.
Although I'm still somewhat confused about what you're trying to achieve, from what I do understand, my views in this area are probably far close to yours than to Jayron32 (even if not in the particular MP wording in question). So I was hoping I could be some use even if I didn't want to partake in the wider discussion. Instead I got an unfortunate reminder that there's probably a good reason articles in this area often seem so (IMO) biased. Since most those who would help correct that bias aren't very good at it.
I.E. there is a reason why I find this whole discussion so infruating and yet also why I kept checking it out and responded so thoroughly.
In case it's not clear, while I don't know if anyone considers you a 'dick', I don't. I do consider that you seem to be very good at missing the forest from the trees (yes pot kettle black) as evidenced by the major kerfuffle over the minor mishandling of the editprotected template which was easily and long since resolved and distracted from the more important point relating to the actual wording on ITN. And as me and others have said or hinted at, your discussion style or at least that shown here, seems far better at alienating people than winning them over.
Then of course you raise what if I understand it correctly, I do consider an important point, in a manner which pretty much ensures it will be ignored (completely wrong place and a subdiscussion where you've already done all the former to boot). And I'm not even sure you understand any of this even though people have tried to point it out to you. All in all, a lot I personally find sad for a variety of reasons. In any case I think I've finally said my fill & will go back to just hoping things somehow get better whether with the world or wikipedia.
Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Absences on the main page

Recently there has been an absence of the usual supects on the main page - 'a group of American themed articles and links', 'six links to articles on another theme' and 'something generating much sound and fury on the talk page.' Why is this? (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Same as when there appears to be a lot of them : Random clustering. (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[]
... and people might be on vacation (complaining about the food, the service, the prices there). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Distinguish between 'runs of displays and links on particular themes (whether or not US-related), and 'comments on the statistical fluke' on the talk page.

We are about due something on the main page that causes 'not in front of the children/not while I am having hot drink and biscuits at work'/'this annoys the library computer filters' discussions - the last was the smallpox one. (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[]

making change of language easier

I recommend, that important and nomerous spoken/read languages should be highlighted in a way to make the navigation in the language section much easier.

I for myself switch a lot between german and english. A lot of articles have *not* that much languages but ich have to search permanently in the big list for the desired langauge - and it is always on another place/space. Maybe for the registrated user there should be an small list where everybody can add 2, 3 languages for himself to have a fast and easy change.


This page is for discussion of content on the Main Page; this sounds like a question for the talk page of the language section or on the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[]
It's easy, just add inter-wiki links to your user pages, like mine Face-smile.svg. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Lauren Bacall

Can someone tell me why Lauren Bacall got moved from being a line item in ITN to being just a listed death. Was there a discussion somewhere about this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Yes. At WP:ITNC. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • (ec) ITNC, as usual for ITN discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Change Gaza conflict to Israel–Gaza conflict

I propose that we change the Gaza conflict link in the Ongoing Section to Israel–Gaza conflict instead. There's certainly nothing wrong with calling it "Gaza conflict", and it has the advantage of brevity, but using "Israel–Gaza conflict" would make it more consistent with the current events portal phrasing as well as matching the name of the linked article. I'd love to know what you guys think about this. WinterWall (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Adding seven characters would still keep the name within the realm of brevity, and would appease anyone alleging one-sidedness. Sound sensible to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]
There was an extremely long and unsurprisingly temperamental debate about this recently. The general consensus was that wars and conflicts are usually named after the place where they're fought, rather than the participants (Iraq War, not US-Iraq War; Falklands War, not UK-Argentina War). The ongoing section is already (over)long, and at least the current naming gives a reasonable symmetry - "Gaza conflict" alongside "Libyan conflict" and "Ukrainian unrest". Smurrayinchester 08:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Does anyone else get the impression that this is a campaign to assign blame?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Of course it is a campaign in assigning blame, if the people making these suggestions really wanted to include all of the participants they wouldn't be arguing for a title that leaves out one (hint: "Gaza" is not a participant, it is a location not a polity).--Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I don't know about that, I can see that it can be an issue on both sides.
It seems it's true some people feel the current title is unfair or POV I think because it doesn't reflect Israel's involvement in the conflict. At least I believe this was the suggestion in the previous discussion although it wasn't really explained (one of the most disappointing things about the previous discussion is how little discussion there actually was about the reasonings for name change, just the suggestion it was POV).
OTOH I'm sure there are others who feel the current title is unfair because it doesn't adequetly reflect the fact Israel is directly affected by the current conflict.
Personally, although generally more sympathetic to the Palestinian POV, I don't actually feel that there is any urgent need to add Israel to fairly reflect their involvement, or that adding it will somehow reflect any responsibility/blame on them. It's not like there's any confusion that Israel is involved. I'm actually much more sympthetic to the reverse, i.e. by excluding Israel we're not reflecting that they are affected.
But since most of the media accept that the conflict has affected Gaza much more than Israel, whoever is to blame, I don't feel it's a big deal.
Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[]
How inclusive the title is and which names to assign to the participants are two orthogonal issues. I, for one, would prefer the front page link to read "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and the linked article to be titled "2014 Israeli–Palestinian conflict" so you're categorically wrong in your assertion that "if the people making these suggestions really wanted to include all of the participants they wouldn't be arguing for a title that leaves out one". Not enough people share my POV to sway the consensus on the article talk page, and not enough people share my POV for me to suggest "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" here. That's why I'm compromising and settling for the lesser evil of "Israel–Gaza". WinterWall (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Please reread that discussion and notice that the vast majority of the responses (including my own) were directed at the temperamental OP (that is, the poster) instead of the topic itself. Only three people, HiLo48, Formerip, and Khajidha, brought up the location-of-conflict argument, and HiLo48 only brought it up to teach OP a lesson about AGF. Two posters among a dozen is hardly consensus. WinterWall (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Nasty old discussion aside, it boggles me why can't we use the article title, excluding the <year>, of course... –HTD 15:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[] list of Wikipedias

Hi, could the list of Wikipedias at the very bottom of be updated? Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia has passed 200k articles but it currently still sits in the "50k+" category. Thanks in advance. (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[]

I believe the standard answer is that a bot takes care of this. Give it time. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Looks like it's been done. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Since we are at it, the Armenian language Wikipedia has now over 130,000 articles, but doesn't even appear in the 50k+ category. werldwayd (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

On a separate point, if you think 50,000 is too low a threshold and just too many language Wikipedias will inundate the list on the front page, how about raising the threshold to 100k+ and list only those. Even in that case, Armenian Wikipedia would still qualify. werldwayd (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Actually the list doesn't show all wikipedias over a certain size. It only shows those which are over a certain size and seem to have a resonable proportion of non stub articles. See the FAQ Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#In what order are the other Wikipedias displayed? Where's my language?. So whether the Armenian wikipedia qualifies, I have no idea. (Because of the number of previous discussions relating to other things like the Armenian genocide, it's not easy to see if the Armenian wikipedia was ruled out before. It may be better to discuss this at Template talk:Wikipedia languages to avoid such confusion in the future.) BTW in case there's still any confusion, none of this (whether moving countries from one tier to another or adding them) is automatic/done by bots. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

ITN picture

Why was the picture of Mirzakhani taken down from ITN and replaced with Robin Williams? Where was the consensus or discussion for this?--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

The Mirzakhani image was deleted over at commons as a copyvio. See here for the small discussion at ERRORS. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Trafalgar High School

Trafalgar High School, established for non-whites in Cape Town, defiantly refused to move after its part of the city was declared "whites only"?

Using the word defiantly a little attention grabbing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Sources say it had large role fighting against the apartheid. Th4n3r (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I happened to see that particular item on the main page, and the adverb did indeed strike me as out of place. Then again, it's not a big deal... interesting fact and not a misleading blurb. So that's nice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[]

I do not believe the word “defiantly” should be used. A better word would be “refused” or something of that nature as the word defiantly sounds like something from a novel. This I believe is an online dictionary which should NOT be full of passion and flowery words but concise to the point and most importantly completely adjective regardless of the subject matter. This I have to say is sadly missing from Wikipedia. Why not leave my other posts and let others talk and debated rather than make a unilateral decision as there was nothing in my other posts that were in anyway offensive, it is after all a community. Isn’t it???????

Ferguson riots

Why do not we see Ferguson riots on the main page? Cencorship? (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Nobody cares? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]
It's being discussed here. CaptRik (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Regardless of your decision on this, I think the Chess Olympiad has certainly overstayed its run as main item. The championship was held 1–14 August 2014 and today its 21 August, seven days past the event. How is it still staying as our main choice amazes me. Actually nothing significant happened from 14 to now to overtake this chess item in Wikipedia? werldwayd (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

News items are placed in chronological order. There is no 'main choice'. If you would like to nominate more recent stories, or comment on which ones should be listed, please go to WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Heh. The German and French ITNs have this story. The English ITN, presumably the language in Ferguson, doesn't. How on earth. –HTD 15:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Well that's because we don't consider the level of coverage of a topic, or how good the article is or isn't, or how much it is in the news anywhere. The only thing that matters is "Is it happening in, or related to, the U.S. in any significant way" If the answer to that question is ever "yes", we're not allowed to post it. It's the unwritten rule of ITN. --Jayron32 03:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Where exactly was Robin Williams from, then? Or Lauren Bacall, for that matter. Neljack (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Let's just say it'll be much easier to post a 1993 Super Bowl championship from a Los Angeles NFL team to ITN than the 1992 Los Angeles riots. –HTD 13:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Being over 20 years old, I doubt either would meet ITN's 'newer than the current oldest item' criterion. Modest Genius talk 13:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Heh. I was going to make a St. Louis Rams example but they suck. A Los Angeles NFL team winning this season's Super Bowl, a sure ITN shoo-in, has a higher chance of happening than that from St. Louis. –HTD 14:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[]
You wrote 1993 Super Bowl, not 2015 Super Bowl. --anon. (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I was going to reference the 2015 Super Bowl, but the St. Louis Rams suck. So I used another example of an NFL team in a city where people rioted. I was implying that the 1993 Super Bowl would be easier to post to the English Wikipedia ITN now than the events in Ferguson because that's how bad ITN is. People have been ranting elsewhere that there are no ITN events, and Robin Williams stuck too long. Well, they skipped this one and they're still ranting. –HTD 20:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Ah, so you should have written Had Wikipedia existed in 1992 and a team from Los Angeles won the Super Bowl in 1993... But doesn't a blurb about the Super Bowl appear in ITN every year regardless of which teams played in it? --anon. (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I'm talking about now. Can you imagine how massive it would be if the result of any of the Super Bowls was overturned or vacated? It will be nuts. And yes, it doesn't make sense that the Super Bowl has a free pass while stories like this are shot down. –HTD 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[]
☉_☉ --anon. (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[]

I'm too surprised, this was one of the most discussed topics (along with Ukraine, Ebola and Gaza) in the news media in my country in the past week. I was even more surprised when I noticed the disapproving reaction of editors at WP:ITNC and then I found the article What is Ferguson doing on Europe's front pages? by The Economist. The US-centric or Euro-centric attitude plays its role I would say. The Ferguson sad story seems to be stale for WP:ITN now. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Considering the whole event has been a storm in a teacup, there's little wonder it wasn't posted here, and more of a negative for the other Wikipedias who posted it that let the bright lights of American media "outrage" blur their vision. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[]

ಠ_ಠ --anon. (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[]
The biggest problem with ITN is clearly simply the lack of variety - so much so that it's hard to be sure how it's biased, except "a few stories the regulars want to keep up there for half a month or more." Anyone want to start an AfD to get rid of it completely? It fails WP:NOTNEWS (obviously) and it's too depressing to keep arguing in circles about it. Wnt (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[]
The biggest problem really is how small that number of ITN regulars has become. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I agree completely, HiLo48. I participated in the discussions in the past but I was discouraged by the cumbersomeness of the process. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Azadi March & Inqilab March of Pakistan

Azadi March & Inqilab March of Pakistan both very important in the history of Politics of Pakistan must be added to the front page in Ongoing section Curent Events as both the events are very important from historical point of view of the country. Dr. Shahid Alam(Talk to Me) 19:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[]

WP:ITNC. --Th4n3r (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Get ready for some asscrack

According to Template:Did you know/Queue/4, the next DYK update is going to feature an image of a minor child's butt crack as they stoop over to take a dump. Surely nothing bad could possibly come from that wise decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[]

As the person who took that picture, I can assure the boy was not about to defecate. If you think he was, you have a dirtier mind than I. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --anon. (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • And it didn't happen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
This is an outrage! Nothing bad ever came from a butt crack. Let me rephrase that. Never mind. Anyway, it is such a nice article. Oh, and the hypocrisy (see #8)! I'm so sorry, Daniel. I know what you put into that article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, this is a fine article. There's a reason the image was removed, however: a lack of consensus for something so likely to be controversial. Also, the Signpost screw up is completely unrelated. Why even bring it up? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I don't see how a toddler's bum could be controversial. I didn't know the Signpost image was a screw-up. I already said why I brought it up. Anyway, I'm glad to see the article at DYK in the end. It is a good topic. The image being omitted is not the end of the world. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Yes, can somebody please explain, in clear terms, what's wrong with the image? This is a serious request. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
"Lack of consensus"? How do we know that. There was no discussion at WT:DYK over whether this was likely to be controversial, just how quickly it could be removed. Nor were other options, such as replacing the hook entirely while a discussion could be held pending later use, even considered. Process was short-circuited. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Where is the discussion about this going on? By my recollection the article was crotchless pants or something like that. This is ridiculous. We have a whorehouse as the most viewed DYK of all-time. How can this be worse than whorehouse?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
How it would have looked
  • The article was not in question. The image which accompanied it was. The brothel was run with its facade as the image. This would have been run with naked buttocks hanging out, had it gone through without the image being removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
And the problem with that is? HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Take a look at the image as it would have appeared and tell me with a straight face that "naked buttocks hanging out" is an accurate description. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Good question. We are talking about what, 8 x 8 pixels of butt? And it is not hanging out. It is just showing. For an encyclopedia that is not censored, that is a big act of censorship for something so small. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Robin Williams

Off the main page, no need to continue this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Why does Robin Williams' death get a headline, whereas other people who "recently die" do not, and are reserved in the "recent deaths" area at the bottom? JDiala (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]

The relevant decisions are made at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]
(ec) There was a consensus for a blurb at WP:ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]
JDiala - To translate, what you called a headline is what The Rambling Man described as a blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]
JDiala generally those at ITNC decide that based on the level of news coverage, attention, and other factors. Recent deaths is generally for posting the deaths of notable people, while a blurb is given to notable deaths(where the death itself is an event as opposed to just a famous person dying of old age or illness). 331dot (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[]
In Williams case the manor of death received significant attention far beyond simply the fact that he was dead.-- (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Well, it was big house, but I wouldn't go that far... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
This is English Wikipedia and it tends to prioritize topics from English speaking areas, including deaths of notable US actors. We posted the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman as a full blurb but we didn't post Paco de Lucia despite massive global coverage. You may call it systemic bias but it's quite logical and above all, it's a matter of consensus. Not a big deal. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Basically if you're an American and kill yourself, you'll get the full blurb. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Not if you're black and a cop kills you. :p –HTD 17:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Touché! --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Maybe, but it was 11 days ago. I'm just a little confused as to why news from 11 days ago is on the main page. That day and the next day, sure. It's not news any longer. Enigmamsg 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[]
If you're confused, please engage with the community at WP:ITN where this sort of thing is discussed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[]

As a layout, the juxtaposition of the picture to the blurb at the immediate left looks disjointed. Over the past several days it looks like Williams is either a) part of the Bank of America Settlement, b) victim of a Japanese landslide, or c) really good at chess. Also - what was the math woman's picture taken down and Williams' put back up? Not "celebrity" enough? That'll teach her!

No, her picture was deleted as it was considered a copyright violation. But why let the truth get in the way of a good cynical reaction? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[]

why is his death still up there? it's been over two weeks now, it's hardly 'news' anymore.

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.

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game

Wasn't this the featured article recently also? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Just today. It was on DYK back in 2007, shortly after the game happened. But this is the first time it has ever been TFA. --Jayron32 03:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Picture & story (mis)alignment

This could be a 'front page error' but i was just wondering if there is a reason that the 2014 Hiroshima landslides picture is not next to the related text in the 'In the News' section/? Instead it's next to text about the recent fighting between Israel and Hamas. The pic is at the top, while related text is right at the bottom of the column. Seems odd. Can the pic be captioned?

I'm using a tablet but viewing the desktop version. I'm presuming this is a technical shortoming or MOS issue, or I'd be commenting at 'Mainpage errors.'--220 of Borg 03:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]

FYI & FWIW, it appears just as you describe it in Firefox 31 on Windows XP on my 1024×768 monitor. --anon. (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]
This is one of the most asked questions on this talk page. It is entirely intentional, that is the way the community of Wikipedia handles the placement of images and text on the main page. Th4n3r (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]
But, not even a picture caption? :-o Is there a WP:MOS section or similar you can link me to?--220 of Borg 18:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]
This is in the FAQ here. Last discussion was in June, see Talk:Main Page/Archive 180#Images (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Also, if you read the items, you'll see the word (pictured) in parenthesis next to the item pictured. What that means is that is the item in the picture. Just to clarify. --Jayron32 20:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia Other Language Editions Problem

In Main Page following Wikipedia Editions are missing for 1000000+ articles section: Cebuano and Waray-Waray. Actually in List of Wikipedias statistics page, these two editions are clearly listed as having over one million articles. Administrators should kindly correct the information in the main page. I have read some studies on the foundation of Cebuano Language Wikipedia and used it in my thesis, really amazing that they have grown so fast.

Cebuano won't cut it as like more than 50% of the articles there are one-sentence stubs of insects and French communes. –HTD 12:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[]
The correct place to discuss this list is at Template talk:Wikipedialang. Modest Genius talk
Agreed, and perhaps this should be added to Talk:Main Page/HelpBox because this is not the first time that such requests have been made here instead. BencherliteTalk 12:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[]

"Dog Fart Rollercoaster"

So, a tiny triangle of a common sight in the streets of Japan has to be pulled out of DYK, but "Dog Fart Rollercoaster" is OK? Shouldn't we pull that, too, if we're don't want to lose the PG-13 rating? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Oh, and it goes on: "... takes riders past a statue of a defecat­ing dog and "gives new meaning to the phrase 'the wind in my face'"?" What makes this any different? Why does this hook get special treatment? Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I'm confused. Is a defecating dog offensive? HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
See the section above. Daniel is annoyed that File:Chinese boy with open rear pants closeup.jpg was pulled from DYK before it got to the main page. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
So am I. Do the conservatives who forced that removal care about Muslims being offended by images of Muhammad? HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I am neither a conservative nor a prude. I have no problem whatsoever with either of these articles being on the main page and I have no intention to propose the image in question be deleted or anything like that. I just don't think it should be used on the main page if there are other alternatives that do not involve an ass crack.
Daniel, I think you are taking this far to personally. It is not about you, I think you are fine person and I am well aware that you are one of the hardest working people at DYK. However, I believe that sometimes in the zeal to get something on to the main page people involved in the DYK process fail to think things through. As far as I am concerned the matter is resolved and I won't be responding to your various innuendos about me here and elsewhere. I apologize for your hurt feelings in this matter but I think this result is what is best for WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Couldn't this picture have been used instead?
Thanks for the compliment. I did not call you either a conservative or a prude—HiLo implied that.
As for alternatives, there was a picture of the pants unworn in the article (right) that could have been used instead. Why wasn't this considered? Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
We would only an alternative if there was something wrong with a kid's slightly exposed bum in a context where such a thing is perfectly normal. Is there something wrong with it? I hope we're not judging one culture's standards by those of another. HiLo48 (talk)
  • Daniel, as has been mentioned elsewhere there was very little time to decide what the 100% best course of action would have been. 15 minutes to MP when I got online, read the ping, and had to make a decision. I knew that once the article was there making a big change would have been much more controversial (especially moving the hook back to preps), and if it was left in the image slot there was a possibility that it could be pulled summarily (see the discussions cited below, as well as previous discussion related to File:Hermaphrodite genitalia restoration.jpg (NSFW)). I know how much people who write DYKs don't want their hooks pulled, and there was already a very nice image attached to another article, so I chose to switch the two's position in the queue. Very few other edits had to be made, and thus we didn't have to worry about DYK running late or accidentally running with the image (and thus possibly causing controversy). Had I had more time, I could probably have come up with switching to the image of the non-worn pants, or delaying the promotion of the one hook, but the world looks quite different with a 15 minute deadline. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]

The question should be, at this point, why there was very little time. There was time to have the discussion when the hook was awaiting review. It was reviewed without this issue being raised at that time. Someone else could have considered it when they went through all the promoted hooks to put a set together. They didn't. And yet suddenly with 15 minutes to go this becomes an issue.
It is disingenuous to argue that there was no time to get an alternate hook in to complete the set. There were other sets of hooks available that had been similarly vetted; one of them would have done. In the future, please think harder when you find yourself in the same situation. Perhaps we need to review our reviewing process Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Beeblebrox - You say you are not a prude, but would prefer something different from a toddler's bum. Why? This is a serious question. If your reason isn't prudishness, what is it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • How about "avoiding the weeks of moaning and groaning" that would come with running the image? That's usually a good one. After all, these days it takes very little to end up at ANI with such delightful section titles as "DYK taking a crap on the main page" (if someone mistook the image for a child defecating) or "DYK making asses of us all". Or am I the only one who remembers how quickly some of the controversial hooks run in the past have ended up at that wonderful fortress of sanity? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Writ: Holocaust, necrophilia, and murdered actress. All of these hooks were pulled summarily rather than reworked to avoid any possible issues. I should think that Daniel would have preferred that not happen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]
In my Australian vernacular, avoiding this image because some prudes might complain, with no valid policy to back them up, is weak and gutless. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • You'd be surprised how much I agree with you on a personal level (although I recognize what that makes me). On a professional level, however... let's just say I haven't forgotten Merkin, and that's why I believe we should try and have discussion beforehand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I remember that too. A bunch of conservative prudes wanting Wikipedia censored. Just like now. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]

The different with Merkin was that we discussed it long before the image was on the main page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]

  • A month, so that we had two weeks to build a consensus on what was clearly a controversial image. Even as little as a day would have been nice for the image that caused this current discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Perhaps. But no one at DYK started it, even though the hook was there for everyone to see. Silence gives assent, as the saying goes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Not even yourself, no. I started the Merkin discussion because I wanted to try and run the image. Proactive. Rather than just leaving it there and saying "it was in the queue (POTD has a queue, yes) for x time, you could have changed it". That would not have made me any less of a target of wrath, because relatively few check the queues - for any process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[]
In retrospect, perhaps I should have started it, although I think I know now how it would have gone. Had the second hook been chosen, the one that pointed out how the sight of exposed children's butts is "as much a sign of China as Chairman Mao's portrait over Tiananmen Square" (note to self: when back in Beijing, get picture of those two in the same frame), I would have insisted that it get the picture slot, and perhaps that would have forced a discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]

(Reset) Not conservative prudes - just people 'merking' a fuss because they want their WP browsing to be passerby-safe.

Could 'Pumpernickel bread feature on the main page (if appropriately developed)?

Perhaps there could be a 'red top main page as well as the ordinary one? (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Why would we want a tabloid version of the Main Page? Modest Genius talk 23:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[]
To take clicks away from BuzzFeed and Upworthy? Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I agree that it's more about squeamishness and caring what one's environment (boss, employee, spouse, teenage nephew, grandmother, and many other possible random passersby) might be thinking. HiLo, can't you acknowledge the difference between not wishing to be surprised like this and being a conservative prude? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[]
It's a matter of degrees. Nobody who is a conservative prude will admit to being one for the sake of being one. There's always a reason. Like the one you just mentioned. Doesn't change the end result, really. APL (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Perhaps not. I guess I just think it's better to have a discussion based on what people's qualms might be, and addressing them specifically, rather than shrugging them off based on a label that makes those who are (or might be) complaining look ridiculous. Personally, I'm very liberal regarding what should or shouldn't be posted/featured on the main page, but I still don't feel comfortable with this kind of narrow pigeonholing. It's not an incentive for a rational discussion. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I am always amazed at the number of alternative arguments that can be produced to explain behaviour that is so often more easily explained by prudishness. Chinese people obviously wouldn't be squeamish about the image I'm not. Who, exactly, are we pandering to? Which bit of our systemic bias? HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]
He's not going to acknowledge the difference because it goes against his agenda. What better way to get your way than to conjure up a boogeyman and claim "systemic bias" where none exists? (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Who is the "He" in that post? And to whom was it addressed? Indenting gives me no hint at all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]
A distinction should be made between 'text entries' and 'entries with images' on the Main Page (which are more likely to be spotted by the proverbial passer by mentioned above); and also 'entries which have a potential to offend' versus 'entries one does not wish to read while having a coffee break' while looking at WP's Main Page to learn about things one did know one did not know about.

'Reversing the polarity' - if nobody complains about the balance/over-emphasis on particular groups of articles/no topics cause complaints about 'not in front of the children, the passers by, people's sense of good taste etc' for a few weeks, is the Main Page working as it should? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Not necessarily. An absence of complaints could mean an absence of readers. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[]
I would imagine that most people go to (their language) Main Page, so there will be a fairly high rate of at least glancing at the main entries.

A distinction should be made between 'mild irritation (at perceived or actual) imbalance, the layout of In the news and similar' - the situation will change, but we want it done sooner, and 'annoyance about topics which cause discomfort or are considered bad taste' (taking into account the various groups likely to use WP and the contexts in which they operate.'

The vagaries of WP development and editing will account for part of the seeming imbalances - the question is how much latitude there should be in actively selecting those topics which can be expected to cause much discussion on this talk page. Whether there should be a means of presenting 'topics causing or likely to cause much debate' in a MPlike format should possibly be discussed elsewhere. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[]

MP talk page question

To answer the last two questions: yes, and yes. Now find something else to do, somewhere else! BencherliteTalk 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Why is it completely blank at the moment - or am I the first to look at it just after an archiving? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Because the bot made an error in the archiving process, which is supposed to leave at least 2 threads on this page at all times. I've opened a discussion at User talk:Σ/Archive/2014/September#Lowercase sigmabot III ignoring minthreadsleft. I did restore the content, but Jayron32 reverted me (although I notice they didn't add it back to the archive). Modest Genius talk 15:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[]
The discussion in question had played out. There was really no compelling reason to keep it going; it was right to be archived. 5 days with no comments is long enough. Doubly so when the item under debate hasn't been on the main page in almost a month. --Jayron32 15:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Whilst that is a good reason to close the old discussion, removing everything from this page clearly causes confusion. Modest Genius talk 17:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Was there a discussion that I removed which was still active? The whole "dogfart rollercoaster" was beyond stale (pun intended). --Jayron32 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[]
I had guessed a probable solution - and computers 'deciding to do what they are told even when it confuses the issue' are one reason why they will never totally take over. (Others involve them having plugs and us not, and the impact of lightning.) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[]
I've always believed that I would stop functioning if I was struck by lightning. Does that mean I'm a machine? APL (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[]
There are quite a few machines that are designed to continue functioning if they are struck by lightning. Does that mean they're human? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:23, 11 September 2014 (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.

'Vague complaint

As the bot was confused by people 'refraining from commenting' on the main page - there is 'a greenery-related' main article, 'a painting with greenery on it' and 'a bird sitting on greenery' (not forgetting the Mushroom Critters).

Following the previous discussion - could we have some lightning-related topics on the main page? (And someone look up on the Evil Overlord list about surge suppressors).

Computers, differential engines, and people do have different relations with electricity/lightning (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Joanna Yeates


This article is no longer on the main page. Discussions of the article should go on at Talk:Murder of Joanna Yeates. --Jayron32 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Why isn't there a photograph of Joanna Yeates on the main page? Would it be disrespectful? There is one on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ (talkcontribs)

It has to do with Wikipedia's internal rules for what content is permitted on the main page. As Wikipedia's goal is to produce freely licensed content, everything on the main page must meet that criteria. The image of Yeates that we have is a fair use photograph which is acceptable in the article as it is required to convey the complete view of Yeates as a person and the case surrounding her death. However that makes it invalid for use on the main page. Resolute 00:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]
It is a bloody stupid rule which was imposed by an individual who has no authority to do so. I still think we should abandon it. Modest Genius talk 11:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Well, WP:VPP is a better venue than here to discuss the matter. Make a proposal, and see where it goes. --Jayron32 11:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]
There was one last year which ended as No Consensus, which was ironic because there was never any consensus for introducing the ban either. Modest Genius talk 23:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[]

"Joanna Yeates (1985–2010) was a 25-year-old..."
"25-year-old" is redundant next to "(1985-2010)". Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]

I guess you can work it out from the dates. This is Paul (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]
She could have been 24 years of age. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]
She could have been 6 years of age. -LookingYourBest (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Actually no as 1985 was not a leap year. 24 or 25 are the only possibilities, 24 if she died before her 25th birthday in 2010.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Okay, enough. The blurb is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]
  • I don't agree that this article should be featured on the main page at all. (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[]
    Ok, thanks for your opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2014 (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.


If there was a point to this, which is doubtful, there isn't any longer. BencherliteTalk 09:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

The long-whiskered rice rat. Sca (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Why what? --Jayron32 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]
"It is a medium-sized rice rat distinguished by its very long vibrissae (whiskers)". I hope that answers your question. Smurrayinchester 14:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Why not have the article on the main page?

Or why are these creatures called rice rats? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Not to use this as a forum, but we did have an almost similar-looking featured article a few months ago. Are not-already-used FAs in biology running thin? Oh, and, up in the archive display-box, there are two links to Archive 180. -- Veggies (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Well, we have quite a few FAs left (User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad will give you a better breakdown by topic than the official list) but over 4 months between rice rats isn't too bad, surely - we have had 11 other animals/bird/insect articles in the meantime (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs), so that's a decent amount of variety IMHO FWIW (but as TFA dogsbody I would say that, wouldn't I?!). And to use this page as a forum while I'm here, I'd just inform/remind people of the existence of the TFA requests page where you can suggest TFAs or comment on existing proposals. In the absence of proposals (which are only put forward for on average 13 or 14 days per month) I have to choose the articles myself, so all help is welcome. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 17:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

I would request that User:Sca actually makes helpful contributions here. What does this post actually mean? Ongoing disruption like this never ends well. Posts like this will be removed without discussion, regardless of the author. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Go ahead, RM, censor me. Mir egal. Sca (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]
What are you talking about? What does your initial post mean? Why are you trying to waste so much of our time? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]
I thought I was the only one constantly infuriated by these ridiculous attempts at attention seeking. (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]
It seems to me he merely unsuccessfully tried to copy and paste something, like a picture, and was not trying to be unhelpful. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:30, 24 September 2014 (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.

Basque Wikipedia

Hi. I´ve seen an error in the section "Wikipedia languages" below Main Page: Basque Wikipedia has MORE than 200.000 articles, and not "more than 50.000". Best regards. Euskaldunaa (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

@Euskaldunaa:: The article count is not made by simply counting the number of unique article titles. Instead, the article count in the "Wikipedia languages" section is based on counting substantive articles, ignoring stubs, disambiguation pages and other very small articles with minimal content. --Jayron32 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Are you sure? I thought your criteria were only used to determine whether a language should appear at all and not in which range it should appear. See Template:Wikipedia languages. Basque (Euskara) currently shows 202057 at meta:List of Wikipedias. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]
See Wikipedia:What is an article?. To wit "But not all pages in the article namespace are considered to be articles; the most notable exceptions are: the Main Page; thousands of disambiguation pages, which are used to resolve naming conflicts; many millions of redirect pages, including soft redirects, which are used to re-route one page to another page; for wiki-statistical purposes, some extremely short and simple pages are not counted as articles. The criteria have varied over time." 202057 is the number of pages in the article space. Redirects, dabs, and short stubs (especially bot-generated stubs created en-masse as giant batches or as "placeholder" articles) are not counted for the purpose of statistics in determining the "size" of a Wikipedia edition. --Jayron32 01:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]
That doesn't mention how ranges are defined at Template:Wikipedia languages. Esperanto currently shows 202,225 and it was moved to "More than 200,000" last month.[13] I have posted to Template talk:Wikipedia languages#Basque passing 200000? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]
I'm not saying you're wrong, or that I am right. I am merely noting how I have read the discussion in the past where there has been a discrepancy between the number of pages in the article space, and the place on the list, it usually comes down to the difference between real "articles" and other items in the article space. I don't need to win here. Just explaining what I have seen. It can be moved if I am mistaken in my reading of how this all works. --Jayron32 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]
PrimeHunter is correct. We perform a qualitative assessment to determine whether a Wikipedia makes the list. We've never used it to determine its numerical placement (though I believe that the possibility was mentioned in passing at some point). If a Wikipedia is listed, its tier is based solely on its reported article count. —David Levy 00:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[]

But for example, Esperanto Wikipedia with 202.232 articles is in the list of Wikipedias with more than 200.000 articles, and today Basque Wikipedia has 202.217 articles and it´s in the list of Wikipedias with more than 100.000 articles, with only 15 articles less. For that reason I think that Basque Wikipedia would be in the list of Wikipedia with more than 200.000 articles. Best regards. Euskaldunaa (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]

As the 'WP language page count' discussion occurs regularly, could a note on it be inculded in the 'Questions... Submitting...' box?

As a new main page talk page running topic (especially when the bot eats it) - articles people would like to see developed to main page status. (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]

In view of the bird - bio-duck? (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Putting the link to Template talk:Wikipedia languages was suggested recently as well. I've added it to Talk:Main Page/HelpBox, though it's unbalanced the box a bit. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]
How can something have more than 200,000 but not more than 50,000?Correctron (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Please reread the discussion above. The 200000 number is the number of pages in the main space, not all of which are substantive articles. --Jayron32 10:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[]
That is very misleading. How can one article and three entries redirecting to it be counted as four articles? At minimum, the easily automated exclusions should be applied. (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Redirects are automatically excluded. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[]

WP Main Page creative misdirection-fest

Has a discussion group been set up for 1 April 2015 yet?

Should there be themed main pages on occasion (apart from some of the In the News entries) - eg Julia (disambiguation)?

(Allowing the archive bot to operate - and as nobody has commented on the Main Page in a few days, #something needs to be done about it#.) (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Please redirect your suggestions for the next April Fool's Day to Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page and its subpages. That generally is the only annual themed main page that has current de jure consensus (and even that regularly generates complaints). There however seems to be de facto consensus during certain worldwide holidays and events: although each Main Page section acts independently, they all frequently schedule, for example, Christmas-related articles and features on 25 December. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Update in the News

The ISIL link goes to the September 2014 section when it should direct to the October 2014 section. Stuart98 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Because this is an ongoing event, "September 2014" should be replaced with "{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}" in Template:In the news. -- (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Have updated to October. In future, these kind of reports will be more swiftly dealt with at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[]


Mucho Macho Man, Madeline Montalban and now Meerkat Manor. I think I see a pattern developing in Today's Featured Article :) Kudos @Bencherlite, it's just a shame Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm isn't yet at featured status! the wub "?!" 10:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Sometimes society says selecting seems straightforward, so... Some sporadic surprises show "supposed simplicity" = "somewhat special" (says someone showing-off!) BencherliteTalk 11:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Ah, an amazing alliteration and an astonishing article agenda! All aspiring artists are awestruck, and aren't above actually acting as an applauding audience! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Is this an attempt to meet the IP's request in the previous section? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Loved this! Thanks for the word-artistry, gang! I needed that! Rhodesisland (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[]
  • systemic bias against non-nasal consonants! I demand we introduce more alliterations with sibilants and fricatives to counter this clear bias! --Jayron32 14:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Not exactly a clever move to reveal something three weeks before. Sure some people just read the articles and not the userspace, but to the ones with the wandering eye it ruins the illusion. GamerPro64 01:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Someone is just going through the "M"s at Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Scheduling is rather more complicated than that... BencherliteTalk 09:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[]
It was a joke. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[]
What about 'competitive mainpaging bingo'? Take any ten FAs, and see how soon you can get one to appear on the main page. What are the multipliers for 'ordinary articles' and those with 'take care of and improve' requests of various kinds? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[]
OK! You're on. Bet I win, though... BencherliteTalk 09:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Now Mettaloid and Mom & Me & Mom...I sense a conspiracy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[]
As an 'ordinary' article in the sequence Marrella - the creature (can someone put in the correct direct). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Not a featured article. BencherliteTalk 09:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[]
So get more 'points' on the 'bingo card' for getting it to FA status see an earlier comment of mine). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Excellent. So nobody noticed that POTD joined in this "mania". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[]
    • We have pictures on the main page? Wow. If only there was a "page down" key on my computer, I might be able to see them... BencherliteTalk 05:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[]

More games: WP Bingo - people get a list of 10 articles (general or on a theme) and the first to improve them all significantly and/or gets one to FA status 'wins'. What would the WP variant of Statues (game) look like? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[]

On this day...

Dear Wikipedia, on this day in 1492 Christopher Columbus discovered America. SamEV (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Nah, Leif Erikson did it first. Th4n3r (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[]
I suspect, in fact, that neither were first, as various others were there already. But thanks for the input. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 09:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[]

I spy

... with my little eye, a would be featured article beginning with A.

What should it be?

(Continuing a recent discussion) (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Main page image vandalism

Moved from WP:ERRORS

IMAGE VANDALISM: picture has been swapped for hardcore pornography — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[]

The image was fixed and has been protected so it does not happen again. GB fan 00:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[]
I already sent a message to the vandal in question after the fact. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[]
How does this even happen? I'm guessing standard TFA protection process was not followed. - hahnchen 00:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[]
It seems to have been an oversight, unless that isn't actually a policy. In which case, maybe that should become a policy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Note that there have been similar incidents using the same methodology at Jennifer Lawrence (the one complaining most vocally about "The Fappening" hacking of her photos). There seems a fair chance they're connected, especially if the photo used - which I couldn't see from the history - happened to be one of those. There are certain people who post at Wikipediocracy with both an anti-porn and anti-Wikimedia Commons agenda, who have tried to push for internal changes to damage Commons autonomy, and this might be very appealing to them. Wnt (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[]

I have moved this from WP:ERRORS because this is a potentially ongoing problem. "Standard TFA protection process" is - and has been for some years - to rely on an adminbot at Commons to protect our TFA and other main page images (with the exception of ITN where images are added manually). When the Commons process fails, no warning bells sound here and there is a loophole for vandals to exploit. I have called for a back-up system here in the past, but to no avail. Hopefully this will spur someone into action. I will leave a(nother) message at WP:BOTREQ and if anyone can think of a likely adminbot operator please ask them as well BencherliteTalk 05:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 62#Main page image vandalism - adminbot request. BencherliteTalk 05:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Need to do it manually then. Images are tagged with "Image not protected as intended." Todays featured image seems to allow uploads at commons. [15]. Recent image thefts have been uploaded at other articles an I imagine the Main Page would be likely target when the articles are locked down. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[]

User:David Levy, is this the kind of situation you have in mind every time someone fouls up the protection of images in ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Yes, it is. But it's an even better illustration of why we shouldn't rely on the automated Commons protection as a first-line measure. It was created as a safety net (for when local protection is accidentally missed), but it wasn't long before the English Wikipedia community began to perceive it as a routine substitute. The bot has malfunctioned on multiple occasions, and I keep warning that it might happen again, but few editors seem to care until it actually does (which sometimes goes unnoticed until something like "hardcore pornography" appears on the main page). —David Levy 04:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[]
  • FWiW, I'm a Commons admin. Not a particularly active one (I mainly deal with OTRS issues and blatant copyvios, but I check my watchlist regularly). I'd be happy to protect any images that were scheduled to be used on the main page (I've been known to do so at DYK), but somebody would have tell me which images they want protected. Which I guess bring us back to "how do we know if the image hasn't been protected", but the offer's there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[]
    • Thanks, HJ Mitchell. Do you have any bot experience? BencherliteTalk 07:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[]
      • Alas not, Bencherlite. Although, thinking about it, User:DYKUpdateBot manages to check whether DYK images are protected on Commons (and reports an error if the image isn't protected), so somebody who knew what they were doing shouldn't have any trouble coding something similar for TFA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[]
    • As a fellow Commons admin, I'll note that reliance on Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en (and the mistaken belief that this has become the sole accepted method of protecting main page images) has led other Commons admins to unilaterally unprotect images. I've encountered this more than once. It's particularly frustrating when such an individual has a limited understanding of English (and nonetheless chooses to intervene in matters concerning the English Wikipedia). —David Levy 04:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Number of Users

A discussion about "users" vs "active users" across different languages belongs elsewhere, perhaps at Meta, but certainly not at this talk page. BencherliteTalk 17:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Anyone care to work out the relationship between 'number of users' and 'number of active users' statistically? (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Special:Statistics currently says:
Registered users 22,840,653
Active registered users (list of members)
(Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days) 130,767
Are you simply looking for 22,840,653 / 130,767 = 174.7 ? PrimeHunter (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Continuing the thread = how does it vary between languages? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main Page bias

Funny. Or not. But certainly not helpful in any shape or form. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Once again we have to endure the sickening Himalayan bias on Wikipedia. First Tintin in Tibet and now the 2014 Nepal snowstorm disaster. I guess most of you haven't heard of a little country called The United States of America. Dr. Blofeld would surely agree with my point. Whatever that is. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Terrible isn't it!!! Yeti tomorrow, what, next bearded yak racing? This bias is damaging our reputation!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Hmmm, can't seem to find the latest round of the yak racing world championships on Sky Sports. Time to send another email... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Many of the victims are/were Caucasian... –HTD 15:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[]

I've hatted this and removed this and been reverted twice by Freshacconci. This thread is completely inappropriate for this talk page. Firstly, it's in extremely poor taste to joke about a disaster in which at least 39 people died. Secondly, this talk page is for "discussing the organization and layout of the main page". Hosting joke threads is not something this talk page is for. Would someone else please care to remove, or collapse, this thread? Thanks, BencherliteTalk 17:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Sense of humour for Bencherlite, please. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Say something funny, then I'll laugh. If you want me to laugh about dead mountaineers, though, I won't. BencherliteTalk 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[]
You need to log off the internet. Seriously. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Taste aside, this seems like the 14,000th iteration of the "oh look at the X bias" joke, so even those with a sense of humor are allowed to be bored by it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did something change?

Has something changed recently on the main page? I just spotted an extra line of text at the top and bottom of it. The top, immediately underneath the "Main Page" / "Talk" tabs, I see:

Jump to: navigation, search

And the bottom, below "Complete list of Wikipedias" I see:

Retrieved from ""

Is this new? Or perhaps I've just never noticed it before. Nothing's showing in the edit history but perhaps there's a template change or something? Organics talk 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Well, they're gone now. Nevermind I guess. Organics talk 08:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[]
  • I see "Jump to: navigation, search" occasionally on random pages ... Have done for ages -- I think it's a long-standing small glitch somewhere. (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[]
I haven't seen it rendered but this is in the html source of the pages I checked:

<div id="jump-to-nav" class="mw-jump"> Jump to: <a href="#mw-navigation">navigation</a>, <a href="#p-search">search</a> </div>

Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes has a "jump-to-nav" entry saying "Links to jump to the navigation or the search bar, mainly for screen readers." I don't know whether it's supposed to be hidden in normal browsers but sometimes breaks through. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[]
@Organics and PrimeHunter: This line has been present (and also hidden) on every page for as long as I recall (over five years). There used to be a setting at Preferences → Appearance called 'Enable "jump to" accessibility links'; it was disabled by default, but if enabled, the "Jump to: navigation, search" line was always visible. The setting was removed either late 2013 or early 2014, and the default setup is still to have it hidden for all users, but you can temporarily reveal it (in Firefox under Windows, at least) by clicking on the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" just below the main heading for the page, and press Tab ↹. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[]

What happened, a bug?

Every thing is in French now i.e. Modification de Talk:Main Page (nouvelle section) Peter Horn User talk 18:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[]

You can choose your interface language in your special:preferences settings. You can also change the interface language temporarily by appending ?uselang=xx to the URL (where xx is the iso code for the language you want, e.g. en for English, fr for French, cy for Welsh, etc) or &uselang=xx if the URL already contains a question mark.

Intermittent series of Cs at TFA

It seems are in the middle of another run of articles at TFA connected to a single letter, this time C. On October 13, we had my TFA nomination, Capitol Loop. That was followed by Colorado River the next day. October 17 was Frédéric Chopin, the 18th was Battle of Caishi, the 20th was James Chadwick, yesterday was Chorioactis and today is Conte di Cavour-class battleships. On the 26th, we get Byzantine civil war of 1341–47, and on November 6, we will see Hurricane Claudette. If we include Ks (which share their pronunciation with a hard C), we can add Tropical Storm Kiko on the 15th and Katy Perry on the 25th. Imzadi 1979  21:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[]

No we're not, and I should know. BencherliteTalk 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Can't complain... clearly, crazy coincides can occur. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Would this be a good place to mention that, even in simple exercises of chance such as flipping a non-biased coin, the odds of chance in a long coin-flipping sequence favour the occasional long run of heads or tails? "Perfect" alteration is actually the aberration. - Tenebris 08:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

minecraft stuff

about minecraft stuff like, how to play minecraft. crafting, mining, that kind of stuff

See Minecraft. --Jayron32 03:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[]
There are also 'several' Minecraft-themed wikis (and also for many other interests) if you look them up. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Indeed, they have a pretty good Wiki for minecraft stuff...--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Should more be done to promote 'the themed wikis' parts of the Wikiverse? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Not unless they're Wikimedia projects. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[]

"Parliament" vs "the Parliament Buildings"

I haven't heard that he entered the House of Commons, which would be the meaning of "Parliament" by itself, not in its antechambers; I hadn't heard that he'd made it past the doors; not sure where exactly it was but sounds like in the long hallway near the Library of Parliament; so "in the Parliament Buildings" (in the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings, technically). I know compression is needed in headline summaries, but "and shots are fired in Parliament" should be "and shots are fired in the Parliament Buildings". Or leave out the "the" headline style if you must "and shots are fired in Parliament Building(s).Skookum1 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Comments about ITN blurbs should be addressed at WP:ITNC or WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[]

On this day... Forbidden City in Beijing 1420

1420 – Beijing was officially designated the capital of the Ming Dynasty on the same year that the Forbidden City (pictured), the seat of government, was completed.

Since when has a year become a physical object in order for the action to have occurred "on" rather than in the same year? (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Clearly it is a leftover from an earlier edit along the lines of "on [day, month]". When the edit shifted only to year, "on" somehow remained instead of switching to "in" or "during". In any case, the matter is moot now, as the item in question has moved off the front page. Incidentally, "on" is clearly not solely limited to physical objects. Before resorting to sarcasm, make sure your blade is not double-edged. - Tenebris 01:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Who said it was sarcasm. Never assume something that is not there; why create a situation. Maybe, it might have been clearly appropriate if followed by !!!!!!!! or ???????? But it did not. (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Today is Jonas Salk's 100th birthday.

He invented the Polio vaccine, among other things. Don't we want to say anything about this on the Main Page? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[]

You would need to address your concerns to the appropriate section; likely On This Day; please review WP:OTD. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Did you send him a card? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Google has a cartoon.
It really annoys me when phrasing like "100th birthday" is used for people who are dead. Google uses it; I hope Wikipedia isn't going to start. (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[]
With over 100k edits, I would have hoped that User:Ssilvers would understand how items are selected for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Wow. I understand that you're not a helpful person. You certainly have made me sorry that I spent a moment to volunteer this information to the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Wow. Complaining about items that aren't on the main page belongs in the relevant sections for discussion on the main page. You should understand that by now. I am certainly convinced that you are genuinely not sorry that you spent a moment to volunteer information to the project, stop being so hysterical. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[]

A mention of Ali Maow Maalin might be relevant - a peculiar conjunction. (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[]

And it would not be his birthday that is 100 but the 100th year anniversary of, so all those "one year old birthday" celebrations would either be ?.

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Halloween 2014

Nice to see the selection for the main article this year. While not a brow raiser as 2011's choice, it does show how truth is stranger than fiction. GamerPro64 03:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Those of you with very long memories...

...might even be able to recall that today's TFA, Gough Whitlam, previously appeared as the TFA on 25th March 2004, thus making it one of the very few articles to have appeared twice. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article oddities and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Gough Whitlam. BencherliteTalk 01:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]

One for when he was alive, one for just after he died...CONSPIRACY!--Somchai Sun (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Remembrance Day

That's an odd holiday to be left off of "On this Day". Way to go...Correctron (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]

  • The giant orange banner on the top of that article says otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
That's not much of a response. I see no giant orange banner at Remembrance Day anyway. Is that the article you meant? My response would be that it's not a holiday. It's an anniversary. Could be included though. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
It's a holiday in Canada and observed on various levels all across the Commonwealth. It makes no sense to leave it out but include the other two major holidays that are pretty much the same thing. Correctron (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Indeed, it's a holiday in Canada. "This article needs additional citations for verification." is the huge orange banner. The other two (similar) holidays do not have the problem banners. See this FAQ for further details. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Also, there's WP:OTDRULES #8, particularly "The selected article (bolded item) must ... be ... free from 'yellow'-level or more severe article issue tags." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Yes. So you feel that one thing is wrong. That does not merit exclusion as it meets other criteria. The rules say that numerous things come into play but you've ruled it out for 1 reason. "The criteria for inclusion in the selected anniversaries queue are rather subjective due to the fact that any given day of the year can have a great many historical events worthy of listing. So relative article quality ALONG with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors". "a combination of the "majorness" of the event, the mix of items already listed, and the relative completeness of the article, are the criteria used, along with the requirement for appropriate "context" and minimal compliance" Correctron (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
This has been listed every single year. Literally. How is it possible for this to be singled out now? Where is the precedence? Correctron (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • The tag was only added this October. (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
You mean the precedents? Holidays have been left off the list for maintenance tags before. (And of course, the actual OTD items rotate.)
Anyway, the rules also say to try to keep the holidays down to a total of three. So one was rotated out. Which one? The one that has received ample coverage in previous years, and this year, because of a maintenance issue is technically ineligible. (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Oh, remembrance day is also mentioned elsewhere on the mainpage. (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]

I've come here to say thanks for today's FA and FP. Both well chosen and fitting - Lest We Forget. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Yes, well done to everyone involved in putting hard work into the articles, the article choice, and all the other arrangements and updating involved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Wikivoyage DotM on WP

Hello, I don't which which is better place to put this request so please feel free to move it to the appropriate page. I'm admin on English Wikivoyabe. Recently, I've been to Italian Wikipedia and I saw destination of the month of Italian Wikivoyage was being featured on the Italian WP main page. I started to wonder whether we can avail the benefit as well? Our SEO is still poor as compare to Wikitravels and to increase our readership and editors base, we may need help. I can bring here more Wikivoyage admins for further discussion on the proposal. --Saqib (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[]

I don't think this is a good idea for the same reason that we don't link to Wikinews in such a way. In this case, a "destination of the month" sounds pretty tacky and subjective and personally I'd argue against including it on this project's main page. — foxj 17:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[]
There's already a link to Wikivoyage in the 'sister projects' section of the Main Page. We don't promote any content from the other sister projects, so I don't see any reason to treat Wikivoyage differently. Modest Genius talk 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Re. On This Day 15Nov

Xi assumed office in 2012, not 2002 as it currently says.

It doesn't. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[]
It did. See [16]. To the original poster: To report typos in the future, use Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors. It's transcluded at the top of this page, but it's technically a separate page. You get a faster/better response to reports on Main_Page/Errors because there are people who watch for edits there who don't watch for edits on this page. -- (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Addition of item in Wikipedia Languages

At the bottom of the main page Telugu has not been mentioned in the list of languages with over 50,000 articles in their respective language wikipedias . Sarat.iisc (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[]

As noted at Template:Wikipedia languages, "this is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted."
The Telugu Wikipedia's article count has been inflated through the inclusion of placeholders – pages such as this and this, containing a basic framework (section headings, templates, categories, etc.) but little or no encyclopedic material. —David Levy 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Silly in the news juxtaposition

I find "In baseball, the San Francisco Giants defeat the Kansas City Royals to win the World Series." item accompanied by an image of File:Antares Orb-3 launch failure (201410280011HQ).jpg to be a bit jarring. It's also a bit disappointing that we still have this layout/captioning problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[]

You could maybe take a camera around with you and make sure to jet off to every newsworthy event in the world. Then, when you are there, take a few pictures and upload them to commons. That way, we'll have pictures ready for every forseeable ITN item. --Jayron32 21:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[]
MZMcBride's second sentence is really the key one. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[]
It's now even worse as the top item is a space ship crash. The image might even be taken to fit the second item too. But yes, MZMcBride, it's obviously your fault for not taking a camera. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Last night, I checked the available photographs of World Series MVP Madison Bumgarner and found none whose composition accommodated the creation of a thumbnail-friendly crop. But given the issue that you cited (the first item pertaining to a spacecraft crash), I've gone ahead with the switch anyway. (As you can see, the details are somewhat indistinct at this scale, but that seems preferable to the alternative.) —David Levy 22:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[]

So, is someone now suggesting we shouldn't be placing a new story at the top of ITN unless there's a picture to accompany it? Or are they saying our readers don't understand the text "(pictured)"? Or is someone saying if the top news story doesn't have an image, whatever image used to accompany the top story should be removed? Clarification please. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[]

I think it's more a case of people suggesting that what we currently have often looks misleading and amateurish. Not sure what is the best way of fixing. Personally I'd prefer to see a "best picture" placed so that it's next to the story it illustrates, whatever position that is. Sorry to be so positive. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[]
So you want the picture to move down with the story? Is that what User:MZMcBride is looking for? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[]
That's been proposed and rejected multiple times in the past. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Ok, so another bunch of whinging from the usual with no substance or proposal to fix this perceived "problem" then? Cue the usual whinging... 22:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I've suggested in the past that the top item be reserved for whatever story actually has a usable image. Given that there is no real indication to the casual reader that the stories are in order from newest to oldest I don't see how pulling one item out of that order would be a problem. --Khajidha (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[]
While I regard the status quo as less problematic than some do, that idea always has struck me as sensible (and probably the most feasible of the solutions suggested). —David Levy 02:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Yes, and we would just need to ensure that stale "pictured" items are rotated off, even though they will no longer be at the bottom of the listings... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Indeed. As in the current setup, if we needed to bump an item and the "pictured" one pertained to the earliest event, it would be the one to go (and we'd have no image for the time being).
Of course, in most instances, a suitable replacement image (connected to an item about a more recent event) becomes available before we reach that point. Under the suggested setup, the item no longer "pictured" would immediately drop down to its reverse-chronological position. —David Levy 08:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Well it all sounds eminently workable, with a minor update to the admin instructions this shouldn't be a problem. Does @MZMcBride: or anyone wish to formally propose this? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[]
How do we go about that? --Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[]

I'd personally prefer no image to a wrong/misleading image. I think keeping "In the news" in reverse chronological order makes sense. A (seemingly arbitrary) change in the ordering of the entries would be strange and unexpected, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[]

So your proposal is that, as soon as an item at the top of ITN has no applicable image, any prior image is removed? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[]
It would only be "strange and unexpected" if the reader actually knows that they are in reverse chronological ordering, something I think most casual readers are unaware of. --Khajidha (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]
How feasible would it be to have the 'text related to the article' highlighted in some manner (bold, different colour etc)? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]
That still wouldn't remove the initial odd juxtaposition. Your eye is initially drawn to the picture. You think "Oh, interesting picture, wonder what it is about?" You look to the left and read the blurb. "Huh, I didn't know that <<FAMOUS HOLLYWOOD ACTRESS>> was <<A MEMBER OF A TERRORIST CELL>>" (or other confusing mishmash). Only then do you continue onward and find the "Pictured" tag, even if it is bold, red and flashing. --Khajidha (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]
The obvious answer is to restrict ITN to a single item, which can appear only if it's photogenic. That would save so much grief and wasted time debating, surely(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]
I think you mean "shurely"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Ok, I guess it's time to put up or shut up here. If someone like User:MZMcBride wishes to make a formal proposal to change the way ITN works, this isn't the place to do it. I would suggest either a formal RFC or something at WT:ITN in order to judge consensus. Please, if you do this, be clear in the proposal, don't just say "I think there's a problem" or similar, specific solutions will help a proposal gain traction. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]

The Delphic Oracle (I think it was) was apparently once asked to make a prediction that would cover all eventualities, and came up with 'This too will pass.'

The Wikipedia equivalents would refer to the inevitability of the Main Page components to coordinate for more than a couple of days. (A more Delphic version anyone?) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Has anyone ever suggested using images for (some) RD? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]
As previously — and repeatedly — noted, pairing photos with the items or briefs they illustrate has been media practice for eons. I've never understood the technical difficulties allegedly preventing this on ITN, but if a way were found to overcome them it would make obvious typographical sense. The Broken Record, a.k.a Sca (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]
As I asked before "how do we do this?". The Rambling Man linked to where we should take this, but I have no idea how to propose this. --Khajidha (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]
The only technical difficulty is we don't have a suitable photo to use. We routinely change the photo to match the most recent item when we have a good photo. When the photo doesn't exist, we can't do anything about that... --Jayron32 16:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]

(reset) Perhaps with the next redesign there could be a 'news picture story of the day' or similar? (Whether or not it fits on the mobile view).

Has the alphabet-searcher being active lately? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Recognising that this is not the place for proposals, but has anyone yet suggested (or explained why it would be coding-impossible) splitting the ITN field into three components? At the top would be "photo-story" beside "photo" (so a line split between two horizontal fields). Below that would be all the other ITN stories in their usual order. That option would seem to cover most of the points made above. - Tenebris 19:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

TRM: "Talk:Main Page" is a perfectly cromulent place to discuss "Main Page". And not every discussion needs to start or end with a clear, concrete proposal. A statement of, and discussion about, a problem is fine. And I'd argue that dismissively telling people to "put up or shut up" or shouting "wrong venue!" is a bit of jackass move that should be avoided. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]

The incromulence of this discussion is taxing my incrededibility. Sca (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Confused-tpvgames.gif[]
"We can't bicker like this - we're Wikipedians." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC) []
@Martinevans123:, I would have to say that your comment is not unincromulent. Sca (talk)
The bickering embiggens us all. - Tenebris 18:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
For "jackass move", see "vague description of perceived problem with little attempt to propose a solution"!! Well done you, tres cromulent!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]
I have asked twice in this very discussion "how do we do this?" I wish to make the proposal but I have no idea how. --Khajidha (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • To get back at a civil discourse on this, and to recognize that MzMcBride's concern is a valid concern, I also must note that even though it is valid, that doesn't mean that it can be fixed readily. Perfect is the enemy of good, and in this case, we have a reasonable concern (the picture, which sits at the top, doesn't match the article sitting at the top). The concern is valid enough that someone raises it, on average, every six months, to the point that it should probably be added to WP:PEREN. However, in this case, I think that we must concede that the best solution is not the flawless solution, merely the solution with the least flaws. Every other possible way to solve this has its own flaws, and MANY MANY MANY discussions in the past have arrived at the conclusion that the way we are doing it, as flawed as it is, is less flawed than every other way we could do it. In no particular order, here's the other ways we could do it:
    Picture floats next to article it supports. Flaw: Design-wise it doesn't work; the pic's place at the top of the box is the best location; eventually the pic will extend past the bottom of the text. That looks pretty lousy.
    Delete the pic if the topmost item doesn't have a pic. We actually tried this for a while; we abandoned it and went back to the old system when it was decided that we like the look of a picture there rather than no picture. Probably the best contender for an alternative system, but as it was tried and failed, we have empirical evidence that it doesn't work as well as the current system.
    Pictured article remains on top of list: ITN works best as a chronological list: the item closest to the top is the one likely to generate the most interest, and newer items make the most sense to keep on top. The eye is drawn to the top of the list, and is likely to miss items that don't show up at the top. The expectation of chronologicality (is that even a word? Is now...) is a powerful force, and messing with that expectation doesn't sit well with people.
  • So there you go. The system we have is flawed, but so is every other way we can do it, and over many earlier discussions, the other flaws have shown themselves to be more onerous than the current flaws, so we live with it. My suggestion near the top was only partly tongue-in-cheek. The only reason the current system DOESN'T work is that we sometimes don't have a proper picture for the most recent item. News agencies (which are cited above as never having this problem) don't have this problem because they are NEVER at a lack for pictures. We are, because of our resources and rules, and so we can't meet those standards. The problems are only caused by a lack of resources, and since we can't fix that problem, we're left with the flaws. We can't have a flawless system, so we're stuck with the merely least flawed system. Which is pretty much what we do now. --Jayron32 00:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[]
I think that the general reader of ITN (as opposed to those who work on it or even just make error reports on it) has no idea that it is supposed to be in reverse chronological order. I certainly didn't when I first started reading the Main Page. This perception isn't helped by the fact that we fairly often have items debut in ITN at some lower level when they aren't added until after some event that happened after them. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Delphic predictions: Over the course of the next few months there will be (a) much discussion and complaint about 'a particular entry' on the main page (but not necessarily one that is expected to be so); (b) complaint about ITN text and picture mismatch and (c) complaint about a overemphasis on one particular topic or theme (being sometimes merely a statistical anomaly).

Any additions to the prediction? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[]

checkY The Broken Record hereby predicts that faulty juxtapositioning of ITN items & pix will come up as a topic on average every 106.4583 days (every 3.5 months) for the next seven years, either here or on WP:ITNT. Sca (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[]

"The expectation of chronologicality" (yes, a word, & also see ) The curious thing is that ITN items already are not chronological. The nomination process ensures that they appear in the order in which they were nominated (usually only after they appear in a major news source) to be posted after they are approved, which frequently results in ITN items being badly out of temporal order. One interesting very recent example was the HIV 100 years old item ... which actually appeared originally in a fairly solid Nature study in 2008 . (Disclaimer: I happened to have been following that one before it became imminently relevant to Ebola. ) So unknown to the reader, the reader's expectation of chronologicality is actually undermined by ITN's approach. - Tenebris 19:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Nope, ITN items are posted in chronological order by when the event occurred, not by when they were nominated or posted. It would make no sense to post the item about HIV where it would have fallen in 2008; there oldest item on ITN is usually a week or two old, not 6+ years! It would have never been posted. But that's because of the way scientific journalism works, not the way ITN works. When we post an item about an election on Monday, and then later approve an item on a sports championship that happened on the Sunday the day before, we place the sports championship blurb below the election blurb, even if it were actually approved and posted after the later event. --Jayron32 03:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Let me rephrase then, since my original statement was evidently unclear. ITN items which do not have clear single dates are often "dated" for ITN purposes based on when the mass media started paying attention to it. (Scientific journalism is not unique in delays. Quite a few current front-page stories actually started nearly a year ago - the current Ebola outbreak, for one.) For example, one particular ongoing source of ITN dating controversy occurs with high-attention criminal arrests and trials. The point at which they are officially considered ITN newsworthy may be when the crime is discovered, at arrest, when the trial begins, or at sentencing - regardless of when the criminal matter started making headlines. Is such a criminal matter clearly "before" or "after" an election held during the trial? A reader looking for mention of it on the basis of arrest might be surprised to find it listed (delayed) on the basis of sentencing, which almost certainly shifts multiple election results from after to before. (With a trial running a minimum 6 months or so, at least some of the 200-odd countries in the world have changed or renewed governments in the interim. By long consensus, each of those changes of government automatically gets a line or two in ITN.) While the specified part of the event follows strict chronologicality, it does not follow that the reader-relevance of the event is similarly chronological.
A second point further muddies the waters. Consensus to post controversial ITN stories has on occasion been so delayed that the story in question reaches ITN just in time to be knocked off by other, less controversial stories. This is a natural result of ITN stories being posted (more or less) chronologically, regardless of when consensus was reached. However, I hope that this kind of almost-instant falling off ITN is not a desirable outcome to those who control the structure of ITN. It would seem to be somewhat counterproductive, not to mention fostering a powerful illusion that some stories are more ITN relevant than others. - Tenebris 05:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. One more time. We have been told that we need to make a proposal and I have THREE TIMES asked for instructions on how to format a proposal. It hardly seems fair to complain that no one is willing to make the proposal when a sincere request for instructions on proper formatting of such a proposal is completely ignored. --Khajidha (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[]

No, I never told you to make a proposal. I told you to not bother, because we get the same three proposals every 6 months or so (and have for like, 6 years) and they always get rejected for the same reason. It's a free country, and no one's going to stop you from your futile waste of time, but if you read above I clearly explain that while the current situation is less than perfect, it's less less than perfect than any other possible solution that doesn't involve having free pictures of every event ever. As soon as our picture supply is limited, every possible organization scheme is flawed. The one we use now is not unflawed it is less flawed than any other. --Jayron32 04:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Not quite true. Breaking strict chronicity would not require "having free pictures of every event ever". However, I suspect your assessment of the input and outcome of "the same three proposals" is completely accurate. It is sometimes a bit depressing to observe just how much Wikipedia has taken on the trappings of bureaucracy. - Tenebris 05:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
And the 'same set of things complained about' ('why did this (non-worksafe/upsetting the children topic appear on the main page', and 'too many items on a theme' being the most popular) appear on an equally regular basis. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Jayron: I didn't say that you, specifically, had said to make a proposal. The Rambling Man, however, did ask if anyone wanted to make a proposal and even said that it was "put up or shut up" time and complained about "vague description of perceived problem with little attempt to propose a solution". Not wanting the proposal to be ignored or ridiculed for being in an improper format, I asked for advice on proper procedure; twice in comments directly responding to him and once specifically referencing his mention of a "a formal RFC or something at WT:ITN in order to judge consensus." As I mentioned then he had given the venue, but I was unclear on how to make a formal RFC. This is a problem I have seen here, there is an insistence on arcane procedures but little help or advice for people who don't already know said procedures. --Khajidha (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Khajidha, it's not very difficult, although it takes a bit of work. The basic instructions are at WP:RFC. You can also read WP:PROPOSAL, which is advice about adopting a guideline or policy, but it has some ideas about how to advertise discussions. User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal is funny and has some more good advice aimed at controversial proposals. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[]
The Mexican protests began on 26 September, whilst the formation of planets observation was announced on 6 November. But when the Mexican protests are posted after the planets we get the protests at the top, paired with the image of the HL Tauri. Is there a strict policy by which new items are always posted at the top? Would it not be sometimes better to relax this, especially if an item has been in discussion for several days before appearing? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • The solution to this problem, as has been stated repeatedly over many years, is to have a small caption beneath the picture. (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Just out of curiosity...

...Whilst I don't have particular viewpoint one way or the other about the position of photos in ITN, I find it surprising that it arouses such strong feelings, yet OTD, which has the same issue, never gets mentioned. Do people just not get round to reading that section? Optimist on the run (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[]

The news there is so outdated, that's why... –HTD 20:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[]
You are right, it is related to subject age, although there are also other factors. Some ideas -
1. OTD is not right up at the top of the page, in one of the primary-view corners. Depending on the size of your screen, it can even be below the fold. (Look up preferred advertising slots, which are heavily based on where the reader's eyes tend to go first.)
2. OTD mostly deals with issues which are more than two political terms old, so it is not vulnerable to political agenda in the same way as recent news.
(Which is not, however, to say that it is completely politics-free. Very few things in the first-language English-speaking world are -- and history is certainly not primary among them.)
3. Most of the political argument over OTD occurs on the OTD page, sometimes over wording, sometimes over inclusion at all. You can actually see an echo of those arguments by the kinds of events which don't make it to the front page, to the point of being actively avoided. (Yes, there are some.)
4. OTD subjects have mostly already been consensus'ed to be "history-worthy". ITN is a constant battle over "newsworthy enough to be ITN".
5. Being history, most OTD articles have already had some time to settle and be overhauled. This sometimes (not always) results in a more neutral POV in the article.
6. Equally being history, free-to-use pictures can be easier to obtain, especially from government sources. The majority of active news pictures belong to news agencies or professional news photographers, and are thus not available for Wikipedia purposes.
7. A very little bit of quirkiness is (sometimes reluctantly) tolerated on the OTD page -- again, specifically because it is not ITN here-and-now. (For some reason, we don't seem to think current events are important unless they are taken seriously. Maybe that explains the constant non-tussle over election results in ITN.)
So, there is a start in considering some factors. Don't consider this an exhaustive list! - Tenebris 17:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There's one more: OTD, and the rest of Main Page sections save ITN are replaced after a day; DYK's shorter as it is replaced in 6-8 hours. ITN is the prime real estate here as links stay for a week or even more. If you want maximum exposure for your pet article, go to ITN. Well, it sucks if you're into writing articles that ITN usually excludes such as American college sports or Tongan politics, but you just have to suck it up and learn to write about Gaelic football. –HTD 13:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Possible fix

Er, why not just move the the item related to the picture from the list and display it as the image's caption? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[]

It won't fit on most cases. –HTD 19:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[]

buffalo storm

is there no article about the storm in buffalo? it shold be mentioned on main page-- (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[]

It's part of November 2014 North American cold wave which briefly mentions Buffalo. A nomination can be made at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates but I doubt it would get sufficient support. We are an international encyclopedia and on a global scale it doesn't look really serious. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[]
With 23 dead (most of them outside Buffalo), there's a snowball's chance in hell. Good luck. –HTD 14:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Today's Featured Article Coordinator

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Adding Ferguson to In The News

This has just happened tonight and has been all over social media, so I figured it should get on In The News as it is relatively important.

It's being discussed at WP:ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[]
See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Shooting_of_Michael_Brown. See also Talk:Main_Page/Archive_181#Ferguson_riots, for relevant context. The public sevice radio in my country (Czech Republic, central Europe) was full of the news from Ferguson this morning. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[]

The Cliff's Notes version. The main pro arguments are the extensive media coverage around the world, and possibly the scale of the riots (having been compared to the 1992 LA riots). The main counter-argument (mostly by just one person) is that "a few dozen people have decided to go on a looting spree" is either not newsworthy because it is business as usual, or not newsworthy because we should not be giving them the attention they seek. In a secondary part, the discussion echoes the classic ITN dilemma: (Quoting) "historical significance can only be determined if one has temporal distance from the event" -- yet once that temporal distance has been achieved, the event is considered too stale for ITN. - Tenebris (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Indeed. Two days of looting has now "dwindled" to next to nothing as the "rioters" don't like snow and prefer Thanksgiving television instead. A truly landmark item. Comparisons to the 1992 LA riots are simply wrong. 53 deaths? 11,000 arrests? Be serious. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Take that up with the media. It is In The News, not "What Wikipedia editors think is worthy of being in the news". 331dot (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
What? That's exactly what it is. That's why there's a nomination process and not a direct feed from CNN.-RHM22 (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Should it be "What Wikipedia editors think is in the news" instead of "What Wikipedia editors think is worthy of being in the news"? –HTD 16:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Well, it's really "What Wikipedia editors think is both significant, newsworthy and likely of interest to visitors," but it's definitely not anything that is widely covered by news outlets. If it were, we'd be covering every celebrity marriage and every time somebody in the British royal family farts. The fact that news agencies are covering it is a terrible rationale for posting, and it's a bad precedent. The rationale should only be the noteworthiness of the protests and riots, and the wide coverage is only useful as evidence of that. Are the events themselves notable? I'd say not at the moment, but it could change if it has any sort of staying power.-RHM22 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
It's not "What Wikipedia editors think is both significant, newsworthy and likely of interest to visitors," actualy. WP:ITN#Purpose is quite clear-cut on what ITN should be. The question is, would a posting would satisfy ITN's purpose? That's our floor. –HTD 18:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure of the meaning of your last sentence, but if you're suggesting that any story that's widely covered is automatically worthy of being an ITN item, then I don't agree. Regardless of what the stated purposes are, it should be self-evident that news coverage isn't our only benchmark. The goal is content that's newsworthy and timely (likely to be interesting to people by virtue of its being a news item). Otherwise, every celebrity wedding and subsequent divorce would make the list.
One thing I've always tried to maintain is common sense over bureaucracy. A black and white reading of Wikipedia rules and guidelines doesn't serve any good. The goal of ITN is clearly not to present every single news story that gains momentary national and/or international attention!-RHM22 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
WP:ITN#Purpose doesn't say "post every single news story that gains momentary national and/or international attention," otherwise it would've said "post every single news story that gains momentary national and/or international attention." TBH I dunno where you got that. There's tabloid media TRM says, and there's the serious news media that we should as WP:RS in determining what goes in. We can't make up "what's in the news", either as that'll be against WP:RS. –HTD 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[]
"Take that up with the media." I used to credit you with more intelligence than just being a slave to tabloid media User:331dot. This story has already finished, there's nothing more to say, a few people stole some things, then it got cold and they went home. We need to use our own judgement before attempting to claim complete nonsense like a comparison with the 1992 LA riots. That's complete bollocks. And you and everyone else with a braincell knows it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
If you have things to say about my intelligence and brain cells, you know where my page is, I'd love to hear it. I didn't realize that the New York Times, CNN, NBC, BBC, Times of India, and many other outlets are "tabloid" media. I'm not sure you appreciate race relations in the United States, but that is why these nationwide(and some in Canada) protests and the riot in Ferguson are notable. It isn't just the riot. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Without the rioting, it isn't notable at all yet, and it may never come to be. So far today, some anarchists tried to disrupt the Macy's parade, and there was a "pro-community car cruise" in St. Louis and a smattering of minor protests in various cities. For all we know, the few isolated protests here and there will be the only lasting remnant of this story. Also, who is saying that every news outlet covering the Ferguson story is tabloid media? Can't a news item be valued on its own merit? As a final point, if the riot isn't the crux of the story, then why is the notability of the 1992 LA riots being used to justify its inclusion in ITN?-RHM22 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
TRM has consistently referred to this story as a "tabloid" story(and above calls me a "slave to tabloid media"). I don't recall at this moment making the comparison to 1992, though I can believe that others might have(I'll happily stand corrected if I did) and I can't speak for them. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]
I make no points here (and saw no reason to post pro or con there). I simply posted the short-short version, and leave it for others to decide. As you mentioned earlier, the discussion is at WP:ITN/C. - Tenebris (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]

In most cases there will be a trailing edge - event happens; it is noted on the relevant article (or talk page); it is developed according to the amount of coverage/actually existing developments; it finally appears on the main page; there are complaints about it being thereon too long (or the picture is mismatched to the entry; the link goes and the article/sequence of events continues to develop quietly. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Roy King (1894–1941)

> "making him the fourth highest-scoring Australian ace of the war, and second only to Harry Cobby in the AFC"

Is this an error, a too-clever hook, or just plain confusing. In any case, it is irritatingly difficult to parse. How can the fourth highest be second. Even if first second and third are tied, fourth is still fourth. What is so special about "Harry Corby in the AFC"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Maybe 2nd and 3rd were other Australian "aces" who weren't in the AFC. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Would this be acceptable wording? The current one may be a bit confusing at first glance.
"He was credited with twenty-six victories in aerial combat, making him the second most successful ace in the AFC after Harry Cobby, and fourth highest-scoring Australian of the war."-RHM22 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[]
I made the change suggested above. I think it should be fine, but please let me know if I've made any mistakes regarding Australian English usage or some such.-RHM22 (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Yes, according to our list of Australian WWI air aces, the top two both flew for the (British) Royal Naval Air Service. Cobby and King were 3rd and 4th and flew for the AFC. I think the new blurb is clearer, but perhaps highest-scoring Australian ace could link to List_of_World_War_I_aces_from_Australia?ReadingOldBoy (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[]

The fundraiser banner

... takes up too much screen space (and should not persist for more than a page or two).

Perhaps there could be a discussion on creative (but legal) methods of getting funding? (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Which one? --Chamith (talk)
Isn't there a small 'x' in the corner which can be clicked to remove the banner?-RHM22 (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[]

(laugh) I still wonder if Wikipedia will ever bite the bullet and treat its programmers no differently from its editors. As it stands, the net effect is to place monetary value upon some skills and devalue others -- which are no less valuable and essential to Wikipedia's continued thriving, save only in (apparently) salary terms. - Tenebris (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[]

The constant fundraiser solicitation is annoying. Wikipedia states they "..would never run ads..and want to keep Wikipedia ad-free for another year", but that is worse than an ad. it may not be from an external source, but it is just as spammy. Please get rid of that pseudo-ad and truly make Wikipedia "ad-free".

Wikipedia needs to make money somehow. It takes a lot of money to run such a big website. If you don't like it, too bad, it's what keeps wikipedia from becoming a paid service. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Most of us 'contribute our services.'

To the person before the (laugh) - there is no formal 'organisation' - and the contributors are those of us who are prepared to spend even a little time correcting something or more time improving articles.

Given the numbers of wikis across the internet (personal and professional) and run by institutions there should be a market in 'How to Wiki' books and courses (which would meet the creative requirement) and generate some funding. Who are the proverbial someones' willing to take such activities on for WP? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC) (adding to my previous comment)[]

If one is not logged in the 'fundraiser banner' takes up half the screen. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[]

The Wikimedia Foundation needs to pay for their equipment and to pay maintenance for it. Ads would give the appearance of favoritism towards the people who paid for the ads. Instead, Wikipedia solicits anonymous donations so as to avoid "pay-for-play" accusations of bias. If this bothers you, you're allowed to fund the entire budget by yourself right now via anonymous, no-strings-attached donation, and WMF can cut back on its fundraising. --Jayron32 17:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Register an account and you don't see the ad. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Library users, those 'passing through', sign-in time-outs etc see it.

Books/ebooks, 'buy your own computer-sized wiki program' and similar might fund part of the Wikimedias foundation. Or we each and all buy a scratchcard/lottery ticket on behalf of WM - thus winning some of the larger prizes (the numbers add up). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[]

The books would be 'How to wiki' and the 'wiki on your computer' would be just the program (rather than Wikipedia as such) so the user can develop their own interest. And, yes, I know such things are always more complicated to create than the person suggesting it thinks. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[]
I don't know if that was a joke or what, but without cheating, you can't win on average with basically all forms of purely random chance based lotteries unless you are the one selling the lottery. The number of people you get participating doesn't matter. You might increase your chance of winning, but on average you'd still be far better getting these people to donate the money instead of buying lottery tickets. The only exception would be if it's too expensive to process these small donations. In that case you could I guess use the lottery as a simple method of pooling donations. But it's not likely to be very effective (particularly since for all the person plans to donate their winnings, anyone who does win biggish is probably only going to donate a small percentage) and there are surely better alternatives. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[]
(reset) Tongue in cheek - and taking 'the odds quoted on winning the lottery' and 'number of WP users.' Likewise 'investing in Premium Bonds, and backing horses and similar.

Any other ideas on funding WM and reducing the number of banners seen by IPs Jackiespeel (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[]

The banner looked better on the bottom...I think it was there originally. Eman235/talk 03:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[]

The banner gets more intrusive every year. Is the cost per impression getting higher, and if so why? Bigbluefish (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Are non-signers-in more likely to pay than regular users - and are those who encounter the banners repeatedly going to provide more money or be too irritated with it to pay? (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Why does only English have a fundraising banner - are only English-speakers expected to donate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


Today's FA? American. Today's FL? American. Today's FP? American. Outrageous. Time for ragged olde' England to retake the colonies me thinks. -- (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Well, it is an American website operating on American servers with a majority of American editors. All those things you list take volunteer time and if there aren't enough UK editors to put the time in and get UK articles up to snuff to become an FA, are you suggesting subpar articles be promoted for the sake of "fairness"?freshacconci talk to me 15:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Note that each of those sections you mentioned operates independently from the others. From time to time you are bound to have this sort of coincidence. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[]
And the phenomenon isn't confined to any country in particular, confirmation bias notwithstanding. —David Levy 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[]
If it makes you feel any better, none of yesterday's featured items had anything to do with the U.S. Reach Out to the Truth 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[]
And right now the TFA is about some Australian soccer team. It also seems to me that UK articles show up on the main page on a regular basis. Most of them are about cricket players. Neutron (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[]


Hanukkah was supposed to included in today's OTD, but is currently omitted due to maintenance tags. I left a message at WT:JUDAISM but we could use more eyes to fix it up for re-inclusion. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Main page redesign

The Main Page is looking more and more tired with each passing day. I know there have been discussions in the past that have not reached agreement. Is there any active discussion happening anywhere at the moment? (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Not really. The last major discussion at Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal appears to, like all others, have stalled with no consensus. Again, the major problem is that all these discussions eventually go all over the map, which leads the discussion to become unfocused and eventually no firm consensus. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[]
We can add logo in header like in Russian Wikipedia. --Ochilov (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[]
I think the Japanese and Arabic WPs look like that too. It's a good design. Eman235/talk 18:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Doesn't look all that different to me. And why would you put the logo in the header when the logo is already in the upper left corner right next to where the banner goes? --Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
There is a redesign here, that served as a basis for further discussion, but too many people are simply afraid of change. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Featured article 12/16/2014

I need to register my disappointment and even disgust with the choice of featured article, the "509th Composite Group". We're glorifying the criminals here, and not giving a voice to any of the victims of the massacre. Who gives a single crap about what formation and equipment these guys were using when they nuked two cities? I find this showcase extremely offensive and at heart, a violation of NPOV, we are deploying the same strategy as the U.S. media has recently used in giving a platform to the CIA torturers and none to the people who were a victim of this horror. Here's an example of a healthy article about the nuclear bombings, which problematizes the lack of regret shown by the bomber crew. Here's another example of the POVs we forgot to mention, a survivor's story.

At least this poor decision might have one small positive outcome, that a few more people will be driven to get involved in the selection of featured articles... Adamw (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Why should we "problematize" the lack of guilt felt by the bombers? That would constitute insertion of a POV. There is plenty of information and criticism from people who oppose(d) the use of the bomb in other articles. This article is just about the bomber group, and not the lasting effects of radiation, civilian death tolls, etc.-RHM22 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Take a look at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's a good article that does a fine job of giving the facts as well as opinions both for and against.-RHM22 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
The former TFA coordinator writes... I agree with RHM22's points. The issues you make are ones for other articles, not this one, and certainly are not reasons to disqualify this article from appearing as TFA. Appearance as TFA is not endorsement of any actions or views relating to the article itself, and in any event the articles will be written from a neutral point of view (because if not they would not obtain, or retain, featured status). I notice you have also complained at WT:TFA about the choice I made for tomorrow's TFA, Murder of Leigh Leigh. You are welcome to help with future nominations at WP:TFAR, either by commenting on suggestions made by other people or by finding something listed at WP:FANMP that you would like to see as the TFA and following the nomination instructions (which are set out at WP:TFAR and are very similar to DYK, for instance). And if someone can get Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki up to featured status before next August, it's a good candidate to appear on the 70th anniversary. BencherliteTalk 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Can I refer to my comment/the discussion 'slightly above' about a FA showcase 'or something similar.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
+1 to Jackiespeel's suggestion that we create a separate venue for showcasing featured articles, perhaps the ones that stand up to the greater public scrutiny can be promoted to the front page. Adamw (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
We should problematize Hiroshima and Nagasaki because I think we can all agree, this was a terrorist act, a mass murder of innocent people for political gain, and should never be allowed to happen again, therefore it is a problem still requiring a solution.
NPOV should not mean we simply parrot existing highly opinionated reporting, IMO it means we should be applying critical thinking skills--and be very suspicious whenever there is a single narrative. This "509th" article is completely lacking in any self-reflection on its own POV, it's basically an embedded report on the lives of some military guys and their hardware. Don't be fooled--this is a POV! To me, the lack of any other POVs screams that there was very little consideration in choosing this article, (as I have said about the Murder of Leigh Leigh decision) and I wonder what value there is in displaying it as a TFA. Is this article a goal to aspire towards, bringing up one side of a horrific massacre, with no mention of the lives lost? Search for "death", "killed", or "lives lost", "people", or "Japanese" in the 509th article.
I don't care that this article exists, because someone might think these guys were really notable pilots, but promoting to a TFA was a blunder as far as I'm concerned.
Finally, I apologize that the subject makes me so heated, I really appreciate and respect the work the TFA crew is doing, and if I can find the time I would love to be a thorn in your side :) Perhaps the vitriol I am trying not to spill everywhere demonstrates why it might be a mistake to showcase controversial topics from suspect perspectives, without throwing a bone to the people it might offend.
Regards, Adamw (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
You will find that not everyone agrees that the atomic bombings of Japan were a "terrorist act", so your starting point for arguing that all articles relating to the topic should reflect that stance is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the neutral point of view principle at Wikipedia. Even "terrorist" is a word that can only be used with caution in articles - see WP:TERRORIST. BencherliteTalk 19:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
I don't think the torture parallel holds up. Yes, the bombings were horrible, but so was the conventional bombing of Tokyo that imposed comparable, even greater, numbers of casualties. As war goes, these were military targets being struck for a military purpose, accomplishing the greatest of all military goals, an enforced peace. Now, is war horrible? Beyond question. Should it be avoided by all civilized people, no matter what? That is more a matter of debate; it is easy to have a pacifist faith in the face of the usual U.S. misadventure, but what do you do when there has been a World War like this one? Both sides were geared up for a long and terrible conflict, and close to considering biological and other unconventional warfare already, while prisoners endured terrible conditions. In the face of such things, unable to pronounce judgment on the world's behalf, we should be happy to allow an article that states the facts as they were to go through, and provide the relevant background with a cold dispassion. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Featured article 12/18/2014

Might as well start this thread now since this TFA's release is imminent. Murder of Leigh Leigh looks like a well constructed article, but if the victim's parents or anyone who loves her is still alive, pushing this article as a highlighted main page article strikes me as a serious WP:BLP problem, let alone in generally poor taste around the holidays (a point that I realize the TFA leaders don't care about, but it needs to be said anyway). Townlake (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]

I don't think it's fair to say "a point that I realize the TFA leaders don't care about", but do you 'spose all the folks concerned about TFA choices could take advantage of the page where you can make your choices known in advance? The page is moribund: to anyone complaining here, 'ya had your chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Most of us can't be in all places at all times. Townlake (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Most Wikipedians seem surprisingly unwilling to get involved in the discussions about what should go into the TFA section (or even get involved in discussions about who should be taking those decisions) even when particular discussions are heavily advertised and even though WP:TFAR is prominently linked in lots of places, including at the top of this talk page and in the edit notice every time one edits this talk page. Inevitably, decisions are made based on the views of those who turn up, and when nobody turns up with any suggestions (as happened for 53% of the days in 2014, because there were nominations for only 47% of the days - see WP:Today's featured article/TFAs in 2014) then I had to make my own decision about what to run. Throwing insults about TFA leaders not caring is - well, I'll let the many messages of thanks for my work over the last two years at WT:TFA and at my talk page since I announced my resignation speak for itself. BencherliteTalk 22:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Thanks again for a thankless job. Townlake, I agree most of us can't be in all places all the time, but the place is there if you care so much. It usually sits empty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Complaining that no one objected in advance or suggested anything else does not make your wrong decision right. (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Complaining that a decision was "wrong" doesn't make your belated objection helpful. —David Levy 02:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Calling a complaint belated and unhelpful because the complainer didn't monitor every step of every process at Wikipedia is just silly. At some point, as a society of volunteers and hopefully reasonable people, we have to be able to trust each other to do the right thing. TFA has been bankrupt in that department this week; it hasn't always been like this, hasn't always merited the attention it's drawn this week. Townlake (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
So ... now that you no longer "trust" the TFA team to "do the right thing", you're going to spend more time actively participating in the process going forward? (Possibly leaving other parts of the project in the "trust" of others?) (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
No, I'm not going to turn my volunteer time here upside down to preach tact and common decency to a group of project participants who aren't interested in such matters. Clearly it would be a waste of time. Townlake (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Could you please try to remain WP:CIVIL on this: baselessly insulting the large group of editors isn't going to help get your point across, or make others want to see your point of view. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
So, basically, you know consensus will be against you and simply want to whine, then? Resolute 18:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Sure, Resolute. Townlake (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Sounds like you hit the nail squarely on the head Resolute. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
I feel the TFA is just fine. I look at it quite frequently, so I thought I'd give my two cents here. There's no rule that the TFA has to fit with a particular season. Although it's nice to get a Christmas-y article for Christmas, there's a still a week until then. It's a bit unreasonable to have no possibly morbid or sad articles for the entire month, which is often considered part of the season. Most likely, the vast majority of viewers haven't had their Christmas next week ruined by an article about a murder, if they even celebrate Christmas or another holiday. As for issues of offense to living people, this can occur with a number of articles, such as events that people might have experienced, like a battle, accident, or other loss of life. We would be quite limited in our selection of TFAs if we had to consider this. I'm not sure if BLP applies, as the article is not making accusations against living people. I don't think it protects viewers from possibly finding the content emotionally charged. Regardless, it's a debate that requires longer discussion on a more formal basis, as it would indeed apply to many articles and possibly more than TFA. If it's supposed to be an unwritten rule, it should become more formally written. Scarlettail (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
I respect that you -- and many others -- have a different point of view on this than I do. That said, there are a lot of strawmen in your post that I'm not interested in bickering about. I'll point out the Leigh Leigh article is not "an article about a murder" -- it's an article about the unusually gruesome rape and murder of a child, with plentiful blow-by-blow detail of the events of the victim's last night. Trivialize as you like, but let's not pretend that Wikipedia exists in a vacuum and its audience is limited to emotionless robots. Demonstrating a little humanity is OK sometimes, folks. Townlake (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
This holiday proximity stuff is just ludicrous. I could perhaps sympathize with your points if the article were about satanism, atheism or something like that (in other words, something that might strongly conflict with Christian sentiment in close proximity to the most important Christian holiday), but what sort of cushion must exist between any major religious holiday and a totally unrelated article that people may find disturbing? Often, relevant articles are TFA during major holidays. This year, it's Nativity (Christus).-RHM22 (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Only if you look at it from a Judeo-Christian point of view. Much of the world isn't Christian (let alone those in the "Christian" world that are agnotic or atheists) and we try and take a world view on such matters. Given that Christmas is still six days away, it's something of a straw man to say that we're running this article on Christmas. When should we have an exclusion zone on things-that-people-don't-want-to-hear-about? A week before Christmas? A fortnight, or possibly for all of December? io Saturnalia to one and all! - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
I for one am extremely offended that we would host such a disturbing article on our main page less than one week away from the day in which we celebrate the birth of a man who was brutally murdered for his religion.-RHM22 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]

I was unable to comment on the 12/15 FA because of a problem with my account that has since been resolved. But while I would have partially agreed with criticism of the timing of that one, if nothing else (not because of Christmas but because of the fundraiser; although those concerns may prove to be unjustified, I can't say), I have no objections to this one. I had looked at the article while it was in the PR queue, and planned to review it there until someone else did so. I thought it was very well done, and sets a standard for all our true-crime articles. And I don't think at this point that its appearance on the front page of the English Wikipedia is likely to cause the Leigh family any more pain than it already has. We are not disclosing any information that wasn't already available, and perhaps it may lead to some resolution of the case.

Christmas? Look at what happened in Pakistan a couple of days ago, which we justly put at the top of ITN. About 26 years ago around this time a classmate of mine died in the Pan Am 103 bombing. Horror and tragedy do not take time off for any reason. I note we also, as I type, have Murder of Michelle Garvey on DYK—no one's expressing any reservations about that. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Nicely put Daniel. We have two problems, (1) some people are assuming that our readers are detecting these so-called trends and finding them offensive and (2) most of those complaining about the selection of TFA don't actually participate in the selection of the TFA, which is straightforward enough. So, to (1), other than the few annoyed regulars and the one or two IPs, where's the evidence that we're getting fewer visitors following these TFAs? And to (2) if you don't vote, you can't complain, or other similar epithets. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
I accept that I'm on an island about the substantive argument here, and that's fine. I appreciate everyone's participation and shared perspectives. That said, I take serious issue with the "If you didn't vote, don't complain" nonsense that's been repeated in this thread. In real life, if I'm a taxpayer, I can feel good about raising concerns about my government even if I don't vote in every election. On Wikipedia, as a project contributor, I can feel good about raising concerns about high-profile project decisions even if I don't participate in every debate process. I will continue to do so. Townlake (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Perhaps you misunderstood my post. It wasn't directed at you personally. But the main crux is still true. There is a process that allows people to discuss what happens at TFA. There are also similar pages for ITN, DYK, TFL, TFP etc. Just standing on the outside and moaning when things that individuals find personally offensive and making dubious juxtaposition arguments (e.g. "it's Christmas, we shouldn't be focusing on "difficult" topics") won't improve any process at all. And for some of us, articles about Christmas may be offensive, articles about weather systems that kill tens or hundreds may be offensive. As for you, seriously, if this isn't your bag, it'd be better to move on or work to improve things, not just complain when it's something that's unpalatable to an individual's particular set of beliefs. Can you provide any evidence other than your own distaste that these articles on the main page are causing Wikipedia long-lasting harm? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
You're alternately ignoring and oversimplifying my points. We aren't going to agree. I'm walking away; see you next time. Townlake (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Good call to walk away. See you next time you're appalled by something you personally find distasteful and yet have done nothing about it despite having a chance to do so. It would appear likely that this'll be in a few days time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[]

So, no complaints yet about the Main Page featuring a nasty old military coup so close to Christmas? Guess a million really is a statistic. Not to mention the list about a maker of video games that contain sexual content, but that's down the page and I'm pretty sure barely anyone scrolls down there so it's not surprising. (For that matter Christmas in Japan is considered a lovers' holiday, so it would be amusing to see some article related to that be on the front page on Christmas and see the complaints flood in from Anglosphere residents about how the nasty liberal Wikipedia is part of the War on Christmas.) -- (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, calling Christmas in Japan a "lovers' holiday" is quite an exaggeration. It is true that the 24th is a popular date night for young couples to exchange gifts. But that is because they are at home eating fried chicken and cake with their family on the 25th. (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[]
  • "If you don't vote, you can't complain" is just such a pile of crap, I am astonished that anyone here could propose it in apparent seriousness. (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[]
    • At least in part it's a signal/noise problem.
    • There are a lot of people with contradictory and sometimes crazy complaints about main page contents. It's a lightning rod for that sort of thing. Unfortunately, On its own, complaining just puts you on the same level as them.
    • Other parts of the WP project get less noise and should be more responsive to feedback. (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Changing the topic

'Nice leaf spotters guide' Jackiespeel (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Fundraising banner

God in heaven, the last one I saw was 50% if the vertical space and 100% of the horizontal space. I get that it's a non-profit, but that was super obtrusive. Also, would it be too much to ask to set a cookie and stop bothering me for a few days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[]