Talk:Main Page/Archive 182

Archive 175

←

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

Archive 183

Archive 184

Archive 185

Policy proposal: Dates on DYKs that are history

Today's third DYK teaser:

...that HMS Alceste was wrecked, then later burned, by Malayan pirates?

"Oh?! Huh?? Is this something I've missed in the news?" (Click on link. See page title.) "HMS Alceste (1806). I guess not."

I'd like to propose that we take a second look at the wording of DYK teasers before we post them. If they are liable to be understood as referring significant current or recent news, but are actually about events that are well beyond "news", we should make it clear right there.

If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like this hook did its job if that was your reaction? — foxj 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Fox. That some readers misunderstand a hook, that is not DYK's fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think @Thnidu:'s suggestion would be reasonable in a situation where, for example, a ship bearing the same name is in active service. I could imagine that reading such a hook would be an awful shock to a family member of someone serving on the ship. But I think such entries in DYK would be very rare. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with @Foxj or @Crisco 1492, but I'm not going to make a fight of it. But @Athomeinkobe's form of the protocol, for the extreme cases, would be a good idea. So infrequent, though, that probably no one would remember it. (Sigh.) --Thnidu (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Monetary demands

Useless discussion about logging in
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surely anybody who for any reasons has not signed in and is going to send money to WP will have done so by now - getting to have rather a negative effect. Is there not a better way? 108.171.128.162 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC) I especially love the banner that not only "follows" you as you scroll down the page, but actually gets bigger (and jumps you back to the top of the page) when you hit the "X" button to get rid of it. 75.44.33.17 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Doesn't follow me down the page. Oh yes, I've registed an account. Merry Christmas, suckers! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Responses: Just because I'm not signed in every time I visit this site does not mean that I have not already registered an account. But, apparently, you sign in every time; is this because the banners are so irritating that you have to go through the trouble of logging in every time you visit just to avoid them, or is it because of some sort of disorder? You say that the people that Wikipedia is trying to get money from are "suckers". Are you expressing the official opinion of the Foundation, or do you just enjoy entering other people's property and behaving in this fashion towards their other visitors? In case you didn't check the second link in "2", you are a jackass. That is all. 75.44.33.17 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Every time"? It keeps you logged in for 30 days. APL (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC) You are assuming that: I always check the box that says "Keep me logged in (for up to 30 days)". I allow my browser to save cookies, which is necessary to keep me logged in. I am using a computer that belongs to me, solely, so that I can keep myself logged in indefinitely without other people using my account. But don't worry. Other than that, your point is completely valid. 75.44.33.17 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC) I'm not assuming anything. You expressed surprise that people went though the "trouble" of logging in "every time". I pointed out that this was a dumb thing to say, because we don't go through any such trouble. Computers do the work for us. APL (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Ah the very nice attitude of wiki editors, and you wonder why people dont want to make an account and sign in no matter the trouble. also there is a nifty program called adblock, it wont block the banner by default but simply right click on it, do the adblock thing, make sure you only block the banner and accept, i never seen one despite not having an account. hope that helps

Most WP-users who check WP using computers they are not signed into WP on are going to be irritated by the persistence of 'please support WP financially' at times (and 'why bother signing in just to read something up or correct a typo'): perhaps there should be brief adverts on a more frequent basis. Descending into 'same to you' discussions does not help. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

NoScript. What banner? Wnt (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not practical with library and other public access terminals - and there are going to be occasions when the 30-day sign-out comes into effect.

'Short and sweet' or 'long and loud'; asking everybody, or only those who do not sign in for whatever reasons: the choice is up to WP. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

NoScript is a ridiculous way to use the internet, however, if you can, I use adblock plus to banish the banner. I'm not donating, or creating a new account, until someone apologizes for calling me stupid. --66.56.0.66 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is the tsunami reference?

2004 – A 9.3 magnitude earthquake creates a tsunami causing devastation in Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Maldives and many other areas around the rim of the Indian Ocean, killing over 230,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 26 December 2014‎ (UTC)

I suspect the fact that this was the 10th anniversary was missed because the hook combines 3 natural disasters that happened on this day [1]. Note that the hook was also moved halfway through last year [2], the 10th anniversary of another one of the events mentioned which killed around 26k people which may be nearly an order of magnitude different, but is stilll a lot of people. Of course, any idiot including an idiot behind an IP could have changed the template to readd the 2004 related hook for 2014 2? days or more before the 26. I suspect if a good edit summary, or better a hidden comment was used, this probably would have been noticed and the hook kept for this year. But no idiot did so. As long as idiots like us continue to leave it to other overworked volunteers or only come to complain and call said overworked volunteers idiots after the fact, things aren't likely to improve. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

The section "More than 1.000.000" doesn't contain the Waray-Waray (1.25 mil.), the Cebuano (1.2 mil.), and the Tiếng Việt (1.11 mil.). (see here) Greetings, --80.123.29.15 (talk) 19:53, 26 December 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." —David Levy 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Featured article 12/15/14

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.

---

Good to see the top level editors are apparently extremely childish. Of all the fascinating and informative articles in Wikipedia, this is what people are greeted with. Good job, you ever so clever winners. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 09:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. That's what we call "the last straw" for me. Though did we really expect something other than puerility on a site founded with porn money?

What is extremely childish about the article itself Geofferic? It's very well written and encyclopedic and covers a legitimate topic which is considered a "taboo" by people like yourself. I'd consider it less childish than a TFA on a videogame, put it that way. Yes, it's probably not an ideal time to TFA it during the fundraiser due the fact that many bizarrely are still offended by it but it is a legitimate article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting choice, throwing the word "Fuck" front and center for all main page visitors during the religious holiday season and during Wikipedia's biggest fundraiser of the year. I realize Wikipedia Isn't Censored, but does anyone around here know the difference between "I can" and "I should"? Townlake (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I agree, but there was an extensive discussion about this before it was decided it would be posted. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, 331. I don't so much mind that it was "featured", but the timing is juvenile and tasteless. Townlake (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that this was featured because of the season. It's just a mere coincidence. You can't just appeal to one religion and country. This is the English wikipedia, not the american wikipedia. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Which religious holiday are you so worried about that falls on December 15? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not telling you this to persuade you of anything, but a bit of trivia may interest you. My family observes both Christian and Jewish traditions. We will begin celebrating Hanukkah the evening of December 16. Townlake (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the following day, though. And as you know, from a religious standpoint, Hanukkah is a relatively minor festival. It's taken on greater cultural significance largely as the Jewish answer to Christmas celebrations (for which I was grateful throughout my childhood, of course). —David Levy 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this. Let's see how many people never visit Wikipedia again after spotting that on the front page. --Biblioworm 00:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As many as stayed away the last time the word was featured on the main page. Here's a link to the discussion at the time so people can avoid a rehash of the same debate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI for anyone interested, the discussion can be found here. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another extraordinarily crass and stupid decision. The person or people responsible for this should have their permissions to edit the main page removed, and the task should be given to someone with better judgement. 86.152.160.175 (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Simmer down there. We are not here to insult and defile each other. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A decision I support without any prudish opinion at all. I just knew the Outrage Corps. would rush here in a rush of panic, and I hope they are told to not get so flustered. doktorb _words^deeds 03:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hate to bust your name-calling bubble, but my feelings don't put me in the "Outrage Corps." My feelings are more akin to when I hear 13-year olds swearing it up on a crowded subway train. Yeah, it's allowed, but come on, time and place. Townlake (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And how do you get "swearing it up" from a book title? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Read my post again, sport. Townlake (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reading back through that discussion, it is difficult to believe that the result came up as 'Consensus to post'. The reasoning given lists the arguments then analyses all the arguments against and dismisses them one by one. No such analysis is done on the supporting arguments, despite a large fraction of them amounting to nothing other than WP:OTHERSTUFF. Indeed, the closer's own reasoning is also largely WP:OTHERSTUFF - we've done it before so we should do it again. GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I went straight to the talk page in anticipation of this thread as soon as I saw the featured article. Let's see: Something something think of the children something something. There, that about sums it up. Carry on. --WaltCip (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I find the discussion above a bit ironic considering the topic of the article... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit: I was also extremely offended that this vulgar and disgusting featured article is on the main page during Zamenhof Day. The juvenile pruriency of Wikipedia has doubtlessly offended the dozens of Esperanto speakers worldwide.-RHM22 (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm fully understanding of the whole "Wikipedia is not censored" concept. However, this is going to set off a whole pile of net nanny services/software and potentially get Wikipedia blocked from a whole pile of places where it would otherwise be permitted. Once blocked, it's hard to remove a site from those block lists, especially if one isn't an administrator on the system. Think libraries, schools and places of business where people may frequently visit Wikipedia. (It's a blocking word for searching for most of this software, and when it comes up in a page it will often block the whole relevant site.) Thanks guys, at a time when our readership is well down, I'm not sure we need this particular article on the main page. Risker (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be self censorship, which is almost as pernicious as censorship by others. We should not indulge in it. If someone is annoyed that Wikipedia has been blocked by their ISP's filters, then they should complain to the ISP about the filters, not Wikipedia. Modest Genius ^talk 13:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Balderdash. The article exists, it is well-written and covers the subject in depth. Nobody is prevented in any way from reading the article, should they wish. If their software permits, it will come up if they search the site for the term "fuck". There is no censorship involved at all. Common sense, though, says you don't put things on the main page that are likely to trigger net nannies. Incidentally, the same "net nanny" issue is at least part of the reason that we don't have the even worse fundraising full-screen-overlay banners that were discussed earlier. If the WMF can figure this out, so should we. Risker (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. One thing I'd like to remind people is that WP:NOTCENSORED is not the focus of complaints about this from longstanding and good members of the community, so if you're citing that, there's a good chance that you haven't heard or understood the objection. I'm a very strong supporter of WP:NOTCENSORED and I'm also a very strong supporter of sensible, mature, and thoughtful editorial judgment. As Townlake said up above, "time and place" matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, are you saying that this is objectionable to you because of the time (during the holiday season) as well as its being featured on the main page? I can understand an objection based on the prominent appearance of the article, but the position that it's bad because we're ten days from Christmas seems a bit weak to me. (In case anyone isn't clear, my statement above about Zamenhof Day was meant as a response to this viewpoint.) Personally, I think it's unfair to say that a certain featured article that someone spent their time and effort improving should be permanently barred from TFA because it contains an offensive word. If I understand Risker's above point, then it seems as though Wikipedia should be blocked under those filtering methods regardless of what's on the main page. There are innumerable articles that contain vulgarities of all types, so if some filtering programs block the entire website, Wikipedia should already be 'blacklisted.' Apologies if I've misunderstood this, but I'm not familiar with those sorts of programs.-RHM22 (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

People would have to go to the page with the blockable word, and that would normally be prevented because they couldn't search for the word (the search is itself blocked). However, right now all they have to do is turn up on the main page. (If you enter "wikipedia.org" and then click "English", you wind up on the main page - so people could get blocked unintentionally.) Whatever happened to the WMF Board's direction on the principle of least astonishment? We sure took them seriously when they made decisions about fair use, why not this? Risker (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the explanation. I understand the argument regarding the possibility of Wikipedia being blocked via parental filters, but how many other programs block Wikipedia on a daily basis for every sort of reason? Some or all of Wikipedia must be blocked by the Chinese firewall, for example, but we wouldn't even consider not featuring an article for that reason. There will always be disagreements regarding ideology. I'm not comfortable with any sort of censorship. It exists on German Wikipedia, and I think they're all the worse off for it.-RHM22 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As for me, I think there's no really good reason to put such things on the front page ever, but if we do, then during the holiday season and during the fundraising season strikes me as a particularly poor choice. Again I'll repeat what I've said already: this is about thoughtful and mature editorial judgment not about censorship.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it is of concern that special concern is given to the fact that this is fundraising season. Should there really be a distinction? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: For most parts of the world this is not a 'holiday season'. Please avoid the systemic bias of assuming that all readers are like you. Not everyone celebrates Christmas, and even less of them also have Thanksgiving to provide the other end of a 'season'. Even in places which celebrate Christmas most of them won't be on holiday until Christmas Eve or the day itself. Finally, even if there was a worldwide 'holiday season' (which would occupy almost 10% of the year) it should make no difference to our scheduling decisions. Similarly with our fund-raising activities, which are supposed to be entirely separate from editorial decisions on content. Modest Genius ^talk 15:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw the discussion regarding having this item on the main page, but it was closed before I got the opportunity to comment. I remember one of the main arguments was that it was several months since the last time the featured article contained a swear word. I wanted to pose the question then, but I'll mention it as a rhetorical now - when would repetition become too much? Once a month? Why not replace Friday's featured list with a "Fuck off Friday" collection of rude jokes? (By notable comedians of course) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was also considering about the sudden usage of the word on the Main Page. It might change people's mindset on using Wikipedia, especially parents who spot their children on Wikipedia's Main Page with the word would probably be shocked, although I don't know what they will do. I think the best thing to do is to just let it go, as the founder of Wikipedia stated, Wikipedia is not censored. However, it is really weird for the word to appear on the Main Page. I have to agree with the aforementioned fact. I was like, 'Woah, chill' and I was glad my parent(s) was not behind of me, but today is a weekday, and Wikipedia visitors should drop at weekdays, especially Mondays. I understand that the festive season might be here, but all featured articles should deserve a chance to be placed there. It's like, Fuck You (Lily Allen song)", "Bitch, Don't Kill My Vibe" and other articles which uses inappropriate words. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, this is the second time in 2014 an article with "Fuck" in the title has been Today's Featured Article. I don't personally mind the word, but we all know it means something offensive, and we shouldn't actively goad people who are offended by it (particularly Wikipedia's educational partners). The percentage of FAs with "Fuck" in the title is disappearingly small; given where and when this article is appearing, as Jimbo noted at a parallel conversation at his talk page it's obvious there are some tone deafness issues in our project's TFA department. At some point, the community begs for WMF intervention by pulling silly stunts like this. Townlake (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also just remembered that the other rationale for it being featured today specifically was that it is the 223rd anniversary of the First Amendment being signed. That is a rather obscure number, and the anniversary is not mentioned anywhere on the page, so in retrospect it appears to be a flimsy excuse. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's no Gropecunt Lane. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that the article subject is a book specifically about prurience and word taboo nonsense in regards to the very word people are complaining about is a kind of irony you don't get to see very often. All of you complaining about it above are both hilarious and extremely depressing. If the word in question was something offensive and derogatory toward a group of people, then I would understand. I wouldn't want Niggers in the White House featured on the front page either. But Fuck is such a tepid word that literally just means sex. And it generally doesn't even mean that much anymore, more just a generalized expression of disdain or intensification of following words. Silverseren^C 10:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about the meaning of fuck, but that is not shared by all(if it were, we wouldn't be talking about it). I accept that this has been posted, but the issue is not censorship, but editorial judgement and potential blocking of people from accessing Wikipedia, as well as poor timing during the holiday season. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. Even Mr. Wales has expressed concern about this above. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• We have NOTCENSORED as a policy for a reason. This right here is one of the exact reasons why it was made. Dealing with people that would like to pretend that such subjects don't exist in the real world. Also, believe me, Mr. Wales' opinion makes me even more against all of you, since time and again all he seems to care about is the image of Wikipedia and not its editors or the work that is done here. And the funny part is, it's not going to be taken down. And by the time anything close to a discussion comes of this, the 24 hours will be up for it being featured anyways, just like every other time people have complained here that sex exists. Which is why this is all a waste of time. Silverseren^C 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The image of Wikipedia is a consideration. We want people to come here, not drive them away. To me NOTCENSORED means that the subject is not prohibited from Wikipedia or the words are not blocked out/redacted; it doesn't mean we need to advertise it on the main page for everyone to see. It's about judgement, not censorship. I am not calling for it to be taken down but people have legitimate good faith concerns here that don't have to do with censorship. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The point of NOTCENSORED is to express Wikipedia's impartiality. Wikipedia is meant to be as neutral as possible and that involves neutrally handling all articles and subjects and not treating then any differently. Censoring any article for any reason in any manner is a violation of that neutrality. Regardless of the material, it is all delegated in the manner as everything else is. Kinda like the controversy with the FBI seal back when the FBI was ticked off at us. Not running the seal when the article was submitted to DYK would have been a violation of that impartiality. And assuming bad faith on the part of the editor is also a no go. Oh, and in case you didn't know, that was also a situation where Jimbo cared more about how Wikipedia looked, and thus how he looked, than about the neutrality of Wikipedia, so he was trying to censor it passing DYK back then too. Silverseren^C 10:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am not assuming bad faith on the part of any editor; if I have suggested otherwise I apologize. I get that people have good reasons to post and support this but all reasons should be considered. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be; so no censorship means that no editorial judgements can be made? Everything or nothing? It isn't the black and white, yes/no matter you make it out to be. There are gray areas in all aspects of life. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not in regards to delegation and reviewing of material. Or, worded different, not for actions that are meant to be objective, not subjective. Black and white is very much the role needed for objective neutrality. Basically, that we are meant to be going through articles for promotion to places like DYK or Main Page not based on subjective opinions on their content. Silverseren^C 10:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Everything can be taken too far, including "objective neutrality". The main page is hard to avoid, especially the top of the main page. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The pearl-clutchers never disappoint. freshacconci talk to me 10:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Indeed, the TFA coordinator and others showed poor editorial judgment. The coordinator when he or she found weak "or" no consensus, should have made a better call. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• My younger child found the main page very, very funny. Thincat (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• It's not even a particularly offensive word to a great many people, though; its shock value has been reduced. However, this choice of TFA, yet again, just reinforces the stereotype of Wikipedia editors as some sort of basement-swelling Beavis and Butt-head characters ... "uh-huh-huh-huh ... he said Fuck"!! Pathetic, really. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What I have said previously on similar occasions - perhaps there could be a 'vanilla/child-, library-, work- and someone peering over your shoulder at your device on public transport- safe' English Main Page and one that covers 'more exotic topics.' Thus both sides can be happy (and a broader range of 'MP pick and mix of topics you didn't know you wished to know about.' Jackiespeel (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That would never work, because the net nannies will never apply the "clean" page to their own settings. They would keep it on the uncensored one because faux moral outrage is what they want. Resolute 15:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The FA pages once had a director. Who was empowered by community RFC (over and over again) to make decisions so that things like this wouldn't happen. That is, the FA process was once known as "not a vote"; no matter how many "support" declarations, bad FAs weren't promoted.

Both the FA director and one of his delegates at the Today's Featured Article request page were chased off by the SAME (finally and eventually banned) sockmaster. With that sockmaster, by the way, when the director and I sought support from the arbs, we were silenced by a (now gone in disgrace) arb; it was not until after the FA pages had been assaulted for months that the community finally banned the sockmaster on other matters. As all of that happened, many editors, (FA-involved and otherwise) were either silent, or joined in support of the Merry Band of Socks chasing off the director (actually, in a deliberate breaching experiment regarding the scheduling of another TFA).

So, to anyone who was an active editor and did nothing when all of this was happening and is now here complaining: take your tomato. You're part of it.

If you were silent when socks chased off the FA director, this is where that ends. If that is so troubling to any of you, then go read the discussion of how we nowadays, in the absence of an FA director, appoint new coordinators empowered to decide what goes on the main page, not only TFA. (Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator).

And if you don't read the whole thing and weigh in, then please hold your tongue the next time you don't like a TFA selection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, Sandy, the fact that Raul isn't here any more is completely irrelevant to the fact that our editing corps (in this area, anyway) does not appear to be able to rise above the mentality of giggling teenagers. We should be better than that. Although it's no surprise that we're not. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I can't characterize the topic as the mentality of giggling teenagers (maybe because I'm uninterested in even reading the thing), but I disagree that the absence of a director does not explain what is going on across the FA pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• The opposing view is that featured articles like today's demonstrate Wikipedia's ability to cover sensitive subjects in a mature manner. Perhaps some are unable to view the word "fuck" – in a wholly academic, fact-based context – without "giggling", but that doesn't accurately describe those who wrote a high-quality encyclopedia article about a law professor's book. —David Levy 14:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The content is irrelevant, really. Do you think this book would have had all the work done on it to promote it to FA had its title not included the first word? No, me neither. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The same editor, who's active in the subject area (freedom of speech/censorship issues), invested precisely that much work in Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. —David Levy 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Which is very laudable. And as I said, it's a very good article. I'm still entirely unconvinced that this article would have ended up on the mainpage but for its title, though. I only have to read the TFA discussion to come to that opinion. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• You suggested that the article would not "have had all the work done on it to promote it to FA had its title not included the first word". The editor's history suggests otherwise. Certainly, he focuses on articles related to freedom of speech/censorship issues (which, for obvious reasons, are exceptionally likely to contain provocative language), but I see no evidence that he selected this one because the book's title contains the word "fuck". —David Levy 20:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• As you know, Sandy, I was among those who defended Raul and condemned the sockmaster's actions. But I'm baffled by your statment that Raul's role was "to make decisions so that things like this wouldn't happen." Things like what? The display of "objectionable" material at TFA? As opposed to the family-friendly articles that Raul scheduled, such as The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and the aforementioned Gropecunt Lane? —David Levy 14:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I do know that. By "things like this wouldn't happen", I mean that the entire cadre of FA editors is implicated now as a "giggling teenager" group, and there is no one person where the buck stops. In the past, Raul was the "buck stops here" person. He put his balls on the line for the FA process, and had them chopped off-- chased out by a sockmaster. Now, it's the whole cadre of FA "giggling teenagers" that is accountable? Well, those FA "giggling teenagers" who didn't stand against a Merry Band of Sockmasters and their supporters should be held as accountable as they are ... and anyone who doesn't like this content on the mainpage, and hasn't weighed in on FA leadership discussions, should shut up or put up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• As I've commented elsewhere, you perceive distinctions that I don't.
  The above criticisms are no different from those that appeared here when Raul was the FA director. His decisions, like Bencherlite's, were based largely on community consensus – not that most aggrieved parties (then and now) know or care about the underlying infrastructure. —David Levy 15:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've contributed actively, but I intend to return to FA and DYK. I had no idea that Raul was no longer active, and it saddens me to know that. I always viewed his contribution in a very positive light. However, like Mr. Levy above, I agree that he never 'stopped these things from happening.' I'm fairly certain that he would have elected to post the same article today, and I've no doubt that the same people who now call the TFA crew a bunch of "giggling teenagers" would still be doing so; if they're saying that in the first place, then the chances are that they don't really know how articles are promoted and featured anyway. I hope we never marginalize any contribution to Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

RHM22, "the same people who now call the TFA crew a bunch of 'giggling teenagers'" would instead simply be calling for Raul's head, as they did frequently and loudly, claiming he was a "dictator". Until socks and supporters got his head. Point being, people were silent for years as the FA pages were under assault, they're silent now on how to appoint a new TFA person, and those who don't like what TFA puts on the main page, but have never spoken up in any FA page discussion, again-- should put up or shut up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Or alternatively the people closing such discussions should actually put themselves above the swathes of OMGNOTCENSORED children and say "hey, we're actually trying to present a serious encylopedia here, how about we try doing that?". Who is actually in charge of TFA is completely irrelevant to that. As I said above, this article, regardless of how good it is, would not be a TFA if it were not for its title - because no-one would care about it. And that's the difference. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is absolute crap. Do you honestly believe that someone spent hours improving an article and going through the FAR process because they thought it would be funny to one day possibly show a bad word on the main page? It's a fine scholarly article, on the subject of a book about the First Amendment. This is all in contrast to Gropecunt Lane, which was in fact expanded solely because of the humorous-sounding name, as mentioned elsewhere by another editor.-RHM22 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a good article - it is. But have a look at how many FAs are on similar subjects and then ask yourself - why this one? See also the previous FA this year with "Fuck" in the title. Sorry - I don't believe it. As I say above, I don't care about the word; it's simply the view of Wikipedia that the casual viewer will get. (Not to mention the thousands of educational facilities that will have had the mainpage blocked today because their governments require a profanity filter for U-16s, but I'm sure no-one here really gives a shit about that either). Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Most children 5 and older know this word, and know not to use it, because they don't like the taste of soap. A few days ago we had a picture of a yucky cancer on the home page. Some of our topics are horrible, but need to be taught. I'm much more shocked by a picture of a starving person at Holodomor than a didactic use of the word "fuck". Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• People complaining about childishness or about TFAR being full of "giggling teenagers" clearly have not read this article. And that tells me a great deal about how seriously I should take their opinions. Resolute 15:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not too long ago there was another FA using the word "Fuck" in it. There is a clear bias at work when choosing FA's to put profanity on the main page. This is absurd and it needs to stop. The timing of this right before Christmas and during the fund-raiser is horrible. This selection almost surely harmed Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with being prudish or anything. Rejecting this as today's FA would have just been common sense. I'm actually curious about the fraction of FA's that contain profanity. I'll have to investigate this. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Two in a one-year period? It's not like there are that many FAs to choose from, and if people have written about a book called "Fuck" it's eligible. If it's so surely harmed WP, can we have some evidence please? Also, it's ten days until Christmas, so I don't see your problem there; how big a margin should we leave sanitised, and around what times? Hanukkah, Ramadan, Thanksgiving, Diwali, Easter, July 4th? Way to block out the year.

Don't worry about the fundraiser, though. The banner is so big it obscures the page! (On my computer at least.) BethNaught (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Two in one year is almost one percent. Do one percent of notable topics include the word "fuck" in them? Obviously not. Not obvious? Well, let's see, out of the 4,670,492 current articles in English, a search for "intitle:fuck" yields 136 results, that means about 0.002912% of notable articles have the word. This in turn means that a rate of 1% would be oversampling those articles by 350 times. You don't even to do the statistical test to see that the possibility of statistical anomaly would be rejected against a possibility of a selection bias. In other words, FA editors are picking articles with the word "fuck" in them for the sake of picking the word. It needs to stop. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's 0.54%. And it's their prerogative to choose what subjects to write about. Shouldn't we be happy people volunteer to write high-quality content? And again I would ask for evidence this is harming Wikipedia before I will listen to such alarmism. BethNaught (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your statistical analysis would be valid if TFA were populated from Wikipedia's 6,927,412-article pool. By necessity, the selections are derived from the small pool of featured articles that haven't appeared on the main page. The two "fuck" articles, among others related to freedom of speech/censorship, were improved and nominated by an editor with a keen interest in that topic.

For the same reason, it isn't unusual for all sorts of subject areas to appear at TFA multiple times over the course of a year (at a frequency far exceeding their representation in the encyclopedia). And when people complain about seeing "too many articles" about birds, plants, video games, and whatever else, they're told the same thing. We can only work with the featured articles that we have, so editors can help to counter these skews by improving articles on topics of interest to them. —David Levy 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the ratio of featured articles including the word 'fuck' in the title to those which do not, I reached a very rough 33% likelihood of an article featuring that word in the title to appear on the main page if the selection were completely random.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OMG, somebody said Fuck! Maybe we should work that article up to FA status. After all, it's such a versatile word, isn't it? For example, it can denote surprise (What the fuck was that bang?" [Mayor of Hiroshima, August 1945]) or puzzlement (Where the fuck is all that water coming from? [Captain of the Titanic, April 1912]). There are so many other examples. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Those who believe that TFA is immature for selecting the word as the featured article are themselves immature for failing to see the wider meaning behind the article and just seeing a "bad word". KonveyorBelt 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's about decorum and respectability

The Project needs to represent itself with a certain level of decorum befitting the world's most popular online encyclopedia. Running a Featured Article that is essentially the F-bomb does not pass the smell test. If Wikipedia wants to be respected, it needs to act like an adult. Imagine if Presidente Obama went on TV and started throwing around the F word. Could he? Sure he could, technically. Should he? No, it would be a terrible idea, and I don't need to explain why. Or more to the point, imagine if the Gray Lady, the NY Times, ran a front page headline with the F-bomb in it. Could they? Sure, freedom of the press. But would they be particularly more or less respected and esteemed afterwards? Less. It's not about prudishness or phobia of the word, and it's not about WP:NOTCENSORED. It's about acting appropriately. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but we are not handcuffed by that one policy. And WP:NOTCENSORED sure as hell is not a mandate to feature profanity. I strongly disagree with any editor who insists on a course of action that results in Wikipedia featuring items like this in the name of protection of free speech or whatever similar intellectual libertarianist argument. Free speech is not remotely in danger here. And Wikipedia is not your personal vehicle for attempting to change the public's generally accepted idea of what is or is not generally proper conduct. What are you here to do—organize and share the world's information, or attempt to shock people and push your personal agenda on them? Darkest Tree Talk 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that nobody is "throwing the F word around". you've got to look at the context in which the word is being used, and it's a perfectly encyclopedic one. If Obama was addressing the f word in a critical context, looking at how it affects American society it would be a lot more respectable than if he went up to George W on live TV and called him a "fucking retard" wouldn't it? A lot of people might not like him saying the word but the context at least would be fairly appropriate if he addressed it critically. We're not telling people to eff off here now are we? And quite frankly the word is so ridiculously overused on the Internet and films etc that in 2014 no person should really be "shocked" at seeing its usage. We're not the BBC or an institution which follows a strict code. There is an argument that the main page could be censored of course, for some of the reasons that Risker mentioned, but we're not are we? The irony above all this is that the article itself addresses an issue which this very discussion has proved to be a notable one with divided opinion. The article is very relevant from a sociological viewpoint. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why can't Wikipedia's editors assume the burden of knowing what's best for the little people on the side of class instead of crass? I believe a front page should be suitable for "all audiences", with shocking, in-your-face, "I'm twelve and you're not the boss of me" content profusely included in the pages where appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.238.90 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Darkest Tree. The editors have gone out of their way to offend and grab attention. Sorry I donated this year. It won't happen next year. Brted (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries, WMF already has enough money :) BethNaught (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your monetary support was contingent upon Wikipedia restricting its main page's content to that which you find palatable. My support, conversely, is contingent upon Wikipedia's continued pursuit of neutrality. —David Levy 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that neutrality, freedom of speech, or editorial liberty on WP is going to be the least bit endangered if we err on the side of caution when selecting Featured Articles that maybe don't include subjects or phrases that are generally considered offensive. Not because I am worried about people being offended per se, but because choosing this controversial material is not doing Wikipedia any favors. If you are framing your argument in terms of whether or not people will, or should, find the chosen subject "palatable," then you are probably seeking to shock and offend. There are places for pushing these boundaries, but IMO the main page and FA is not one of them. Think about, in general terms, how what we do on the main page is going to help or hurt the Project. Just because a legitimately controversial article exists does not obligate us to choose to feature it on the main page instead of an article or subject that is not "offensive." Darkest Tree Talk 00:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't seek to shock or offend. I object to the suppression of material from the main page on the basis that some people find it shocking or offensive (which describes far more than one might realize).

In some instances, Wikipedia editors have gone out of their way to cook up main page content for the purpose of pushing boundaries and proving that Wikipedia is not censored (e.g. scouring an article and cherry-picking the one fact that was tangentially related to an expletive, purely as an excuse to get that word into DYK). I oppose such actions unreservedly. —David Levy 00:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. Are we talking about selecting featured articles which is intended to be solely based on merit or today's featured article i.e. selecting what to appear on the main page from the pool of featured articles? From what I can tell even editors like Jimbo Wales, Black Kite and Risker aren't suggestion we avoid recognising an article meets our quality standards when it does just because it contains the word 'fuck'. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of us were referring to TFA (on the main page). —David Levy 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we're only talking about what we choose to run as TFA on the main page. And David Levy, I understand where you're coming from. But I think some things are appropriate for the main page and others are not. It comes down to what are we trying to do. If the intent is to widen the exposure of a subject people generally find offensive, especially if it's already no secret that some people will be upset by it, then why do it? The only answer is because a group of someones has an agenda to try to change the way the public thinks about the subject, using Wikipedia. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, there are policies against that kind of thing. The main page is Wikipedia's face to the world. Should that be a face that says "fuck" when it can, or a face that has some self-control? (P.S. I'm not advocating the "suppression" of TFAs on, for example, controversial historical or political subjects. But when it comes to a book about the word fuck, or Gropecunt Lane (I remember that TFA), I think we can exercise some discretion). Darkest Tree Talk 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If the intent is to avoid offending people, we will need to exclude controversial historical and sociopolitical subjects. I don't quite understand why the word "fuck" is more problematic in this respect than, say, a blurb about a murderer who "dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard." For some reason, that isn't the type of TFA that triggers these discussions.

There's also the issue of neutrality. Invariably, the idea is to cater to the "majority" of our readership. In other words, if material is widely considered objectionable within a minority group, too bad. We need to focus on what "reasonable people would find objectionable" (emphasis added, but otherwise an actual quotation from one of these debates). —David Levy 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well there definitely seem to be some people here who didn't seem to understand the difference (e.g. the flawed statistics). I wanted to make sure the difference was understood as a few references to just FA or feature were made above, but as I said, the issue is about the TFA not FAs. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pee po belly bum drawers. Again. 80.3.72.207 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The TFA coordinator definitely made the right decision by running this. Wikipedia isn't censored, and it is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Trying to put some "child-friendly" face on an encyclopedia full of disturbing things wouldn't be honest. We aren't going out of our way to be annoying; it's just that censorship is an issue and we should cover it. Wnt (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You are plain wrong. The TFA coordinator made a very stupid decision. He or she is obviously incapable of exercising appropriate judgement and should be removed from his or her post. 86.136.150.146 ([[User

talk:86.136.150.146|talk]]) 00:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not defile other Wikipedians. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • WP:NOTCENSORED is not a mandate, again. And we are not "covering" anything: WP:NOTNEWS. And this is not the place to Right Great Wrongs WP:RGW if you think censorship is a problem in the world. It certainly is not a problem on Wikipedia. The further assertion that everyone visiting Wikipedia needs to have "disturbing things" shoved in their face just for coming to the site, like the examples Wnt linked to above, is, itself, disturbing. I don't need to be "educated" on the subjects you find "disturbing" just because I came here to look up an article on, say, state capitals. Get a sense of perspective for the breadth and depth of information on Wikipedia, and how the vast majority of users visit it for what is generally very neutral content. Darkest Tree Talk 00:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The saddest parts of these discussions is the people who seem to honestly believe that the thing was posted out of a juvenile desire to be offensive, as though that were the only conceivable explanation. What strange and sheltered lives these people must live if they think that anybody who claims to not think exactly like them is merely pretending to not think like them for the purpose of causing trouble. APL (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, No, No. The saddest part is that the public user reaction to this article chosen to be displayed as Wikipedia's best was so predictable, and that Wikipedia can't bring itself to consider public user reaction when reviewing featured article candidates due to some misconcieved notions about censorship.192.249.47.204 (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

FA 15 December part II

(break for ease of use)

My suggestion above was more to have the 'alternative or vanilla version' available for those who would prefer such things in a given context (and the present tutti-frutti version at other times): there could also be the jalapeno pepper version for those so inclined (and also US-centric/cute animal-centric and other version Main Pages). More people would be happy more of the time (and there would be more opportunities for good material to appear on some main page). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, vanilla is covered: http://www.conservapedia.com/ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

'If that is vanilla I am a hedgehog' - a far wider range of 'inappropriate terms' on the main page than has probably appeared on en-WP MP since it began. (Not to mention some of the 'rearrangements.') Vanilla in the sense of 'no cause for comment (not even that there is 'an overload of [insert pet topics here])'.

The Vanilla homepage is www.wiki.x.io.

It's been there all along. It's a logo and a search box.

Of course, people who like to complain ignore it completely because it has absolutely nothing to complain about.

(Or worse, they'll come here to argue that what they really want is a mainpage that's full of content, but content always tailored to their particular set of beliefs and/or interests.) APL (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is going to be 'one thing on the main page' every few months that causes wailing and gnashing of teeth and reference to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (and whatever the WP equivalent of Mary Whitehouse happens to be) - and not always an obvious topic. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WP users #know# that WP contains many articles on topics that annoy, offend or simply are of negative interest to them: and that they are likely to come across some of them by clicking on blue links/'looking up some obscure reference' etc. #But# this is a matter of choice/deliberate intent.

The Main Page is how WP presents itself to the English speaking world (and others who happen to be strolling through the various language main pages), and is likely to be accessed by people having a tea-break or otherwise in a context where certain topics are likely to cause discomfort (not everybody likes tea/coffee flavoured soggy biscuits) #however# well written or interesting the article. Most of these topics can be predicted and will cause the same, sometimes knee-jerk, reactions. There will also be an element of 'my taste/what annoys me, your taste/what annoys you.'

WP is not censored - but there has to be some compromise between 'totally vanilla' MP contents (the search box is not the same - the MP is, as I have said on occasion, useful for finding 'things you didn't know you wanted to know') and 'if it meets the good writing/notability etc standards carry on regardless publish and be damned.'

The trouble is - there is no consensus on where after 'er, what??' the 'appropriate for MP' boundary is - and if there were an en[3]WP page some people would go there just for the frisson. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing for me is that only so few people are actually being offended, if wikipedia gets so much traffic, then how come this page isn't being flooded with complaints? BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem for me is that the people who control content of the main page immediately point to some discussion now completed to justify their actions. The FA page and others dealing with selection of main page content are relatively obscure to the casual visitor. Hiding behind "we're not censored" is a cop out. The admins who control content are "so proud" of their decision that they left the offending word out of the recently featured line; that speaks volumes.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. According to this edit, that was an intentional decision made during the same discussion that decided to run the article as TFA. My own views on this are more to do with the choices people make on what articles to work on, but I'll say more on that separately. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The links have been piped to avoid triggering keyword-based content filters on days when the article isn't TFA. This, of course, was covered in the discussion (which you might want to actually read, unless you prefer jumping to conclusions). —David Levy 03:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing that should be made clearer here is that both the article being discussed here (the book Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties), and the previous one (the documentary film Fuck) were brought to featured article standards by the same editor (User:Cirt). I raised this point in an amendment request made by Cirt back in March 2014 to an arbitration restriction he remains under. It is worth reading through the amendment request to see what Cirt said there about his motivations for working on this topic (you will need to also read what I said there, the comments Cirt is responding to). The issue was touched on there of niche topics versus broad ones. Cirt has also worked on other niche articles related to freedom of speech and censorship, some of which have also been featured. It is trivial to find articles in this topic area that have words in their titles that will generate the kind of debate seen here. It is also trivial to find articles in this topic area that don't generate that kind of debate. Cirt does work on both, but has he focused more on the articles that shock than the ones that don't? The jury may still be out on that, but I think a pattern is emerging. What is clear is that Cirt works on books and films about a niche area of freedom of speech and censorship, some of which have words in their titles that can shock when featured on Wikipedia's front page, and some that don't (e.g. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth). Cirt also nominates the articles to appear on Wikipedia's front page. Should the nomination of niche articles with 'shock' value worked on by the same author be encouraged or discouraged (remembering we are all ultimately volunteers)? Personally, I'd discourage it in favour of working on and nominating broader level topics with more educational value (e.g. the articles freedom of speech and censorship themselves), but I fear that Cirt may see some of the discussion here as an encouragement to work on another niche book or film article that will provoke a similar reaction. Whether that will happen, only time will tell. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think what is often misunderstood is that only featured articles can appear as TFA. Both examples listed above (Freedom of speech and Censorship) would be perfectly suitable, but they aren't featured articles. Anyone interested in promoting an article to featured status can certainly do so. Improve Fred Rogers, Thomas Bowdler or anything you so desire, promote it to featured status, then nominate it for a main page appearance. In fact, you don't even have to nominate it; many articles are plucked out (somewhat) randomly, with care taken to prevent a large amount of similar articles being featured in succession.-RHM22 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, to be clear, I'm not referring to you, but to others who complain that more 'suitable' (but not featured) articles should appear on the main page. I know that you know that those two aren't currently featured. Many don't understand the way that articles are chosen, or don't care to.-RHM22 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Many (most?) readers are under the impression that "today's featured article" is simply an article that we've decided to "feature" today. It's common for people to ask why [non-featured article] wasn't scheduled for a particular date or why we picked [featured article] instead of running [non-featured article].

So it's easy to understand why they question the selection of an "offensive" topic from the 6,927,412-article pool that they believe exists for this purpose. —David Levy 03:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that Cirt is motivated by a desire to get the word "fuck" onto the main page. The evidence suggests that he's simply creating, improving and nominating articles of interest to him. Given the subject matter, it isn't surprising that some of them have provocative titles (which, of course, the works' creators purposely chose in the hope of turning heads).

As you know, Wikipedia's editors are unpaid volunteers. When one invests the time and effort required to create a featured article – whether it's about a famous philosopher, a mushroom species, a hip hop album or a cartoon character – we should be grateful for his/her contributions. No one is under any obligation to edit anything, let alone to concentrate on articles that someone else deems worthy. —David Levy 03:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly likely that an editor who acts to promote the Fuck documentary, and then turns around to promote the Fuck: . . . book on which the documentary comments is doing so to promote multiple repetitions. It is bad editorial judgement to do it on the main page nonetheless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

David, you make the point that the works' creators purposely chose provocative titles "in the hope of turning heads". I agree absolutely. My question to you would be whether Wikipedia, by featuring articles on books and films (and any other 'named' objects) with provocative titles, should be proxying for that sort of attention grabbing? This is part of the point people made in the earlier discussions that featuring niche topics such as books and films unavoidably ends up promoting both those books and films and their tone or attitude, even if done in a NPOV and dispassionate manner. If you feature a 'broad' topic such as freedom of speech or even the word fuck, then you avoid that specific problem. As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there. I would look askance at anyone who repeatedly pushed provocative topics to the front page (you see this to some extent in DYK as well). Once, OK. Twice, maybe. A third time would be pushing it, IMO. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My question to you would be whether Wikipedia, by featuring articles on books and films (and any other 'named' objects) with provocative titles, should be proxying for that sort of attention grabbing?

I see no reason to restrict the question to subjects with purposely provocative names. Should we feature articles about violent acts committed by persons/organizations seeking attention? Articles about political/religious activists? Articles about commercial entities in general?

My answer is that maintaining a neutral point of view entails presenting information as it exists in the real world, not seeking to level the playing field by promoting low-key subjects and discriminating against high-profile ones.

We strive to maintain a topical balance (to the extent possible, given the inherent limitations associated with selecting articles from the FA pool), but we don't deem certain subjects more or less worthy of inclusion based on value judgements. That a marketer, activist, criminal, author, filmmaker or anyone else did something to grab attention is neither a valid reason to favor an article about the result nor a valid reason to disfavor it. To do so would be to deem the aforementioned attention-seeking good or bad. We have a responsibility to remain neutral.

This is part of the point people made in the earlier discussions that featuring niche topics such as books and films unavoidably ends up promoting both those books and films and their tone or attitude, even if done in a NPOV and dispassionate manner.

The alternative is to exclude all such topics from TFA. In addition to the above point, I'll note that reduced variety is one of the last things we need.

As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there. I would look askance at anyone who repeatedly pushed provocative topics to the front page

Why? Cirt (the user in question) clearly has a keen interest in topics related to free speech/censorship, so he chooses to write about them. How is this any different from an editor who writes about birds or tropical storms?

Certainly, editors are motivated by a desire to get material of interest to them (and yes, that to which they want to deliver readers) onto the main page. (For obvious reasons, this is unavoidable.) And while people complain about seeing too many articles about mushrooms and video games, I don't recall anyone accusing their creators/nominators of selecting these topics in bad faith, with a goal of stirring up trouble.

If Cirt were seeking out articles across a wide range of subjects (with no apparent commonality apart from their expletive-containing titles), I would understand the suspicion. That isn't what's occurring. He's focusing on a specific subject area (including articles whose titles don't contain expletives). The two "Fuck" articles are connected beyond this shared subject matter (with the film discussed in the book), so the notion that Cirt went out of his way to find an additional "Fuck" topic is utterly baseless. (To be clear, I'm not referring to comments that you've made.)

(you see this to some extent in DYK as well).

DYK is a different animal. Cherry-picking the one "offensive" detail from an article isn't the same as summarizing an "offensive" topic. —David Levy 16:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is saying, going out of the way to find the topics -- going out of the way to promote them is another matter, and is undisputed, along with Fuck the movie, and Fuck the book, being repetitious matter. That also has nothing to do with neutrality. We all make editorial judgments when we write articles, we make other editorial judgments when we promote them for the main page (they are far from the same decision) - the notion that that later decision is being "neutral" is just not in keeping with the meaning of neutral. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is saying, going out of the way to find the topics -- going out of the way to promote them is another matter, and is undisputed,

I dispute that Cirt went out of his way to do anything – apart from improving the encyclopedia, for which he should be commended. He focused on articles whose topics interest him, just as most editors do.

If you meant that Wikipedia went out of its way to run these articles as TFA, I dispute that too.

along with Fuck the movie, and Fuck the book, being repetitious matter.

The pool of featured articles that haven't appeared on the main page is limited (with several subject areas depleted and others nearly so), so some degree of repetition is unavoidable. Were two articles about mushrooms, tropical storms or video games to appear as TFA 9 ½ months apart, I doubt that you'd complain that we went "out of the way to promote them".

That also has nothing to do with neutrality. We all make editorial judgments when we write articles, we make other editorial judgments when we promote them for the main page (they are far from the same decision) - the notion that that later decision is being "neutral" is just not in keeping with the meaning of neutral.

What do you mean? I mentioned neutrality in response to a question as to whether TFA should include articles about entities whose creators purposely gave them provocative names. In my view, rejecting an article's proposed TFA appearance on the basis that we should seek to thwart such "attention grabbing" would be non-neutral. (We aren't here to deem our articles' subjects "good" or "bad", let alone to reward the former with extra exposure and punish the latter with exclusion therefrom.) Do you disagree? —David Levy 18:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How can you dispute that the Pedia took a long conversation to come to little or no consensus on putting the article on the main page; how can you dispute that the nominator made the extra effort with notices all over to promote it to the main page. Have you sought to put every article you created on the main page, because there is certainly nothing requiring you to, and it does take extra effort that is not writing articles. Your excuse for repetition is merely an acknowledgement of repetition - as for how you draw parallels between different species of mushroom, and different storms, and the subject of one word is rather bizarre but more so unpersuasive. The issue is not deeming any article subject good or bad, the issue is using the editorial power and function to put it on the main page - that has nothing to do with neutrality - neutrality would be, it does not matter if it is on the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How can you dispute that the Pedia took a long conversation to come to little or no consensus on putting the article on the main page;

I agree on the "long conversation" part. Regarding "little or no consensus", our outgoing TFA coordinator determined otherwise. Of course, you're entitled to disagree with him. But you and I are hopelessly biased, so I don't regard either of us as qualified to gauge consensus (or the absence thereof).

how can you dispute that the nominator made the extra effort with notices all over to promote it to the main page.

As explained in the discussion, those notifications were deemed a requirement; Cirt didn't post them out of a desire to "promote" the nomination.

It appears that you and I meant different things. When I stated that Wikipedia didn't go "out of its way to run these articles as TFA", I meant that no extraordinary measures were taken to give them priority over others.

In terms of sheer effort, yes, this was a chore – for the nomination's supporters and opponents alike. But I wouldn't describe it as "going out of our way to run these articles as TFA" (and I doubt that you'd describe it as "going out of our way to not run these articles as TFA"). Discussion is standard procedure at Wikipedia. I wish that one of this magnitude hadn't been necessary, and you probably do as well (albeit for a slightly different reason). But things don't always work out that way. Hopefully, you aren't suggesting that nothing requiring extensive discussion should be proposed around here (because it would be easier not to).

Have you sought to put every article you created on the main page, because there is certainly nothing requiring you to,

Is your point that Cirt wasn't required to take the article through the FA and TFA processes? That's true of every editor and every article.

and it does take extra effort that is not writing articles.

All sorts of normal Wikipedia activities require effort. This includes the aforementioned processes, without which we would have no featured articles and no TFA section on the main page.

That a TFA nomination involves "extra effort" beyond that which is required to simply write an article (as well as the investment of time that otherwise could be spent on a different activity, such as working on other articles) is an accurate statement. I just don't understand what point you're making. That TFA is a waste of time?

Your excuse for repetition is merely an acknowledgement of repetition

Well, yeah. I explicitly acknowledged the existence of repetition. I'm not making an "excuse" for it. I'm simply stating a fact: some degree of subject matter repetition is unavoidable (and the current pool of eligible featured articles contains less variety than it could – a situation that should be improved, not excused). Do you dispute this claim? If so, please convey your solution.

- as for how you draw parallels between different species of mushroom, and different storms, and the subject of one word is rather bizarre but more so unpersuasive.

Neither article's subject is "one word". Various editors' shared perception to the contrary was among the elements of the TFA discussion that I found most troubling.

The issue is not deeming any article subject good or bad, the issue is using the editorial power and function to put it on the main page - that has nothing to do with neutrality - neutrality would be, it does not matter if it is on the main page.

I addressed a hypothetical scenario in which we actively accept and reject articles for TFA on the basis of our positive and negative opinions of their subjects (specifically, disapproval of actions undertaken by persons directly involved in some of the entities' creation). You've responded by describing a different hypothetical scenario that you've rightly deemed irrelevant (because it's unrelated to my point).

Indeed, not caring whether any given article appears on the main page would be a neutral position. So would not caring about what material appears in an article. By this definition of neutrality, it "has nothing to do with" writing the encyclopedia.

If you'll excuse me, I'm off to read today's featured mushroom article. (And tomorrow's featured article – about an anglophone soldier/politician – is only minutes away.) —David Levy 23:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The TFA coordinator said in the close they found less "or" "no consensus". It's as if you did not read what coordinator wrote, nor what others have written here: The nominator went out of his way to get this put on the main page ("extra effort" as you admit to be) -- you also apparently missed the plea of the coordinator in the close for the nominator to stop it. The repetition of subject is apparent in the titles, and in the subject matter, both dealing with treatments of one word. Your last point is irrelevant because you keep insisting that it is not judgement and an act of will to put something on the main page, but you are wrong about that -- and you already admitted that getting it on the main page is not writing articles for the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The TFA coordinator said in the close they found less "or" "no consensus".

His closing statement's Conclusion subsection reads as follows:

So for all these reasons I find that many of the "oppose" arguments are either off-topic or weaker than their numerical presence might at first blush suggests. Looking for strength of arguments, then, my conclusion is that there is consensus, albeit weaker than in the previous TFAR discussion, in favour of running the article as requested. If I am wrong about that, then there is not a consensus against running the article, and in the absence of a consensus to change the default position (that all TFAs are eligible for the main page) then I take the view that it is eligible.

He explicitly conveyed a determination of consensus to run the article. Then he described a hypothetical scenario in which he's wrong.

The nominator went out of his way to get this put on the main page ("extra effort" as you admit to be)

I acknowledged that extra effort is required to get any article on the main page. I'm baffled as to how that relates to this instance in particular.

However, Cirt did go overboard (to the extent that it became disruptive). It's clear to me that this wasn't his intent. He meant well, but he was overzealous.

That isn't the context in which I used the phrase "went out of his way". I'm addressing suspicions that Cirt selected the articles in question in bad faith, for purpose of stirring up trouble by getting the word "fuck" onto the main page.

(-- you also apparently missed the plea of the coordinator in the close for the nominator to stop it).

Actually, I joined him.

If that's what you meant by "went out of his way", you have no disagreement from me on this point.

The repetition of subject is apparent in the titles, and in the subject matter,

Of course the two articles share subject matter, as I've stated repeatedly. If they didn't, that would be evidence that Cirt went out of his way to get random "Fuck" articles onto the main page (as opposed to focusing on related topics of interest to him).

both dealing with treatments of one word.

Indeed, both the film and the book cover that topic. As I noted above, the film is even mentioned in the book. That doesn't make the word "fuck" the subject of the two Wikipedia articles.

Your last point is irrelevant because you keep insisting that it is not judgement and an act of will to put something on the main page, but you are wrong about that

I've done no such insisting. I'd like to clarify my comments, but I don't know what you've misinterpreted to mean the above.

-- and you already admitted that getting it on the main page is not writing articles for the encyclopedia.

"Admitted"? That an activity other than writing articles for the encyclopedia is not writing articles for the encyclopedia? How is this an admission? I'm at a loss. —David Levy 03:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You admitted that it is not writing articles for the encyclopedia, so your penultimate last point is about writing the encyclopedia is irrelevant. You have admitted that the nominator made "extra effort" (which is the same as 'out of his way') to put what you admit are two repetitious articles on the main page. You apparently admit that the closer found "weaker" consensus and alternatively no consensus. You apparently admit the closer pleaded with the nominator not to do this again in the closing statement - as for "bad faith" no one said that but you (which is probably a sign of your bad faith or just failure to read what other people have written). Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You admitted that it is not writing articles for the encyclopedia,

I'm trying to understand why you perceive that as an admission. Was this a matter of contention? Was there some suggestion that getting an article on the main page is writing articles for the encyclopedia? I don't even know how such a claim could make sense. How could those two distinct activities be one and the same?

so your penultimate last point is about writing the encyclopedia is irrelevant.

It was a comment on your definition of "neutrality" (as it pertains to Wikipedia). You stated that the process through which articles are selected for TFA "has nothing to do with neutrality" because "neutrality would be, it does not matter if it is on the main page." This equation of neutrality with apathy/inaction is inconsistent with the context in which Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality is discussed, irrespective of whether we're writing an article or compiling material for the main page.

If an editor were to opine that the Hillary Rodham Clinton article should be excluded from TFA because "women have no place in politics", that the Nikolai Kulikovsky article should be excluded because "Russians are scum", or that the Ringo Starr article should be excluded because "he's a mediocre drummer who stole Pete Best's fame", I would respond that such a rationale is incompatible with Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality.

By your definition, the hypothetical editor should argue that the decision "has nothing to do with neutrality" because "neutrality would be, it does not matter if is on the main page."

You have admitted that the nominator made "extra effort"

I've acknowledged that every TFA nominator makes "extra effort" (beyond that which is required to write an article). How is that exceptionally relevant to this particular instance?

(which is the same as 'out of his way')

I was addressing suspicions that Cirt went "out of his way" to do something unusual and inappropriate (in comparison with the behavior expected within the FA and TFA processes). Specifically, I was referring to his article selections. Like most Wikipedia editors, he chose to focus on a subject area of interest to him – in this case, free speech/censorship. This includes two related works whose titles contain the word "Fuck", among other topics. He didn't go "out of his way" to write about out things with "fuck" in their names (e.g. the band Fuck and the website Fucked Company, neither of which falls into the aforementioned area of interest) as a means of getting the word "fuck" onto the main page.

If you want to describe the act of nominating an article for TFA as "going out of one's way", that's fine, but it's unrelated to my point.

to put what you admit are two repetitious articles on the main page.

The repetition occurred when the second of the two appeared, but yes. We ran Fuck (film) as TFA, followed by Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties (an article on a related subject) 9 ½ months later. If you're arguing that a wider gap would have been preferable, I'm inclined to agree. And as I requesed previously, if you know of a solution to the problem stemming from the limited topical variety among articles eligible to appear as TFA, please share it.

You apparently admit that the closer found "weaker" consensus and alternatively no consensus.

He did, indeed, describe the consensus as "weaker" than it was in a previous discussion (related to the film). He didn't find "alternatively no consensus". Again, you're referring to a condition that he doesn't believe exists (but described to address a hypothetical scenario in which he's wrong).

You apparently admit the closer pleaded with the nominator not to do this again in the closing statement

Huh?

- as for "bad faith" no one said that but you

Throughout the two TFA discussions, it was suggested repeatedly that Cirt nominated the articles not to improve Wikipedia, but to cause shock, offense and disruption. Your 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC) message was a reply to one in which I addressed the following statement by Carcharoth:

As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there.

(which is probably a sign of your bad faith

Now you're accusing me of acting in bad faith?

or just failure to read what other people have written).

See above. —David Levy 09:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the appearance of bad faith, like when you take apart a sentence and say you do not understand half the sentence. The points which are being made, which you ignore, as to the actions of the nominator, as to the repetition, as to the extra effort to affect the repetition, as to the placement on the main page, is the matter of appropriate appearance, which appropriateness, is precisely the thing that NOTCENSORED ("whether it is [] appropriate") and NPOV, judge. We can't be neutral about what is appropriate because we are not neutral about what is appropriate. The extra effort to cause the repetition, also, appears to be problematic, whatever motivated it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel this way. I've done my best to address your views and communicate mine. I hope that we can collaborate successfully in the future. —David Levy 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically: . 'Some articles' meet the criteria of FA status but are on topics which are considered unsuitable to ever feature on the MP; other potential FAs are 'likely to generate much discussion because of words used, or particular topics (medical, war/violence/'bad taste' etc), and some are debate generators because of particular circumstances/they appear (possibly accidentally) in conjunction with other topics.

The debate is how to balance WP MP freedom of expression and 'the requirements of good taste, computer filters and tea breaks' in the latter two cases.

There are also going to be many articles that reach FA status and are unlikely to cause much debate (beyond 'this is the Xth article on subject Y in Z days') but for which there is no MP space - how can they be showcased? Would a 'FA showcase' which does not have the restrictions/constraints (of all kinds) of the Main Page get round the issues raised by this particular article? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There actually is something wrong with the FA process, but it's not the lack of censorship. No, the real problem is that there is a huge preference for articles about narrow topic areas, specifically commercial products, while any general article faces much more resistance. An article like freedom of speech or cell (biology) or video game will never contain every possible reference about the parent topic; therefore it will never end up being called 'comprehensive' and 'stable' and put on the featured list. Instead we end up with articles about specific video games very, very frequently, a phenomenon that looks to me a lot like unpaid advertising. I wholeheartedly agree that Cirt deserves nothing but our congratulations for shepherding multiple articles through the FA gauntlet. I do wish though that there were a way that we could recognize the greater difficulty and scope of effort that can go into high-level general topic articles and give them a more reliable path toward featured status. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

According to whom are certain topics "considered unsuitable to ever feature on the MP"? Upon whose standard of "good taste" are we to rely, and why? (Was "the requirements of good taste, computer filters and tea breaks" a quotation?) Where does "freedom of expression" (neither a constitutional right in this context nor part of Wikipedia's five pillars) enter the equation? —David Levy 12:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There were a few articles that were (and maybe still are) essentially banned from the main page. I remember it being said about Jenna Jameson (no longer a featured article) that it would never appear on the main page, and there were a few others if memory serves. I never did agree with that, especially since the lede for Jameson isn't exceptionally prurient. If it were an article on one of the 'colorful' pornography titles, then I would be a little more sympathetic to the prohibition.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're referring to a small list maintained by Raul654 (our former featured article director, who no longer participates in the process). It didn't fit Jackiespeel's description, as Raul explicitly stated that he compiled the list purely because he wanted to avoid the irritation of dealing with complaints, not because the articles were unsuitable for the main page. I believe that Jenna Jameson was the list's last remaining item. (Another – Wikipedia – was demoted long before Raul's departure.) I never fully understood his reasoning, as he scheduled articles that seemed far more "controversial". In any case, none of this is current. —David Levy 16:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that Raul's list is no longer around (I assumed that it went along with him), but I thought that may have been what Jackie was referring to above. Other than Jameson and the Wikipedia article you mentioned, I can't think of anything else at all that would be considered unsuitable, unless something has changed recently. I mentioned earlier that I haven't been active in a couple of years, so some things are different than I remember them.-RHM22 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Indeed, Jackiespeel may have been thinking of Raul's list. —David Levy 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Featured Article showcase sounds intriguing. I often wonder why the Main Page is being used as a Showcase Page in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was quoting myself making a general summary of possible reasons why a particular topic might be excluded from the Main Page: bad taste might include the Thatcher/Wicked Witch song controversy, computer filters (libraries, work places etc) tend to be finicky - and who 'doodling around while drinking a cup of tea' wants to see a 'very medical, war-event, high squick factor, or similar' image?

I do not know how practical a Featured Article showcase would be - but it would be one way of 'dealing with' Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page and could be run on slightly different lines to the Main Page (pages show for eg a week; former FAs; and can have themed selections etc). The intent would be to show WP articles at their best not to exclude them from the MP. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking of something like a portal, of which we have many already, including Portal:Featured content which is linked on the left-hand side of every page, as well as broad-topic portals linked at the top of the main page. I don't see how having a different showcase-type page "deals with" WP:FANMP, though, or why we need to "deal with" it beyond it being the pot from which TFAs are chosen. Some FAs get to the main page more quickly than others, but that's inevitable unless we run a strict "first in first out" policy, which I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest for TFAs. Bencherlite^Talk 20:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that there are 'many more potential FAs' than days in several years to come, and that some of these articles are 'likely to generate much comment' (and the regular complaints about overemphasis on one area or another) trying to come up with suggestions that will satisfy the wishes of as many people as possible (including mine that there should be as many opportunities of 'finding things one did not know one wished to know more about.') 'Lists of headings' are not as inviting as 'pictures and text.'

We can't satisfy or even interest all the people all the time - we just have to find ways of maximizing the sum of WP happiness (and getting people involved) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, further to the comments way up there about immature editors, we can look forward at some point to seeing an eroticised portrayal of an underage girl being forced onto the Main Page as Featured Article by a sniggering clique clearly out to shock. Awien (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article - the painting actually had a surprisingly extensive impact on American culture. I see no reason not to side with Inez Milholland on this one. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe the massive controversy this has caused. I honestly think that the attitude that "horrific deplorable violence is okay, so long as people don't say any naughty words" is being adopted here. I mean, seriously, it's a legitimate topic, there's no reason to hide the article just because some people don't like the word "fuck". That's what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe how some people just can't understand why obscene words should not be put in in big bold letters at the top of Wikipedia main page. 86.152.161.61 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe how some people just can't understand that their personal and cultural beliefs – including what constitutes obscenity – aren't universal. —David Levy 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If the average age of Wikipedia editors were a few years younger, the Main Page would feature the First Amendment implications of censorship of a discussion of peeing on you. And opponents would be conflated with Muslims objecting to unveiled women. Which is not to say I know what the right answer is ... Art LaPella (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this hypothetical scenario. (To what potential main page content are you referring?)

Also, what conflation do you believe has occurred? I've mentioned "Muslims objecting to unveiled women" (among many other examples, including even stricter editorial standards enforced by certain adherents to my religion), but my point (and that of others who've made similar comments, I think) is that Wikipedia's readers aren't all the same. —David Levy 04:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The hypothetical scenario is of course reductio ad absurdum, demonstrating that enough of us are the same so that some judgments are possible (every reversion is such a judgment). Art LaPella (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

However, here it seems to be more of a straw man. I would recommend against using it since it tends to be equivalent of a middle finger, in this case to editors below the average age of a wiki editor (which the age is, by the way, higher then you'd expect). Another thing is that, naughty words or not (apparently violence doesn't count) Wikipedia is still way more respectable then the majority of the internet as a whole, even google is not without its controversy. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is more respectable than others, then some judgments are being made. That's what I said. Art LaPella (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Did someone assert that judgements aren't being made? I remain baffled as to what point you seek to make. —David Levy 02:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Then would you agree that Wikipedians can and do make judgments, including judgments about what is too offensive (whether or not the original book is beyond the pale), even though everyone won't agree? Art LaPella (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "Wikipedians" and "make judgments".

Individually, Wikipedians are entitled to deem material "offensive". Collectively, they aren't entitled to impose content restrictions based on these views.

Your previous statement that "if Wikipedia is more respectable than others, then some judgments are being made" seems to point to the latter context. (It also appears to equate "more respectable" with "less offensive", but I don't want to put words in your mouth.) If so, I'm curious as to whether you read the above discussion in its entirety (as I believe that I conveyed my position rather clearly).

Likewise, it's inappropriate for Wikipedians to include material because they regard it as "offensive" (and I addressed this above as well). Mindful of your "reductio ad absurdum" explanation, I'm unsure of whether you were describing such a scenario. Is "the First Amendment implications of censorship of a discussion of peeing on you" a reference to a hypothetical featured article about a urolagnia-related subject, a criticism of editors' immaturity (as you perceive it), or something else? —David Levy 21:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I can only interpret the 2:41 post to mean that no one, including you, would assert that judgments aren't being made in the context of making Wikipedia more respectable, which you correctly connected with less offensive. Then you say that such judgments, if they actually make Wikipedia less offensive, would be against policy and consensus. Taken together, it's an example of what I choose to call a fine distinction beyond my understanding. So I should find something else to do. Art LaPella (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, your "only" interpretation is incorrect. I wasn't referring to the suppression of "objectionable" material (let alone opining that "less offensive" is synonymous with "more respectable"). I was addressing – as I mistakenly believed that you were – a much broader context.

You stated that you sought to demonstrate "that enough of us are the same so that some judgments are possible", adding that "every reversion is such a judgment". Then you used the identical phrase ("some judgments") in your next message. That this suddenly referred strictly to "judgments ... being made in the context of making Wikipedia [less offensive]" (as opposed to judgements in general, including "every reversion") was not self-evident.

However, this is not to say that the potential for causing offense is never a legitimate factor in Wikipedia's decision-making. As I've noted, we certainly shouldn't purposely offend people, nor should we deliberately select an "offensive" option over one that's otherwise comparable.

As you've again declined to explain what you meant by "the First Amendment implications of censorship of a discussion of peeing on you", I'm unable to delve deeper on that point. —David Levy 03:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking to future FAs

OP admits to WP:POINT. No further discussion needed --Jayron32 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In an upcoming FA scheduled for 6 January, Epiphany, of all days, the Spanish name for The Falkland Islands is mentioned. To me this is FAR more taboo than saying fuck. Now I know a lot of people have worked hard on that article and other people won't understand, but it upsets me and me alone. Can we remove the article from the FA schedule and possibly delete the mention from wikipedia forever? -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 17:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Reply from a UK editor: Er ... no. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC) So wikipedia doesn't care about my feels, even in a fundraising period? -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 17:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I am slightly confused as to why it would upset you. The Spanish name for the islands is well known; it's not as if the article suggests that it is the general name for the islands. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Am I correct in assuming that this is a joke?-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Must be, no mention of Las Malvinas or the Falkland Islands in the article at all. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Wait. What? Five of the first six words are pretty much that! Unless that's a clever joke? My post was indeed tongue-in-cheek and as ridiculous as most of the discussion above it. Although I imagine people are going to have a good old whinge on February 6 when the world "vagina" is due to appear on the front page. Shock horror. -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 10:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC) That Feb 6th article will likely have enough serious commentary. No need to crack wise about it. Very important topic to cover. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC) I'm sure it will. It'll also have people complaining about it, despite it being an important topic and worthy of MP. As with the two 'Fuck' articles. No wise crack. -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 08:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "That Feb 6th article will likely have enough serious commentary.": And the December 15th article didn't? Sceptre (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Never said it didn't, did I? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2015 (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.

December 15 Featured article part III

Summing up:

Wikipedia aims to cover all things, including topics people individually find totally uninteresting and also those they find unpleasant, offensive or otherwise wish to have nothing to do with.

The Main Page serves to both provide links to material that people might find interesting/would not otherwise have looked at and also to showcase well designed articles/the best of WP's writing.

There are certain topics which are felt not to be suited for mention on the MP - some adult themes, some language use, various very medical/violence/war, 'topics which annoy library and workplace filters', 'topics which do not go with hot drink and biscuit breaks', 'topics which it is felt might cause upset to young persons', 'topics which conflict with certain cultural and social preferences' and others.

What balance should there be between these three aspects - where along the line between 'totally vanilla' and 'anything and everything goes' should the balance be?

The nature and intent of Wikipedia is in part about thinking imaginatively - what solutions can we think of that satisfy most people?

I suggested a showcase of Potential Featured Articles - given that there are so many and the range they cover, 'images and brief quotes' might be more enticing than a list of titles. This could also be used for certain other categories of article (the usual 'too many links in category X'). Would this resolve the situation? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is more than a little complex. You're talking about attempting to gauge the entire spectrum of the sensibilities of everyone that views wikipedia, registered or unregistered. You've then got to attempt to tailor the MP to meet those unreachable aims AND keep it interesting to pull in funding/future editors. On the flip-side of the coin you are then going to automatically suggest that the work (and often very hard work) editors carry out to bring articles up to TFA standard, which aren't in the niche you've selected, is not 'worthy' of the MP. On top of ALL this, you've also got to get people involved with TFA, when to be honest, not many people are interested until an article like this 'sneaks through'. It's always a firefighting operation after the occasion. The only solution I can see is either the community accepts that such articles will appear on the MP and continue to say WP is Not Censored, or, sadly, Featured Content should be removed from it permanently ... effectively censoring ourselves. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are always going to be many more articles that #could# go on the MP than it has space for (there was a list quoted somewhere previously in the discussion). I was suggesting something in addition to the MP - and as with the weekend newspapers it might be possible to have 'sporting TPAs', 'science TPAs' etc. This way more of the good work can be recognized.

I am not talking about the occasional entries (different in most cases) which will cause minor dislike in the viewer - but the ones which objectively beforehand are likely to fall into the categories mentioned. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So would any Featured Content be seen on this new MP at all? Would the likes of the aformentioned 'offensive' articles be allowed on this additional space? Because my point still stands; these articles had a lot of work put into them, they were reviewed and seen as good articles. They were nominated for TFA, reviewed again and deemed worthy of FP status. (This article was nominated 9 months ago with no opposition in that process). If there were a 'Book TPAs' would this article be suitable and would Gropecunt Lane be OK for 'Street TPAs'? If not, would there be an 'Offensive TPAs' section, and if so, who decides what goes where? It's a minefield. "Offence, is never given, it's taken ... remember this: just because someone is offended it doesn't mean they're right.". -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 16:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree that my definition of what the MP is 'for' is a reasonable one.

'Certain topics' (some of which can be identified ahead of time) are likely to generate much discussion on this talk pages for the reasons I mention above. (As a side question - do topics below the FA placement area generate anything like the discussion of the FA and ITN?). The question is - how should we balance what people in general are willing to have on the MP (in a range of contexts) with showing what 'those working on Wikipedia as a whole' are capable of achieving, regardless of the topic of the article?

I was arguing the case for providing more ways of accessing Featured Content articles (given their number and the limitations of the Main Page), rather than removing the field from the Main Page. Themed selections with hooks are more enticing than the long lists of headers at Wikipedia:Featured articles.

It is better to suggest possible alternatives than to complain. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we can agree that's what the MP is for, a starting point.

As an answer to your aside, DYK takes some heat now and again, and so does POTD.

My point runs alongside yours. If anyone is going to attempt to balance any aspect of WP for 'people in general', they're going to need to find benchmarks and standards for 'people in general', which I don't think is possible. Therefore, I still don't understand what your alternative view of the MP is, or whether the articles discussed would make it? -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave a definition above.

'People in general' do not complain much about the MP (and know they can comment here about it), so the mixture is probably broadly right and could possibly include slightly more variety. The location of the text or image may affect how much comment is generated (do people scroll down the page?) - but while the smallpox picture generated comment but the recent cancer picture did not. 'What is allowed/accepted' (even if passively 'it will be gone in a while'/'it doesn't bother me but it might others') is probably nearer the middle of the line between 'totally vanilla' and 'anything goes.'

'Reversing the polarity' - given the number of entries on the Featured Content list and the limited space on the Main Page what can be done to show 'the best that Wikipedia can produce' (insofar as the MP serves that purpose)? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to start banning topics from the Main Page that people find offensive, then I also want my say on topics that I find offensive. As an atheist, I find any mention of religion on the Main Page to be offensive, including any references to religious holidays such as Christmas and Easter. I should not be forced to read about religious topics in TFA or view religious iconography in TFP. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have little interest in sport but I don't complain about references to such appearing on the main page: and I have suggested in the past that there could be a 'computer filter and hot drink-and-biscuit appropriate MP and a more vibrant one (and possibly even a-reverse-of-vanilla version): it would then be up to the reader to choose which one they wanted - and there would be the occasional article on the vanilla version which would annoy people regardless.

Can we now discuss how to make the range of 'potential featured articles' more generally accessible to WP users (my other point). Should there be a 'random potential featured article' button next to the 'random page' one (and possibly a 'random page with an improvement tag' on it)? Should the various portals have their own local Main Pages (increasing the opportunities for featuring material? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Potential featured articles are any article (except lists), so I'm not sure how they could be more accessible than they already are. Just about any of the blue links on the main page are potential featured articles. If users are interested in already featured articles, then there's a pretty prominent link right below the TFA.-RHM22 (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the list mentioned above - and the list is 'just words': I was suggesting that there be more of a hook (in the way that the MP as is can be). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

MP generalisations

The function of the MP is to show what can be done with articles on WP, to interest people in topics they might not otherwise have looked at, and occasionally to startle them.

Some articles 'of their nature' are likely to cause much negative discussion if appearing on the main page - but some which one might have expected to so do will not.

Others may or may not cause discussion for a variety of reasons, (including the time of year/what else is going on in the world/the other things on the MP on that day or the previous few days/people are startled by the topic).

Much of the time there is 'positive or neutral comment' about WPs front page.

Sometimes discussions about the MP become warmer than expected, whatever the original topic of discussion.

If there was #never# any negative opinions (however mild) about the MP there would be something wrong.

People use WP for many reasons: how can they be persuaded to engage and improve it, and to what extent can the MP be used to encourage them to do so? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is prompting this preoccupation with the main page. Honestly, I don't think there's any need to create more work for overtaxed editors, or a series of complicated main page options. Even if we are to buy into the notion that we should avoid offending people, the small, yet vocal minority wouldn't justify all the effort needed to prevent it. Anyway, that controversial article hasn't been on the main page in about two weeks, so I really can't quite see the need to continue in this way.-RHM22 (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said - a group of generalisations: and it is better to suggest alternatives than to have 'the usual long discussions'.

Till the next MP entry (or group of entries) that turns into a discussion generator. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

south beach tow

I would like to put out that what I have read about what you have said and you are wrong it is not fake I mean obviously parts are like when Bernice hits people or the other drivers do it but that is cause of the cameras and non off you are saying that is not the case that you guys wont play up a little but the word is reality documentary I do not agree with things like tension at the end off each episode I also watch south beach tow every night 5 nights a week Mon-Fri and in the credits it does not stat nothing about based on real events and I know cause it is what happens also I do not agree that the other drivers they might have are not on television and should come on screen

This would be better at the article's talk page. Britmax (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

FP video 1/6/15

Kudos re selection of Adrianne Wadewitz's video "The Impact of Wikipedia" – about educational uses of WP – in FP slot. Sca (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

TFA Statistics

I've created this page. I hope it's alright... but no other article links to it and I think this has to replace the 2014 statistics page, which is incomplete.--MJ for U (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. However, I floated the idea a while ago of adding page view numbers to WP:TFAREC, to avoid people having to duplicate the work involved in setting up a table of TFAs, and you've reminded me that I didn't follow this up. I still think that combining the two is the best way forward, although this isn't really something for talk:Main Page as opposed to, say WT:TFA. Bencherlite^Talk 17:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As per previous years, I've archived the 2014 statistics to their own subpage, and moved your 2015 start to the main WP:TFASTATS link - just in case you or other editors were wondering what was going on with the links in your first post! Bencherlite^Talk 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

In the news picture

It would, for me, be preferable to have a "Je Suis Charlie" image on 'in the news', rather than the plane which crashed last week. Any possibility? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

An extensive discussion on that was held at WP:ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

...the outcome of which was basically "not a chance".--WaltCip (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the discussion has been reopened. APL (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What even is a "je suis charlie"?184.159.128.154 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

See Je suis Charlie. Art LaPella (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Main Page images

One word - much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Nude painting - no comment.

Why? 128.127.29.19 (talk)

Yeah. I demand nuder ones!!! –HTD 17:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Why what? As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it's not censored. So there will be nude images, Naturism, Spoilers on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you felt uncomfortable after seeing that picture.--Chamith (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"Much wailing and gnashing of teeth" is six words.--WaltCip (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this a haiku?-RHM22 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think some of you are missing the anon's point. "One word - much wailing and gnashing of teeth" refers to the long running complaint session after the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties appeared on the main page. This contrasts to the complete silence about The Pearl and the Wave being pictured. Not to mention the lack of complaints about various acts of violence (battles, murders, etc) that regularly appear with little or no comment. But arrange 4 little letters in a particular manner and apparently civilization is coming to an end. --Khajidha (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not complaining (except, perhaps, there could be the occasional nude male to balance things out) - just noticing 'not accounting for what causes complaint' (could add the recent 'rather medical on the non-squawking side).

Much Wailing (whether or not on the Marsh) - traditional phrase. 128.127.29.19 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've been looking for male nudes that have good enough quality for the MP. Sadly, our photographs of David are below the minimum resolution for FP. Though we do have the FP Wrestlers, which is due to hit the MP in a few months. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No comment from me thus far since I've complained about a similar MP image choice before and don't anticipate receiving any more sympathy now than I did then. But since it's been brought up... yes, I understand WP:CENSOR but I fail to see how inclusion of nude paintings or photographs on the main page reflects the principles of user choice and least astonishment ([4]). Some of us out there don't want to see those images and can choose not to view articles where they are likely to be present, but putting them on the MP takes away that choice. WP:CENSOR states that content relevant to an article's topic should not be removed solely on the basis of "being objectionable", but I don't see how it precludes giving consideration to the fact that some users find certain types of content objectionable when making content decisions for the main page (even if many others don't share those views). Jonhall (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not astonished that an encyclopedia has reproductions of notable paintings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither am I. But if a certain painting can reasonably be thought to be objectionable to some users, why am I forced to see it when accessing Wikipedia unless I use an image blocker or bypass the main page? I didn't search for it. How is that promoting user choice with regards to potentially objectionable content? Jonhall (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And articles describing Christian/Muslim beliefs will be objectionable to some Muslim/Christians (and atheists). Are you advocating preventing material that any special interest group finds objectionable from appearing on the MP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And we're full circle to the crux of the Fuck discussion. If the community is going to try and censor MP, you have to define "potentially objectionable content". How do you do that? Who do you poll? Ask me and I'll tell you I'd like a lot more bums, boobs and willies and 100% less sport, which I find mind-numbingly boring and thus objectionable. But how is that fair to people who work very, very hard on sport articles? Would it stop people editing and creating sport articles, because they don't feel as worthwhile as other editors? -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 22:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference. In your example it's the religious beliefs described that may be objectionable, not the article content itself (provided it is accurate and written in an objective, encyclopedic manner, which one would expect to be the case for articles that make it on the MP). In the case of images like the one in question, it is the content itself that is objectionable. Jonhall (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Some people find an article not biased in their direction to be objectionable. Just pointing that out. You will be surprised by what people find objectionable Weegeerunner (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So should we exclude photographs of unveiled women (or, to touch on recent news, women in general) from the main page? If a certain image can reasonably be thought to be objectionable to some users, why are they forced to see it when accessing Wikipedia unless they use an image blocker or bypass the main page? They didn't search for it. How is that promoting user choice with regards to potentially objectionable content? —David Levy 23:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's very subjective. The image is only objectionable because you find it objectional. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's my point. —David Levy 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with David. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that absolutely anything and everything is considered objectionable by someone, somewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, I understand that NOTCENSORED isn't the strongest of reasons to keep an image/article on the main page, but "because I said so" is an even weaker reason to keep an image/article off. And no, you aren't forced to look at it, just google what you're looking for instead. These articles aren't there with the purpose of making you feel offended, and even if they were theres no point in getting worked up over it. in other words, WP:NOBODYCARES BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure that some Christians would find the content of an article like Krishna offensive as it doesn't state he's a false god and worshipping him will doom you to hell. Thou shalt have no other gods before me and all that... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(reset) The IP is commenting on 'the absence of reaction' rather than 'the presence of an image.' Jackiespeel (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As a series of generalisations

Most entries on the MP will generate no or neutral comments. ('Too many on a particular topic in several days', 'Should be on/removed from ITN', 'Nice picture' etc)

A few topics are felt on various grounds to be unsuitable for the MP, and either are kept off it or generate much complaint and discussion when they do.

Some topics will generate more discussion than would be expected. Others will generate less discussion than might be expected.

Many more will fall into the category 'not really my taste, but it will be gone soon', and most into the 'WP has to cater for most-to-all viewpoints, interests and tastes' categories.

It is when discussions of this nature stop happening that WP will have serious problems. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (modifying slightly)

The IP's 'One word', and also a while back the picture of someone with smallpox (a disease which nobody will probably otherwise encounter) generated much discussion on the balance between 'Wikipedia being not censored' and 'what is considered not acceptable on the main page.'

A picture that is described on the MP as having been considered voyeuristic, and a photograph of a cancer (which disease people might encounter) just sit there with nobody feeling strongly enough about them to comment.

An observation on the MP talk page on this divergence of reaction leads to a discussion on WP not being censored - which does seem to be a slight non sequitur. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

noexternallinks

It seems that the magic word {{noexternallinks}} doesn't work any more on main page. --Holder (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Magic Words are Squeamish Ossifrage may also apply :) Jackiespeel (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to {{noexternallanglinks}}, note there is also a manual addition of links form {{Main Page interwikis}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

El Capitan

Pictured twice on the Main Page 18.01.15. (Perhaps it should be promoted to El Mayor?) Sca (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Zweifranken (cropped)

• Completely coincidental, of course. That POTD was scheduled three weeks ago. (El Capitan Tiberius?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Well, the ITN pic could be subbed in favor of a Swiss franc coin. Sca (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• That would be up to people at ITN. Considering the POTD is not solely about El Capitan, I don't consider it that much of a problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, a photograph of a physical coin has no illustrative value in this context. We no longer fall back on tangential images (including national flags, most infamously) as a last resort. —David Levy 16:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No biggie. Sca (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Different subject here, but today it's the picture in the news, and Media Viewer isn't working on it. All the other pictures do though. ??? Eman235/talk 19:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

By design, the Media Viewer is disabled for an image transclusion when the "link" parameter is used (in this instance, because a cropped version of the image is linked to the full version, which is common at ITN). This is the subject of a recent feature request. —David Levy 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Eman235/talk 00:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Archive Plughole

... seems to have swallowed up everything in the vicinity on the General discussion area.

Anyone care to discuss this latest manifestation of 'Black Hole Wikipedia'? 108.171.128.162 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the bot archiving is set to 'minthreadsleft = 4', so it should leave 4 threads behind. Looking in the history, recent threads have been removed manually rather than by the bot. It's unclear to me if they were properly archived or simply deleted. Modest Genius ^talk 11:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If the threads were stale there is no point in keeping them on here. The most recent set of removed threads has been archived. The most recent post to those threads was from the 23rd.--Khajidha (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'plughole-to-the-archive bot' does clear everything on occasion - should this be the signal for promoting a topic that generates a degree of discussion/four entries in a row on a particular theme to help restart the talk page? :) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I manually archived some threads that were more than 3 days old because the header says "Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive" and it is not unknown for bots to stall. I hadn't spotted that there was a minimum number of threads setting in the bot's instructions. If anybody wants to reach back into Talk:Main Page/Archive 182 and revive discussion here about main page images (discussion started 13 January, no comments since 15 January), {{noexternallanglinks}} (14 and 19 January respectively) or the coincidence of the main page having images of the same thing in different section on 18 January (no comments since 23 January), be my guest. Threads at T:MP about main page errors that ought to have been at WP:ERRORS are often removed rather than archived (as WP:ERRORS isn't archived) and although I didn't remove the thread in question I agree with the decision that it did not need to be archived. Bencherlite^Talk 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's useful to always leave one or two threads in place, no matter how old, just to indicate to complete newbies "Yes, this is the place to leave comments". minthreadfsleft=4 seems a bit high at times though, particularly for long threads - perhaps a reduction to 2 would be in order. Optimist on the run (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Zero threads is appropriate if there are zero necessary discussions which are active. A discussion which has circled the drain and entered the sewer need not be revived merely so someone can put more shit into it. Leaving stale discussions open inspires everyone to take a whack at the horse corpse and instead of doing that, we should only keep discussions open which are active, and/or which deal with issues which are currently on the main page. Any other discussions should be archived, or moved to the more appropriate venue (such as article talk pages, or talk pages for main page processes like TFA, ITN, OTD, etc.) This page should be purely for active discussions about the main page itself, its appearance, and its operation. And stale discussions don't need to remain open past the point of uselessness. --Jayron32 01:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(reset) Either 'notice something on the MP' or have an automatic 'normal (discussion) service will be resumed as soon as possible' notice (which disappears as soon as something is written and saved). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Title Error

Could someone edit and correct the title for the article Hard Labor Creek Reservoir to read as Hard Labor Creek Regional Reservoir? Thanks!

 Done by Ruslik0. A better place to ask is Wikipedia:Help desk. Art LaPella (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

War in Ukraine or Donbass?

I brought up the issue at WP:ITN/C, but it's closed as not a nomination. I tried to file an error report, but it got reverted. Should the link change to "War in Donbass" or stay as "War in Ukraine"? --George Ho (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I would keep it as-is, even though it isn't the name of the article, since most readers will probably be unfamiliar with Donbass.-RHM22 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is not a War in Ukraine but just one region of Ukraine: Donbass. Unfamiliarity shouldn't prevent readers from being curious. Leaving it as-is misleads people still. --George Ho (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of reliable sources use "Ukraine". Wikipedia follows the terminology of reliable sources. --Jayron32 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How can a war in a region of a country not be in that country? Whatever region it is in it is still in Ukraine.--Khajidha (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If "War in Ukraine" is indeed the most widely-used source, then the article title should probably be changed to that as well (with the appropriate disambiguating information included in parentheses). At any rate, we definitely need to use that wording in the 'ongoing' section. Like Khajidha, I can't fathom why using "Ukraine" would not be correct, since Donbass is in Ukraine. Maybe the separatists feel differently, but the facts don't.-RHM22 (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine's day

Just wanted to say that the FA and POTD are a nice touch. Now I wish I had a valentine. Isa (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I thought Werner would be an interesting take on the day (last two years were more obviously romantic subjects, both paintings: Beata Beatrix [2014] and The Jewish Bride [2013]). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 4:42 pm, Today (UTC+7)
  • And The Kiss (Hayez) [2016].. - T H (here I am) 13:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Werner is not only pretty and felicitous, it's also still better than Mercator. Isa (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • or maybe next year? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

On this Day: February 14

:1779 – English explorer James Cook was killed during a fight against Native Hawaiians near Kealakekua on the Island of Hawaii." Uhm....seriously. I left that alone to see how we would treat that but it seems that we just used "Native Hawaiian" as a default instead of linking the encyclopedic articles with even a little more detail. Even the Cook article has enough there to state that "Cook was killed when he tried to kidnap Kalaniʻōpuʻu, the ruling chief of the Island of Hawaii". I wonder if it can still be updated? The page for February 14 is locked. Yes...I wrote some of these articles but they are sourced and neutral and go into far more detail than a claim he was killed in a "fight against" Native Hawaiians.

Yes...I am complaining, sorry for that, but I am also trying to point out we have so much on the encyclopedia that could be linked.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

if you could propose a better wording, someone can edit OTD to fix it. Also, a hearty LOL. Sounds like something you'd read in a tabloid. "Did you know...that Charles Lindbergh's child died before the age of two?" hbdragon88 (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not the one Mark's quoted? "English explorer James Cook was killed near Kealakekua when he tried to kidnap Kalaniʻōpuʻu, the ruling chief of the Island of Hawaii." —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I like that. I support the change if it could still be made.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Obsession with rivers in Pennsylvania

It seems that rivers/creeks in Pennsylvania are mentioned in the Did You Know section a LOT. Not just more than average, but enough to make it look obviously intentional. I'm sure I've seen at least 6 in the past 6 months, probably more. Any one else notice this? I feel like there's some inside joke I'm missing out on... 2601:9:3740:2E:7C80:D7EC:C4CB:F8E4 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

DYKs are always intentional. It means someone's working on those PA river articles. –HTD 23:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• And there are also always trends. There was a time you couldn't go a week without 2 Australian paralympians, a mushroom, and an Indonesian film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That was one hell of a party. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is - game the system #your# way. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't like it? Then register an account, write some new articles and fix the problem. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's gaming the system. People who write new articles usually put them up for DYK and most of them get passed, with a few changes, and appear on the front page. There are some people who write lots of short articles just so they can get them on the front page. If there are a lot on one subject it's usually because the same person, or group of people, have written them. No conspiracy, no inside joke, just someone's hard work. Richerman (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(reset) I meant in the sense of 'developing articles in your areas of interest sufficiently for them to appear on the main page.' Jackiespeel (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki News is starting too look more and more like mainstream media

We have every news station covering the grammys, movie awards, etc. etc. Wikipedia used to display other significant news, news that was actually new to most of us (and very rarely covered by other news organizations). It's a shame to see that the news on en.wiki.x.io is so entirely mainstream. Allen750 (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Then feel free to suggest alternatives to the mainstream at WP:ITN/C. Good luck! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Allen750:Are you talking about the Wikinews page or the In The News box on the Main Page? 331dot (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's all about timing, just a day later and it now looks quite the opposite. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Eyes wanted at Talk:Tintin in the Congo

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

---

I think the currently featured Tintin in the Congo is appalling in the ignorance of its approach. It makes no attempt to put the strip in the historical context of the Congo Free State propaganda war and the dire circumstances in even the 'reformed' Belgian Congo, but instead makes a superficial, modern analysis of things like how bad it is that a character is shown going on safari. And I'm getting reverted in entirety for bogus reasons by the proprietor. Perhaps I rushed too much to do something but can someone help out? Wnt (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You should discuss any concerns about the article on its talk page; there are also dispute resolution processes available if needed. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@331dot: I'd really appreciate if someone would help me out while this article is being featured in this awful state. I'm looking around and I'm not the only one to think that way. You search "Tintin in the Congo" and "Congo Free State" and you come up with people like [5][6] who are noting the exact same things as I have. Wnt (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits were (rightly) reverted because that article isn't about the abuse propagated against the native Congolese, regardless of whether or not such information is accurate. Such information is only appropriate in an article about the Belgian Congo, unless some sort of criticism has been levied against the Tintin book with regards to that. In other words, adding information about colonial abuse in a totally unrelated article is original research (i.e., "these bad things happened in a colony, then somebody wrote a book about the colony."). It's totally irrelevant unless that specific criticism has been made in relation to the comic book, and non-notable fringe viewpoints don't count either. Anyway, as stated, these things belong on the talk page for the article, even when the article is TFA.-RHM22 (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have the sudden urge to get some Um Bongo. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but I couldn't help getting a chuckle out of this line: "The advertisement's claim that Um Bongo is drunk in "the Congo" has been verified, with cartons of the juice drink available for sale at the Jambo Mart in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo - or in other words - in one shop in the entire country." That reminds me of the DiGiorno pizza article, which at one time had a template at the top which read "Not to be confused with delivery."-RHM22 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And we should not complain about 'them in the past' not having 'our present sensitivities' (and 'some years hence' there will be complaints about stereotyping of sentient computers/robots' and other perceived failings). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2015 (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.

Nehi (my grandfather)

I want to know how to start a page for my grandfather,he was 7"11 and wore a size 16 shoe. He famous in the town I live in and the maritime museum has a life size exhibit of him. I am from southport NC, his name is Elias G. Gore aka Nehi and he was a menhaden fisherman who met Babe Ruth while on a fishing trip. Julia Edge (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This sort of question would be better suited at the Help Desk as it does not concern the Main Page, but you can visit the articles for creation page or the article wizard for information on how to create an article. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is he notable enough for a WP page in his own right? Is there a 'Carolina Wiki' where his significance could be recognised? 108.171.128.162 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to full Main Page for mobile users

Mobile users see a very reduced version of the main page. [7] only displays Today's featured article and In the news. It's supposed to be helpful that the page is smaller but I think many want the full version so we should make it easy to get that. [8] shows that Main Page is currently only transcluded in user pages which are hard to find, for example User:Liangent/Main Page where mobile users see the full [9]. Can we make a "Full Main Page" link which is only shown to mobile users? We should of course choose a better name than some user page but a mainspace page may be controversial. Or is there another way to give mobile users an option to see the full main page? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that what the "Desktop" link at the bottom does? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Is "Desktop" available for everybody? Even if it is, it's odd that you have to leave the mobile version to see the full main page but not other pages. Many users wouldn't expect that. I came here after Wikipedia:Help desk#On this day help where a user said: I've looked everywhere but I can't see if it's possible to view the "on this day" section of Wikipedia via the iPhone app. Is this actually possible? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the Desktop link would be visible on most mobile browsers. I suspect there's nothing on the official Wikipedia apps though, as these are intended to be somewhat self contained, but I'm not sure and I uninstalled the Android app when I was running out of space. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The iOS app only gives readers the mobile view, so OTD, DYK, TFL, TFP are all missing from the Main Page in that app. If a reader pulls up the mobile site in his or her mobile browser, then he or she can tap the link to go to the full desktop site, but this link is absent in the apps. Imzadi 1979 → 17:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Matagorda bay

The illustration for a place in "present-day Texas" is the moon. --142.33.163.121 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? --Allen3 ^talk 19:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, please search the internet for the definition of the word "pictured". --Jayron32 00:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Water bias

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

---

The Main page has a history of showing unusual biases, but today's favoritism of a common solvent is pushing things. FA has a picture of showing salt water, DYK's picture shows fresh water, and FP displays frozen water. On to of this, SA/OTD lists flooding and has a picture of a lunar sea. --Allen3 ^talk 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Water we supposed to do about it?--WaltCip (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • See Poe's law for some guidance. --Jayron32 04:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Icy what you did there. Isa (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• The pro-water lobby has bought out Wikipedia! Watch out! Next they'll be censoring the article on Quantum of Solace! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lets hope this doesn't spill out into the real world Man Over-bored (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Something to do with bio-duck? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Will the archive-bot soon Upsweep this discussion? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• . . .and there is plenty of water around Greece featured ITN! Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nasty stuff, dihydrogen monoxide. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Today's picture for OTD is of Ritter (crater), located in (on?) the Sea of Tranquility. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

When will this discussion gurgle down the plughole? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2015 (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.

Malcolm X On this day...

"1965 – Black nationalist Malcolm X (pictured) was assassinated while giving a speech in New York City's Audubon Ballroom." - is it reasonable or accurate to describe X as a "Black nationalist" at the time of his death? I'm unsure - given just how much his views changed in the year leading up to his assassination. Just curious. --Shannon Dal (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But he was, at significant points in his life, a self-described Black nationalist, and it's that for which he is best known. --Jayron32 22:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

On this day...

Today is not only Language Movement Day in Bangladesh but it is also International Mother Language Day. It is strange that International Mother Language day is not listed on "On this day...". --Sajibur (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well for a start International Mother Language Day has a big orange-level tag on it, which disqualifies it from appearing as a bold item the Main Page. I'm not convinced it's notable enough either. Modest Genius ^talk 21:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Improving cascade protection

In discussions related to this cascade protection change, we (the MediaWiki Core Team) have determined that the method used for cacscade protecting the main page at present is not perfect. The cascade protection for Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow could be updated before the cascade protection for the actual main page, giving a brief window for main page vandalism. I'm going to add {{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow}}||}} to the main page, which will cause the next day's TFA/TFP templates to be continuously protected across the transition at midnight, without causing any change to the output. -- Tim Starling (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a hack... Is this a temporary measure until the linked patch is merged and deployed? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a temporary measure. I commented that the proposed patch doesn't deal with date-dependent transclusion very well, and Aaron's response was that the existing code doesn't either. -- Tim Starling (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All transcluded templates are protected by themselves, so none of them actually relies on cascade protection. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any need to discuss this here? Actually, Edokter, each TFA daily template depends on cascade protection, and I think the same is true of POTD and OTD. Surely, though, if a TFA blurb is cascade-protected at "/Tomorrow" and when the clock strikes midnight UTC it gets cascade protection from the main page, where's the window for vandalism? Bencherlite^Talk 23:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

On this day ... (February 23)

Congratulations for this day's articles, mainly about Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil (1845-1847). We are very proud of English Wikipedia. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I will add my own congratulations to the editors who contributed to this article. Getting any article to FA status is an accomplishment worthy of some pride. But when the subject is a boy who died at the age of two, well, I tip my hat to you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here, here. That is quite a feat. --86.45.77.67 (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In the news order bias

Moved to WT:ITN § In the news order bias

 – Bencherlite^Talk 18:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In scanning the "In The News" section, I noticed what I believe to be a new entry, regarding Nascar, posted below the already existing entry concerning the movie Birdman. Might I recommend not publishing new entries to "In The News" below existing entries? It makes it harder to scan for new news items, and shows a bias in the editors opinion on what is more newsworthy. (Movies versus Nascar, which in this case, I agree on, but that's beside the point.)164.58.21.70 (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be better to post something like this at the ITN talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Copied there, per your suggestion. Thank you for pointing to the correct forum.164.58.21.70 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I propose addition link

I would like the mainpage to have a link to Wikimedia above Wikimedia Shop.--Wouter Drucker (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How should the links to the full article/list at the end of the Today's Featured Article/List sections be formatted?

For the benefit of readers of the main page, you may like to know that a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article on whether to remove the "..." at the end of (Full article...) in TFA blurbs. (Logic would suggest that any changes to TFA practice on this point ought to be matched at TFL for consistency of main-page presentation.) Please discuss there, not here, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Bencherlite^Talk 20:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Visibility

This may not be the best forum for this, but I think every time someone puts a personal bio/resumé on this page an admin should make the content invisible (except, I guess, to admins) after it's reverted. Maybe the message will get through.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted one recently, but I didn't delete the revision because it didn't seem particularly necessary. I would normally only do that for blatant copyright violations or libelous content.-RHM22 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

OTD

Why only 5 items are listed in the OTD section? Why so much space is left blank?--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sporting bias

How on earth did the Daytona 500, an American race, get posted but not the cricket double century -- a widely played international sport? 107.72.162.29 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to visit the ITN Candidates page to comment on those nominations that you feel should be posted; as well as to see why some nominations don't succeed. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer the question directly, generally completed sporting events tend to be posted more commonly than sporting records. The results of the World Cup will very likely be posted once the World Cup is complete, and we have a quality article to highlight on the main page. Most sporting records tend not to be posted on ITN, regardless of the nation they occur in. --Jayron32 01:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We would never post someone setting a record for most laps led in a NASCAR (or F1 or Cart, or Supercars...) race, but we usually post the result of the most important races. Other sports are generally the same. But article quality permitting, I can pretty much guarantee the result of the Cricket World Cup will be posted. Resolute 01:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

'IT's not cricket' :) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• As an editor who has worked extensively on cricket articles (feel free to help on my current project) I can honestly tell you that we get a fair amount of coverage on Main Page. And when we do, it often prompts complaints from people whose cultural background is sadly deprived of this magnificent contribution to humanity. ;-) --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with cricket - it cannot be described in one sentence (golf and snooker - get the balls in the holes in the right order'; football 'get more goals than the other side, do not invoke the offside rule and do not annoy the referee'; tennis 'keep the ball in the air and get the other side to drop it or put it in the net' etc). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a myth: "Score more runs than the other team". Alternatively, you could say that its summary would be identical with that of baseball. Sadly, perhaps cricket fans delight too much in the famous Cricket as explained to a foreign visitor. --Dweller (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What are 'runs' for this purpose, sticky wickets, silly mid on and silly mid off (and how were these translated into Latin for the Vatican team?).

What are inverted wingers, dribbles, offside and DOGSO? --93.152.83.69 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And cricket can still be described without jargon in one sentence as follows: "Use a bat to block a thrown ball from hitting a set of poles behind you, and try to hit it far enough away that you can run back and forth between two sets of poles to score points, before the other team can retrieve it and hit your poles with it." Easy. --93.152.83.69 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be 'a list of strange sounding sporting terms' with a link thereto for April 1. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This website's Western soldier flavour of the hour bias

Showing pictures of soldiers who recently have received a Victoria Cross might be symptomatic of some sort of bias. (I am not trying to belittle the actions of the mentioned soldier. He is likely an overachiever amongst his British peers.) Although i am not a fan of Taliban or groups fighting in Syria, will the front page be showing pictures of their overachievers, at the same rate that the front page might continue to show pictures of Western soldiers who are the flavour of the hour? --Dourkenw (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Taliban does not award a high military honor that is extensively covered in the news- and isn't a state either. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Plus, if you look a little lower than the picture, you'll see links in "Ongoing" to Boko Haram and ISIL which have been there for weeks if not months, so their activities get plenty of exposure that way. Leakey's picture will be gone as soon as there's a newer story with a picture to use. Bencherlite^Talk 10:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

How about highlighting overachieving current North Korean generals or soldiers, or current Iranian general or soldiers on the front page? How about similar persons affiliated with the nation of Kurdistan: maybe even current leaders or soldiers within the PKK (who are not hogtied at Turkey's Alcatraz)? (I did not say that topics about the adversaries of the "the Allies of the present", are not being covered.) The good news is that a (new) low, regarding the front page, can promt me or others to actively and positively contribute to the front page, also in unrelated matters. --Dourkenw (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What? UK's "over-achievers" don't spend all their time editing Wikipedia?! As if they should feel compelled to try and achieve some balance on the Main Page. Here's another over achiever who migth belong on the main page? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Dourkenw, if you or others can write something that's eligible to appear in the "Did you know" or "In the news" section about people from North Korea, Iran or Kurdistan, that would be great. Bencherlite^Talk 11:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Shirko Fatih is a recently deceased Kurdish brigadier general. This may mean he held the rank of "عميد ʿamīd", but this would still make him notable under Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People. No article about him yet, so Dourkenw could create one, and nominate it for Wikipedia:Did you know? with a suitable free image. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Another way of wording my concern: If the action for which the receiving soldier received an award in the last weeks or months, is not notable for the front page, then why should it be noted on the front page that a medal has been given. Our encyclopedia is not competing with People Magazine or the military equivalents thereof. Therefore the current highlighting on the front page was a mistake: non-front page material, making it to the front page. --Dourkenw (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't decide who gets a VC. It's a rare event. It's in the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And anyone is welcome to nominate anything they like, the posting was by consensus. We can't all agree on everything. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(reset) Until the MP is sufficiently large to accommodate all particular interests (including the partially overlapping areas 'no US-themed references' and 'no sporting references' there will be such complaints. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No Saint David's Day?

I'm pretty sure it's notable enough to be mentioned in the "On this Day". '''tAD''' (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Fix the maintenance tag and we should be good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

In the news

A few years ago Wikipedia's English Main Page covered news that major news networks did not -- significantly important subjects that were not related to... the Grammys, or terrorist attacks, or etc., etc..

Exactly - why is, for example, the result of the Estonian national election still not "in the news", but some academy awards (for a film that few people watched) still "in the news" after more than a week?90.199.157.132 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am suspect as to the quality of WikiNews' editorial staff... who is picking these stories to be featured? They are being covered already, what happened to the obscure stuff? Allen750 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the separate Wikinews website or the In the news section here on Wikipedia's main page? If it is the latter, nominations are submitted and voted on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Any regular editor can submit and vote. Thus, the selection of articles is really primarily at the mercy of whoever is currently active there. Therefore, I can only conclude that the group of people who were active in nominating and voting on "obscure stuff" a few years ago might not be active anymore. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why do I get a sense of deja vu. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the title 'In the news' would suggest that obscure topics may get less representation.-RHM22 (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Histmerging the Main Page

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

---

What do people think about histmerging the Main Page with Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS? This idea's come up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 2, where the /CSS page was nominated for deletion. I don't believe it necessary, or even useful, because it was basically a test page that, when complete, was properly merged with attribution to the Main Page. However, Steel1943 (nominator at RFD, who apparently now doesn't want it to be deleted) has asked stewards for a histmerge here. I've opposed the request because we ought not go deleting the Main Page without consensus here first, so please offer opinions on whether we ought to merge or not. Note that two stewards have chimed in so far at Meta: Ajraddatz suggests using some new histmerge tool (which wouldn't require deletion?), which I oppose because I don't think that merger is necessary, while Snowolf has simply agreed with my contention that the stewards shouldn't take action without consensus here first. All the more reason to start discussing now. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Minor comment which should not affect this discussion: I actually still think the redirect should be deleted per its odd title, but I believe the attributions should be kept in one fashion or another (thus, this history merge request). Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm tending towards a WP:AINT approach here. If there's no evidence that this is a problem, then we shouldn't take even the tiniest risk of breaking the Main Page. As I understand it a history merge would require deleting the page for some time before selectively restoring it. On a page with such a long and complicated history that would presumably take some significant time (hours?). That doesn't seem to be worth the hassle for doing some housekeeping on a redirect which receives one hit per month. Modest Genius ^talk 00:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Modest Genius: Here's how the best scenario for this history merge could work: From my understanding on how the history merge function works, the quickest way to perform this merge would be to:

1. Delete Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS;
2. Restore Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS with only the revisions I outlined on the steward's board;
3. (Starting here, this is the part that had to be done quickly) Delete Main Page;
4. Move Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS to Main Page;
5. Delete Main Page (again);
6. (Final step) Restore Main Page with the edits that were on Main Page when it was deleted the first time, as well as restore the edits that were on Main Page when it was deleted after Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS was moved there.

Afterwards, the histories have been merged, and if this task is done by someone who is prepared, the downtime wouldn't be for more than 1-2 minutes. In addition, in the discussion linked on the steward's board, I have already outlined the edits that would need to be merged into Main Page's history so the one who performs the edit history merger would already know which edits to merge. Also, in regards to WP:AINT; since what was essentially a cut-and-paste move was performed to create Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS, the attributions for the same page are split, and I do consider that "broken". Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Your list of steps is not entirely correct, as due to the protections put in place to prevent deletion of a Wikimedia main page, some additional steps are needed, plus the server load issues that we've run into before with main page deletions and eventually the cascading issues that occur from it. I think if this is deemed necessary, it will likely have be performed by the Wikimedia Tech team. While I understand the important of proper attribution, I wonder whether an alternative solution can be found that does not require deletion of the Main page, as doing so poses significant challenges and problems. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Also it was brought up on meta and afterwards on IRC that Special:MergeHistory could maybe be used to solve this. Let's ping our resident history merge expert, User:Graham87 and see what he thinks. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If extensive testing has established that this particular application of the tool would be essentially risk-free, I suppose that it might as well be carried out. Otherwise, we should wait until such an assurance is possible (if this is even worth the time and effort that we're currently investing in this discussion and any future follow-up). —David Levy 05:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Snowolf: I was wondering about that as well (since it was brought up on the stewards' board). If that tool does what I'm assuming it does, then the concern of Main Page being down during the history merge would no longer exist (but there would probably need to be a "wikimedia-tech" person on standby, just in case the testing doesn't match what happens with the main page.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Special:MergeHistory wouldn't be able to solve this problem because the main page has many revisions from before the time when Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS was created. A better way to do the history merge would be to move the main page to Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS (temporarily deleting the history at the latter page), selectively restoring the relevant old revisions, then moving the main page back to its original title. But I'd refuse to do it because it would falsify the history: the Main Page was not changed to this format until 26 November 2004, and it would be disingenuous to make it look like it was. Also, "Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS" has a talk page, whose contents would not make sense if the history of its subject page was moved around. Graham87 06:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

How, in your view, does the status quo pose an actual problem (i.e. something that adversely impacts someone)?

You want to delete the site's most-viewed page (for one to two minutes – in the "best scenario" – thereby breaking more views than the redirect is likely to receive in the next 200 years) to modify a revision history that few people see, all for the sake of eliminating a redirect encountered by almost no one...because you find its title "odd". I agree with Modest Genius that this doesn't seem worthwhile. —David Levy 05:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Per above, I assumed wrong, so my assumed timeline is off. If the community believes this will cause more harm than good, well, I really don't care if it merge happens or not. (My primary focus has been the redirect itself; if the history gets moved elsewhere, that's fine.) So, I really don't understand how the subject of how many views the redirect receives has anything to do with this discussion, given that this discussion is solely about history merging. This discussion seems to be getting derailed since my opinion of the redirect was brought up. Steel1943 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I really don't understand how the subject of how many views the redirect receives has anything to do with this discussion, given that this discussion is solely about history merging.

You "think the redirect should be deleted per its odd title". And you "believe the attributions should be kept in one fashion or another (thus, this history merge request)".

You want to merge the histories so the redirect can be deleted. You want to delete the redirect because you regard its title as "odd". Therefore, the fact that almost no one sees said redirect is highly relevant. There's no need for the old lady to swallow a fly. —David Levy 19:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, a quick side note ... The result of this discussion may need to be documented somewhere, maybe as policy. If Main Page ends up being deemed "off-limits" for history merging, the community would probably benefit with that being documented somewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  No one has opined that there could never be a valid reason to merge histories at Main Page. You simply haven't presented one. —David Levy 19:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  There's a reason I used the word "may" instead of "should" in my previous statement; it was to avoid the confusion you seem to have with it. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not confused. I simply see no reason to suspect that this discussion may lead to the main page "being deemed 'off-limits' for history merging", given that no one (apart from you) has suggested such a thing. —David Levy 04:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• If that page was primarily used as a test page -- a sandbox -- if anything it should just be histmerged into Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox. I see no point in doing a histmerge to the Main page itself when we normally never do it when transferring any draft or test code from a sandbox page to a live article or template. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  My thoughts exactly. I would even go so far as to say: just delete it. It never contained any real content anyway, just markup. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  I now agree with Edokter even more strongly: as someone noted at RFD, all edits to the CSS page were made by one editor (aside from an accidental thing by someone else that was immediately self-reverted), and the same editor copied them to the Main Page. There's no need for attribution, since there aren't any additional authors on the CSS page, and we need not histmerge this to the Main Page because we normally don't histmerge when copying from a sandbox or other test page. Nyttend (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  Wow. I don't know why we're even discussing the matter. This is worse than a solution in search of a problem. —David Levy 19:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  I really don't understand how as good faith attempt to have attribution all in one place is considered "a solution looking for a problem". There's obviously a problem, but fixing the "problem" could cause more temporary problems that, as shown here, the community is not willing to risk to resolve the initially-stated problem. Choosing the path of lesser evils makes sense, and it's becoming quite clear that is the preferred path. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  Firstly, no one has questioned whether you're acting in good faith. I don't doubt that you are.
  Secondly, others have expressed disagreement with your view that "there's obviously a problem" with the status quo. As Nyttend explained above, a single user performed the edits in question and copied the resultant content to Main Page (thereby inserting attribution to himself). If you're under the impression that said attribution is somehow incomplete or otherwise defective unless each and every incremental revision (all contributed by one person, keep in mind) is included, you're mistaken. —David Levy 04:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  I've actually seen sandboxes' histories merged into articles on numerous occasions; the only cases where I have not seen sandboxes' history merged is in the "Template:" and "Module: namespaces. It seems that since Main Page is essentially a template, with that way of thinking, I can understand how the same could apply here. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. There is no need to delete the main page. The merge can be done by moving the main page over Main_Page/CSS, restoring necessary revisions and moving it back. Ruslik_Zero 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  Graham87 noted this above (along with some of the numerous reasons why it still shouldn't be done). —David Levy 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Since it has become clear that this history merge would break more than it will fix, as well as the fact that sandboxes (such as this one) are traditionally not history merged, I withdraw my support for the history merge. In addition, the aforementioned discussion on the steward's board has been closed as "not done" since it seems that stewards most likely cannot perform the history merge either due to the restrictions on Main Page. If there are no contradicting opinions at this point, I motion that an uninvolved editor or administrator closes this discussion so that the community can continue on with more pressing matters. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (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.

Errors in On This Day's Featured List

The expression "Eight years after the inauguration of the manifest" is meaningless. Deipnosophista (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? What do you think it should say instead? Also, there is a place to report errors on the Main Page: WP:ERRORS, which is also transcluded at the top of this page. -- tariqabjotu 09:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Be fair: I have no idea what that phrase means either. If we have no idea what it's trying to say then there's no way we can suggest an alternative. Modest Genius ^talk 20:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be the October Manifesto.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so you're saying it didn't say what "manifest" was being referenced? Yeah, that's a fair point.

But The expression "Eight years after the inauguration of the manifest" is meaningless is itself meaningless, because I had no idea what issue the OP is pointing out. To me, it sounded like he was saying that there was something grammatically or syntactically incorrect, like you can't use the word "inauguration" in this context. I would have been happy to fix the phrasing, perhaps by finding out which 'manifest' the expression was talking about. But I couldn't decipher what he was talking about (or even what you were talking about), so we were just left with the error all day. This is why the instructions at the top of WP:ERRORS say "Be specific"; otherwise it's a guessing game, and we have less than 24 hours to solve the riddle. -- tariqabjotu 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I turned "manifest" into what I think is the correct link. Why didn't someone who has subject-matter interest do that? Or even enter the conversation?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent Deaths

James Molyneaux was very well known, at the moment the on-display feature only gives Dave MacKay, can I suggest Molyneaux is featured for people to see? --!BSGT! (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You would do that by posting a nomination here: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Now nominated. Bencherlite^Talk 19:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)