Talk:Main Page/Archive 195

Archive 190

←

Archive 193

Archive 194

Archive 195

Archive 196

Archive 197

→

Archive 200

How to work in other main page sections

I'm feeling like as someone who frequents errors but is primarily working in DYK, I should have some passing familiarity with the other sections so I can assess whether a requested change is likely to be considered helpful by others working in that area. What can I do in other areas that will help me figure out whether I should even be messing with those main page sections except to correct clear and obvious issues? For instance, is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2019 and its talk where I would check to see if there had been past discussion on yesterday's FA blurb? I see most of these don't have their talk page created; does that discussion happen elsewhere, or is the consensus usually reached by direct editing? In the opinion of those working in FA, should admins not familiar with FA be futzing with anything except very obvious errors? Ditto other areas of the main page -- how can I get myself up to speed so I can at least assess whether I know what I don't know? --valereee (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If you need a guide through the safari, I may be able to help. I can teach you how to promote blurbs through TFA, ITN, OTD, and POTD. I have no idea how FL works and you don't need me to help you with DYK. The only way to learn is by doing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, a that would be great! Tell me where to start. --valereee (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

One of the first edit summaries on any TFA blurb page will tell you where the blurb came from. In this case, it points you to User:Johnboddie/sandbox (where John and I originally worked on the blurb) and to the blurb review page, WT:Featured article candidates/Bernard Hinault/archive2. Note that no one said anything on the latter page, even though most of that FAC's participants probably had the page watchlisted; that's part of the problem here. Also note that the last time we had a blowup like this one, in mid-September, there was a long, vigorous discussion that led to a new subsection, WP:ERRORS#Day-after-tomorrow's FA, so that ERRORS people wouldn't be forced to do everything last-minute (I was sick yesterday and couldn't help), and so that we could ping the nominator(s) and the supporters from the FAC and give them a full 24 hours to respond, rather than cutting them off in mid-discussion as happened in September. It would be helpful if people would use the new subsection. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so around August 10, this blurb was started at Johnboddie/sandbox, received lengthy work, moved to hinault/archive2, where it received a few more tweaks, then was slotted for Nov 14 on Oct 27, which gave it over two weeks to get final tweaks. Both editors who made errors reports edited the blurb during that time -- actually they were the two that edited it LAST -- and neither had concerns great enough to create the talk page there. I'm not sure why this became an emergency on the day it appeared. I'm glad I know better how to assess what discussion has happened for TFA -- thanks, Dank, for the tutorial -- but now that I know all this, I think it was the right decision not to make the requested changes. --valereee (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I missed some of the things on my first look on 6 Nov, as I have admitted above, but to go from "Kevin only noticed an error the second time he looked at it" to "It is right that that error not be addressed" is thoroughly illogical. Either unverified claims, bad grammar, bad semantics and factual error should appear on the Main Page or it shouldn't. Of course it is preferable if it is noticed earlier, but it is not responsible to say that if it is noticed late (and it was flagged up several hours before it appeared on MP, not "an emergency on the day it appeared") then the errors should stand. Kevin McE (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Kevin McE, of course we all miss things the first time we look at something. I sometimes miss them the 18th time I look. I'm just saying that knowing how many eyes had seen the darn thing, there is zero chance I'd make a major change without a consensus of very clear input from multiple people who worked on the blurb/article/FAreview/TFA in general. Grammar issues, punctuation issues, spelling issues, usage issues are different; happy to use my own judgement to provide consensus in those cases. But whether two racers should be described as rivals or teammates during a particular season...no, not without clear consensus and, ideally, very clear instructions as per Kees above. Making changes that don't have consensus and which you don't yourself understand is how much worse error gets introduced onto the main page. --valereee (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. However, that is why I made two proposals (hence the conditional "If we are to retain the part about rivals"): one for if an admin were brave enough to overthrow the contentious rivalry mentions, and one if he/she were not. But the poor semantics (His rivals...retired at the end of 1986), the apparent description of Fignon as a competitor in the 85 and 86 Tours, the factual error of time of retirement, and the listing of a title among races were not remotely contentious.

And the idea that we should have followed a format that, to the best of my knowledge, had never been previously proposed is preposterous. Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Kevin McE, of course, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest there was some required format. I'm just offering an explanation of why I didn't feel comfortable doing this for you and a possible way you could help me feel more comfortable with future requests. --valereee (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I often feel confused about where to mention concerns that I have about material that appears on the main page. A number of people have been very helpful in explaining aspects of it to me, but I remain confused about some aspects. MPS1992 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

MPS1992, what kinds of concerns? --valereee (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Kyle Busch the new President of Paraguay?

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.

---

Fernando Lugo, press conference before his first NASCAR race.

What would Lugo do?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Most likely be impeached for corruption.--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

And there it is. You lose, my friend. There's a Wikipedia version of The Game (mind game) that goes like this: Whoever posts a picture of Frenando Lugo loses. There is no way to win. Congrats on your defeat. --Jayron32 16:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Curses! And double rats! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Kyle "Lugo" Busch has finally departed. He's not gonna make it home for supper. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:14, 26 November 2019 (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.

"Ongoing"

Why does this just literally say "Trump impeachment inquiry"? Aren't there several wars going on that are more important than this?

Gravestep (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That discussion belongs here. Art LaPella (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Gravestep Ongoing is not for listing any and all events that are 'ongoing'. They are for featuring articles which get incremental but consistent updates, as opposed to an article about a single event with a single update that might merit inclusion in the In The News box. If there is an article about an ongoing event that is consistently updated that you feel merits being featured, please nominate it at ITNC(as linked to by Art LaPella) 331dot (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate

Some articles shown here are completely inappropriate for children. They need to be approved by an administrator before being added.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 19:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It is pretty much administrators who are responsible for posting content on here... there ain't no difference gonna be made from what I can see. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. It isn't the job of any volunteers here at Wikipedia to raise your kids. --Jayron32 20:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

E Super Maker As noted, Wikipedia is not censored for any reason, including to shield children from knowledge here. I'm not sure if there is something on the Main Page you find objectionable at this time, or you are speaking generally about Wikipedia- but you will have to deal with your concerns at your end of the internet; software is available for you to block access to websites or specific pages that you find objectionable. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

See previous debates to learn the nuances of that perennial issue. Yes, all Main Page material is put there by administrators. Art LaPella (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would also note that efforts to ban or suppress something usually only result in it being more widely known; see Streisand effect. Humans are naturally curious and if told that they should not look at something, they want to know why and look at it themselves. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to the article(s) being discussed? I'm curious. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 16:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@LookingYourBest: This was the Main Page for 26 November 2019. My guess is that the day's featured article (Littlemore Priory scandals) was the one in question. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I wonder from whence this idea originated that online encyclopedias must tailor their front page content specifically to avoid troubling the minds of young snot-nosed brats.--WaltCip (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Worth putting a notice at the top of talk about this, to try to prevent any future self-appointed moral guardians wasting their and our time? Fgf10 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  It wouldn't matter. People who believe their own personal set of rules for the world are universal and inviolable don't believe that different social spaces have different sets of rules, and that their own rules don't apply there. In other words, the people who make these complaints don't believe that anything except their own beliefs and mores matter, so explaining to them that rules are different has no effect on them. --Jayron32 12:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Objection

Dear wiki author, I can't finding my desired subject after search in wiki search bar. How can I fix it? SHAWON2391 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

SHAWON2391 Hello. This page is for discussing the operation of the Main Page. For help with using Wikipedia, you may ask questions at the Teahouse. 331dot (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Workshopping a proposal for a new user group

Valereee and I have been working on a proposal to form a new usergroup whose members would be able to edit content on the main page or its fully protected subsidiaries. Since it directly affects this project, and is based in part on the shortage of administrators working here, we would like to invite feedback on the proposal at User talk:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. The proposal itself is at User:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. In particular, we would like to hear it if you are opposed to the whole thing on principle, because we would prefer to spend our time elsewhere if the proposal has no hope of being successful. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense from mobile editors

Moved to WP:VPT § Nonsense from mobile editors

 – Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Cascade protection symbol

Should you add a cascade protected symbol to the top right of the page? I am RedoStone (talk)

Not really needed - the "edit" control should already be removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Would the cascade-protected top icon even show up with the code at the top of MediaWiki:Vector.css that hides the title of the Main Page, any links when you are redirected to the page, basically hide that general area at the top? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Today's featured article

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.

---

Thrusting the word "SLUT" onto the main page, regardless of context, seems a bit callous and insensitive. 107.72.178.122 (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Callous and insensitive to whom?-- P-K3 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? 107.72.178.122 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No, because it is about a nickname for a transit line, nothing inappropriate. However, if you don't like what appears on the Main Page for any reason, you are welcome to participate in the processes that determine that. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Consider me participating it right now. The top of this page states it is for discussing the contents of the main page, which I am. The inclusion of this acronym in the featured article section of the main page does not add anything to the benefit of the reader, and at worst, is an ugly and derisive word. We don't need it there. 107.72.178.122 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. The only two sources to "SLUT" in the article are from 2007 referencing a local coffee house that sold 100 t-shirts with "SLUT" on them. Does that need to be in the lead of the article? (Hint: no, it doesn't). Even worse, "Slut" actually redirects to this article, rather than Slut (disambiguation). It's pretty pathetic, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't (redirect). Check Slut and SLUT. Bazza (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The "SLUT" thing appears to have been the basis for a April Fool's Day DYK, and it seems to have been a bit of an issue there too. Pinging User:SounderBruce in case they haven't seen this.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence could be removed per WP:UNDUE — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd have removed it if I'd seen it this morning (UTC). There's no point now. But yeah, another day of proving the point that Wikipedia is heavily edited by people who have issues with women. It's sad, really. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a strong accusation of bad faith. The word itself is being gradually reclaimed by women activists (see SlutWalk for example) and doesn't have such a loaded meaning. Seattle is the kind of town that can't name its transit line certain colors (because of similarity to redlining), but still embraces the SLUT nickname, which is also mentioned in post-opening sources (USA Today in 2013, HistoryLink, Evergrey in 2018). It is a valid part of the streetcar's cohesion with the city and is frequently used in place of its official name in conversation. SounderBruce 03:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Slut is generally a term for a woman or girl who is considered .... The word slut means different things to white women and people of color, especially black women. Slut has different ... Slut-shaming The Ethical Slut Slut (disambiguation) SlutWalk Slut-shaming is the practice of criticizing people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate expectations of behavior and appearance regarding issues related to sexuality. The term is used to reclaim the word slut and empower women and girls to have agency over their own sexuality. It may also be used in reference to gay men, who may face disapproval for sexual behaviors considered promiscuous. Slut-shaming rarely happens to heterosexual men. The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities is an English non-fiction book by Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy (given as pseudonym Catherine A. Liszt for the book's first edition in 1997). Radhedash (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2019 (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.