Latest comment: 2 years ago by Adam Cuerden in topic ITN
This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 2 years ago68 comments27 people in discussion
I'm going to withdraw this proposal, and I'll mark it as "restorationist requests it not appear on the main page", which I think is what most people wanted. My goal was to help promote understanding of intersex people and their historical treatment, but good intentions don't matter here if there's a risk of the result causing harm. - Adam Cuerden
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm just going to note this here. It was next in the queue, we routinely put up artwork with more explicit imagery, it's historically significant, and it's medical, not titilation. Wikipedia is not censored, and I can't find any reason to justify excluding non-sexual nudity under any policy. However, I don't imagine springing it on the main page and not saying anything is particularly friendly.
If there's worries about people looking at Wikipedia at work or in schools, we could always do a click through, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs10:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
"I will not say that there is consensus against ever using this photograph on the Main Page. " - closing admin.
The only reason I can see to keep images like this off the main page is because dealing with the inevitable unjustified complaints will stress out quite a lot of Wikipedians. (And somebody will give in to the pressure and remove the image). —Kusma (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Hence why I suggested the possibility of a click through, if it would simplify things. There's no policy-based argument nor consensus to keep it off. Wikipedia will not be harmed by non-sexual nudity, especially with a click through. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs11:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
You have a point. If we don't censor Muhammed, we really, really shouldn't censor nudity. That would not send a good message. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs12:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is (quite rightly) not censored, in the sense that if I go looking for an image of someone's genitals I expect to find one. However, that doesn't justify thrusting them in my face on the front page. We have plenty of uncontentious images to display, and arguably many of them are of better quality than the one proposed. I wouldn't be offended; most people probably wouldn't; but some (especially younger readers) might. If we start to run out of material then we can consider putting controversial images up but, until then, let's play it safe. Certes (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
If children are anything like I remember being, they will be the last to be offended; they will be fascinated! In fact nowadays most have probably discovered far more "shocking" images of genitalia by surfing the internet. This image is highly educational and I admire Adam's courage in scheduling it. Jmchutchinson (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Because all users were notified, regardless of how they !voted. Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) are considered appropriate notifications. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Adam does a lot of good photography work around here, for which we're all grateful, and I'm glad to see him answer the call above for a POTD coordinator. However, removing a bunch of stuff from /Unused and scheduling it is not exactly a great start. Consensus must be respected even when we disagree with it. If Adam "can't find any reason to justify excluding non-sexual nudity under any policy", then he hasn't read the tens of thousands of words written on that subject in the prior discussions linked above. More generally, it's weird, maybe even creepy, to be repeatedly trying to get nudity on the main page. This isn't an art gallery, we're catering to a global audience of all ages. Discretion is not censorship. Levivich16:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not like POTD/Unused links any discussions whatsoever, except for September Morn. It's not a set consensus. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Main Page/Archive 194/Section 7 is a set consensus, and even if it's not linked at /Unused, you're very well aware of it because you participated heavily in that discussion. It's rather concerning that you just denied there's a "set consensus" about this, or that you're defending your actions because /Unused didn't have a link to a discussion you were aware of. POTD coordinator should be implementing consensus; accurately recognizing consensus is a prerequisite. Levivich16:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
" I will not say that there is consensus against ever using this photograph on the Main Page'" - Closers comment. There is no consensus against it appearing any day except Intersex Awareness Day. Read what the actual consensus of that discussion is before quoting it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs16:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Could you give me a TLDR of what is wrong with non-sexual nudity other than that it is popular with some people and unpopular with others? Discretion that outlaws nudity that would be acceptable on public billboards where I grew up does not seem meaningfully distinct from censorship to me. —Kusma (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The TLDR is that it is completely anathema to the norms of most of the societies in which Wikipedia's editors operate. Can you imagine that image appearing in a regular newspaper? Or a school wall? Even biology textbooks, where such images would actually be of some genuine use, only use actual photographs of private parts sparingly, leaving most of the detail to diagrams. This taboo may well be completely unjustified, but it exists and Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We can include graphic images selectively in apprpriate articles, but not on the first page readers come to. — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
In most of Europe, nudity is acceptable. I can imagine the hermaphrodite on the cover of a regular art or science journal. —Kusma (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I was among the 78% of editors who opposed use of this image on the main page in 2019, and I continue to Oppose today for the same reasons. I have zero concern about use of the image in relevant articles. I share the concerns expressed above by Levivich about the start by our new POTD coordinator. Cullen328 (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I only agreed to accept it on the basis of not censoring things unduly. We can't put depictions of Mohammed on the main page, and then turn around and say "Sorry to all the Islamic people we offended, but what we actually care about is non-sexual nudity."
I can't run POTD immorally. If we're not going to care about offense to Muslims when we put Mohammed on the main page, it is immoral for us to act like prudes, saying our offense is more important than yours. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't get how you've arrived at your conclusion in the last sentence. Why couldn't we say the same of text? Should the Main Page be empty to avoid having difficult discussions? — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
My opinion hasn't changed since the last discussion about the image: using it on the Main Page would violate the principle of least astonishment, which we are supposed to adhere to when deciding whether to use controversial images. Readers will not be expecting to see graphic nudity on the main page. Since the last discussion about this established a strong consensus not to use the image it shouldn't be scheduled unless there is a consensus to do so. Hut 8.516:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Support. There is no good reason to exclude this photograph from the main page. Astonishment is not a good reason to censor. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: on 2 March 2020 you delisted the photograph from POTD with the comment "this is not worth the chaos it will cause. I was clearly wrong to keep insisting on this". I think that was a sensible point to make and not sure why you've changed your mind again now. There is just no way this is in any way appropriate for the main page, and however artistic and educational it may be the fall out and possible reputational damage for the project just isn't worth it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess the definition of "of two minds", eh? Lol. I guess I think we should but also not that it is not worth it. If we do, it requires a large consensus in favor to protect us from the internal chaos as well not just how we are perceived externally. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree that this pic should not be run on front page not because of any policy, but simply the backlash we can expect from some readers being affronted with it. Just, a place we don't want to be at. --Masem (t) 17:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia not being censored does not mean that editorial judgement cannot be used on the Main Page to exclude certain imagery that is harder to stay away from. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose as I stated in 2019, (to quote Jimbo) "... there are images that people under the principle of least astonishment don't expect to pop up on their screen at an encyclopedia without clicking something first ..." —Bruce1eetalk17:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons I did in 2019. However important it might be historically, this image is dehumanizing and not representative of most intersex people. It's not about censorship, it's about dignity and respect. Funcrunch (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
As I said in 2019, I'm not opposed to being in the general rotation as long as we aren't stupid about the accompanying text (which was my concern with it running on 26/10/19). There is already a strong consensus that NOTCENSORED applies to the main page as far as profanity goes, and I would argue that applies to any content that would otherwise be eligible for being on the main page (e.g. DYK, FA). We are, after all, an encyclopedia, and it's not within an encyclopaedic mission to hide away the naked bodies as if we're ashamed of them, just like how the dictionary doesn't hide away the naughty words. Sceptre (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
But printed encyclopedias(when they were printed, anyway) didn't put images of naked people that prominently displayed their genitalia on the cover. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
POTD is at least one screen down from the top on desktop, and three on mobile (where a majority of people browse from these days), so it's not really synonymous to the front cover of a book; it's more like the little flap in the dust jacket. As far as I'm aware, (general-purpose) WP:1.0 and Special:Random don't filter out provocative topics; neither should we filter out featured content from being drawn out of the hat. Sceptre (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
(Responding to ping) At the time of that discussion my opposition had little to do with shock value or the principle of least astonishment, but with how offensive it was to intersex people. It would have been particularly gauche at that time, as it was planned for Intersex Awareness Day. That particular bitter irony would not be in play if posted on July 25, but I'm still not comfortable with it on the main page, for the same reasons (even if the explanatory text did a good job of showing relevant context). If you wish to call this reasoning political correctness, no problem with that. ---Sluzzelintalk18:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I randomly stumbled onto this conversation and that's what my initial thoughts were too, Sluzzelin. I don't know the history of this particular image, but a lot of people have had photographs taken of them like this without their consent, medical procedures forced on them, etc. I care about people and minimizing the risk of real-world harm. Dehumanization sucks. Trauma sucks. I'm not familar with what goes on with displaying content on the front page in general so I'm not going to !vote as maybe I'm not the best person to comment here, but I do think this aspect is important to keep in mind. Clovermoss(talk)19:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
For all of the reasons previously stated in 2019 and 2020, I remain opposed to running this on the main page as POTD, and am happy to rehash my previous comments if needed. Also, I know the rules about Not Censored and least astonishment, but I also want to draw attention to the impact this has on an already extremely marginalized community - intersex people - and that this perpetuates the voyeuristic nature of what they have to go through (that's the perception, okay?), along with the medicalization of their bodies and how society treats them. Not cool that Wikipedia is seen to perpetuate that perceived abuse - Alisontalk19:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per my reasoning back in 2019 and per Certes above. Readers and editors alike should not be thrusted with this image in their face the moment they visit the homepage. Many thanks Ahecht for the ping much obliged. –Davey2010Talk21:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose is still my opinion. There are several photos associated with Felix Nadar and this study, that are more obscured. Let people see one of those on the main page and then they can read up if they're interested. Fred (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - Certes Nailed my opinion on this "Wikipedia is (quite rightly) not censored, in the sense that if I go looking for an image of someone's genitals I expect to find one. However, that doesn't justify thrusting them in my face on the front page." - FlightTime (open channel)22:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Can we actually read the proposal, because it's clear no-one who jumped to voting did?
@Certes, FlightTime, Davey2010, and Hut 8.5: Look. I'm just going to point out that my initial text was asking for the best way to handle this and suggested the possibility of using a blurred or text message that you'd have to click through to see the image.
It really feels like 90% of the votes didn't even read the proposal. You discuss before voting, then start a vote after discussion. Jumping straight to a vote where it's clear you ignored the discussion shows you don't care about compromise, don't care about ways to mitigate the situation, don't even care that one of the proposed solutions gets you everything you want, a.k.a. it's not actually on the main page. I'd suggest a blurred copy, which you click through (using the "link=" property) to see the image, and cannot see it without intervention. But that's why I gave it two months, and opened a discussion. This race to turn it into a vote is counter productive. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs23:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Yes, if we do feature the image then adding a click-through step is a good idea which we should consider seriously. Despite this possibility, I still think it would be better to feature an alternative image of similar quality on a more widely acceptable subject, which everyone could see without the need to click through. Certes (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
That's great, but this image is featured and restored, and the lack of civility surrounding this are not encouraging me to spend another fifteen hours to restore another image from the set. That's basically tantamount to saying that I should write a different featured article for the main page, and that's the compromise. Especially as there's literally no guarantee that people won't knee-jerk vote oppose exactly like they did here without reading, without paying any attention. You're basically asking me to put more work into this on spec. Frankly, I did it because I felt it was an important part of LGBT history, and an important aspect of discussion of gender. But I'm not going to keep throwing work into it so I can get more abuse in future. Restorations are days of work and a lot of passion, and I'm not going to work on spec on a subject a second time when you cannot possibly guarantee the work won't be thrown away again. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs23:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I do appreciate the problem, having spent substantial time defending a body of work which determined deletionists removed from another part of Wikipedia. Sadly, neither excellence nor hours spent can guarantee consensus for a work's inclusion on a particular page. Even if the image doesn't receive its 24 hours of fame on the main page, the effort has hardly been thrown away: the image continues to serve to illustrate Hermaphrodite, etc. Certes (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, Maybe if you were clearer with your wording 90% of people here wouldn't have got confused. I did read what you wrote however it evidently wasn't clear to myself or anyone else here for that matter. The only person at fault for this is 'YOU. Be clearer next time and things will run much more smoothly. –Davey2010Talk18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The notion that a Featured picture is "thrown away" if it is not hosted on the front page for 24 hours is ludicrous and hyperbolic. Cullen328 (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
For some subjects, getting a featured picture onto the front page is the most engagement they'll have. I can make an article and picture of Södermanland Runic Inscription 113, but half a day on the main page in DYK got it over 11,000 eyes, whereas previous days had 10 and 6. [ Not thousand. Just ten. Just six. Lucy Arbell gets single-digit pageviews, but being a featured picture got her 2,500. The ability to get a year's worth of pageviews in a day is an astounding way to share your interests. The Main Page is the reward of these processes. You get to share something you're passionate about, and perhaps make others care too. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs03:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I've already cast my !vote above, but also want to point out that there is an implication of shame around the stated image; the subject is covering their face. I know why it's being done in context, etc etc, but the broad message we as Wikipedia are telegraphing to the public is that being intersex is a shameful thing. And it's not - not at all - Alisontalk02:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Alison: It's also from the 19th century. I'm not saying that one should feel shame, but I think it's a part of the history of intersex that people were made to feel shame, which are different things. Hell, in the broadest sense, I'm intersex myself - I don't identify as male, I don't have any real connection to any gender label, not even agender. Like, I like how I look with a beard, and people will presume I'm male, and when you feel no connection to any gender, it's easy to go along.
But I'm getting off-topic. I don't want to whitewash the struggles of the past, and find the whole incidents around Nadar's series to be a surprisingly well-documented glimpse into those struggles. We handle things better now, of course, but LGBTI history is important, and that I part is particularly poorly discussed.
That's why I find this image compelling. I don't see it as "He/she/they (no-one bothered to document their own ideas about their identity) felt shame, as they should." I see it as a connection across time to someone from the past that I feel strong compassion for, despite knowing so little about them. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: - you're missing my point here. I know the subject is long dead, and times have (sort of) changed, but we are still telegraphing shame in that image, whether it is justified or not or whether public perception has changed or not. Many intersex people have faced a lifetime of scrutiny just like that, and usually starting from childhood. That image is a stark reminder to them of the table, and the stirrups, and the godawful poking and prodding from strangers, that accompanies being intersex - to this day. And we're perpetuating that here. If that has not been your personal experience - that makes me happy. But it's not the case for so many others. And as an aside, given intersex refers to physical variance, bundling the "I"-word with LGBT is controversial even in itself - Alisontalk03:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Alison: Perhaps you're right. I certainly don't want to cause harm to anyone, and I fall into that situation of "mental-only (and, yes, that is stretching the term, but that's why I said "in the broadest sense". I'm not intersex, as far as I know, in more common senses), cis-passing", which is kind of easy mode? At the same time, this is the first public documentation I've ever seen (I've occasionally fallen into the role of helping friends work through things, but anything I saw as part of that is very private) of what physically-intersex genitalia look like.
I guess I want people to see it as normal, and it feels like part of that is, y'know, seeing it. And it worries me that covering it up, treating it as a problem, all those kind of things block understanding.
If you think that another image from the set would genuinely be better, I suppose having a suitable image for the article Intersex would do similarly-helpful things educationally. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs03:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a valid reason why "this is the first public documentation [you've] ever seen", if you dig into the details. It is my opinion that this image - displayed like this - will both hurt people, and send the wrong message. Frankly, it's voyeuristic and while you and I may understand it as being educational, other folks will not get that message. And it'll show up on Best of Wikipedia, or similar, with the overall vibe of something completely different. Examine the perspective of Cary Gabriel Costello - an intersex person - who said,
I see exploitation, nonconsent, shame and exposure–disturbing factors mostly absent in the other, nonclinical, photos [...] a shockingly disrespectful image [...] As an intersex person and a Jew, I’d say this is rather like including a photograph of a nude victim of medical experimentation in a concentration camp. - Cary Gabriel Costello
You know what, I think that that might well be enough. I think I might withdraw the image from the main page. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs03:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Adam, I think the home page of Wikipedia should be appropriate for viewing by people around the world, including children. In every decision we make, we should consider, "Will this bring more people into the Wikipedia movement, or will it drive people away." Placing this image on the home page will shock some fraction of our visitors who will leave and never return, and there simply isn't enough to be gained to be worth it. We should not post this or any other explicit nude photographs on the home page. JehochmanTalk03:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jehochman: I'd find that argument easier to handle had I not been on Wikipedia long enough to remember things like "Movie of Americans shooting Iraqis and seeing them die" and "heavily-protested image of Mohammed" on the main page. It's one of those things where it feels wrong to draw the line here, you know? It's not that I don't have sympathy for the viewpoint, but after how "NOTCENSORED" was shouted from the rooftops to justify those appearing there, it kind of feels like there's the implied addition "except if it drives off Muslims/Iraqis/etc". Like we're showing greater care for people shocked by nudity than people who didn't want to watch people die, or follow the Islamic proscription against images of Mohammed.
Those may have been mistakes, or borderline judgments. If we made a mistake in the past, we don't need to continue for the sake of consistency. When there's a borderline, there can be two situations that are nearly identical that go opposite ways. JehochmanTalk03:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps. But this is why I was hoping to have a discussion, not some mad scramble to vote. Discussions progress things. We can work out if there's ways to mitigate the issues, like a click through. We can publicly declare those past judgements wrong, and agree to new rules moving forwards. The rush to vote screws with that, because it makes any productive discussion go away. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs03:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago28 comments10 people in discussion
Picture of the day is a feature on the main page that is urgently in need of other participants. There is no co-ordinator and I have been listing most of the POTDs myself, but now have less time to devote to Wikipedia than previously. For example, there are five days in May for which POTDs have yet to be selected. Help would be much appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I had no idea that the project was in such a concerning state. I'd love to help out, but I have no experience with POTD. What specific tasks does the project need more help with, since this isn't really clear at WP:POTD? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth and PerfectSoundWhatever: I used to be fairly active in scheduling POTDs myself, but have also taken a step back owing to real-life concerns. Despite this, I do still tinker with the templates to make sure they're in a consistent "house style" before Main Page appearance, and I would certainly be happy to do more scheduling if needed. (P.S. just a note that the POTD guidelines page is generally accurate but ever so slightly out of date.) — RAVENPVFF·talk·01:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@PerfectSoundWhatever: Thank you, that looks excellent. I will add the requisite templates. If you and Ravenpuff can do a few POTDs, and @Amakuru: also helps, we should be able to keep up. I also appreciate Ravenpuff's attention to the MOS details that I often miss. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@PerfectSoundWhatever, Cwmhiraeth, and Ravenpuff: thanks for agreeing to contribute to the project, the more hands we have on deck the easier it will be for everyone. That template looks great, I've just taken the minor liberty of removing the official name from the template. In most cases it is sufficient to call it by whatever the article title calls it, and it looked a bit excessive to also include the official name in the template. As Ravenpuff says, the guidelines are more or less fine. Just to highlight one of them (and those with experience in this project will recall that I beat this drum quite often!) - it is important that all facts used in the POTD template be cited to reliable sources. The article itself doesn't have to be fully cited (unlike the rest of the main page) but the prose used on the main page itself does need to be. Other than that, good luck!
And apologies to Cwmhiraeth, after a spate earlier this year I've not done much scheduling in the past couple of months due to off-wiki reasons. Will try to step back up to the plate again as much as I can. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
And before me, Howcheng... from its initiation, I believe. But yeah, I'm not willing to get back into the drama involved in the main page (and besides, you kinda need a mop IIRC). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I did it for a long time, but I was not the first person either. I don't think there was any single individual before me, but people like PFHLai contributed on occasion. I wrote the guidelines, but as I haven't been involved in a number of years, I'm not comfortable updating them if they're out of date. —howcheng {chat}20:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
In that case, maybe our first point of call is to look around and see who might want to co-ordinate this task. Adam Cuerden is this something you'd like to be involved with, or can think of someone who would might be interested. As much as it probably needs someone with the mop, it might be pertinent to have someone very familiar with FP picking out the images and then having an admin add to the queue. Just a thought. I have so little knowledge of the pictures side of Wikipedia! Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
To answer your original question, there is no formal process for selecting a coordinator. Someone just has to be willing to step up. —howcheng {chat}20:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess I could, but I'd probably have to just schedule them in order, because I have too high of a proportion to get selective. Is there a list of FPs that haven't appeared? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs00:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, first thing I'm going to do is to clear out the ones on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused that don't have particularly good reasons. We don't hold things back because a different version appeared on the main page anymore, so, come, Anatomy Lesson! Also anything that's blocked purely for risk of giggles. Wikipedia will survive a urination cartoon. I'll hold off on the sexual and extreme violent content, though. This removes seven items from Unused that I just can't see as being that controversial, and leaves eight, of which I could see three to five more being possible, the remaining ones, though, we've either missed the boat on (low-quality, better versions available, not used in any significant way anymore), or they're problematic as fuck. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs10:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Certes: Aye. Very clever! I'm working my way through, holding off on money until I see if June 28th breaks anything, and leaving the Lichfield Cathedral as there's two other cathedral sets going (I'm just scheduling sets to run once a month until completion, as it's easier to set them up as a batch). Saw there was a big batch of birds coming up, so trying to pre-schedule some of those too. Currently up to early July, which is a nice backlog. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs19:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to take over if we can get a bot to make a list of all featured pictures that haven't yet appeared on the main page in order that I can work from. Otherwise, it's impossible to be fair. I know there's going to need to be a certain amount of reordering things, but we really should be getting the oldest FPs first, barring anniversaries/holidays/other special events. We currently are good until June 22. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 12:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Okay, that's clever. Template:Featured picture does a bunch of auto-categorising, and sorts by date. I can work with thatAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs13:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
On another thread, is there a script or something I can use to notify pages and users that a POTD is coming up? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs12:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden Sorry to edit an archive page, but I have a working beta version of the script ready. You can install it by adding {{subst:lusc|User:Ahecht/sandbox/Scripts/potd-helper.js}} to your Special:MyPage/common.js. Once installed, a POTD helper link will show up in the top menu (or under the "More" dropdown) when you're on an article or a featured image page, or you can access the tool directly at Special:POTDHelper. Should be fairly self-explanatory. It's still in beta, so let me know if you get any weird errors (it sends debugging messages to your browser's console, which you can access in most browsers by hitting F12 and clicking the "Console" tab). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 04:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment - it would be better IMHO to have the system where lots of people step in and do this, rather than having a single coordinator. I worked on this mostly on my own for a couple of years 2018-2019, and it's a lot of work for one person... which I think has been an issue for Cwmhiraeth recently too. As for ordering, I would oppose having a bot do it, due to the FPs now being equally spaced in terms of what was promoted when. The older ones tend to be a lot of artworks and coins etc, and we purposely do not schedule those all in order. As noted above, I'm happy to muck in with this as and when, without committing to doing all the work myself! — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I meant more as to whether we could have a script where you set up, say, Template:POTD/2022-06-09 then clicked a button, and it notified the article and nominators for you. Well, I've spaced out the remaining bits of Hunting of the Snark, next step is to go through and start setting up the money. Think we should have one or two money-related FPs every month until we run out (which looks to be about 5 years into the future, but once they're set up, we can ignore them). Any volunteers? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs14:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, we could probably use more participation at the project that provides these images to the main page. We're consistently promoting slightly less than one image a day, which was not true historically. If we run out of FPs, that will be a problem. Even if it's just bringing over images you like from commons:Commons:FPC, that's still going to put those Commons images in articles, and a more robust voting pool never hurts. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs23:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
Please read the file name before clicking on it. It's exactly what it sounds like.
Okay. Let's talk. Should this appear in Picture of the day? I think there is educational value in shocking people sometimes, but I'm inclined to say, "No", because there's a lot of photographic decisions that might be coincidental, but which also feel like they paint a narrative:
Not photographing the face is a photographic decision that reinforces the dehumanisation of the victim. The hat - seriously, why would he be wearing a hat after a lynching - hides any evidence of beatings prior to the lynching. His neck is hidden by the collar, hiding the actual lynching except for a short bit of chain. His arms are tied, but that isn't possible. It feels like this photograph was staged, the body arranged to lessen the violence, and hide the humanity of the victim.
Also, there's an extreme lack of documentation for this image. Other than knowing it comes from 1925, we don't know where it happened, we don't know who it happened to. And, I hesitate to say this, but the lack of documentation means we don't even know for certain this was a real hanging: stage rigs for fake-hanging someone aren't particularly complex. (Obviously, lynchings happen, but that would go some way to explaining some of the other features of the image).
I'm open to violence on the main page. But it needs to serve a purpose. Any objections to leaving this one off? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs11:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Doing the schedule work for next month's POTD, and this is one of the images (theoretically) in the queue. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs16:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
If you're scheduling, and it bothers you, then who's going to stop you? Personally, doesn't make any difference to me. It would not be a problem to put it on the main page, but hey, if you're the one doing the hard work of setting up the queue and scheduling the pictures, it's your world. Nothing bad happens if you find other pictures to take up the queue. --Jayron3218:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I'm inclined to say 'no' for the same reasons as my previous objection; it was taken in the first place to be voyeuristic - so many ended up as postcards even - and it's dehumanizing and objectifying. You touched on the latter yourself, above. This was a human being - someone's son, someone's baby. If I concentrate hard, I can understand the educational nature of this. But at the same time, it is clearly shocking on so many levels, and disrespectful to the victim. And I'm not entirely convinced that "educational" is the message everyone will receive here, y'know? - Alisontalk04:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Aye. I think there might be contexts for an image like this that justify them, e.g. "Walter Francis White took this photo to document the horror of.... "
But this feels like the kind of thing that would be of very low value to historians (no documentation, as mentioned), but could spread to every extreme racist website. Plus, it has an abuse filter to keep it appearing on non-whitelisted pages, which, if not precautionary, has terrifying implications. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs04:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hard no on having this on the main page. Gratuitous indeed, and unlikely to be received in its intended way, whatever that even is. Ovinus (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Think that's basically no disagreement, then. I'm sure we'll need to revisit related subjects at some point (And to clarify, by that I mean things like a few famous photographs of the aftermaths of battles, or something like File:Le Petit Journal 7 Oct 1906.jpg), but I think that we can safely declare anything like this is definitely out. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs05:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Hindi
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@The C of E: I assume @TheManishPanwar is talking about the list of Wikipedias near the bottom of the page, created by Template:Wikipedia languages. The addition of Hindi to that list has been discussed repeatedly, but has usually been rejected because the quality of the Hindi Wikipedia was not high enough. However, it has been years since it was last discussed, and maybe Hindi Wikipedia is much better now. Template talk:Wikipedia languages is the place to request this addition. —Kusma (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Selected anniversaries – date formats
Latest comment: 2 years ago21 comments13 people in discussion
I've had a look how long we've had selected anniversaries on the MP and the revision history goes back to February 2004. And ever since then, we've introduced those selected anniversaries in mdy date format. For example, it currently says on the MP:
I wondered whether we want to consider using dmy for a wee while. As it says at Errors: "Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English." Yet, we've introduced our selected anniversaries with one date style only over the last 18 years. If we were to change, this is what today's anniversaries would look like instead.
I vote green! 18 years? Seems like time for a change to me! We don't want to look stuck in our ways, do we? DrThneed (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
It is obvious green is the way forward for a global audience, and equally obvious that will never happen, as it's not the way Americans do things. Fgf10 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe in floating ideas first to see what the reaction is. If nobody supports it, an RFC is a waste of time. If it gets strong support, we also may not need an RFC. There is often very good feedback that informs how you’d word an RFC. Schwede6607:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
MOS:RETAIN would suggest that we shouldn't just switch from one style to another just for the sake of it. Also, I find having the number at the beginning of the template slightly jarring. MOS:NUMNOTES tells us to avoid beginning a sentence with a figure, and this is kind of the same. Overall I would vote to keep it as is, this isn't really a strong ENGVAR issue anyway as plenty of British sources do use the May 31 format. — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
MOS:DATEFORMAT explains that in limited situations where brevity is helpful, we are allowed to leave the year off. What remains still represents a British or American date format, does it not? Schwede6610:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Mostly just pointing out that the arguments for something like "05/31/2022" vs "31/05/2022" don't really apply to "5 May" vs "May 5"; the first two can be ambiguous to many readers, the later are not. So this is really just a stylistic choice. — xaosfluxTalk14:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, we don't leave off the year for "brevity" we leave it off as it is redundant, these are annual occurrences, the year is irrelevant. The introduction to this discussion states we use mdy date format - I'm just pointing out that we don't use years here at all,in display or in the target article. — xaosfluxTalk14:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, either way, changing it so the date starts with "31" is not a positive change, the MOS says that we should not do this, and using the perfectly recognizable "May 31" satisfies this to the detriment of nobody. Noting that I Oppose this proposal. — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd support the change. Wikipedia might not prefer any national variety of English -- but the rest of the world does, and Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia.--WaltCip-(talk)13:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
MD, Blue, Status Quo Canada prefers it and most of the rest of the world respects Canada's decisions (even if it doesn't always understand them). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:ENGVAR, where there is a distinction between formats, and where no one variety of English has primacy over the usage, we default to the original usage. The date format should stay just as it is. --Jayron3216:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
How much does this even matter? They both have no ambiguity, both are readable as the same exact thing, and are both accepted by the MOS. I think that, either way, it's not a big deal which one is chosen. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Leave them be, but not because of date formatting here, but because they are already literally the names of the articles (May 30 not 30 May) they point to, if someone really wants to argue about renaming those 366 articles, this isn't the right forum for that. — xaosfluxTalk18:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I vote green in order to better reflect Wikipedia's a global audience given that the DMY format is used by almost every country in the world. Kiwichris (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Blue per engvar, retain, the titles of the articles, not starting with numerals, etc. I don't believe this is an exclusively American thing; other places in the world also use month-day format. Levivich13:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it matters much. While MDY is clearly bad, YMD is just as logical as DMY (if not better), so MD and DM both look OK to me. Strong whatever. —Kusma (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia:POTD/Unused should actually link discussions if it's meant to be held by them. As it was, it very much gives the impression it was one person's opinion. However, I don't think the discussion is particularly relevant given the blurbs provided with the image were quite... bad, which contextualised things differently. Now, 8 years on, with her having done a number of notable things, I think the context is very different, especially compared to the blurb about glamour photography that I'm a little shocked this image was trying to run as. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs16:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden The discussion was explicitly mentioned and linked. Before you deleted it, the listing for this image ended in The decision not to feature this image on the main page was affirmed through a two-week discussion in May 2014. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Very well, but that was 8 years ago, in a very different Wikipedia environment, and the summary of the argument is "Too cheesecake-y", which is hardly a compelling case against. And, frankly, I don't think anyone really cares if it's on the main page. We've had literal people dying on the main page before. We've had more nudity. If it shouldn't be a featured picture at all, nominate it for delisting. There's plenty of time for that. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs23:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm open to a vote on it, but I don't think it would really have any substantial controversy. I don't love the image, but I doubt it'd cause that much harm, and I don't like the precedent it sets to deny things more for fear of immature giggling than any concrete reason. And it's no doubt airbrushed and unrealistic, but it's not like we're going to make a habit of it. It's certainly an outlier for FPs, but it's not any worse than you'd see on the covers in any British shop's magazine rack.
I 'm not against leaving things off the main page, but I feel like there should be a standard of balancing possible harm with possible educational benefits. While a model's career might not be high academia, I'm really not seeing much harm, so... I think we call back to the default and run it.
And, you know, if we're really worried we can always move it to June 26th, at which point the featured article will absolutely assure no-one cares in the least about the FP. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Given the prior consensus against posting this I don't think it should be done without a discussion. Hut 8.511:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll comment then and say that I see no good reason not to include it. It is a fine image of a beautiful person, and there is no suggestion of any exploitation of the subject. Maybe some cultures will find the semi-nudity mildly offensive, but by using the internet such users will be routinely exposing themselves to far worse, and our policy is not to accept such censorship on our pages. Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't run the picture of the model on POTD because it's not a good picture. It's airbrushed and thus unrealistic. It's not educational; it doesn't really illustrate or depict anything well. There are better pictures of "glamour shots", of modeling, of airbrushing techniques, of bikinis... this just isn't a good example of anything. The bodybuilder is a famous historical figure ("the father of bodybuilding") and the Renoir is a famous painting; this photograph of a model is not a famous photograph nor a particularly famous model; they're not comparable. Levivich07:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The remedy for "It shouldn't be an FP!" is a delist nomination at WP:FPC. They take ten days, and if closes as delist before it runs, what, 14 days from now? It can't run. If it happens, problem solved.
Frankly, it's boring '00s men's magazine cover stuff, with, at this point, it's biggest point of notability is being the oldest FP never to have gone on the mainpage. But it's also too old to effectively rejudge, and if I'm to start blocking things from the main page because they don't interest me, well, that's more power than you should give or that I should have as a co-ordinator.
"It hasn't run yet" is a terrible reason to run anything. Are we running low on candidate pictures? There's really no reason to remove it from /Unused. Also, I'm sure I don't need to tell you why these airbrushed glamour shots of models are harmful, e.g. to young people's body image and self-esteem. By the way, I'm not gonna spend my free time fixing the mistakes of years past by nominating FP's for de-listing (nor would I do that with FAs), but you're welcome to. That would be a better thing to do with a bad photo than removing it from /Unused and then kinda threatening to list it unless the community deals with it. I think as POTD coordinator what you should do is make choices so that we have the best outcomes with the least disruption/editor time spent. Don't use this position to make a WP:POINT. (I read the draft Signpost essay.) Levivich12:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, think of the children! Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, I think we are all tolerant of doing so on the Main Page as an exception in extreme cases. This is surely not one. Images of untypically beautiful people are everywhere in most societies, so I don't believe that Wikipedia running such a picture on one day does one jot of harm. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's all stop using the word "censored" in these discussions. Choosing an image to showcase on the front page, or choosing not to showcase an image on the front page, has nothing to do with censorship. Censorship would be deleting the image, not declining to showcase it. This is not an image of an untypically beautiful person, and even if it were, we are not here to showcase beauty. What is the encyclopedic value of this image? How does it educate? It does harm because it presents an unrealistic, unobtainable image of what some people think beauty is or should be. And yes, think of the children. Levivich14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
No, you don't have to delete an image for it to count as censorship; just not showing it will suffice. You seem to disapprove of the glamour industry (maybe for good reasons, but others differ). Not displaying the image for that reason seems like censorship to me. The encyclopedic value of the image is that it was judged to be a high quality example of the genre. Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Judged to be a high quality example of the genre by whom? From among what choices? It's an example of the genre, but it's not a high-quality one. It might be the only one with a compatible license. Levivich17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
And may I suggest you look up the definition of censorship. It's rather specific. "Not choosing an image for the main page because it's not the best image we can put up there" is not censorship under any definition you'll find. Levivich17:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@Levivich: I feel that every featured picture should potentially run. As I said, if the only objection is feeling it's an insufficiently good picture, the remedy is a delist nomination at WP:FPC, not requesting an extrajudicial judgement.
I have nearly 8% of all featured pictures. That means I can't go around judging other people's work arbitrarily, lest I end up treating them differently than myself. The Merkin image is, at worst, boring. It won't break Wikipedia, and I have no idea why it's managed to cause so much hand-wringing. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs19:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
If your contributions to FP limits your ability as POTD coordinator, then don't volunteer for the job. I am operating on the assumption that having you as POTD coordinator is no different than having anyone else as POTD coordinator. No previous coordinator felt that respecting /Unused was a problem or "extrajudicial judgment". You're the one who removed this image (and others) from /Unused and scheduled them, so you're the one who needs to justify that. I don't think it's right for you to unilaterally remove images from /Unused and schedule them, and then tell the rest of us to have it delisted if we don't like it because you want to run every FP. There is no consensus to run every FP; there is consensus not to run this and other FPs. It worries me that you admit this isn't a good picture but you've removed it from /Unused and listed it anyway. That's kind of the definition of WP:POINTy behavior: doing something that's bad (scheduling this bad pic) in order to make a point (about nudity? Censorship? /Unused? Every FP should be POTD? Idk.) Levivich21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The point is that it doesn't seem that bad. There's no point to be made if the image doesn't look like a problem. The Unused page shouldn't be an arbitrary collection, it should make sense. I'm not really hearing concrete reasons not to put it on the main page, just... well, WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a side of WP:THEREFOREYOUSHOULDNTLIKEITANDDOWHATISAYAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs22:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
IMO, POTD coord shouldn't be scheduling pics that, in his own words, "doesn't seem that bad". POTD should be the best pictures. This is not one of them. Nobody is saying it is obscene or lewd. It doesn't matter that she's half naked. That's not the issue--and as your own examples show, that was never an issue. This is a poor quality image. It shouldn't run for that reason alone. You seem to agree it's a poor quality image. You shouldn't schedule it for that reason alone. Levivich23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Was going to say this in a previous section, and have probably expressed as much in the past, but I agree that NOTCENSOR should be irrelevant for main page decisions. The encyclopedia isn't censored, as in if you go to an article about sexuality, anatomy, blasphemy, violence, etc., we shouldn't censor images that illustrate that subject. All of that is really easy to find on Wikipedia. The question is what we want to showcase for the broadest possible audience. There's obviously a ton of gray area, though, and that is where we need some imperfect form of consensus, weighing the educational value against objections. NOTCENSORED on its own shouldn't carry any weight, though. Even when we're talking about articles rather than the main page, NOTCENSORED is just an argument against removal -- it still needs to be accompanied with a persuasive argument to include. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedia is, and should be, fundamentally an educational project. Putting this photo on the Main Page does not seem to me to have any educational value. It is, in a weird way, somewhat similar to the lynching photo above: in both cases, there could be educational value, but that getting that value requires more of an explanation than the Main Page's FP section offers.
I really don't think that the 120-year-old photo or the 19th-century painting are at all comparable, precisely because everyone involved in those historical words is long dead. If this photo comes up again a hundred years from now, you can put me down as supporting, except to the extent that Missvain was probably right in her prior comments about the white balance being off. (Also: When people respond "Maybe this ought to be de-listed", I think the response should be "Maybe we should think longer about running this – it's been eight years, so what's another month?" instead of "My poor hands are tied and I just have to run it unless you rush over there and get it de-listed first"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm in favor of another RFC or vote or whatever, if need be, over whether to run this image; it's been 8 years, and consensus can change. I agree that NOTCENSORED applies differently to the Main Page, in which people are more likely to come across content they see as offensive without intending to view such content; cf.Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, in which the privacy interest at issue in Stanley v. Georgia (which held that possessing obscene movies et al. could not be criminalized since no negative externalities exist) does not apply to public establishments (where such externalities can exist). That said, I don't think this image is very lewd (no excessive nudity), and I don't have any particularly strong feelings over whether this image should be run as POTD or is FP-worthy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)22:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
That's kind of my point. It's nothing worth getting so bothered about, and I think we need a positive reason to skip, not a mere negative one. If we have a good reason to not put on the main page, that's one thing. But I find it odd that the main argument against it appearing appears to be a mere... not liking it. I mean, she's a public figure. We're not Brittanica, we cover popular culture as well. If we accept we're in part an encyclopedia of popular culture, models and television personalities aren't any less valid than more traditionally academic subjects, and me having no real interest in them is irrelevant. For example if a featured article co-ordinator started blocking the prolific roads or hurricane projects from the main page, we'd be quite upset at them, even if their argument is that they didn't interest them. I don't see this as any different: a co-ordinator needs to judge things dispassionately, not by what interests them to write or photograph or work on. And any of the sorts of subjects Wikipedia covers should be considered valid unless there's a good reason not to include it. My lack of passion for the subject shouldn't matter. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs22:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
If "IDONTLIKEIT" is another way of saying "poor quality image", then that's like the #1 best reason not to run something for POTD. And whole consensus can change, the way to change an RFC consensus is with a new RFC, not by ignoring the old consensus. Levivich23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Currently no strong opinion for or against using the image as a POTD, just wanna say that Adam Cuerden scheduling the image for a POTD (without consensus) and removing it from the unused list feels very WP:GAMEy and uncivil. The edit summary Adam used was "They're scheduled for the main page. Putting them on here if they're running is ridiculous" which in itself is ridiculous, since Adam is the one who scheduled it. Adam should have sought consensus first, and this whole discussion feels WP:POINTy. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
It had three weeks, and still has most of two. Sometimes the best plan is to say you're doing something (which I did, right here) and see if anyone actually cares. Given the remedy for "not good enough be a featured picture" is a delist nom, and there's no real arguments besides that, there's really no valid opposition I'm seeing. Especially none that cares enough to do something (such as create a delist nom) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs13:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Look at this thread and reconsider whether anyone cares to do something. The "something" might not be the thing that you expected (delisting the pic). Levivich13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I've now looked at June's POTDs and /Unused and I see that you've taken a number of pictures from /Unused and scheduled them all in June. This is unacceptable, particularly when a number of them have already appeared on the main page--and you've said you want every FP to be a POTD, so why are you running repeats? It's clear to me that you've done this to make a WP:POINT about /Unused, and that's not an acceptable reason. So, over the next few days, I'm going to endeavor to find replacements, and will be replacing the /Unused pictures in the June schedules, and restoring them to /Unused. That's the "something" I'm going to do. Levivich18:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Levivich:
The thing is, they aren't duplicates. compare:
Featured picture, completely redrawn as an SVG, with two more people credited and aesthetic tweaks
There used to be a policy of not featuring things twice, even if the versions were completely redrawn, different versions, &c. This was ended long ago, but a few slipped through the cracks. They are similar, but fundamentally different, especially in credit line.
Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs23:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Those two images are the same image with minor rearrangements made, as is the odd-eyed cat one, the illusion one, and the Rembrandt painting. That these have run, and that we have many that have not run, is a great reason not to pull all four from /Unused and run all four in June, as you've scheduled. The model image has a consensus not to run it on POTD; there will need to be a new discussion to see if consensus has changed before it can be POTD. This may be that discussion, and if so, you'll need to wait for its outcome before the image can be removed from /Unused and scheduled. I don't really care about the guano pic; AFAIK there was no consensus discussion and it hasn't run before, so no objection to running that. I'm not sure if there are any others that were pulled from /Unused and scheduled. June 9 I believe is the earliest scheduled date (the Rembrandt painting) so we have until then to resolve this :-) But the painting shouldn't run again because it's run before; and if we're going to run repeats, there are better repeats to run than that. There's really no reason to put that particular picture on that particular date, particularly given that it's run before. Levivich23:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, but that painting looks like a very, very different scan, at least as linked. Perhaps I misjudged. As for the others... I'm uncomfortable not running the two SVG versions of images since they represent dozens of hours of work. I've done SVG conversions before; they're hideously finicky. I have absolutely no objections to losing the Odd-eyed cat, which I thought was borderline even at the time. I still say that the place for a Merkin discussion is at FPC, since the objection is it shouldn't be an FPC, but I don't mind shoving it to... well, we're filled up to November now... if that allows proper discussion. I just don't want to throw out people's work. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs23:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
We have very, very different ideas about what "very, very different" means
What does it matter that it's a different scan? It's the same Rembrandt painting. And while the SVG no doubt represents dozens of hours of work, the FP that's not running so that the SVG can run twice also represents dozens of hours of work. "They can both run", you say? Sure: run the one that hasn't run first, then run the one that's run before. For example, for June 9 when the Rembrandt is scheduled, the TFA for that day is about a Philippine film. Instead of re-running the Rembrandt painting, we could run File:Pintaflores Queen.jpg, which is used at San Carlos, Negros Occidental#Tourism. Levivich00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Because the decision not to block new scans and restorations was made years before I started. Here's some that used to be on POTD/Unused, and their old versions:
New
Old
New
Old
I didn't set those to run. That's been accepted practice for about 5 years. Also, you know you're suggesting replacing it with something that isn't even an English Wikipedia featured picture? I'm not trying to be rude here, but I'm not sure you understand how POTD works, the history of decisions, or what is meant to appear on it. You're objecting to things like "not blocking an image because a similar one appeared" which I' m pretty sure was Crisco 1492's big change when he took over like, three or four coordinators ago. You're suggesting things as replacements which have not gone through WP:FPC and seem unaware that POTD is meant to roughly run in order of FP promotion. I'd really suggest spending some time reviewing before touching anything. If you want, I'll delay the Merkin image to give you time to do so. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs00:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
/Unused is not accepted practice? The 2014 consensus not to have this pic as POTD is not accepted practice? There are over 700 FPs that haven't run on the main page (and many more pics that could be FPs); we can make better choices than to dump a bunch of /Unused and repeats in June. Levivich05:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Unused is little more than notes; barring other discussion, it's not, and never was meant as more than that. Things have always gotten removed from there regularly. I'm quite happy to delay Merkin as long as we need to have a discussion, replacing if the discussion goes that way, but you're taking it as if Unused was a policy page, when it's just the notes of the POTD co-ordinators, and nothing more. For example, a lot of the things on there were literally only on there because the article wasn't good enough at the time.
I don't particularly care about Merkin. If you think it needs more discussion, I'm happy to shove it forwards to the point where the discussion can happen. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs09:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
That no-one but two people cares to object does show that. I've offered a dozen ways we could move forwards, from a delist nomination at WP:FPC to delaying the image five months to allow time for more discussion, to, you know, having a discussion right here. If all you want to do is complain, though, I may as well not have bothered. You kind of have to stop complaining, and actually interact with the possible solutions, or you may as well not say anything. It doesn't feel like you want a solution that makes everyone happy, and are kind of running out of time for one of them - if the delist nomination doesn't start today, and ideally pretty damn soon today, it won't close in time. Can we please stop faffing around? I'm happy to work with you, as long as you show the slightest sign you want to actually move forwards in a productive way, but pick an option, please. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs14:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Here's how you move forward, and these steps are outlined in WP:CCC and WP:RFC:
Anyone who wants to see if that consensus has changed is welcome to start an RFC, linking to the previous discussion, and explaining why they believe we should come to a different outcome.
If that RFC is closed with consensus to list it at POTD, then the image can be scheduled at POTD.
By the way, that's the only way forward, per WP:CONSENSUS. You and I don't have the authority to come to some agreement that overrules the 2014 consensus. Sorry, but there is only one way: if you want to list it, you need to gain consensus for that. It's something that the person who wants to list it has to do.
This entire section is getting quite a messy, conflating different topics back and forth. Seems like there are at least 2 things that some community consensus measuring is needed on: (a) Should File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg be featured on the main page at all? (b) When multiple high quality images of similar content are available, how should main page featuring be determined?
These will likely both have many opinions, the former only really has two outcomes - the later has a range of outcomes. I'm not seeing any extraordinary reason that There is no deadline wouldn't apply here as well. — xaosfluxTalk16:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Yes, FPs are considered for inclusion in order of promotion. That consideration took place on schedule, and the consensus was not to include. It can be reconsidered at any time, but the consensus doesn't get overturned automatically just because it's the oldest candidate. Certes (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Thinking about this some more, and having read some of the previous discussions, I would like to hold off on the Merkin image until the 2014 consensus is re-evaluated, should we wish to do so. I do consider that discussion binding still. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)21:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Just noting I reverted this edit, which changed the date in the section header and OP, as that was confusing. I guess the POTD has been rescheduled from June 13 to Dec 11. I'm glad it was delayed, but I nevertheless believe that anyone who wants to list this at POTD needs to get consensus to overrule the last consensus from 2014 not to list this pic as a POTD. Consensus first, then scheduling, not the other way around. Levivich16:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The issue seems to be that Adam believes there is no valid reason to not run the picture and that the 2014 consensus deserves a second look since it's from eight years ago. I think we ought to get this cleared up since otherwise we will likely have a very public showdown on this in the not-too-distant future. WaltCip-(talk)13:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that we should discuss this, but I'm not sure this is a helpful place to do so. Step one is to discuss generally, arguments for and against, step two - before any voting starts is to agree on wording for an RFC, and step 3, only after the other steps, is to have a vote. We have six months. But it's clear that this doesn't fail because of any existing precedent. We've had breasts on the main page before; we've had people in sexualised poses. I linked examples above. The objections seem to be more to do with people questioning if it should be a featured picture in the first place - which is by no means the job of POTD to determine. Rulings shouldn't be arbitrary, they should be precedents that allow you to judge new images against them. For example, the lynching image is blocked on grounds of being exploitative, and more likely to cause harm (make things uncomfortable for our black readers; encourage racists) than be educational (undocumented, questionable choices in imagery). The "Hermaphrodite" image could hurt our intersex readers. We have a clear precedent of being careful with images that could potentially cause harm that can be applied to images going forwards. Look at the organisation of Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused. Everything currently on there has extremely good reasons why it's on there, and images can be readily judged against those reasons, easily identifying those images that should at least be discussed.
But the Merkin blocking has no real logic to it. Judgement that it shouldn't be an FPC are reasonable judgements - but that's something dealt with with a delist nomination, which I will point out, no-one actually wants to do. If someone put it up to be delisted on FPC, and it got delisted, then of course it wouldn't run. But it really feels like people want to complain more than waning to actually move forwards in any constructive way whatsoever. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: You have made it clear that you do not understand why people do not want to have "the Merkin image" as a picture of the day. As coordinator of POTD, is your role to do whatever you think is right, or is your role to assist the community in choosing images for POTD? You seem to have unilaterally removed images from the "unused" list and deliberately set out to use those specific images as POTDs. You state as much in your draft opinion piece for the Signpost. You were aware of the previous objections to these images, but it does not appear that you made any attempt to discuss their use before scheduling them as POTD. Perhaps you did, but I don't know where that was done. I don't think that "the Merkin image" is the only issue here. I think there needs to be a more general discussion about your actions and the role of the POTD coordinator. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
On the Merkin image, there's been lots said above, so the only thing I'll add is that, if we are to run the image, I think it's essential that we discuss whether or not it's been airbrushed in the caption. We're an encyclopedia, which means emphasizing verifiable truth, and that applies equally to images as it does to article text. If she didn't actually look like that in person, we should not be writing "this is Merkin", but rather "this is a digitally altered likeness of Merkin". {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
You do realise that those images in the Unused list, by and large, were arbitrarily added by past co-ordinators. I did say on here that I was going to look into clearing some of the list. I don't know why you're surprised that I did exactly what I said I'd do i f I accepred the position. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs18:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Where on here did you say that? Did anyone agree with you or say "yes please do that" or otherwise encourage this? And exactly what was the process by which you became POTD coord? Levivich19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
look, in the end, there is a proverture for dealing wwith images you feel shouldn't be an FP: Delisting. It takes 10 days, and a quorum of 5 delist votes. What do you have against that? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs19:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
My problem is that you're deciding, unilaterally, that if I don't want it on the main page, I have to take affirmative steps t prevent it. The answers to my questions, in order, are: nowhere, no one, and none, correct? Levivich19:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Nope. But, frankly, I'm realising that you're a bad actor: I've offered to compromise with you numerous times. I've even delayed it six months, and that simply because I don't want to delete the work setting up the POTD if we decide it's going to run. It's basically on indefinite delay. But I'd seriously like you to actually engage with my suggestions for how to move forwards. Because if your only reaction to suggestions, and me literally giving in to your demands and pulling it from running tomorrow which it would have done had I not acted is to continue attacking me, then there really is no reason for me to engage. YOU DIDN'T STOP IT RUNNING TOMORROW, I DID. And I did so because, despite how you are trying to paint me, I want to try and deal with the objection. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs19:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Polycarpa aurata: No, there's other ways, of course there are. We have a whole class of examples of reasons on Wikipedia:POTD/Unused. But, when the objection is that it shouldn't be a featured picture at all, it feels like the simplest and the most relevant. If it shouldn't be a POTD because it's not good enough to be a featured picture, well, then... why are we discussing it here, when we can really readily deal with both issues in one go. The date it's currently set to is intended to hold the set up POTD blurb so that it doesn't have to be remade from scratch if it's decided to run it. But if the objection is something more than simply "it doesn't deserve to be a Featured Picture", then we should note that on POTD/Unused as a reason for things to be held, specifically so we don't put other images that hit the same problem. That's why I'm trying to get people to explain their reasons, and why I'm finding this so damn frustrating. If the problem is the image itself isn't good enough to be a featured picture, great. I don't even like it. But if there's a more fundamental reason, then we should really decide what that is and make a specific note of it, and pull any FPs that might fall under that category up for special discussion. Just like how discussing the lynching image made it clear that another reason to avoid it is that it was exploiting the victim's likeness, which might well affect images we didn't consider, like the posed photos of dead Confederate soldiers from the American Civil War, and means that they should be flagged up for discussion. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs19:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden The issue of the image as a "featured picture" is a red herring that you introduced in response to Levivich saying "it's not a good picture" for POTD. That really isn't the issue here. For me, the issue is that you have quite deliberately queued up a series of images which I find puerile and/or sexist.I don't want to say that you tried to sneak them in, but I think you should have asked for some input since you knew these images had previously been rejected. POTD isn't something I have any experience with, but I know that I don't want to see a shitting bird, or a pissing woman, or a cheesecake model being promoted on the front page of Wikipedia. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Polycarpa aurata:The shitting bird is on the front page today and illustrates appropriately a very interesting blurb about guano. Do you still object to it? Nobody else has so far. I think Adam has done a very good job in bringing this to the front page, and I tend to back his mature judgement about the other controversial pictures also. Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Polycarpa aurata: The thing is, as I've said, things get cleared from POTD/Unused all the time. If you check the history of the page you'll see it happening. Every new POTD co-ordinator has cleared out a few. There's no weight of policy to the Unused page, it's simply notes made by previous POTD co-ordinators.
We're better off having actual rules as opposed to arbitrary ones, because POTD/Unused is... bizarrely arbitrary if you actually follow POTD for any length of time. Kind of has a bunch of things that were pulled, while other, more extreme images weren't. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs20:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi all, just to note that I have started a discussion about whether orange tags are permitted in DYK articles at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Orange_maintenance_tags?. I'm mentioning it here at Talk:Main page as well, on the basis that this might be an area where there's supposed to be a universal main-page standard, and watchers of the main page who aren't directly involved in DYK may want to weigh in. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd probably allow a tag indicating missing content for POTD, but mainly because the image is the focus, with the article secondary, so as long as it didn't have any issues with verifiability. DYK, however, is focused on articles themselves, and it feels strange to allow maintenance tags. I suppose "Expand section" isn't so bad, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs02:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Page Popup
Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
I'm not sure if this question has been asked before but I feel it needs attention:
When there is an internal link to the main page, the popup shows that "There was an issue displaying this preview". I think that the text could somehow be replaced with something more friendly, such as "The Wikipedia Main Page". Thanks! UrbanVersis32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs)05:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
It's likely because the mainpage is really all templates, there isn't any wikitext to parse - which popups are you using? — xaosfluxTalk08:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
Just to note in advance, while.... definitely in the vein of 18th century crudity, I feel that the featured picture for tomorrow is within community standards given that all these have appeared on the main page without controversy, some multiple times:
Obviously, consensus can change. But given the image for today isn't at all sexualised - and I'd argue many of those were - and given that's honesly a very small sample found in a few minutes - I think we have an assumption it should appear if it serves an encyclopedic purpose. And given Durova isn't here to argue on behalf of her image, not having edited for five years, I find it impossible to justify pulling it, at least, insofar as it can be used to be educational about a notable artist. There are less explicit images by him, but there are actually way, way more explicit ones. Although I will agree that at least the joke of that last one I linked at least lands better than the POTD, and, yes, we could probably find a tamer image that covers Cruikshank, I still feel a duty to past contributors outweighs that sort of utopian search for a perfect image. Barring other restorations by her being found and nominated, it's unlikely she'll ever mainpage again. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs20:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Also for reference, this discussion where I and another editor objected to the choice of image. Both of us gave up on that discussion because Adam Cuerden was arguing in bad faith, including falsely labeling my objection "censorship" and "prudishness". Here, he is disingenuously framing the concern as being over an exposed breast in a drawing, which is not the case. The vast majority of Cruickshank's images are completely unobjectionable. Commons has literally hundreds to choose from. There is no reason why this particular image *ever* has to appear on the front page of Wikipedia. There is certainly no reason why it must appear tomorrow. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
You objected, I put up a response promptly, and then you didn't come back to it except to state you weren't interested in talking about it more. I don't get why you started an objection only to disappear when the person responded with lengthy details, and then throw your hands up and cry out bad faith when I pinged you because you had ignored it for four days. I was fully willing to hold off on running it if you wanted to talk, but you made it very clear you didn't. Anyway, it's over now. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Not wanting to participate in a bad faith discussion with a predetermined outcome and name-calling is not the same as being unwilling to discuss something. You were not looking for consensus then and you aren't interested in it now. If it is "over", it's because I am not willing to expend the effort necessary to continue it, not because you declare it to be. This is meant to be a cooperative project. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There really wasn't a predetermined outcome. I listed a bunch of negatives to the image as well as positives. I don't think the negatives outweigh the positives, and I think that the history of the main page supports this image. However, I was completely willing to have an RFC on it if it would provide more certainty, but the process basically went, step one, agree to what's under dispute by listing pros and cons of running the image, so that either we convince each other of the image's suitability (or lack thereof), or we have agreement to the terms of the dispute which, at least in my eyes, is the obvious and absolutely necessary first step to any RFC - if that's the point that makes you leave the discussion (not that you have), I don't know what to tell you. You kind of acted in pretty bad faith yourself, trying to reclassify it under "Could cause harm" in POTD/Unused and pulling the image without any discussion. Or maybe that wasn't you. I don't know. All I can tell you is I was totally willing to have an RFC, but you instantly started to throw around accusations of bad faith and left the discussion.
To be fair, it's possible my complaint about you ignoring the discussion for four days came off a bit harsher than intended. But I spent about an hour writing up my analysis of pros and cons of the image, only to be met with silence. Well, I mean, except for Branulator9 coming in to agree with me that the image is not particularly graphic. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs01:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay. My apologies, then, if any of my annoyance at that little action came out in the discussion there. While it might have been carelessness as to where it got classified, putting it into the group with the really extreme images that aren't even shown on there - lynchings, a photograph focusing on genitalia, a painting of a nude underage model - did not help make the discussion feel very... civil. Like... I get there isn't exactly a division set up for it (perhaps one for "Under discussion" should be set up), but it's hardly at the level of "Has a (finished) discussion officially declaring it unusable and is very obviously more extreme than anything we've already main paged".
Honestly, POTD is below the screen cutoff, and not even shown on mobile. For all the work I've done setting it up, it really is secondary to anything else on the main page. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs02:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I actually wrote my response before you posted that list of positives and negatives, I just was caught in an edit conflict. I was waiting for a response myself, though I originally wrote my question as a sentence. Also, you misspelled my name. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)16:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Must we really go through this tiresome (mostly) American prudishness and attempted censorship every time we have an image that shows more than an ankle? Not to mention this only ever comes up when it's more than a female ankle. The misogyny and double standards are really quite astonishing. Fgf10 (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I find the blurb interesting, and I think the POTD illustrates it appropriately. Part of what the POTD illustrates is that prints of that day could be quite "rude"; so the mild offense of this POTD is a component of what makes it interesting and educational. A less rude image would be of less value in this context. Well done to Adam here. Jmchutchinson (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I doubt there'll be much controversy for a long while. That's the clearing out of WP:POTD/Unused - ignoring cases where the article or usage is the problem - pretty much done for anything I'd consider remotely worth mainpaging. Well.. almost. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs00:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 23 June 2022 - Redirect categorisation
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Portal:Main Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Going to say: so such a banner isn't up there when someone follows something like Main page from an external to us link (possibly polluting indexing spiders, etc). — xaosfluxTalk15:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion
This media file was originally pulled because of article neutrality issues in 2015 (See here). The article is much better now according to a discussion here, albeit not perfect; however, that means we now need to consider the video. First of all, this is propaganda, and somewhat obviously so, but, as such, it's downplaying and sanitising things pretty severely. This was a horrifying, brutal firebombing that destroyed whole districts of Hamburg, and killed a lot of civilians. Compare this video to, say:
So I suppose the question is: Would putting this on the main page, with a paragraph or two to provide context, advance our educational goals, or is it simply too misleading to be able to be used in an encyclopedic manner outwith articles? Can we mitigate issues? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I've read a book on the bombing of Dresden in World War II and it was a most sobering piece of literature. The video is, as you say, propaganda. But propaganda and war are bed-fellows. In my view, if we balanced the propaganda video with a decent write-up based on the (now arguably reasonably well-written) article, that should meet our educational goals. War is disgusting business and if you are at the receiving end of it, you know all about it. Propaganda tries to justify the actions. If we present this juxtaposition well, while still shocking, it does have educational value. And I suppose you are thinking of running this on the anniversary date of the firestorm (27 July attack just before midnight; firestorm on 28 July), maybe we could balance this further by showing the photo (or a similar one in the same set which is a better crop) in the 'On this day' section. Schwede6604:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Think I'll start by nominating that photo I mentioned on FPC. If we can get something to pair it with, it'll probably help matters. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs19:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the FPC underway. I've had a go at a complete rewrite of the blurb that puts the propaganda-aspect of it at the centre. See what you think. Comment here and/or edit the words directly. Schwede6610:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I have an unrelated different question. Does a 240p scan of such poor quality print meet PotD's quality standards? ApLundell (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@ApLundell: Video is hard to judge, especially video featured in 2007, back in the days where the maximum upload size was quite low. There's a reason why we try to feature FPs in order. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs08:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The clip states that Hamburg is "Germany's principal seaport and number-one war center" and that the bombing caused "devastation of war plants". The reel is silent on the deliberate destruction of entire residential neighbourhoods. The effectiveness of the Hamburg raid had relied on careful research on how best to cause a large fire in a German city – as opposed to the popular view that it was an accidental occurrence due to unusually dry weather conditions.
It looks pretty good to me. I think the only real objection might be whether people accuse the last bit of Original Research or Synthesis. My inclination is it's fine in this case - statement of simple facts, all of which are in the article - but directed towards the video that forms the subject. Any objections? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, pairing this makes sense and further helps with balancing what could otherwise be argued against as showing propaganda on the homepage. Schwede6602:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay. I'm setting this up on 27 July 2023 (80th anniversary of the event) as a double image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs
Hmm... I'd personally put the two files together horizontally rather than vertically, but whatever works. Hopefully by then, we can find a higher-quality version of that newsreel, not that it should matter. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)01:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
If we manage to lay it out with a horizontal alignment, the photos will display vertically on devices with small screens (e.g. mobile phones). Hence the words can't, or shouldn't, make reference to a horizontal alignment. Schwede6603:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jmchutchinson: Done! Thanks for the suggestion. Honestly, thanks to all of you, especially Schwede who drafted the blurb; I don't think I could have done this anywhere near as well on my own. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs14:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Harry S. Truman
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't think it makes much sense to say that he "contested the presidency" when he literally was the president. He was running for re-election, not challenging someone in the primary. PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The Spliting of Papua and The News Section of The Main Page
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A few hours ago the "DPR" indonesia's lower house of the national legislature, voted to split the province of papua into three provinces, South Papua, Middle Papua, And Mountanious Papua.
So the question is: How could i add this to the main page's news section, and is it important under wikipidia's guidlines.
I have so much more questions to ask sincerly yours Makerman 88
Perhaps this should be posted to the Bahasa Indonesia WP Main Page equivalent as more relevant. (There is no text mentioning 'Papua' there yet.) Jackiespeel (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Today's POTD and its effect on formatting
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
May I suggest that, in the future, if we have chosen a long, narrow, tall image as POTD we strongly consider reformatting the template for it to avoid the appalling amount of whitespace today's image is causing (at least on desktop and laptops?) It looks horrible and amateurish.
Maybe we could compensate by having multiple images on days like these (we have room, it looks like, for two horizontals). Or make the template smaller and temporarily swap it in to the other set. Anything would look better than this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, it is there, though I didn't see it. Though I did find the two-image hidden feature and add it there, so there's that in my defense of presuming that it could be undocumented. Sorry, COVID's really doing a number on me. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs19:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
"In the news" should be after FA in mobile version (2nd order)
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
In desktop version its the 2nd section that most people read. Don't know if it's technically possible. Hddty (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm assuming what you want to say here is that ITN should be before DYK when they're stacked top to bottom in mobile view, given that in normal "reading order" the ordering would be TFA -> ITN -> DYK -> OTD -> TFL -> POTD. I can see where you're coming from with that, it's a reasonable point. Would require some CSS and HTML rejigging though. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
This might be technically possible, but it would definitely require the use of a different layout technology (CSS Grid) which is not well supported on IE (which is still a significant percentage of pageviews at 0.3%, about 0.3% times 154m/month = 460k/month). I think that's a no-go for now on the main page.
It would also require consensus that we want that to be the order on mobile. (Yes, I realize the current consensus is not an active one, but it is the technically feasible one.) I have no opinion on that matter. I do think that it's nice today that users are first pointed to featured and then to new content, rather than to current news and to-me-boringish-once-a-year one liners. Izno (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Wasn't this the case already some time ago? At least I have some memories that ITN used to be the second one on mobile... --Tone17:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
That's because mobile only output two blocks that were essentially selected by WMF, for which the special casing was eventually removed in the software. That's when the other sections on the main page were added. Izno (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
That seems like something the archiving bot can address if it wants to; the bot is subst'ing other templates - but it isn't archiving the specific version of the styles that were in place at the time like it is for other templates. See Special:Diff/1097571619 for an example and the new output at Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 May 15.phab:T7877 may be a better solution, but it is very hard (and open since 2006) — xaosfluxTalk13:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
We will not be maintaining backward compatibility in these style sheets (even if it were feasible/nontrivial - I don't think it is). If someone would like to, as xaos suggests, adjust the archiving bot to make a copy of the template for specific days, I think that's in the realm of feasible and reasonable (it probably just needs to know what TemplateStyles are). We want our styles to be lean. Izno (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't you just make a historic version of the CSS, and then set a bot to turn all archives from date to date to use that one? Or make a non-lean template for archived main pages only. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs22:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that we add another link, "About Featured Articles", to a brief/TLDR-aware page that says something like "Featured Articles are some of the best articles at the English Wikipedia. They are written by volunteers about subjects of their own choosing, and judged by other volunteers against the featured article criteria. Each day, volunteers select one of the newly approved articles as today's featured article. If you would like to see a new subject featured on the Main Page, you can learn about contributing to Wikipedia."
I think a proper nutshell for that page would say "Here is a list of all the FAs", and the part that I think needs to be emphasized for someone trying to find out "about" FAs is "There is nobody in charge of deciding which subjects are important enough to be turned into FAs". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Was just trying to give some summary prominence with that idea, a nutshell to say this list is a list would just be clutter. — xaosfluxTalk21:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure I like "nobody in charge" - the community is in charge, and you (the person reading this) can help! — xaosfluxTalk21:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The community doesn't decide which subjects are important enough to be turned into FAs. The community decides whether a nominated article meets FACR, but that's very different. There is nobody in this community who gets to say things like "Christmas is an important holiday, and we think it'd be nice to have Santa Claus appear in TFA in December. How about we assign Xaosflux and SandyGeorgia to bring that article up to snuff before then?" Almost every TFA happens because one or two individuals, of their own volition and without regard for whether "the community" thinks the subject is "important enough", decided that they'd like to nominate an article they've written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I suppose as any editor is in charge of deciding if they want to write an article, if they want to write it to the community's FA criteria, and if they want to do it individually or collaboratively - any editor is "in charge". It is their taking responsibility for any topic they want to create or improve that births FA's. It certainly isn't "nobody", FA's don't spontaneously generate. Collectively there are many WikiProjects that strive to generate FA's as part of their goals as well. — xaosfluxTalk13:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Anybody (with the relevant skills) can do it. Nobody is in charge of doing it.
Here's what Wiktionary says:
In charge
Having the responsibility of leading or overseeing.
Having the power of command or control.
(dated) Being in the care or custody of someone else.
Does anyone have "the responsibility of leading or overseeing" the creation of FAs? Nope. It's not a "responsibility", and there's no "leading or overseeing". Does anyone have the power of command or control? Nope, there's no ability to order anyone to do it. Is the creation of FAs really in the care or custody of someone? Obviously not, since it's purely voluntary and you said anyone can do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
WAID, quite true, but saying all that to readers with limited attention span isn't going to be as helpful as saying, alternately, something more positive. And no one yet has looked at how this should optimally happen. If we are just changing the name of the link to an "About FAs" link, while still linking to WP:FA, or creating a new "About FAs" page ... in either case, addressing the new wording and the "where to put it" is best done via a specific proposal with collaboration with the overall FA process (FAC, FAR, TFA). "Nobody in charge" as contrasted to "you can help" ... very different tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
"Nobody in charge" is probably too informal, but the key point for me is to tell readers that there really is no central organizing principle for writing FAs. TFA really is stuck with whatever comes down the turnpike. There's nobody telling the FA writers to choose topics that will appeal to a wider/different audience. The flip side of that is that there's nobody telling you not to become an FA writer on whatever subject appeals to you personally, including (e.g.,) subjects that you expect to be offensive, to appeal to almost nobody, to be spectacularly unimportant to the world at large, etc. Readers should leave that page with whatever encouragement you like, but also with a clear understanding that there simply is no person or committee that they can go to and say "Please change your de facto policy of running so much white/Western stuff and run some stuff about my culture, too". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If anyone wants the responsibility of leading or overseeing creating a featured article - capre diem! Assemble a team of volunteers if you want and go for it. Unless someone seizes that opportunity, they won't happen. My main point is that these only get created by a lot of hard work by volunteers and I don't want to have any suggestion of triviality for their work. As far someone thinking there is nowhere to go, my message is that there is: it is you the reader, you are the person that can fix the thing you are concerned about. — xaosfluxTalk15:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The ratio of experienced Wikipedians to population in a developed country is usually around 1 in 100,000. (It is worse elsewhere; there are a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa, of which a mere 3,000 edit the English Wikipedia each month, and about as many again at all of the non-English Wikipedias combined – and that's counting all of the first-edit newbies, rather than only experienced editors.)
Only about 0.01% of registered editors have ever successfully taken an article through FA. Even if you count only experienced editors, only a small minority (maybe as high as 10%, depending on what you count as "experienced") can claim an FA article.
This means that, realistically, there is at least a 99.999% chance, and probably closer to a 99.9999% chance, that any given reader actually can't fix it even to the miniscule level of producing one FA ever – an effort that would have only a tiny (0.3%) effect on the distribution of TFA's subjects that year.
The facts are:
There's no identifiable individual or group with the power to change the subjects individuals to develop into FAs.
You almost certainly can't do anything about it, either (though you are welcome to try).
What can one random person do? Well they can join up with others, such as via a WikiProject. They can add one helpful statement and reference, add one helpful illustration, fix one line of grammar, etc. They can start a draft or start a stub. FA's don't come about in one edit. If you don't like that Cabbage is a FA while Bok choy isn't, we should encourage someone to make the later incrementally better to put it on the path to becoming excellent. (this is how Cabbage started.) They are not in it alone, but can be part of the solution. — xaosfluxTalk17:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that once we've allowed time to get general views here, the specifics should be proposed and discussed in a separate thread, cross-linked to FAC, FAR and TFA. So far, no one disagrees that something can change, but we're light on the specifics of where, what link, and what wording. The wording at WP:FA has been fine-tuned over the years, and it's hard to imagine how "no one is in charge" would fit in there. (And by the way, there has been a huge, Huge effort at FAR to preserve vital and core FAs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I support the approach suggested by Xaosflux. We could start by renaming the heading from "Featured articles in Wikipedia" to "About Featured articles". Schwede6618:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Things got a bit confusing here with the suggestion of "no one in charge" and recent edits to WP:FA that (seemed???) to introduce a proposed "about" section. WAID's original proposal is to create a separate About page. I'd agree on that (even though I doubt most complainers would actually read it), but some of the proposed wording (above) needs adjustment:
Featured Articles are some of the best articles at the English Wikipedia. They are written by volunteers about subjects of their own choosing, and judged by other volunteers against the featured article criteria. Each day, volunteers select one of the newly approved articles as today's featured article. If you would like to see a new subject featured on the Main Page, you can learn about contributing to Wikipedia.
Not "just" random volunteers, but community-endorsed Coords, and not just "newly approved" ... they can include those that recently passed FAR, and the TFA date can be well removed from when the article was passed FAC or FAR. So:
I separately suggest the page name for this text would not be About Featured articles, rather About Today's featured article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
PS, I'm concerned that someone (?? who are those in the know ??) let us know that we have the space to add another link at {{TFAfooter}}. I don't know who we should be pinging on that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia There is room to add some more in there, maybe 20-ish characters unless we can remove some from somewhere else maybe (So "About Today's featured articles" is a bit long) for some screens. What would you want the line to say in its entirety, optimally? — xaosfluxTalk18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that help! That's what I was afraid of Ok, so what if we took this line in the TFAfooter:
Archive By email More featured articles
and re-jigged it somehow along these lines to use abbreviations?
TFA archive By email More FAs About TFAs
which would require making the lead line (before the TFA) define the acronym ... From today's featured article (TFA) Otherwise, unsure how we can do this ... it is the eternal character limit issue. That would address the character limit problem, but would introduce a lot of acronyms, which can be offputting ... WAID, do we know how many readers request TFA via email? Is it worth considering dropping that to save characters instead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The only thing that would fit there, then, is TFA, and for that we'd have to define the acronym in the header before the blurb. Unless someone has another idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
It's to explain what is in my second blurb at 14:47, 15 July 2022. That kind of does a bit of both: it explains to those complaining that sorta/kinda "no one is in charge" (you can help!) along with links to those places where you can help, while also explaining that TFAs can only be chosen from the pool of FAs we've got. It's telling a bit about each process: what an FA is, how that status is conferred, and how one is chosen to be featured on the main page ... while reminding the complaining reader that we're all volunteers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd think an About may do (at least it's a start!) - a page for it to go to will be needed, since the section is already titled "...today's featured article" it should be natural that this is about this section - so if it start with a short blurb explaining what today's FA is on the landing page it should be natural. Maybe Wikipedia:About Featured Articles or something similar? "Everyday volunteers pick ....." (Just brainstorming the landing page - go wild with it!) — xaosfluxTalk18:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you dislike the wording above that WAID and I concur on? I don't want to re-invent the wheel, and risk having pages get out of sync, along with becoming too long. It would be ideal to keep this short, just as in the proposal above. And I'd rather it be Wikipedia:About Today's featured article, as explained in my post above. That said, if we can do that, I agree that just calling the link "About" ought to work, and avoid character limitation problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia I'm not too picky on the verbiage there, just want it to include at least a little encouragement for people to know that there is something that they can do (and that the best way to see a change is to be be the change!). Feel free to start whatever you want that page to be, the first edit doesn't have to be FA quality — xaosfluxTalk19:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Don't really want to start it without having a formal proposal, and getting full feedback from FAC, FAR and TFA :) Just the way I roll, particularly because it deals with the highly visible content ... I'll put up a formal proposal after a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind, is that Wikipedia is a volunteer-based organization. You cannot make, coerce, encourage, or alter the behavior of volunteers in any meaningful way; you don't pay them, they have no obligation to do anything except what they feel like doing for the encyclopedia, so if a topic is in any way under-represented, there is exactly one thing, and one thing only, anybody has the ability to do to fix that: they can write the articles themselves. You can feel free to ask for help, but you should never expect that anyone would ever help, they don't have to, and we need to not have that expectation. If FAs are skewed because certain topics are under-represented, there is absolutely no way that you can get anyone except yourself to fix it. You can't take random Wikipedia editors and make them work on the topics that are needed to provide a better balance of FAs. The only thing anyone can do is do it themselves. If there are multiple like-minded people, feel free to collaborate, but just "taking care of it oneself" is literally the only means to fix it. --Jayron3218:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's probably a good idea, but I also expect next to no effect on the amount of complaints; people who complain frequently start complaining first, and find something to complain about along the way. If they were interested in fixing the problem, they would be already fixing the problem, and not complaining. Add your link if it makes you feel better, but it won't actually divert any complaints. --Jayron3218:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I mostly agree ... but we can hope, and try to do it in a way that doesn't cause any harm at least, and is informative to meet WAID's concerns. I want to keep the blurb we plan to add very short, sweet and simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Jayron, I prefer to believe that the complainants are thinking we have merely accidentally overlooked this problem, and that they therefore optimistically hope that pointing out the concern could realistically lead to a rapid resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Formal proposal to add "About" link to TFA blurb on main page
The proposal initiated by WhatamIdoing is to add an "About" link to {{TFAfooter}}:
The About link contains a brief explanation intended to clarify some of the concerns raised about systemic bias, explain that the daily choices are generated by volunteers, and give a very brief overview of how FAs come to be featured on the main page, without overwhelming, and while providing links to encourage those who wonder about Wikipedia's TFA choices to become involved.
Per the explanations and modifications above, I believe this (minimal) addition of five characters to the main page blurb has the potential to help address some confusion, and I support WhatamIdoing's initiative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Support, having read the Village Pump discussion. "Featured article" means something else to Wikipedians than it does to people out there, so the explanation is valuable. --AndreasJN46620:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
That's in the third link, though, which is about FAs. The fourth link is not about "what is an FA", see the previous discussions at the VIllage Pump and above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The third link is "more featured articles", that is hardly phrasing to make me think a discussion of how they are chosen would be found there. On the other hand, the proposed text above does include a description of the process. Thus aswering the question of "what is an FA?" and clarifying that it the section on the Main Page isn't just running a basically random article from the millions on WP that wehave selected to "feature" today. That is a common misunderstanding that we should be dispelling.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Support, I myself was confused by the terminology when I joined. I'd also note the Wikipedia:About Today's featured article page could probably use some better formatting, for me there is a giant empty space in the bottom left since the {{FApages}} template overflows. Maybe it is worth adding to that page some information about the stub-start-C-B-GA-A-FA scale as well? Unless I am mistaken, there is no real way to navigate to {{Grading scheme}} easily from the main page, and I think it would make sense to include it or at least a link to it or mention it exists on the new "about" page. Eg.
Let's talk about possible additions or improvements to the new page over at Wikipedia talk:About Today's featured article, so the proposal here can stay focused on adding (or not) the new link. We want to keep the new page simple and easy to read, but some of these additional "see also" links are worthy of consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's my proposal: ditch "More featured articles", change "About"'s link to WP:FA, and replace the current "About" text in WP:FA itself. Here's one way to do it:
There are 6,111 featured articles out of 6,913,094 articles on the English Wikipedia (about 0.1% or one out of every 1,040 articles). Articles that no longer meet the criteria can be proposed for improvement or removal at featured article review.
On non-mobile versions of our website, a small bronze star icon () on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured. On most smartphones and tablets you can also select "Desktop" at the very bottom of the page or "Request Desktop Site" in your browser's menu to see this line (do a search to find out how). Additionally, if the current article is featured in another language, a star will appear next to the corresponding entry in the Languages list in the sidebar to let you know.
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.
It can help Wikipedian visitors convince that monkeypox is an equally serious threat to humankind, emphasizing the need to take action. Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey Dennis Dartman, thanks for your concern, and welcome to Wikipedia. One thing that is important to understand is that Wikipedia tries to mirror the major concerns of the world, rather than telling the world what those concerns should be. This is an important part what Wikipedia is – the Covid-19 banner was a reflection of the fact that it was the dominating subject in the news internationally, rather than us wanting it to be so.
(Second, I'm not a medical professional, but basically every expert I've seen or read has emphasized that it isn't an equally important threat, so I'd want to put a {{citation needed}} on that statement. But that's not the important part here.) /Julle (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not a medical professional either, but as I understand it the monkeypox is not the same level or type of threat as covid was/is. It doesn't warrant a box, but if you want to discuss it WP:ITNC is the right place. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2022 (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.
ITN
Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
I don't know if this this the correct venue where to mention some doubts, but as to me Shinzo Abe was assassinated and not is assassinated. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle: Per the instructions at WP:ITN, all blurbs use present tense. Quoting the guidelines "Blurbs should describe events in complete sentences, in the present tense." I hope that helps. If you have any further questions, please let us know. --Jayron3211:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I'm quite aware of it. Still silly. And especially so when used here, considering that Wikipedia is not a newspaper in the first place and ITN is explicitly said not to be a news ticker. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, in the pre-digital age 'news ticker' articles, i.e. the Teletype-delivered stories of the AP and other wire services, were written in past tense (or past perfect), with perhaps a few exceptions for certain types of features. -- Sca (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
That you, as a singular user, have a feeling about something doesn't affect widespread practice. Your feelings are internal to you, and have no bearing on the world outside of your mind. That you find something silly is meaningless. It still is. --Jayron3213:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Which still avoids the question of why something that is explicitly said not to be a news ticker is following the style of new tickers. Changing the tense of the listings in ITN would tend to highlight the fact that it isn't a news ticker and possibly reduce the occurrence of complaints based on the misapprehension that it is. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
So start an RFC or something. I have no power to fix anything, so stop telling me about it and start fixing the problem! --Jayron3215:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd support an RfC. At least in the interest to prevent such questions like the one I had and much more to avoid such a discussion that followed in the future. Assume good faith. And I also found some news which are not in the present tense, so the always is not correct here. Obama reelected as president was a headline of the Washington Post on the 7 December 2012, the day after the election. Obama Re-elected on 6 December by the Voice of America... I am sure there are more. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I've not done anything in this conversation that would lead a reasonable person to believe I didn't think you were acting in good faith. I cannot change practice at Wikipedia, so requests for me to do so are futile. I can provide information as to why the practice exists at Wikipedia, which is exactly and only what I did. I cannot, however, fix the problem you are having. You have two choices: 1) stop having a problem or 2) go to WP:VPP and write an RFC to fix your problem. I don't have the kind of power everyone seems to think I do here. I'm just a guy, not the entire community. --Jayron3218:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not the one to file an RfC on something that has been common practice on the main page. Other editors taking part in the discussion are on Wikipedia since before 2010 and if the Wikipedia project was fine with the present tense until now, I'll be patient to understand the reasoning. And I am grateful to Jayron32 for their answers. So, if anyone opens an RfC on the issue, I will contribute to the discussion, if not, it's ok as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Per MOS:TENSE, present tense is the default and pervasive across English Wikipedia, and for good reason. It is more engaging to the reader. Present tense brings the subject alive and makes it real. Even works of fiction such as Shakespearean plays are treated in the present tense, because they still exist and can be performed in the present. Vintage computers and discontinued software that still exist? Present tense. The Colosseum is in present tense - it's real! We only switch to past tense for things that no longer meaningfully exist, or people who have died, or statuses that have changed. So current events are not merely an exception to the rule, or our slavish following of media style guides, but an extension of good writing in encyclopedic Wikivoice. Elizium23 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
"Generally, use past tense only for past events, for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist, and for periodicals and similar written material no longer produced."
— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
%22,_Eugen_Sandow_Wellcome_L0035270_-_restoration.jpg)
Featured picture, completely redrawn as an SVG, with two more people credited and aesthetic tweaks
Image that appeared on the main page in 2008
New
Old
New
Old
TFA 2021-08-02 (page slightly broken for sme reason)
POTD 2009-10-20 (with penises!)
_%E2%80%93_Candaules,_King_of_Lydia,_Shews_his_Wife_by_Stealth_to_Gyges,_One_of_his_Ministers,_as_She_Goes_to_Bed_%E2%80%93_N00358_%E2%80%93_Tate.jpg)
.jpg)
Added per clear consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
) on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured. On most smartphones and tablets you can also select "Desktop" at the very bottom of the page or "Request Desktop Site" in your browser's menu to see this line (do a search to find out how). Additionally, if the current article is featured in another language, a star will appear next to the corresponding entry in the Languages list in the sidebar to let you know.
.jpg)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_1868.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
