![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | → | Archive 170 |
Looking at the DYK and OTD sections today are making me sick to my stomach. The vast majority of articles advertised here are about wars and battles. Nazi concentration camps? United States Naval Academy? Ten Years' War? A Chinese general? Battle of Tours, Battle of Karbala, etc. Why are we drawing so much attention to violence and mass murder on the main page? I'm absolutely disgusted at Wikipedia.-- 128.227.133.183 ( talk) 18:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Does this use templates like {{ In the news}}? The banner, or DYK, or FA? ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.252.2 ( talk) 11:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
As you perhpas know the Italian WP was completely blocked because of a protest against a proposed law which will force Blogger or Websites to remove information about persons without testing whether the information is true or not. Here you can see that German Wikipedians did address their solidarity with the Italian community. de:Wikipedia:Solidaritätserklärung_mit_dem_italienischen_Wikipedia-Streik. We invite you to participate in our solidary address or would encourage you to initiate another solidarity address on your own. Greetings -- 87.2.187.133 ( talk) 08:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone find the following "In the News" item sad/ironic/amusing: "After five years in captivity, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (pictured) is freed in exchange for the release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners."
If I were in charge of the page, I would take a picture of the 1,027 Palestinians and replace the item with "1,027 Palestinian prisoners (pictured) are freed in exchange for 1 Israeli prisoner."
And no, I'm not anti-Israel or anti-Palestine, I'm just a neutral party who can't understand how that can be considered fair. Gilad was nothing more than a soldier--and he is worth over 1,000 Palestinians?
Allow me to elaborate. Linguistically, if a headline were to read "X is exchanged for Y," I'd figure that X is the more important of the set {X,Y}, since it is the subject of the sentence. So I feel that this item implicitly assigns more importance to, and hence values more, the captivity of 1 Israeli soldier than the captivity of 1,027 Palestinians.
I acknowledge that getting a single picture of 1,027 Palestinians is more challenging than getting a picture of Gilad Shalit, but the inclusion of his picture over the captives' picture is also an implicit indication of bias. Inasilentway ( talk) 02:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The neutrality issue was precisely why I proposed the two-flags image for ITN in Candidates. Given the broad references and availabilities, it was entirely reasonable that the article maintain a heavy Shalit picture tilt -- but on ITN, that tilt should be avoided if possible. - Tenebris 06:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.190 ( talk)
Clicking on "History" and then "Page View Statistics" reveals this is the SECOND most viewed page in Wikipedia, so what is the first? Thank you in advance for any feedback, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 09:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for getting back to me so quickly on this. Forgive me, but I am not even sure what "
Special:Export/SynchronizationStartTime:" means. Can you explain please what it means? Thank you in advance for you co-operation. I wonder whether it just means that people from different parts of the world have (and therefore different time
zones) have to be logged in what, in Wikipedia technicalities, is counted as equivalent time.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
10:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, no one has got back to me to explain what that means - I take it does mean the times that one gets logged onto Wikipedia. I agree, it appears to be something technical - having clicked on the hypertext above, it does not take one to an article that any one would wish to read! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 10:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
DYK formerly had 8 "hooks" in each set, and ran 3 or 4 sets a day. Due to a significant slowdown in production, we are now running just 6 hooks in a set, and 2 sets per day. Production is increasing, and it should be possible to increase to 7 hooks per set. Would that create any concerns for other Main Page projects? (I imagine that a slightly longer DYK section actually would make life easier for ITN and OTD.) -- Orlady ( talk) 14:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The pic would be so much more effective at larger size ... like, 50–100% larger. Tony (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Move Swamp Wallaby back where it was asap. Thanks. ♫GoP♫ T C N 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the years should be wikilinked in SA/OTD entries? I left this query at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries last week and received no response. It seems like overlinking to me unless there's a good reason to do it. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The OTD pages are designed to mirror the the style of days of the year lists (e.g. the January 1, January 2 ... December 31) pages. The days of the year pages link to the year articles (e.g. 2011, 2010 ... 900, etc.), and the year articles link back to the days of the years. This style is detailed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year#Style and Wikipedia:Days of the year, among others. If anything, you should propose such changes on those pages first.
Furthermore, as stated in many discussions here on this talk page, the Main page is treated more as a portal to let users (especially new users) explore the different articles around Wikipedia (including the days of the year, and year pages), and thus the guidelines on WP:OVERLINK tend to be more relaxed here than a regular article. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Note to posters: I have opened an RFC on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Year_wikilinking_in_OTD. Interested users are invited to comment there. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no picture for this featured article? Surely there's has to be someone who took a picture of it freely and without copyright. DarkGhost89 ( talk) 04:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"Can be seen"..."can be seen"..."can be seen"... my English teacher would have put a diagonal red line through this, with a terse note in the margin to top it off. Sophie means wisdom ( talk) 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
These seem like ads or publicity pieces to me:
The items may be of great interest to those mentioned. Perhaps not so much to others. - Ac44ck ( talk) 02:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Back to DYK, this objection does raise a serious point. For quite a lot of (currently) poor quality high- or top-importance articles, the only possible route to the Main Page in future would be as Today's featured article. I would suggest some sort of mechanism whereby a significantly improved
level 3 vital article can go up on DYK without needing to meet the usual standards eligibility criteria (of course a VITAL article should meet DYK standards on referencing etc). —
WFC— 03:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC) EDITED —
WFC—
03:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
" 'Black Tuesday' set off the Great Depression". But does that really summarize the conflicting opinions in the article? Art LaPella ( talk) 06:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
A TFA with a bird and a TFP with a bird — really now, that's two images and two articles related to birds, with a total of...five links about birds and two pics? That's seven. HurricaneFan 25 15:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no, systemic bias!! Where's Moni3 when we need her? Surely someone will come along and make an issue out of this chance occurrence, but I think this section provides a good opportunity for some much needed levity via a caption contest. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you guys know that this topic is full of win. I wish these Main Page bias topics were as amusing as this one. hbdragon88 ( talk) 00:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The TFA is about Qantas, and so is the topmost ITN entry. What's up with that? 80.122.178.68 ( talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It would appear that some of those involved in compiling DYK are hoping to run entire sets of hooks themed around Hallowe'en. This seems to me to be entirely disproportionate to the importance (i.e. no importance at all beyond the bank accounts of retailers of sweets and shoddy dressing up outfits) of the "festival". There was no discussion at WT:DYK to try to gain consensus, merely an announcement that this was being pursued. Comments? Kevin McE ( talk) 21:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It's common practice at DYK to group hooks together into one set for special occasions (regardless of how special individual editors think it is or isn't); if there are sufficient hooks (ie new or newly expanded articles), then it's quite normal for entire sets to be dedicated to the occasion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Article no longer TFA; reasonable concluding remark made and further discussion can be taken elsewhere -- tariqabjotu 01:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can someone cook up some code to hide the TFA? HurricaneFan 25 00:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrary break( edit conflict × 2) I really can't see a good reason to not change Today's Featured Article to an article on a different, less-absurd subject. Think about it, really: all changing Today's Featured Article to one on a less-absurd subject could do is improve upon having that absurd movie's article on the main page. It should not be much trouble to just replace Today's Featured Article and get it over with. Seriously, I can not see an actual good reason to not change Today's Featured Article. R.I.P. Motion Picture Production Code. Regards, —{| Retro00064| ☎talk| ✍contribs|} 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC). Look, the point is that there are evolving standards of decency no doubt. We do not blindly follow majority rule, but there are certain guidelines that must be respected. For example, it would be generally understood that an article on pornography or genitalia would be banned from making an appearing on the front page. There are children that use Wikipedia, and it is not a good thing to have such an article within such easy view. It is one thing to say not to censor, but a completely different one to understand that there is a time and place for certain things and that the place for the The Human Centipede is not the front page. When people access that sort of material, they make a choice to look it up. When I logged onto Wikipedia, I did not think I would have to look at that drek and be reminded of that twisted movie. Keep it as a featured article, but for Pete's sack: remove it from from the main page. Houstonbuildings ( talk) 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Kids vandalize Wikipedia more often (and often via obscenities) from school than we give them credit for; in fact, I had to knock out an school range today because their students have been running amok on Wikipedia for over a year with absolutely no supervision or control from their administration or staff. If school administrators actually pay attention to this now, then I would be surprised, as they generally seem to not have much control over what their students do on their computers within the bounds of their firewalls in the first place. – MuZemike 04:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Won't argue against the article's placement per strict TFA policy. Honestly don't plan on ever seeing either film, preferably not even by accident, but then I have no particular desire to see any film in the Saw franchise either. Will point out, in case it matters, that THC 2 -- also linked from the front page -- was originally banned outright in the United Kingdom on the basis of the Obscene Publications Act (was eventually released after multiple cuts), and was only ever screened at midnight in limited United States theatres. (It was never submitted for rating.) THC 1 was not found to be in breach of the Obscene Publications Act. According to the article, THC 1 did win a few Best Picture awards in the horror film genre. Will also point out that THC 2 happens to be in theatres currently. Some might see this placement as promotion. - Tenebris 07:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Main Page summaryI've edited the Main Page summary at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2011 to remove references to the mouth-to-anus mechanics. Melchoir ( talk) 06:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I thought this section was about editing the main page summary... so I'll get back to the point. When the main page summary was edited, it introduced a factual inaccuracy: as I understand it, Six did tell investors about the crazed surgeon aspect of the plot... he just omitted the mouth-to-arse details. If you really must censor things (particular very prominent things like the main page), please be extremely careful not to introduce errors; check all relevant sources, ask prominent editors of the article etc. Many would probably disagree, but I'd rather be offended by something than misinformed by it. Papa November ( talk) 10:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Why are people asking for definitions of the word "disgusting", or asking for citations to prove that this offends people? Just look at the number of reactions here. People have been grossed out by this. I read remarks like "If this grosses you out, then don't read it"; people didn't know the content until they read it! This was an 18+ movie; The article mentions that details were withheld from the financiers, and yet Wikipedia have just gone and thrown it up there on the front page where everyone would suddenly be confronted by it without actively searching that content. Claiming that people shouldn't visit Wikipedia if they don't want to see articles like that doesn't cut it. Fine: don't search out potentially gross articles if you don't like being grossed out! But anyone who came here today to look up whatever they wanted to look up has now been confronted with this. How did it ever get through? Captain Sumo —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC). Look, every encyclopedia has things that parents whould find innapropriate, Wikipedia is no differant. Don't want your kids looking up dirty words? Don't show them Wikipedia! That's the choice of the parent, not Wiki. And so far Jimbo and a legion of admins havent come down saying that this whole thing is out of control, and by taking a head count of the people in here I think I can say that truthfully, the majority of people don't even care about this argument. A few guys will come in here to blow off steam and thats it (which is actually not what the main page should be used for). This will just blow over after halloween. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop ( talk) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to weigh in here and say that I agree this should not be on the main page. Principle of least astonishment = don't put disturbing, gross articles in the lead slot. (Also, it's not like this is a historic event that may be disturbing but is of obvious educational value. I wouldn't be making the same argument over Holocaust or War rape.) Obviously this article offends a lot of readers - look at all the comments in this section! That it is in the lead slot is further evidence of the dominance 15-35yo men have in Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
AdvertisingIsn't putting up a front page summary of a movie just after the release of a sequel advertising? Obviously unpaid advertising in this case, but it would give a commercial benefit to the sequel. It sounds like there was an intent to put a horror movie on the front page, but how about a historic choice that would not give commercial favour to a particular individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 ( talk) 12:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
TFA Quality?I find it hard to believe his article is a "high quality" article given the fact that it fails to adequately cover the volume of controversy generated by the movie. This movie would be another pedestrian porno-violence film below most people's radars but for the controversy. Somehow though, this got to TFA status while hardly WHY it's as culturally significant as it it. It may be disgusting and I'm among those wondering at the process breakdown that led to this being considered TFA material. Bigjimleo ( talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone is going to have their own idea about what "greater good" is. I would think it would be reasonable to come to a consensus here - where there is a wider audience - for items that are clearly going to be controversial like this one. And what I think schools will do is if the main page is bad they will block the whole project. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Abe, about that article on the schools blocking wikipedia, have you read the article? Coolug ( talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
To all those who still think we should ban some articles from appearing on the front page (and granted, some of those arguments hold water) here's a troubling riddle: If we were to prevent any innapropriate featured articles from appearing on the front page, whats the point in our work in making them featured anway? All arguments should answer this. Granted, THC is not the best (in terms of quality) movie to be on the main page, but attention is now being given to improve it by those who have info about the film. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop ( talk) 14:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrary section breakSince the article is off Main page for a while now, could we just say something like "if the choice of Main page content is expected to raise several eyebrows, someone should drop a message to some frequently-monitored page, such as this one, so that we can have a discussion prior to the apperance on the Main page"?-- Tone 17:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Why so unspecific? More than 101 crew members of the USS Reuben James perished when the article quite clearly states only 44 of 159 survived. Wouldn't 115 crew members of the USS Reuben James perished be more precise and shorter? Calistemon ( talk) 04:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If the human population has reached that number today, shouldn't we all drop everything and see if we actually can all stand on Zanzibar for a group photo from space? Daniel Case ( talk) 15:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just wanted to say well done to everyone involved in today's brilliant halloween themed DYK. Finding so much grisly content among new articles must have been a bit of a pain, well done to you all! Coolug ( talk) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hallowe'en is emphatically NOT a "U.S. centric holiday". It has long been oberved in my home country (the
United Kingdom). In fact, the Pagan forerunner of Hallowe'en -
Samhain - was observed on the East of the
Atlantic long before the
United States was even founded! Although it is true that the day is not an official
Bank holiday in the United Kingdom, one only need observe shops here in the U.K. around about the time of Hallowe'en to see how widely observed the custom is in Britain.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
16:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That is an amazingly global "In the News" section. Six out of seven continents is represented with at least one story. 75.62.148.246 ( talk) 02:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Where is the UNESCO news?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Halil marx07 ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The section "On this day” says, for 1936: "The BBC Television Service launched as the world's first regular, public all-electronic high-definition television service.” The article “
BBC One” says that HDTV was introduced in 2010.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Copied content collapsed
|
---|
|
Copied content collapsed
|
---|
|
Copied content collapsed
|
---|
|
Copied content collapsed
|
---|
|
Excuse me, not that I'm missing anything, but is there going to be a fundraising drive at the end of this year, as usual, or not? I couldn't find anything, but I only took a little while to search and can't properly concentrate today. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 08:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Done
The death of Alfonso Cano is not appearing neither on Wikinews nor "In the News". 201.209.196.94 ( talk) 21:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, for all the languages listed as having 650,000 articles, there are now more than 700,000 articles. Time to upgrade! - Ipigott ( talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
This is terrible! How can anybody have a right to delete the Main Page?! (Even for only two minutes.) And how “nobody can delete it again”? :/ ~ Alex discussion ★ 22:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
has more than 50.000 articles and should be included in the appropriate list on the main page.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, put in the section of "Languages" the Wikipedia in aragonese. Thank you for you colaboration!
An anonymous user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.132.51 ( talk) 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please unlock the main page. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 02:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
for the Armistice Day / Veteran's Day themed DYKs. Wikipedia's gesture is very much appreciated.
"When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For your Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today." ( The Kohima Memorial). 86.133.55.244 ( talk) 12:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is simply unacceptable. An INT about an extinct Rhino and a FP of an obviously extinct dinosaur? Seriously? I am disappoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuyoi.ai ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but who updates the main page? -- 46.12.65.6 ( talk) 10:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Persian Wikipedia article is 144.292. And not 166.166. See here — Preceding unsigned comment added by الشبح العربي ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate this is leaving it quite late but could an image of a poppy be added to the main page for Armistice Day on 11 November and Remembrance Sunday on 12 November? Harrison49 ( talk) 22:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
At the moment I am looking at a wikipedia front page that is presenting articles of roughly 75% military content. I don't know if this has something to do with today's Veteran Day celebrations, but this is an encyclopedia of so much more content. More variation please, less kings and wars. (For information: I am myself involved in many military-related projects). -- MoRsE ( talk) 20:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As user, I would prefer little banner. Let say commercial company,may be few, make donation to Wikipedia, and all users see little banner of gratitude to main donator(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.224.183 ( talk) 13:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Even WMF supports it, having changes their logo. Italian Wikipedia did it few weeks ago. Why are we not joining? See discussion. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
In an RfC about the purpose of Portals, it was suggested that they be featured on the Main Page. Please join the discussion!--~ T P W 19:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Main_Page_Featured_Portal_drive. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 08:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic that Wikipedia asks for donations in order to avoid placing annoying ad banners by putting a huge "please donate" banner on top? -- Cerlomin ( talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I would have probably donated, but the left-wing extremism here and the weaselly use of the 'rules' to justify that left wing bias leaves a permanent bad taste in my mouth. I've paid attention to key subjects' discussion pages and I've seen how WP runs off all the right-wing conservatives, right-libertarians, constitutionalists, anti-globalization patriots, etc... Now I must say, WP is to academia what McDonald's is to restaurants. WP is not regarded on the same level as say, Encyclopedia Britannica. BUT, that doesn't mean that WP can't encourage HEALTHY debate where the perspectives of right-leaning Americans (or others) are respected. I've seen how the left-wing extremists here censor the content of articles, or even have articles deleted; then they hide behind the guidelines as if these were Law to prevent the legitimate reversion of an article back to an unbiased, left-spin-free version. Fortunately, there is still 'the rest of the internets', and WP is not the be-all and end-all of the 'Net. Wikipedia's credibility and reliability have consequently been damaged, and possibly irreparably - unless these issues are resolved and people of other political alignment are afforded a substantial stake in the administration, moderation, and editorial control of Wikipedia.
I will not be checking back for comments; my statement is only for the edification of the people who run Wikipedia, in the hopes that they will stop 'being evil', as the founders of Google would have put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.39.185 ( talk) 19:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd probably have donated by now if it weren't for Jimbo's ugly mug staring back at me every time I visit. I can't even look at the banner long enough to click on it. It's that bad. 71.62.210.158 ( talk) 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not want to hear a word about putting banners or other advertisements on Wikipedia, or related Wikis. Asking for donations within a banner on the top of a Wikipedia page is nothing like a "shoot five iPods and win a car" advertisement on all the other websites in cyberspace. All users need to understand that Wikipedia does not manage itself.
Dninyo (
talk)
22:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
If the only thing stopping you from donating is the mere aesthetic appeal of a banner, then you are no altruist. Imagine if I used that same logic for not making a donation to a non-profit charity just because the picture they used of a homeless person on the donation box was ugly. "Would probably have donated" - Frankly, I don't think any of you would have donated at all. -- WaltCip ( talk) 00:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Who selected TFA and ITN for display at http://m.en.wikipedia.org? I always visit the main page on my cellphone, but I never need to see what the news is because I have other sites for that. Is there any way to get FPC instead or any other of the main page's content? Matthewedwards : Chat 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit lame (sorry Muhammed—just in this context, I mean). And it's very small. And the TFA pic of the freeway is worthless at that size. Tony (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, the avocado description (and its article) both describe is being a large berry, whereas the article on berries specifically mentions the avocado not being one. It's a relatively minor inconsistency, but someone ought to verify which is correct, and edit the other. -- 108.21.63.154 ( talk) 12:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is the article Cleveland Steamer deleted? -- 93.210.106.184 ( talk) 14:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Malcolm II of Scotland.jpg (ITN) and File:Corvus coronoides.jpg (OTD) were not protected. Is there a problem in some protection routine on Commons? Materialscientist ( talk) 01:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: when posting this, I haven't checked where those images were transcluded on Commons, I just checked that they were not protected. I went there now and don't see those images were transcluded to some protected page. The only purpose of this thread is to urge the operators to check the protection routines. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the image [14] (used for highway K-143 in DYK) not a copyrighted artwork belonging to the state of Kansas? The page does not even mention this, it is marked as "own work" of the uploader. I think at the very least the descriotion page should explain why the image is public domain; and if there's doubt then it should not be on the main page. — Amakuru ( talk) 15:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The TFA page at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 26, 2011 hasn't been created. HurricaneFan 25 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a free shot of WW director Eiji Aonuma. hbdragon88 ( talk) 01:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have prepared an emergency TFA page here. I suggest that we keep this and perhaps one or two more in reserve as emergency TFAs and that we agree that in similar circumstances, we'll deal off the top on that page. We could even have a bot automatically add the article if there is no selection made by zero hour.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | → | Archive 170 |
Looking at the DYK and OTD sections today are making me sick to my stomach. The vast majority of articles advertised here are about wars and battles. Nazi concentration camps? United States Naval Academy? Ten Years' War? A Chinese general? Battle of Tours, Battle of Karbala, etc. Why are we drawing so much attention to violence and mass murder on the main page? I'm absolutely disgusted at Wikipedia.-- 128.227.133.183 ( talk) 18:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Does this use templates like {{ In the news}}? The banner, or DYK, or FA? ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.252.2 ( talk) 11:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
As you perhpas know the Italian WP was completely blocked because of a protest against a proposed law which will force Blogger or Websites to remove information about persons without testing whether the information is true or not. Here you can see that German Wikipedians did address their solidarity with the Italian community. de:Wikipedia:Solidaritätserklärung_mit_dem_italienischen_Wikipedia-Streik. We invite you to participate in our solidary address or would encourage you to initiate another solidarity address on your own. Greetings -- 87.2.187.133 ( talk) 08:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone find the following "In the News" item sad/ironic/amusing: "After five years in captivity, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (pictured) is freed in exchange for the release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners."
If I were in charge of the page, I would take a picture of the 1,027 Palestinians and replace the item with "1,027 Palestinian prisoners (pictured) are freed in exchange for 1 Israeli prisoner."
And no, I'm not anti-Israel or anti-Palestine, I'm just a neutral party who can't understand how that can be considered fair. Gilad was nothing more than a soldier--and he is worth over 1,000 Palestinians?
Allow me to elaborate. Linguistically, if a headline were to read "X is exchanged for Y," I'd figure that X is the more important of the set {X,Y}, since it is the subject of the sentence. So I feel that this item implicitly assigns more importance to, and hence values more, the captivity of 1 Israeli soldier than the captivity of 1,027 Palestinians.
I acknowledge that getting a single picture of 1,027 Palestinians is more challenging than getting a picture of Gilad Shalit, but the inclusion of his picture over the captives' picture is also an implicit indication of bias. Inasilentway ( talk) 02:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The neutrality issue was precisely why I proposed the two-flags image for ITN in Candidates. Given the broad references and availabilities, it was entirely reasonable that the article maintain a heavy Shalit picture tilt -- but on ITN, that tilt should be avoided if possible. - Tenebris 06:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.190 ( talk)
Clicking on "History" and then "Page View Statistics" reveals this is the SECOND most viewed page in Wikipedia, so what is the first? Thank you in advance for any feedback, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 09:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for getting back to me so quickly on this. Forgive me, but I am not even sure what "
Special:Export/SynchronizationStartTime:" means. Can you explain please what it means? Thank you in advance for you co-operation. I wonder whether it just means that people from different parts of the world have (and therefore different time
zones) have to be logged in what, in Wikipedia technicalities, is counted as equivalent time.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
10:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, no one has got back to me to explain what that means - I take it does mean the times that one gets logged onto Wikipedia. I agree, it appears to be something technical - having clicked on the hypertext above, it does not take one to an article that any one would wish to read! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 10:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
DYK formerly had 8 "hooks" in each set, and ran 3 or 4 sets a day. Due to a significant slowdown in production, we are now running just 6 hooks in a set, and 2 sets per day. Production is increasing, and it should be possible to increase to 7 hooks per set. Would that create any concerns for other Main Page projects? (I imagine that a slightly longer DYK section actually would make life easier for ITN and OTD.) -- Orlady ( talk) 14:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The pic would be so much more effective at larger size ... like, 50–100% larger. Tony (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Move Swamp Wallaby back where it was asap. Thanks. ♫GoP♫ T C N 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the years should be wikilinked in SA/OTD entries? I left this query at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries last week and received no response. It seems like overlinking to me unless there's a good reason to do it. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The OTD pages are designed to mirror the the style of days of the year lists (e.g. the January 1, January 2 ... December 31) pages. The days of the year pages link to the year articles (e.g. 2011, 2010 ... 900, etc.), and the year articles link back to the days of the years. This style is detailed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year#Style and Wikipedia:Days of the year, among others. If anything, you should propose such changes on those pages first.
Furthermore, as stated in many discussions here on this talk page, the Main page is treated more as a portal to let users (especially new users) explore the different articles around Wikipedia (including the days of the year, and year pages), and thus the guidelines on WP:OVERLINK tend to be more relaxed here than a regular article. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Note to posters: I have opened an RFC on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Year_wikilinking_in_OTD. Interested users are invited to comment there. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no picture for this featured article? Surely there's has to be someone who took a picture of it freely and without copyright. DarkGhost89 ( talk) 04:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"Can be seen"..."can be seen"..."can be seen"... my English teacher would have put a diagonal red line through this, with a terse note in the margin to top it off. Sophie means wisdom ( talk) 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
These seem like ads or publicity pieces to me:
The items may be of great interest to those mentioned. Perhaps not so much to others. - Ac44ck ( talk) 02:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Back to DYK, this objection does raise a serious point. For quite a lot of (currently) poor quality high- or top-importance articles, the only possible route to the Main Page in future would be as Today's featured article. I would suggest some sort of mechanism whereby a significantly improved
level 3 vital article can go up on DYK without needing to meet the usual standards eligibility criteria (of course a VITAL article should meet DYK standards on referencing etc). —
WFC— 03:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC) EDITED —
WFC—
03:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
" 'Black Tuesday' set off the Great Depression". But does that really summarize the conflicting opinions in the article? Art LaPella ( talk) 06:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
A TFA with a bird and a TFP with a bird — really now, that's two images and two articles related to birds, with a total of...five links about birds and two pics? That's seven. HurricaneFan 25 15:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no, systemic bias!! Where's Moni3 when we need her? Surely someone will come along and make an issue out of this chance occurrence, but I think this section provides a good opportunity for some much needed levity via a caption contest. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you guys know that this topic is full of win. I wish these Main Page bias topics were as amusing as this one. hbdragon88 ( talk) 00:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The TFA is about Qantas, and so is the topmost ITN entry. What's up with that? 80.122.178.68 ( talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It would appear that some of those involved in compiling DYK are hoping to run entire sets of hooks themed around Hallowe'en. This seems to me to be entirely disproportionate to the importance (i.e. no importance at all beyond the bank accounts of retailers of sweets and shoddy dressing up outfits) of the "festival". There was no discussion at WT:DYK to try to gain consensus, merely an announcement that this was being pursued. Comments? Kevin McE ( talk) 21:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It's common practice at DYK to group hooks together into one set for special occasions (regardless of how special individual editors think it is or isn't); if there are sufficient hooks (ie new or newly expanded articles), then it's quite normal for entire sets to be dedicated to the occasion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Article no longer TFA; reasonable concluding remark made and further discussion can be taken elsewhere -- tariqabjotu 01:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can someone cook up some code to hide the TFA? HurricaneFan 25 00:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrary break( edit conflict × 2) I really can't see a good reason to not change Today's Featured Article to an article on a different, less-absurd subject. Think about it, really: all changing Today's Featured Article to one on a less-absurd subject could do is improve upon having that absurd movie's article on the main page. It should not be much trouble to just replace Today's Featured Article and get it over with. Seriously, I can not see an actual good reason to not change Today's Featured Article. R.I.P. Motion Picture Production Code. Regards, —{| Retro00064| ☎talk| ✍contribs|} 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC). Look, the point is that there are evolving standards of decency no doubt. We do not blindly follow majority rule, but there are certain guidelines that must be respected. For example, it would be generally understood that an article on pornography or genitalia would be banned from making an appearing on the front page. There are children that use Wikipedia, and it is not a good thing to have such an article within such easy view. It is one thing to say not to censor, but a completely different one to understand that there is a time and place for certain things and that the place for the The Human Centipede is not the front page. When people access that sort of material, they make a choice to look it up. When I logged onto Wikipedia, I did not think I would have to look at that drek and be reminded of that twisted movie. Keep it as a featured article, but for Pete's sack: remove it from from the main page. Houstonbuildings ( talk) 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Kids vandalize Wikipedia more often (and often via obscenities) from school than we give them credit for; in fact, I had to knock out an school range today because their students have been running amok on Wikipedia for over a year with absolutely no supervision or control from their administration or staff. If school administrators actually pay attention to this now, then I would be surprised, as they generally seem to not have much control over what their students do on their computers within the bounds of their firewalls in the first place. – MuZemike 04:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Won't argue against the article's placement per strict TFA policy. Honestly don't plan on ever seeing either film, preferably not even by accident, but then I have no particular desire to see any film in the Saw franchise either. Will point out, in case it matters, that THC 2 -- also linked from the front page -- was originally banned outright in the United Kingdom on the basis of the Obscene Publications Act (was eventually released after multiple cuts), and was only ever screened at midnight in limited United States theatres. (It was never submitted for rating.) THC 1 was not found to be in breach of the Obscene Publications Act. According to the article, THC 1 did win a few Best Picture awards in the horror film genre. Will also point out that THC 2 happens to be in theatres currently. Some might see this placement as promotion. - Tenebris 07:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Main Page summaryI've edited the Main Page summary at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2011 to remove references to the mouth-to-anus mechanics. Melchoir ( talk) 06:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I thought this section was about editing the main page summary... so I'll get back to the point. When the main page summary was edited, it introduced a factual inaccuracy: as I understand it, Six did tell investors about the crazed surgeon aspect of the plot... he just omitted the mouth-to-arse details. If you really must censor things (particular very prominent things like the main page), please be extremely careful not to introduce errors; check all relevant sources, ask prominent editors of the article etc. Many would probably disagree, but I'd rather be offended by something than misinformed by it. Papa November ( talk) 10:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Why are people asking for definitions of the word "disgusting", or asking for citations to prove that this offends people? Just look at the number of reactions here. People have been grossed out by this. I read remarks like "If this grosses you out, then don't read it"; people didn't know the content until they read it! This was an 18+ movie; The article mentions that details were withheld from the financiers, and yet Wikipedia have just gone and thrown it up there on the front page where everyone would suddenly be confronted by it without actively searching that content. Claiming that people shouldn't visit Wikipedia if they don't want to see articles like that doesn't cut it. Fine: don't search out potentially gross articles if you don't like being grossed out! But anyone who came here today to look up whatever they wanted to look up has now been confronted with this. How did it ever get through? Captain Sumo —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC). Look, every encyclopedia has things that parents whould find innapropriate, Wikipedia is no differant. Don't want your kids looking up dirty words? Don't show them Wikipedia! That's the choice of the parent, not Wiki. And so far Jimbo and a legion of admins havent come down saying that this whole thing is out of control, and by taking a head count of the people in here I think I can say that truthfully, the majority of people don't even care about this argument. A few guys will come in here to blow off steam and thats it (which is actually not what the main page should be used for). This will just blow over after halloween. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop ( talk) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to weigh in here and say that I agree this should not be on the main page. Principle of least astonishment = don't put disturbing, gross articles in the lead slot. (Also, it's not like this is a historic event that may be disturbing but is of obvious educational value. I wouldn't be making the same argument over Holocaust or War rape.) Obviously this article offends a lot of readers - look at all the comments in this section! That it is in the lead slot is further evidence of the dominance 15-35yo men have in Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
AdvertisingIsn't putting up a front page summary of a movie just after the release of a sequel advertising? Obviously unpaid advertising in this case, but it would give a commercial benefit to the sequel. It sounds like there was an intent to put a horror movie on the front page, but how about a historic choice that would not give commercial favour to a particular individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 ( talk) 12:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
TFA Quality?I find it hard to believe his article is a "high quality" article given the fact that it fails to adequately cover the volume of controversy generated by the movie. This movie would be another pedestrian porno-violence film below most people's radars but for the controversy. Somehow though, this got to TFA status while hardly WHY it's as culturally significant as it it. It may be disgusting and I'm among those wondering at the process breakdown that led to this being considered TFA material. Bigjimleo ( talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone is going to have their own idea about what "greater good" is. I would think it would be reasonable to come to a consensus here - where there is a wider audience - for items that are clearly going to be controversial like this one. And what I think schools will do is if the main page is bad they will block the whole project. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Abe, about that article on the schools blocking wikipedia, have you read the article? Coolug ( talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
To all those who still think we should ban some articles from appearing on the front page (and granted, some of those arguments hold water) here's a troubling riddle: If we were to prevent any innapropriate featured articles from appearing on the front page, whats the point in our work in making them featured anway? All arguments should answer this. Granted, THC is not the best (in terms of quality) movie to be on the main page, but attention is now being given to improve it by those who have info about the film. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop ( talk) 14:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrary section breakSince the article is off Main page for a while now, could we just say something like "if the choice of Main page content is expected to raise several eyebrows, someone should drop a message to some frequently-monitored page, such as this one, so that we can have a discussion prior to the apperance on the Main page"?-- Tone 17:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Why so unspecific? More than 101 crew members of the USS Reuben James perished when the article quite clearly states only 44 of 159 survived. Wouldn't 115 crew members of the USS Reuben James perished be more precise and shorter? Calistemon ( talk) 04:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If the human population has reached that number today, shouldn't we all drop everything and see if we actually can all stand on Zanzibar for a group photo from space? Daniel Case ( talk) 15:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just wanted to say well done to everyone involved in today's brilliant halloween themed DYK. Finding so much grisly content among new articles must have been a bit of a pain, well done to you all! Coolug ( talk) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hallowe'en is emphatically NOT a "U.S. centric holiday". It has long been oberved in my home country (the
United Kingdom). In fact, the Pagan forerunner of Hallowe'en -
Samhain - was observed on the East of the
Atlantic long before the
United States was even founded! Although it is true that the day is not an official
Bank holiday in the United Kingdom, one only need observe shops here in the U.K. around about the time of Hallowe'en to see how widely observed the custom is in Britain.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
16:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That is an amazingly global "In the News" section. Six out of seven continents is represented with at least one story. 75.62.148.246 ( talk) 02:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Where is the UNESCO news?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Halil marx07 ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The section "On this day” says, for 1936: "The BBC Television Service launched as the world's first regular, public all-electronic high-definition television service.” The article “
BBC One” says that HDTV was introduced in 2010.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Copied content collapsed
|
---|
|
Copied content collapsed
|
---|
|
Copied content collapsed
|
---|
|
Copied content collapsed
|
---|
|
Excuse me, not that I'm missing anything, but is there going to be a fundraising drive at the end of this year, as usual, or not? I couldn't find anything, but I only took a little while to search and can't properly concentrate today. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 08:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Done
The death of Alfonso Cano is not appearing neither on Wikinews nor "In the News". 201.209.196.94 ( talk) 21:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, for all the languages listed as having 650,000 articles, there are now more than 700,000 articles. Time to upgrade! - Ipigott ( talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
This is terrible! How can anybody have a right to delete the Main Page?! (Even for only two minutes.) And how “nobody can delete it again”? :/ ~ Alex discussion ★ 22:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
has more than 50.000 articles and should be included in the appropriate list on the main page.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, put in the section of "Languages" the Wikipedia in aragonese. Thank you for you colaboration!
An anonymous user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.132.51 ( talk) 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please unlock the main page. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 02:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
for the Armistice Day / Veteran's Day themed DYKs. Wikipedia's gesture is very much appreciated.
"When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For your Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today." ( The Kohima Memorial). 86.133.55.244 ( talk) 12:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is simply unacceptable. An INT about an extinct Rhino and a FP of an obviously extinct dinosaur? Seriously? I am disappoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuyoi.ai ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but who updates the main page? -- 46.12.65.6 ( talk) 10:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Persian Wikipedia article is 144.292. And not 166.166. See here — Preceding unsigned comment added by الشبح العربي ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate this is leaving it quite late but could an image of a poppy be added to the main page for Armistice Day on 11 November and Remembrance Sunday on 12 November? Harrison49 ( talk) 22:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
At the moment I am looking at a wikipedia front page that is presenting articles of roughly 75% military content. I don't know if this has something to do with today's Veteran Day celebrations, but this is an encyclopedia of so much more content. More variation please, less kings and wars. (For information: I am myself involved in many military-related projects). -- MoRsE ( talk) 20:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As user, I would prefer little banner. Let say commercial company,may be few, make donation to Wikipedia, and all users see little banner of gratitude to main donator(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.224.183 ( talk) 13:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Even WMF supports it, having changes their logo. Italian Wikipedia did it few weeks ago. Why are we not joining? See discussion. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
In an RfC about the purpose of Portals, it was suggested that they be featured on the Main Page. Please join the discussion!--~ T P W 19:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Main_Page_Featured_Portal_drive. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 08:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic that Wikipedia asks for donations in order to avoid placing annoying ad banners by putting a huge "please donate" banner on top? -- Cerlomin ( talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I would have probably donated, but the left-wing extremism here and the weaselly use of the 'rules' to justify that left wing bias leaves a permanent bad taste in my mouth. I've paid attention to key subjects' discussion pages and I've seen how WP runs off all the right-wing conservatives, right-libertarians, constitutionalists, anti-globalization patriots, etc... Now I must say, WP is to academia what McDonald's is to restaurants. WP is not regarded on the same level as say, Encyclopedia Britannica. BUT, that doesn't mean that WP can't encourage HEALTHY debate where the perspectives of right-leaning Americans (or others) are respected. I've seen how the left-wing extremists here censor the content of articles, or even have articles deleted; then they hide behind the guidelines as if these were Law to prevent the legitimate reversion of an article back to an unbiased, left-spin-free version. Fortunately, there is still 'the rest of the internets', and WP is not the be-all and end-all of the 'Net. Wikipedia's credibility and reliability have consequently been damaged, and possibly irreparably - unless these issues are resolved and people of other political alignment are afforded a substantial stake in the administration, moderation, and editorial control of Wikipedia.
I will not be checking back for comments; my statement is only for the edification of the people who run Wikipedia, in the hopes that they will stop 'being evil', as the founders of Google would have put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.39.185 ( talk) 19:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd probably have donated by now if it weren't for Jimbo's ugly mug staring back at me every time I visit. I can't even look at the banner long enough to click on it. It's that bad. 71.62.210.158 ( talk) 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not want to hear a word about putting banners or other advertisements on Wikipedia, or related Wikis. Asking for donations within a banner on the top of a Wikipedia page is nothing like a "shoot five iPods and win a car" advertisement on all the other websites in cyberspace. All users need to understand that Wikipedia does not manage itself.
Dninyo (
talk)
22:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
If the only thing stopping you from donating is the mere aesthetic appeal of a banner, then you are no altruist. Imagine if I used that same logic for not making a donation to a non-profit charity just because the picture they used of a homeless person on the donation box was ugly. "Would probably have donated" - Frankly, I don't think any of you would have donated at all. -- WaltCip ( talk) 00:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Who selected TFA and ITN for display at http://m.en.wikipedia.org? I always visit the main page on my cellphone, but I never need to see what the news is because I have other sites for that. Is there any way to get FPC instead or any other of the main page's content? Matthewedwards : Chat 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit lame (sorry Muhammed—just in this context, I mean). And it's very small. And the TFA pic of the freeway is worthless at that size. Tony (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, the avocado description (and its article) both describe is being a large berry, whereas the article on berries specifically mentions the avocado not being one. It's a relatively minor inconsistency, but someone ought to verify which is correct, and edit the other. -- 108.21.63.154 ( talk) 12:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is the article Cleveland Steamer deleted? -- 93.210.106.184 ( talk) 14:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Malcolm II of Scotland.jpg (ITN) and File:Corvus coronoides.jpg (OTD) were not protected. Is there a problem in some protection routine on Commons? Materialscientist ( talk) 01:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: when posting this, I haven't checked where those images were transcluded on Commons, I just checked that they were not protected. I went there now and don't see those images were transcluded to some protected page. The only purpose of this thread is to urge the operators to check the protection routines. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the image [14] (used for highway K-143 in DYK) not a copyrighted artwork belonging to the state of Kansas? The page does not even mention this, it is marked as "own work" of the uploader. I think at the very least the descriotion page should explain why the image is public domain; and if there's doubt then it should not be on the main page. — Amakuru ( talk) 15:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The TFA page at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 26, 2011 hasn't been created. HurricaneFan 25 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a free shot of WW director Eiji Aonuma. hbdragon88 ( talk) 01:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have prepared an emergency TFA page here. I suggest that we keep this and perhaps one or two more in reserve as emergency TFAs and that we agree that in similar circumstances, we'll deal off the top on that page. We could even have a bot automatically add the article if there is no selection made by zero hour.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)