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 175 | ← | Archive 180 | Archive 181 | Archive 182 | Archive 183 | Archive 184 | Archive 185 |
Today's third DYK teaser:
"Oh?! Huh?? Is this something I've missed in the news?" (Click on link. See page title.) " HMS Alceste (1806). I guess not."
I'd like to propose that we take a second look at the wording of DYK teasers before we post them. If they are liable to be understood as referring significant current or recent news, but are actually about events that are well beyond "news", we should make it clear right there.
If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu ( talk) 08:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Useless discussion about logging in |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Surely anybody who for any reasons has not signed in and is going to send money to WP will have done so by now - getting to have rather a negative effect. Is there not a better way? 108.171.128.162 ( talk) 14:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Most WP-users who check WP using computers they are not signed into WP on are going to be irritated by the persistence of 'please support WP financially' at times (and 'why bother signing in just to read something up or correct a typo'): perhaps there should be brief adverts on a more frequent basis. Descending into 'same to you' discussions does not help. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
'Short and sweet' or 'long and loud'; asking everybody, or only those who do not sign in for whatever reasons: the choice is up to WP. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
NoScript is a ridiculous way to use the internet, however, if you can, I use adblock plus to banish the banner. I'm not donating, or creating a new account, until someone apologizes for calling me stupid. -- 66.56.0.66 ( talk) 16:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
2004 – A 9.3 magnitude earthquake creates a tsunami causing devastation in Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Maldives and many other areas around the rim of the Indian Ocean, killing over 230,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The section "More than 1.000.000" doesn't contain the Waray-Waray (1.25 mil.), the Cebuano (1.2 mil.), and the Tiếng Việt (1.11 mil.). (see here) Greetings, -- 80.123.29.15 ( talk) 19:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good to see the top level editors are apparently extremely childish. Of all the fascinating and informative articles in Wikipedia, this is what people are greeted with. Good job, you ever so clever winners. Geofferic T• C✡ 09:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting choice, throwing the word "Fuck" front and center for all main page visitors during the religious holiday season and during Wikipedia's biggest fundraiser of the year. I realize Wikipedia Isn't Censored, but does anyone around here know the difference between "I can" and "I should"? Townlake ( talk) 00:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI for anyone interested, the discussion can be found here. 331dot ( talk) 00:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I went straight to the talk page in anticipation of this thread as soon as I saw the featured article. Let's see: Something something think of the children something something. There, that about sums it up. Carry on. -- WaltCip ( talk) 04:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw the discussion regarding having this item on the main page, but it was closed before I got the opportunity to comment. I remember one of the main arguments was that it was several months since the last time the featured article contained a swear word. I wanted to pose the question then, but I'll mention it as a rhetorical now - when would repetition become too much? Once a month? Why not replace Friday's featured list with a "Fuck off Friday" collection of rude jokes? (By notable comedians of course) AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 06:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
What I have said previously on similar occasions - perhaps there could be a 'vanilla/child-, library-, work- and someone peering over your shoulder at your device on public transport- safe' English Main Page and one that covers 'more exotic topics.' Thus both sides can be happy (and a broader range of 'MP pick and mix of topics you didn't know you wished to know about.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Both the FA director and one of his delegates at the Today's Featured Article request page were chased off by the SAME (finally and eventually banned) sockmaster. With that sockmaster, by the way, when the director and I sought support from the arbs, we were silenced by a (now gone in disgrace) arb; it was not until after the FA pages had been assaulted for months that the community finally banned the sockmaster on other matters. As all of that happened, many editors, (FA-involved and otherwise) were either silent, or joined in support of the Merry Band of Socks chasing off the director (actually, in a deliberate breaching experiment regarding the scheduling of another TFA).
So, to anyone who was an active editor and did nothing when all of this was happening and is now here complaining: take your tomato. You're part of it.
If you were silent when socks chased off the FA director, this is where that ends. If that is so troubling to any of you, then go read the discussion of how we nowadays, in the absence of an FA director, appoint new coordinators empowered to decide what goes on the main page, not only TFA. ( Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator).
And if you don't read the whole thing and weigh in, then please hold your tongue the next time you don't like a TFA selection. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The Project needs to represent itself with a certain level of decorum befitting the world's most popular online encyclopedia. Running a Featured Article that is essentially the F-bomb does not pass the smell test. If Wikipedia wants to be respected, it needs to act like an adult. Imagine if Presidente Obama went on TV and started throwing around the F word. Could he? Sure he could, technically. Should he? No, it would be a terrible idea, and I don't need to explain why. Or more to the point, imagine if the Gray Lady, the NY Times, ran a front page headline with the F-bomb in it. Could they? Sure, freedom of the press. But would they be particularly more or less respected and esteemed afterwards? Less. It's not about prudishness or phobia of the word, and it's not about WP:NOTCENSORED. It's about acting appropriately. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but we are not handcuffed by that one policy. And WP:NOTCENSORED sure as hell is not a mandate to feature profanity. I strongly disagree with any editor who insists on a course of action that results in Wikipedia featuring items like this in the name of protection of free speech or whatever similar intellectual libertarianist argument. Free speech is not remotely in danger here. And Wikipedia is not your personal vehicle for attempting to change the public's generally accepted idea of what is or is not generally proper conduct. What are you here to do—organize and share the world's information, or attempt to shock people and push your personal agenda on them? Darkest Tree Talk 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Why can't Wikipedia's editors assume the burden of knowing what's best for the little people on the side of class instead of crass? I believe a front page should be suitable for "all audiences", with shocking, in-your-face, "I'm twelve and you're not the boss of me" content profusely included in the pages where appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.238.90 ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Pee po belly bum drawers. Again. 80.3.72.207 ( talk) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
talk:86.136.150.146|talk]]) 00:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The saddest parts of these discussions is the people who seem to honestly believe that the thing was posted out of a juvenile desire to be offensive, as though that were the only conceivable explanation. What strange and sheltered lives these people must live if they think that anybody who claims to not think exactly like them is merely pretending to not think like them for the purpose of causing trouble. APL ( talk) 00:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
(break for ease of use)
My suggestion above was more to have the 'alternative or vanilla version' available for those who would prefer such things in a given context (and the present tutti-frutti version at other times): there could also be the jalapeno pepper version for those so inclined (and also US-centric/cute animal-centric and other version Main Pages). More people would be happy more of the time (and there would be more opportunities for good material to appear on some main page). Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There is going to be 'one thing on the main page' every few months that causes wailing and gnashing of teeth and reference to
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (and whatever the WP equivalent of
Mary Whitehouse happens to be) - and not always an obvious topic.
Jackiespeel (
talk)
23:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
WP users #know# that WP contains many articles on topics that annoy, offend or simply are of negative interest to them: and that they are likely to come across some of them by clicking on blue links/'looking up some obscure reference' etc. #But# this is a matter of choice/deliberate intent.
The Main Page is how WP presents itself to the English speaking world (and others who happen to be strolling through the various language main pages), and is likely to be accessed by people having a tea-break or otherwise in a context where certain topics are likely to cause discomfort (not everybody likes tea/coffee flavoured soggy biscuits) #however# well written or interesting the article. Most of these topics can be predicted and will cause the same, sometimes knee-jerk, reactions. There will also be an element of 'my taste/what annoys me, your taste/what annoys you.'
WP is not censored - but there has to be some compromise between 'totally vanilla' MP contents (the search box is not the same - the MP is, as I have said on occasion, useful for finding 'things you didn't know you wanted to know') and 'if it meets the good writing/notability etc standards carry on regardless publish and be damned.'
The trouble is - there is no consensus on where after 'er, what??' the 'appropriate for MP' boundary is - and if there were an en [3]WP page some people would go there just for the frisson. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing that should be made clearer here is that both the article being discussed here (the book Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties), and the previous one (the documentary film Fuck) were brought to featured article standards by the same editor ( User:Cirt). I raised this point in an amendment request made by Cirt back in March 2014 to an arbitration restriction he remains under. It is worth reading through the amendment request to see what Cirt said there about his motivations for working on this topic (you will need to also read what I said there, the comments Cirt is responding to). The issue was touched on there of niche topics versus broad ones. Cirt has also worked on other niche articles related to freedom of speech and censorship, some of which have also been featured. It is trivial to find articles in this topic area that have words in their titles that will generate the kind of debate seen here. It is also trivial to find articles in this topic area that don't generate that kind of debate. Cirt does work on both, but has he focused more on the articles that shock than the ones that don't? The jury may still be out on that, but I think a pattern is emerging. What is clear is that Cirt works on books and films about a niche area of freedom of speech and censorship, some of which have words in their titles that can shock when featured on Wikipedia's front page, and some that don't (e.g. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth). Cirt also nominates the articles to appear on Wikipedia's front page. Should the nomination of niche articles with 'shock' value worked on by the same author be encouraged or discouraged (remembering we are all ultimately volunteers)? Personally, I'd discourage it in favour of working on and nominating broader level topics with more educational value (e.g. the articles freedom of speech and censorship themselves), but I fear that Cirt may see some of the discussion here as an encouragement to work on another niche book or film article that will provoke a similar reaction. Whether that will happen, only time will tell. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
My question to you would be whether Wikipedia, by featuring articles on books and films (and any other 'named' objects) with provocative titles, should be proxying for that sort of attention grabbing?
This is part of the point people made in the earlier discussions that featuring niche topics such as books and films unavoidably ends up promoting both those books and films and their tone or attitude, even if done in a NPOV and dispassionate manner.
As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there. I would look askance at anyone who repeatedly pushed provocative topics to the front page
(you see this to some extent in DYK as well).
As far as I can tell, no one is saying, going out of the way to find the topics -- going out of the way to promote them is another matter, and is undisputed,
along with Fuck the movie, and Fuck the book, being repetitious matter.
That also has nothing to do with neutrality. We all make editorial judgments when we write articles, we make other editorial judgments when we promote them for the main page (they are far from the same decision) - the notion that that later decision is being "neutral" is just not in keeping with the meaning of neutral.
How can you dispute that the Pedia took a long conversation to come to little or no consensus on putting the article on the main page;
how can you dispute that the nominator made the extra effort with notices all over to promote it to the main page.
Have you sought to put every article you created on the main page, because there is certainly nothing requiring you to,
and it does take extra effort that is not writing articles.
Your excuse for repetition is merely an acknowledgement of repetition
- as for how you draw parallels between different species of mushroom, and different storms, and the subject of one word is rather bizarre but more so unpersuasive.
The issue is not deeming any article subject good or bad, the issue is using the editorial power and function to put it on the main page - that has nothing to do with neutrality - neutrality would be, it does not matter if it is on the main page.
The TFA coordinator said in the close they found less "or" "no consensus".
So for all these reasons I find that many of the "oppose" arguments are either off-topic or weaker than their numerical presence might at first blush suggests. Looking for strength of arguments, then, my conclusion is that there is consensus, albeit weaker than in the previous TFAR discussion, in favour of running the article as requested. If I am wrong about that, then there is not a consensus against running the article, and in the absence of a consensus to change the default position (that all TFAs are eligible for the main page) then I take the view that it is eligible.
The nominator went out of his way to get this put on the main page ("extra effort" as you admit to be)
(-- you also apparently missed the plea of the coordinator in the close for the nominator to stop it).
The repetition of subject is apparent in the titles, and in the subject matter,
both dealing with treatments of one word.
Your last point is irrelevant because you keep insisting that it is not judgement and an act of will to put something on the main page, but you are wrong about that
-- and you already admitted that getting it on the main page is not writing articles for the encyclopedia.
You admitted that it is not writing articles for the encyclopedia,
so your penultimate last point is about writing the encyclopedia is irrelevant.
You have admitted that the nominator made "extra effort"
(which is the same as 'out of his way')
to put what you admit are two repetitious articles on the main page.
You apparently admit that the closer found "weaker" consensus and alternatively no consensus.
You apparently admit the closer pleaded with the nominator not to do this again in the closing statement
- as for "bad faith" no one said that but you
As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there.
(which is probably a sign of your bad faith
or just failure to read what other people have written).
Basically: . 'Some articles' meet the criteria of FA status but are on topics which are considered unsuitable to ever feature on the MP; other potential FAs are 'likely to generate much discussion because of words used, or particular topics (medical, war/violence/'bad taste' etc), and some are debate generators because of particular circumstances/they appear (possibly accidentally) in conjunction with other topics.
The debate is how to balance WP MP freedom of expression and 'the requirements of good taste, computer filters and tea breaks' in the latter two cases.
There are also going to be many articles that reach FA status and are unlikely to cause much debate (beyond 'this is the Xth article on subject Y in Z days') but for which there is no MP space - how can they be showcased? Would a 'FA showcase' which does not have the restrictions/constraints (of all kinds) of the Main Page get round the issues raised by this particular article? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not know how practical a Featured Article showcase would be - but it would be one way of 'dealing with' Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page and could be run on slightly different lines to the Main Page (pages show for eg a week; former FAs; and can have themed selections etc). The intent would be to show WP articles at their best not to exclude them from the MP. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We can't satisfy or even interest all the people all the time - we just have to find ways of maximizing the sum of WP happiness (and getting people involved) Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I honestly can't believe the massive controversy this has caused. I honestly think that the attitude that " horrific deplorable violence is okay, so long as people don't say any naughty words" is being adopted here. I mean, seriously, it's a legitimate topic, there's no reason to hide the article just because some people don't like the word "fuck". That's what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about. Sceptre ( talk) 02:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
OP admits to WP:POINT. No further discussion needed -- Jayron 32 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Summing up:
Wikipedia aims to cover all things, including topics people individually find totally uninteresting and also those they find unpleasant, offensive or otherwise wish to have nothing to do with.
The Main Page serves to both provide links to material that people might find interesting/would not otherwise have looked at and also to showcase well designed articles/the best of WP's writing.
There are certain topics which are felt not to be suited for mention on the MP - some adult themes, some language use, various very medical/violence/war, 'topics which annoy library and workplace filters', 'topics which do not go with hot drink and biscuit breaks', 'topics which it is felt might cause upset to young persons', 'topics which conflict with certain cultural and social preferences' and others.
What balance should there be between these three aspects - where along the line between 'totally vanilla' and 'anything and everything goes' should the balance be?
The nature and intent of Wikipedia is in part about thinking imaginatively - what solutions can we think of that satisfy most people?
I suggested a showcase of Potential Featured Articles - given that there are so many and the range they cover, 'images and brief quotes' might be more enticing than a list of titles. This could also be used for certain other categories of article (the usual 'too many links in category X'). Would this resolve the situation? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we agree that my definition of what the MP is 'for' is a reasonable one.
'Certain topics' (some of which can be identified ahead of time) are likely to generate much discussion on this talk pages for the reasons I mention above. (As a side question - do topics below the FA placement area generate anything like the discussion of the FA and ITN?). The question is - how should we balance what people in general are willing to have on the MP (in a range of contexts) with showing what 'those working on Wikipedia as a whole' are capable of achieving, regardless of the topic of the article?
I was arguing the case for providing more ways of accessing Featured Content articles (given their number and the limitations of the Main Page), rather than removing the field from the Main Page. Themed selections with hooks are more enticing than the long lists of headers at Wikipedia:Featured articles.
It is better to suggest possible alternatives than to complain. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
'People in general' do not complain much about the MP (and know they can comment here about it), so the mixture is probably broadly right and could possibly include slightly more variety. The location of the text or image may affect how much comment is generated (do people scroll down the page?) - but while the smallpox picture generated comment but the recent cancer picture did not. 'What is allowed/accepted' (even if passively 'it will be gone in a while'/'it doesn't bother me but it might others') is probably nearer the middle of the line between 'totally vanilla' and 'anything goes.'
'Reversing the polarity' - given the number of entries on the Featured Content list and the limited space on the Main Page what can be done to show 'the best that Wikipedia can produce' (insofar as the MP serves that purpose)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
If we are going to start banning topics from the Main Page that people find offensive, then I also want my say on topics that I find offensive. As an atheist, I find any mention of religion on the Main Page to be offensive, including any references to religious holidays such as Christmas and Easter. I should not be forced to read about religious topics in TFA or view religious iconography in TFP. Rreagan007 ( talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have little interest in sport but I don't complain about references to such appearing on the main page: and I have suggested in the past that there could be a 'computer filter and hot drink-and-biscuit appropriate MP and a more vibrant one (and possibly even a-reverse-of-vanilla version): it would then be up to the reader to choose which one they wanted - and there would be the occasional article on the vanilla version which would annoy people regardless.
Can we now discuss how to make the range of 'potential featured articles' more generally accessible to WP users (my other point). Should there be a 'random potential featured article' button next to the 'random page' one (and possibly a 'random page with an improvement tag' on it)? Should the various portals have their own local Main Pages (increasing the opportunities for featuring material? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The function of the MP is to show what can be done with articles on WP, to interest people in topics they might not otherwise have looked at, and occasionally to startle them.
Some articles 'of their nature' are likely to cause much negative discussion if appearing on the main page - but some which one might have expected to so do will not.
Others may or may not cause discussion for a variety of reasons, (including the time of year/what else is going on in the world/the other things on the MP on that day or the previous few days/people are startled by the topic).
Much of the time there is 'positive or neutral comment' about WPs front page.
Sometimes discussions about the MP become warmer than expected, whatever the original topic of discussion.
If there was #never# any negative opinions (however mild) about the MP there would be something wrong.
People use WP for many reasons: how can they be persuaded to engage and improve it, and to what extent can the MP be used to encourage them to do so? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Till the next MP entry (or group of entries) that turns into a discussion generator. :) Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to put out that what I have read about what you have said and you are wrong it is not fake I mean obviously parts are like when Bernice hits people or the other drivers do it but that is cause of the cameras and non off you are saying that is not the case that you guys wont play up a little but the word is reality documentary I do not agree with things like tension at the end off each episode I also watch south beach tow every night 5 nights a week Mon-Fri and in the credits it does not stat nothing about based on real events and I know cause it is what happens also I do not agree that the other drivers they might have are not on television and should come on screen
Kudos re selection of Adrianne Wadewitz's video "The Impact of Wikipedia" – about educational uses of WP – in FP slot. Sca ( talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I've created this page. I hope it's alright... but no other article links to it and I think this has to replace the 2014 statistics page, which is incomplete.-- MJ for U ( talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It would, for me, be preferable to have a "Je Suis Charlie" image on 'in the news', rather than the plane which crashed last week. Any possibility? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
What even is a "je suis charlie"? 184.159.128.154 ( talk) 16:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
One word - much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Nude painting - no comment.
Why? 128.127.29.19 ( talk)
Not complaining (except, perhaps, there could be the occasional nude male to balance things out) - just noticing 'not accounting for what causes complaint' (could add the recent 'rather medical on the non-squawking side).
Much Wailing (whether or not on the Marsh) - traditional phrase. 128.127.29.19 ( talk) 18:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No comment from me thus far since I've complained about a similar MP image choice before and don't anticipate receiving any more sympathy now than I did then. But since it's been brought up... yes, I understand WP:CENSOR but I fail to see how inclusion of nude paintings or photographs on the main page reflects the principles of user choice and least astonishment ( [4]). Some of us out there don't want to see those images and can choose not to view articles where they are likely to be present, but putting them on the MP takes away that choice. WP:CENSOR states that content relevant to an article's topic should not be removed solely on the basis of "being objectionable", but I don't see how it precludes giving consideration to the fact that some users find certain types of content objectionable when making content decisions for the main page (even if many others don't share those views). Jonhall ( talk) 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(reset) The IP is commenting on 'the absence of reaction' rather than 'the presence of an image.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
As a series of generalisations
Most entries on the MP will generate no or neutral comments. ('Too many on a particular topic in several days', 'Should be on/removed from ITN', 'Nice picture' etc)
A few topics are felt on various grounds to be unsuitable for the MP, and either are kept off it or generate much complaint and discussion when they do.
Some topics will generate more discussion than would be expected. Others will generate less discussion than might be expected.
Many more will fall into the category 'not really my taste, but it will be gone soon', and most into the 'WP has to cater for most-to-all viewpoints, interests and tastes' categories.
It is when discussions of this nature stop happening that WP will have serious problems. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (modifying slightly)
The IP's 'One word', and also a while back the picture of someone with smallpox (a disease which nobody will probably otherwise encounter) generated much discussion on the balance between 'Wikipedia being not censored' and 'what is considered not acceptable on the main page.'
A picture that is described on the MP as having been considered voyeuristic, and a photograph of a cancer (which disease people might encounter) just sit there with nobody feeling strongly enough about them to comment.
An observation on the MP talk page on this divergence of reaction leads to a discussion on WP not being censored - which does seem to be a slight non sequitur. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the magic word {{noexternallinks}}
doesn't work any more on main page. --
Holder (
talk)
21:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The Magic Words are Squeamish Ossifrage may also apply :) Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
{{noexternallanglinks}}
, note there is also a manual addition of links form {{
Main Page interwikis}}. —
xaosflux
Talk
16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Pictured twice on the Main Page 18.01.15. (Perhaps it should be promoted to El Mayor?) Sca ( talk) 15:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Different subject here, but today it's the picture in the news, and Media Viewer isn't working on it. All the other pictures do though. ??? Eman235/ talk 19:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
... seems to have swallowed up everything in the vicinity on the General discussion area.
Anyone care to discuss this latest manifestation of ' Black Hole Wikipedia'? 108.171.128.162 ( talk) 18:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
(reset) Either 'notice something on the MP' or have an automatic 'normal (discussion) service will be resumed as soon as possible' notice (which disappears as soon as something is written and saved). Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Could someone edit and correct the title for the article Hard Labor Creek Reservoir to read as Hard Labor Creek Regional Reservoir? Thanks!
I brought up the issue at WP:ITN/C, but it's closed as not a nomination. I tried to file an error report, but it got reverted. Should the link change to " War in Donbass" or stay as "War in Ukraine"? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that the FA and POTD are a nice touch. Now I wish I had a valentine. Isa ( talk) 07:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:1779 – English explorer James Cook was killed during a fight against Native Hawaiians near Kealakekua on the Island of Hawaii." Uhm....seriously. I left that alone to see how we would treat that but it seems that we just used " Native Hawaiian" as a default instead of linking the encyclopedic articles with even a little more detail. Even the Cook article has enough there to state that "Cook was killed when he tried to kidnap Kalaniʻōpuʻu, the ruling chief of the Island of Hawaii". I wonder if it can still be updated? The page for February 14 is locked. Yes...I wrote some of these articles but they are sourced and neutral and go into far more detail than a claim he was killed in a "fight against" Native Hawaiians.
Yes...I am complaining, sorry for that, but I am also trying to point out we have so much on the encyclopedia that could be linked.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems that rivers/creeks in Pennsylvania are mentioned in the Did You Know section a LOT. Not just more than average, but enough to make it look obviously intentional. I'm sure I've seen at least 6 in the past 6 months, probably more. Any one else notice this? I feel like there's some inside joke I'm missing out on... 2601:9:3740:2E:7C80:D7EC:C4CB:F8E4 ( talk) 23:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(reset) I meant in the sense of 'developing articles in your areas of interest sufficiently for them to appear on the main page.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 23:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
We have every news station covering the grammys, movie awards, etc. etc. Wikipedia used to display other significant news, news that was actually new to most of us (and very rarely covered by other news organizations). It's a shame to see that the news on en.wikipedia.org is so entirely mainstream. Allen750 ( talk) 07:26, 15 February 2015 (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.
I think the currently featured Tintin in the Congo is appalling in the ignorance of its approach. It makes no attempt to put the strip in the historical context of the Congo Free State propaganda war and the dire circumstances in even the 'reformed' Belgian Congo, but instead makes a superficial, modern analysis of things like how bad it is that a character is shown going on safari. And I'm getting reverted in entirety for bogus reasons by the proprietor. Perhaps I rushed too much to do something but can someone help out? Wnt ( talk) 21:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to know how to start a page for my grandfather,he was 7"11 and wore a size 16 shoe. He famous in the town I live in and the maritime museum has a life size exhibit of him. I am from southport NC, his name is Elias G. Gore aka Nehi and he was a menhaden fisherman who met Babe Ruth while on a fishing trip. Julia Edge ( talk) 19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Mobile users see a very reduced version of the main page. [7] only displays Today's featured article and In the news. It's supposed to be helpful that the page is smaller but I think many want the full version so we should make it easy to get that. [8] shows that Main Page is currently only transcluded in user pages which are hard to find, for example User:Liangent/Main Page where mobile users see the full [9]. Can we make a "Full Main Page" link which is only shown to mobile users? We should of course choose a better name than some user page but a mainspace page may be controversial. Or is there another way to give mobile users an option to see the full main page? PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The illustration for a place in "present-day Texas" is the moon. -- 142.33.163.121 ( talk) 19:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Main page has a history of showing unusual biases, but today's favoritism of a common solvent is pushing things. FA has a picture of showing salt water, DYK's picture shows fresh water, and FP displays frozen water. On to of this, SA/OTD lists flooding and has a picture of a lunar sea. -- Allen3 talk 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
When will this discussion gurgle down the plughole? Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"1965 – Black nationalist Malcolm X (pictured) was assassinated while giving a speech in New York City's Audubon Ballroom." - is it reasonable or accurate to describe X as a "Black nationalist" at the time of his death? I'm unsure - given just how much his views changed in the year leading up to his assassination. Just curious. -- Shannon Dal ( talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Today is not only Language Movement Day in Bangladesh but it is also International Mother Language Day. It is strange that International Mother Language day is not listed on "On this day...". -- Sajibur ( talk) 09:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
In discussions related to this cascade protection change, we (the MediaWiki Core Team) have determined that the method used for cacscade protecting the main page at present is not perfect. The cascade protection for Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow could be updated before the cascade protection for the actual main page, giving a brief window for main page vandalism. I'm going to add {{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow}}||}} to the main page, which will cause the next day's TFA/TFP templates to be continuously protected across the transition at midnight, without causing any change to the output. -- Tim Starling ( talk) 23:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
09:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
23:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations for this day's articles, mainly about Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil (1845-1847). We are very proud of English Wikipedia. Claudio Pistilli ( talk) 16:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In scanning the "In The News" section, I noticed what I believe to be a new entry, regarding Nascar, posted below the already existing entry concerning the movie Birdman. Might I recommend not publishing new entries to "In The News" below existing entries? It makes it harder to scan for new news items, and shows a bias in the editors opinion on what is more newsworthy. (Movies versus Nascar, which in this case, I agree on, but that's beside the point.) 164.58.21.70 ( talk) 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like the mainpage to have a link to Wikimedia above Wikimedia Shop.-- Wouter Drucker ( talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
For the benefit of readers of the main page, you may like to know that a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article on whether to remove the "..." at the end of ( Full article...) in TFA blurbs. (Logic would suggest that any changes to TFA practice on this point ought to be matched at TFL for consistency of main-page presentation.) Please discuss there, not here, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Bencherlite Talk 20:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This may not be the best forum for this, but I think every time someone puts a personal bio/resumé on this page an admin should make the content invisible (except, I guess, to admins) after it's reverted. Maybe the message will get through.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Why only 5 items are listed in the OTD section? Why so much space is left blank?-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 05:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
'IT's not cricket' :) Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem with cricket - it cannot be described in one sentence (golf and snooker - get the balls in the holes in the right order'; football 'get more goals than the other side, do not invoke the offside rule and do not annoy the referee'; tennis 'keep the ball in the air and get the other side to drop it or put it in the net' etc). 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 16:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there could be 'a list of strange sounding sporting terms' with a link thereto for April 1. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Showing pictures of soldiers who recently have received a Victoria Cross might be symptomatic of some sort of bias. (I am not trying to belittle the actions of the mentioned soldier. He is likely an overachiever amongst his British peers.) Although i am not a fan of Taliban or groups fighting in Syria, will the front page be showing pictures of their overachievers, at the same rate that the front page might continue to show pictures of Western soldiers who are the flavour of the hour? -- Dourkenw ( talk) 10:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(reset) Until the MP is sufficiently large to accommodate all particular interests (including the partially overlapping areas 'no US-themed references' and 'no sporting references' there will be such complaints. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's notable enough to be mentioned in the "On this Day". '''tAD''' ( talk) 10:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
A few years ago Wikipedia's English Main Page covered news that major news networks did not -- significantly important subjects that were not related to... the Grammys, or terrorist attacks, or etc., etc..
Exactly - why is, for example, the result of the Estonian national election still not "in the news", but some academy awards (for a film that few people watched) still "in the news" after more than a week? 90.199.157.132 ( talk) 12:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I am suspect as to the quality of WikiNews' editorial staff... who is picking these stories to be featured? They are being covered already, what happened to the obscure stuff? Allen750 ( talk) 11:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What do people think about histmerging the Main Page with Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS? This idea's come up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 2, where the /CSS page was nominated for deletion. I don't believe it necessary, or even useful, because it was basically a test page that, when complete, was properly merged with attribution to the Main Page. However, Steel1943 (nominator at RFD, who apparently now doesn't want it to be deleted) has asked stewards for a histmerge here. I've opposed the request because we ought not go deleting the Main Page without consensus here first, so please offer opinions on whether we ought to merge or not. Note that two stewards have chimed in so far at Meta: Ajraddatz suggests using some new histmerge tool (which wouldn't require deletion?), which I oppose because I don't think that merger is necessary, while Snowolf has simply agreed with my contention that the stewards shouldn't take action without consensus here first. All the more reason to start discussing now. Nyttend ( talk) 21:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
So, I really don't understand how the subject of how many views the redirect receives has anything to do with this discussion, given that this discussion is solely about history merging.
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The expression "Eight years after the inauguration of the manifest" is meaningless. Deipnosophista ( talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The expression "Eight years after the inauguration of the manifest" is meaninglessis itself meaningless, because I had no idea what issue the OP is pointing out. To me, it sounded like he was saying that there was something grammatically or syntactically incorrect, like you can't use the word "inauguration" in this context. I would have been happy to fix the phrasing, perhaps by finding out which 'manifest' the expression was talking about. But I couldn't decipher what he was talking about (or even what you were talking about), so we were just left with the error all day. This is why the instructions at the top of WP:ERRORS say "Be specific"; otherwise it's a guessing game, and we have less than 24 hours to solve the riddle. -- tariqabjotu 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
James Molyneaux was very well known, at the moment the on-display feature only gives Dave MacKay, can I suggest Molyneaux is featured for people to see? -- !BSGT! ( talk) 17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
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 175 | ← | Archive 180 | Archive 181 | Archive 182 | Archive 183 | Archive 184 | Archive 185 |
Today's third DYK teaser:
"Oh?! Huh?? Is this something I've missed in the news?" (Click on link. See page title.) " HMS Alceste (1806). I guess not."
I'd like to propose that we take a second look at the wording of DYK teasers before we post them. If they are liable to be understood as referring significant current or recent news, but are actually about events that are well beyond "news", we should make it clear right there.
If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu ( talk) 08:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Useless discussion about logging in |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Surely anybody who for any reasons has not signed in and is going to send money to WP will have done so by now - getting to have rather a negative effect. Is there not a better way? 108.171.128.162 ( talk) 14:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Most WP-users who check WP using computers they are not signed into WP on are going to be irritated by the persistence of 'please support WP financially' at times (and 'why bother signing in just to read something up or correct a typo'): perhaps there should be brief adverts on a more frequent basis. Descending into 'same to you' discussions does not help. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
'Short and sweet' or 'long and loud'; asking everybody, or only those who do not sign in for whatever reasons: the choice is up to WP. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
NoScript is a ridiculous way to use the internet, however, if you can, I use adblock plus to banish the banner. I'm not donating, or creating a new account, until someone apologizes for calling me stupid. -- 66.56.0.66 ( talk) 16:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
2004 – A 9.3 magnitude earthquake creates a tsunami causing devastation in Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Maldives and many other areas around the rim of the Indian Ocean, killing over 230,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The section "More than 1.000.000" doesn't contain the Waray-Waray (1.25 mil.), the Cebuano (1.2 mil.), and the Tiếng Việt (1.11 mil.). (see here) Greetings, -- 80.123.29.15 ( talk) 19:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good to see the top level editors are apparently extremely childish. Of all the fascinating and informative articles in Wikipedia, this is what people are greeted with. Good job, you ever so clever winners. Geofferic T• C✡ 09:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting choice, throwing the word "Fuck" front and center for all main page visitors during the religious holiday season and during Wikipedia's biggest fundraiser of the year. I realize Wikipedia Isn't Censored, but does anyone around here know the difference between "I can" and "I should"? Townlake ( talk) 00:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI for anyone interested, the discussion can be found here. 331dot ( talk) 00:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I went straight to the talk page in anticipation of this thread as soon as I saw the featured article. Let's see: Something something think of the children something something. There, that about sums it up. Carry on. -- WaltCip ( talk) 04:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw the discussion regarding having this item on the main page, but it was closed before I got the opportunity to comment. I remember one of the main arguments was that it was several months since the last time the featured article contained a swear word. I wanted to pose the question then, but I'll mention it as a rhetorical now - when would repetition become too much? Once a month? Why not replace Friday's featured list with a "Fuck off Friday" collection of rude jokes? (By notable comedians of course) AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 06:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
What I have said previously on similar occasions - perhaps there could be a 'vanilla/child-, library-, work- and someone peering over your shoulder at your device on public transport- safe' English Main Page and one that covers 'more exotic topics.' Thus both sides can be happy (and a broader range of 'MP pick and mix of topics you didn't know you wished to know about.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Both the FA director and one of his delegates at the Today's Featured Article request page were chased off by the SAME (finally and eventually banned) sockmaster. With that sockmaster, by the way, when the director and I sought support from the arbs, we were silenced by a (now gone in disgrace) arb; it was not until after the FA pages had been assaulted for months that the community finally banned the sockmaster on other matters. As all of that happened, many editors, (FA-involved and otherwise) were either silent, or joined in support of the Merry Band of Socks chasing off the director (actually, in a deliberate breaching experiment regarding the scheduling of another TFA).
So, to anyone who was an active editor and did nothing when all of this was happening and is now here complaining: take your tomato. You're part of it.
If you were silent when socks chased off the FA director, this is where that ends. If that is so troubling to any of you, then go read the discussion of how we nowadays, in the absence of an FA director, appoint new coordinators empowered to decide what goes on the main page, not only TFA. ( Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator).
And if you don't read the whole thing and weigh in, then please hold your tongue the next time you don't like a TFA selection. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The Project needs to represent itself with a certain level of decorum befitting the world's most popular online encyclopedia. Running a Featured Article that is essentially the F-bomb does not pass the smell test. If Wikipedia wants to be respected, it needs to act like an adult. Imagine if Presidente Obama went on TV and started throwing around the F word. Could he? Sure he could, technically. Should he? No, it would be a terrible idea, and I don't need to explain why. Or more to the point, imagine if the Gray Lady, the NY Times, ran a front page headline with the F-bomb in it. Could they? Sure, freedom of the press. But would they be particularly more or less respected and esteemed afterwards? Less. It's not about prudishness or phobia of the word, and it's not about WP:NOTCENSORED. It's about acting appropriately. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but we are not handcuffed by that one policy. And WP:NOTCENSORED sure as hell is not a mandate to feature profanity. I strongly disagree with any editor who insists on a course of action that results in Wikipedia featuring items like this in the name of protection of free speech or whatever similar intellectual libertarianist argument. Free speech is not remotely in danger here. And Wikipedia is not your personal vehicle for attempting to change the public's generally accepted idea of what is or is not generally proper conduct. What are you here to do—organize and share the world's information, or attempt to shock people and push your personal agenda on them? Darkest Tree Talk 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Why can't Wikipedia's editors assume the burden of knowing what's best for the little people on the side of class instead of crass? I believe a front page should be suitable for "all audiences", with shocking, in-your-face, "I'm twelve and you're not the boss of me" content profusely included in the pages where appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.238.90 ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Pee po belly bum drawers. Again. 80.3.72.207 ( talk) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
talk:86.136.150.146|talk]]) 00:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The saddest parts of these discussions is the people who seem to honestly believe that the thing was posted out of a juvenile desire to be offensive, as though that were the only conceivable explanation. What strange and sheltered lives these people must live if they think that anybody who claims to not think exactly like them is merely pretending to not think like them for the purpose of causing trouble. APL ( talk) 00:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
(break for ease of use)
My suggestion above was more to have the 'alternative or vanilla version' available for those who would prefer such things in a given context (and the present tutti-frutti version at other times): there could also be the jalapeno pepper version for those so inclined (and also US-centric/cute animal-centric and other version Main Pages). More people would be happy more of the time (and there would be more opportunities for good material to appear on some main page). Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There is going to be 'one thing on the main page' every few months that causes wailing and gnashing of teeth and reference to
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (and whatever the WP equivalent of
Mary Whitehouse happens to be) - and not always an obvious topic.
Jackiespeel (
talk)
23:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
WP users #know# that WP contains many articles on topics that annoy, offend or simply are of negative interest to them: and that they are likely to come across some of them by clicking on blue links/'looking up some obscure reference' etc. #But# this is a matter of choice/deliberate intent.
The Main Page is how WP presents itself to the English speaking world (and others who happen to be strolling through the various language main pages), and is likely to be accessed by people having a tea-break or otherwise in a context where certain topics are likely to cause discomfort (not everybody likes tea/coffee flavoured soggy biscuits) #however# well written or interesting the article. Most of these topics can be predicted and will cause the same, sometimes knee-jerk, reactions. There will also be an element of 'my taste/what annoys me, your taste/what annoys you.'
WP is not censored - but there has to be some compromise between 'totally vanilla' MP contents (the search box is not the same - the MP is, as I have said on occasion, useful for finding 'things you didn't know you wanted to know') and 'if it meets the good writing/notability etc standards carry on regardless publish and be damned.'
The trouble is - there is no consensus on where after 'er, what??' the 'appropriate for MP' boundary is - and if there were an en [3]WP page some people would go there just for the frisson. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing that should be made clearer here is that both the article being discussed here (the book Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties), and the previous one (the documentary film Fuck) were brought to featured article standards by the same editor ( User:Cirt). I raised this point in an amendment request made by Cirt back in March 2014 to an arbitration restriction he remains under. It is worth reading through the amendment request to see what Cirt said there about his motivations for working on this topic (you will need to also read what I said there, the comments Cirt is responding to). The issue was touched on there of niche topics versus broad ones. Cirt has also worked on other niche articles related to freedom of speech and censorship, some of which have also been featured. It is trivial to find articles in this topic area that have words in their titles that will generate the kind of debate seen here. It is also trivial to find articles in this topic area that don't generate that kind of debate. Cirt does work on both, but has he focused more on the articles that shock than the ones that don't? The jury may still be out on that, but I think a pattern is emerging. What is clear is that Cirt works on books and films about a niche area of freedom of speech and censorship, some of which have words in their titles that can shock when featured on Wikipedia's front page, and some that don't (e.g. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth). Cirt also nominates the articles to appear on Wikipedia's front page. Should the nomination of niche articles with 'shock' value worked on by the same author be encouraged or discouraged (remembering we are all ultimately volunteers)? Personally, I'd discourage it in favour of working on and nominating broader level topics with more educational value (e.g. the articles freedom of speech and censorship themselves), but I fear that Cirt may see some of the discussion here as an encouragement to work on another niche book or film article that will provoke a similar reaction. Whether that will happen, only time will tell. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
My question to you would be whether Wikipedia, by featuring articles on books and films (and any other 'named' objects) with provocative titles, should be proxying for that sort of attention grabbing?
This is part of the point people made in the earlier discussions that featuring niche topics such as books and films unavoidably ends up promoting both those books and films and their tone or attitude, even if done in a NPOV and dispassionate manner.
As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there. I would look askance at anyone who repeatedly pushed provocative topics to the front page
(you see this to some extent in DYK as well).
As far as I can tell, no one is saying, going out of the way to find the topics -- going out of the way to promote them is another matter, and is undisputed,
along with Fuck the movie, and Fuck the book, being repetitious matter.
That also has nothing to do with neutrality. We all make editorial judgments when we write articles, we make other editorial judgments when we promote them for the main page (they are far from the same decision) - the notion that that later decision is being "neutral" is just not in keeping with the meaning of neutral.
How can you dispute that the Pedia took a long conversation to come to little or no consensus on putting the article on the main page;
how can you dispute that the nominator made the extra effort with notices all over to promote it to the main page.
Have you sought to put every article you created on the main page, because there is certainly nothing requiring you to,
and it does take extra effort that is not writing articles.
Your excuse for repetition is merely an acknowledgement of repetition
- as for how you draw parallels between different species of mushroom, and different storms, and the subject of one word is rather bizarre but more so unpersuasive.
The issue is not deeming any article subject good or bad, the issue is using the editorial power and function to put it on the main page - that has nothing to do with neutrality - neutrality would be, it does not matter if it is on the main page.
The TFA coordinator said in the close they found less "or" "no consensus".
So for all these reasons I find that many of the "oppose" arguments are either off-topic or weaker than their numerical presence might at first blush suggests. Looking for strength of arguments, then, my conclusion is that there is consensus, albeit weaker than in the previous TFAR discussion, in favour of running the article as requested. If I am wrong about that, then there is not a consensus against running the article, and in the absence of a consensus to change the default position (that all TFAs are eligible for the main page) then I take the view that it is eligible.
The nominator went out of his way to get this put on the main page ("extra effort" as you admit to be)
(-- you also apparently missed the plea of the coordinator in the close for the nominator to stop it).
The repetition of subject is apparent in the titles, and in the subject matter,
both dealing with treatments of one word.
Your last point is irrelevant because you keep insisting that it is not judgement and an act of will to put something on the main page, but you are wrong about that
-- and you already admitted that getting it on the main page is not writing articles for the encyclopedia.
You admitted that it is not writing articles for the encyclopedia,
so your penultimate last point is about writing the encyclopedia is irrelevant.
You have admitted that the nominator made "extra effort"
(which is the same as 'out of his way')
to put what you admit are two repetitious articles on the main page.
You apparently admit that the closer found "weaker" consensus and alternatively no consensus.
You apparently admit the closer pleaded with the nominator not to do this again in the closing statement
- as for "bad faith" no one said that but you
As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there.
(which is probably a sign of your bad faith
or just failure to read what other people have written).
Basically: . 'Some articles' meet the criteria of FA status but are on topics which are considered unsuitable to ever feature on the MP; other potential FAs are 'likely to generate much discussion because of words used, or particular topics (medical, war/violence/'bad taste' etc), and some are debate generators because of particular circumstances/they appear (possibly accidentally) in conjunction with other topics.
The debate is how to balance WP MP freedom of expression and 'the requirements of good taste, computer filters and tea breaks' in the latter two cases.
There are also going to be many articles that reach FA status and are unlikely to cause much debate (beyond 'this is the Xth article on subject Y in Z days') but for which there is no MP space - how can they be showcased? Would a 'FA showcase' which does not have the restrictions/constraints (of all kinds) of the Main Page get round the issues raised by this particular article? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not know how practical a Featured Article showcase would be - but it would be one way of 'dealing with' Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page and could be run on slightly different lines to the Main Page (pages show for eg a week; former FAs; and can have themed selections etc). The intent would be to show WP articles at their best not to exclude them from the MP. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We can't satisfy or even interest all the people all the time - we just have to find ways of maximizing the sum of WP happiness (and getting people involved) Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I honestly can't believe the massive controversy this has caused. I honestly think that the attitude that " horrific deplorable violence is okay, so long as people don't say any naughty words" is being adopted here. I mean, seriously, it's a legitimate topic, there's no reason to hide the article just because some people don't like the word "fuck". That's what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about. Sceptre ( talk) 02:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
OP admits to WP:POINT. No further discussion needed -- Jayron 32 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Summing up:
Wikipedia aims to cover all things, including topics people individually find totally uninteresting and also those they find unpleasant, offensive or otherwise wish to have nothing to do with.
The Main Page serves to both provide links to material that people might find interesting/would not otherwise have looked at and also to showcase well designed articles/the best of WP's writing.
There are certain topics which are felt not to be suited for mention on the MP - some adult themes, some language use, various very medical/violence/war, 'topics which annoy library and workplace filters', 'topics which do not go with hot drink and biscuit breaks', 'topics which it is felt might cause upset to young persons', 'topics which conflict with certain cultural and social preferences' and others.
What balance should there be between these three aspects - where along the line between 'totally vanilla' and 'anything and everything goes' should the balance be?
The nature and intent of Wikipedia is in part about thinking imaginatively - what solutions can we think of that satisfy most people?
I suggested a showcase of Potential Featured Articles - given that there are so many and the range they cover, 'images and brief quotes' might be more enticing than a list of titles. This could also be used for certain other categories of article (the usual 'too many links in category X'). Would this resolve the situation? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we agree that my definition of what the MP is 'for' is a reasonable one.
'Certain topics' (some of which can be identified ahead of time) are likely to generate much discussion on this talk pages for the reasons I mention above. (As a side question - do topics below the FA placement area generate anything like the discussion of the FA and ITN?). The question is - how should we balance what people in general are willing to have on the MP (in a range of contexts) with showing what 'those working on Wikipedia as a whole' are capable of achieving, regardless of the topic of the article?
I was arguing the case for providing more ways of accessing Featured Content articles (given their number and the limitations of the Main Page), rather than removing the field from the Main Page. Themed selections with hooks are more enticing than the long lists of headers at Wikipedia:Featured articles.
It is better to suggest possible alternatives than to complain. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
'People in general' do not complain much about the MP (and know they can comment here about it), so the mixture is probably broadly right and could possibly include slightly more variety. The location of the text or image may affect how much comment is generated (do people scroll down the page?) - but while the smallpox picture generated comment but the recent cancer picture did not. 'What is allowed/accepted' (even if passively 'it will be gone in a while'/'it doesn't bother me but it might others') is probably nearer the middle of the line between 'totally vanilla' and 'anything goes.'
'Reversing the polarity' - given the number of entries on the Featured Content list and the limited space on the Main Page what can be done to show 'the best that Wikipedia can produce' (insofar as the MP serves that purpose)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
If we are going to start banning topics from the Main Page that people find offensive, then I also want my say on topics that I find offensive. As an atheist, I find any mention of religion on the Main Page to be offensive, including any references to religious holidays such as Christmas and Easter. I should not be forced to read about religious topics in TFA or view religious iconography in TFP. Rreagan007 ( talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have little interest in sport but I don't complain about references to such appearing on the main page: and I have suggested in the past that there could be a 'computer filter and hot drink-and-biscuit appropriate MP and a more vibrant one (and possibly even a-reverse-of-vanilla version): it would then be up to the reader to choose which one they wanted - and there would be the occasional article on the vanilla version which would annoy people regardless.
Can we now discuss how to make the range of 'potential featured articles' more generally accessible to WP users (my other point). Should there be a 'random potential featured article' button next to the 'random page' one (and possibly a 'random page with an improvement tag' on it)? Should the various portals have their own local Main Pages (increasing the opportunities for featuring material? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The function of the MP is to show what can be done with articles on WP, to interest people in topics they might not otherwise have looked at, and occasionally to startle them.
Some articles 'of their nature' are likely to cause much negative discussion if appearing on the main page - but some which one might have expected to so do will not.
Others may or may not cause discussion for a variety of reasons, (including the time of year/what else is going on in the world/the other things on the MP on that day or the previous few days/people are startled by the topic).
Much of the time there is 'positive or neutral comment' about WPs front page.
Sometimes discussions about the MP become warmer than expected, whatever the original topic of discussion.
If there was #never# any negative opinions (however mild) about the MP there would be something wrong.
People use WP for many reasons: how can they be persuaded to engage and improve it, and to what extent can the MP be used to encourage them to do so? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Till the next MP entry (or group of entries) that turns into a discussion generator. :) Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to put out that what I have read about what you have said and you are wrong it is not fake I mean obviously parts are like when Bernice hits people or the other drivers do it but that is cause of the cameras and non off you are saying that is not the case that you guys wont play up a little but the word is reality documentary I do not agree with things like tension at the end off each episode I also watch south beach tow every night 5 nights a week Mon-Fri and in the credits it does not stat nothing about based on real events and I know cause it is what happens also I do not agree that the other drivers they might have are not on television and should come on screen
Kudos re selection of Adrianne Wadewitz's video "The Impact of Wikipedia" – about educational uses of WP – in FP slot. Sca ( talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I've created this page. I hope it's alright... but no other article links to it and I think this has to replace the 2014 statistics page, which is incomplete.-- MJ for U ( talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It would, for me, be preferable to have a "Je Suis Charlie" image on 'in the news', rather than the plane which crashed last week. Any possibility? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
What even is a "je suis charlie"? 184.159.128.154 ( talk) 16:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
One word - much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Nude painting - no comment.
Why? 128.127.29.19 ( talk)
Not complaining (except, perhaps, there could be the occasional nude male to balance things out) - just noticing 'not accounting for what causes complaint' (could add the recent 'rather medical on the non-squawking side).
Much Wailing (whether or not on the Marsh) - traditional phrase. 128.127.29.19 ( talk) 18:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No comment from me thus far since I've complained about a similar MP image choice before and don't anticipate receiving any more sympathy now than I did then. But since it's been brought up... yes, I understand WP:CENSOR but I fail to see how inclusion of nude paintings or photographs on the main page reflects the principles of user choice and least astonishment ( [4]). Some of us out there don't want to see those images and can choose not to view articles where they are likely to be present, but putting them on the MP takes away that choice. WP:CENSOR states that content relevant to an article's topic should not be removed solely on the basis of "being objectionable", but I don't see how it precludes giving consideration to the fact that some users find certain types of content objectionable when making content decisions for the main page (even if many others don't share those views). Jonhall ( talk) 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(reset) The IP is commenting on 'the absence of reaction' rather than 'the presence of an image.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
As a series of generalisations
Most entries on the MP will generate no or neutral comments. ('Too many on a particular topic in several days', 'Should be on/removed from ITN', 'Nice picture' etc)
A few topics are felt on various grounds to be unsuitable for the MP, and either are kept off it or generate much complaint and discussion when they do.
Some topics will generate more discussion than would be expected. Others will generate less discussion than might be expected.
Many more will fall into the category 'not really my taste, but it will be gone soon', and most into the 'WP has to cater for most-to-all viewpoints, interests and tastes' categories.
It is when discussions of this nature stop happening that WP will have serious problems. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (modifying slightly)
The IP's 'One word', and also a while back the picture of someone with smallpox (a disease which nobody will probably otherwise encounter) generated much discussion on the balance between 'Wikipedia being not censored' and 'what is considered not acceptable on the main page.'
A picture that is described on the MP as having been considered voyeuristic, and a photograph of a cancer (which disease people might encounter) just sit there with nobody feeling strongly enough about them to comment.
An observation on the MP talk page on this divergence of reaction leads to a discussion on WP not being censored - which does seem to be a slight non sequitur. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the magic word {{noexternallinks}}
doesn't work any more on main page. --
Holder (
talk)
21:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The Magic Words are Squeamish Ossifrage may also apply :) Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
{{noexternallanglinks}}
, note there is also a manual addition of links form {{
Main Page interwikis}}. —
xaosflux
Talk
16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Pictured twice on the Main Page 18.01.15. (Perhaps it should be promoted to El Mayor?) Sca ( talk) 15:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Different subject here, but today it's the picture in the news, and Media Viewer isn't working on it. All the other pictures do though. ??? Eman235/ talk 19:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
... seems to have swallowed up everything in the vicinity on the General discussion area.
Anyone care to discuss this latest manifestation of ' Black Hole Wikipedia'? 108.171.128.162 ( talk) 18:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
(reset) Either 'notice something on the MP' or have an automatic 'normal (discussion) service will be resumed as soon as possible' notice (which disappears as soon as something is written and saved). Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Could someone edit and correct the title for the article Hard Labor Creek Reservoir to read as Hard Labor Creek Regional Reservoir? Thanks!
I brought up the issue at WP:ITN/C, but it's closed as not a nomination. I tried to file an error report, but it got reverted. Should the link change to " War in Donbass" or stay as "War in Ukraine"? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that the FA and POTD are a nice touch. Now I wish I had a valentine. Isa ( talk) 07:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:1779 – English explorer James Cook was killed during a fight against Native Hawaiians near Kealakekua on the Island of Hawaii." Uhm....seriously. I left that alone to see how we would treat that but it seems that we just used " Native Hawaiian" as a default instead of linking the encyclopedic articles with even a little more detail. Even the Cook article has enough there to state that "Cook was killed when he tried to kidnap Kalaniʻōpuʻu, the ruling chief of the Island of Hawaii". I wonder if it can still be updated? The page for February 14 is locked. Yes...I wrote some of these articles but they are sourced and neutral and go into far more detail than a claim he was killed in a "fight against" Native Hawaiians.
Yes...I am complaining, sorry for that, but I am also trying to point out we have so much on the encyclopedia that could be linked.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems that rivers/creeks in Pennsylvania are mentioned in the Did You Know section a LOT. Not just more than average, but enough to make it look obviously intentional. I'm sure I've seen at least 6 in the past 6 months, probably more. Any one else notice this? I feel like there's some inside joke I'm missing out on... 2601:9:3740:2E:7C80:D7EC:C4CB:F8E4 ( talk) 23:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(reset) I meant in the sense of 'developing articles in your areas of interest sufficiently for them to appear on the main page.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 23:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
We have every news station covering the grammys, movie awards, etc. etc. Wikipedia used to display other significant news, news that was actually new to most of us (and very rarely covered by other news organizations). It's a shame to see that the news on en.wikipedia.org is so entirely mainstream. Allen750 ( talk) 07:26, 15 February 2015 (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.
I think the currently featured Tintin in the Congo is appalling in the ignorance of its approach. It makes no attempt to put the strip in the historical context of the Congo Free State propaganda war and the dire circumstances in even the 'reformed' Belgian Congo, but instead makes a superficial, modern analysis of things like how bad it is that a character is shown going on safari. And I'm getting reverted in entirety for bogus reasons by the proprietor. Perhaps I rushed too much to do something but can someone help out? Wnt ( talk) 21:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to know how to start a page for my grandfather,he was 7"11 and wore a size 16 shoe. He famous in the town I live in and the maritime museum has a life size exhibit of him. I am from southport NC, his name is Elias G. Gore aka Nehi and he was a menhaden fisherman who met Babe Ruth while on a fishing trip. Julia Edge ( talk) 19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Mobile users see a very reduced version of the main page. [7] only displays Today's featured article and In the news. It's supposed to be helpful that the page is smaller but I think many want the full version so we should make it easy to get that. [8] shows that Main Page is currently only transcluded in user pages which are hard to find, for example User:Liangent/Main Page where mobile users see the full [9]. Can we make a "Full Main Page" link which is only shown to mobile users? We should of course choose a better name than some user page but a mainspace page may be controversial. Or is there another way to give mobile users an option to see the full main page? PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The illustration for a place in "present-day Texas" is the moon. -- 142.33.163.121 ( talk) 19:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Main page has a history of showing unusual biases, but today's favoritism of a common solvent is pushing things. FA has a picture of showing salt water, DYK's picture shows fresh water, and FP displays frozen water. On to of this, SA/OTD lists flooding and has a picture of a lunar sea. -- Allen3 talk 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
When will this discussion gurgle down the plughole? Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"1965 – Black nationalist Malcolm X (pictured) was assassinated while giving a speech in New York City's Audubon Ballroom." - is it reasonable or accurate to describe X as a "Black nationalist" at the time of his death? I'm unsure - given just how much his views changed in the year leading up to his assassination. Just curious. -- Shannon Dal ( talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Today is not only Language Movement Day in Bangladesh but it is also International Mother Language Day. It is strange that International Mother Language day is not listed on "On this day...". -- Sajibur ( talk) 09:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
In discussions related to this cascade protection change, we (the MediaWiki Core Team) have determined that the method used for cacscade protecting the main page at present is not perfect. The cascade protection for Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow could be updated before the cascade protection for the actual main page, giving a brief window for main page vandalism. I'm going to add {{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow}}||}} to the main page, which will cause the next day's TFA/TFP templates to be continuously protected across the transition at midnight, without causing any change to the output. -- Tim Starling ( talk) 23:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
09:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
23:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations for this day's articles, mainly about Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil (1845-1847). We are very proud of English Wikipedia. Claudio Pistilli ( talk) 16:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In scanning the "In The News" section, I noticed what I believe to be a new entry, regarding Nascar, posted below the already existing entry concerning the movie Birdman. Might I recommend not publishing new entries to "In The News" below existing entries? It makes it harder to scan for new news items, and shows a bias in the editors opinion on what is more newsworthy. (Movies versus Nascar, which in this case, I agree on, but that's beside the point.) 164.58.21.70 ( talk) 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like the mainpage to have a link to Wikimedia above Wikimedia Shop.-- Wouter Drucker ( talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
For the benefit of readers of the main page, you may like to know that a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article on whether to remove the "..." at the end of ( Full article...) in TFA blurbs. (Logic would suggest that any changes to TFA practice on this point ought to be matched at TFL for consistency of main-page presentation.) Please discuss there, not here, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Bencherlite Talk 20:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This may not be the best forum for this, but I think every time someone puts a personal bio/resumé on this page an admin should make the content invisible (except, I guess, to admins) after it's reverted. Maybe the message will get through.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Why only 5 items are listed in the OTD section? Why so much space is left blank?-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 05:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
'IT's not cricket' :) Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem with cricket - it cannot be described in one sentence (golf and snooker - get the balls in the holes in the right order'; football 'get more goals than the other side, do not invoke the offside rule and do not annoy the referee'; tennis 'keep the ball in the air and get the other side to drop it or put it in the net' etc). 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 16:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there could be 'a list of strange sounding sporting terms' with a link thereto for April 1. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Showing pictures of soldiers who recently have received a Victoria Cross might be symptomatic of some sort of bias. (I am not trying to belittle the actions of the mentioned soldier. He is likely an overachiever amongst his British peers.) Although i am not a fan of Taliban or groups fighting in Syria, will the front page be showing pictures of their overachievers, at the same rate that the front page might continue to show pictures of Western soldiers who are the flavour of the hour? -- Dourkenw ( talk) 10:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(reset) Until the MP is sufficiently large to accommodate all particular interests (including the partially overlapping areas 'no US-themed references' and 'no sporting references' there will be such complaints. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's notable enough to be mentioned in the "On this Day". '''tAD''' ( talk) 10:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
A few years ago Wikipedia's English Main Page covered news that major news networks did not -- significantly important subjects that were not related to... the Grammys, or terrorist attacks, or etc., etc..
Exactly - why is, for example, the result of the Estonian national election still not "in the news", but some academy awards (for a film that few people watched) still "in the news" after more than a week? 90.199.157.132 ( talk) 12:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I am suspect as to the quality of WikiNews' editorial staff... who is picking these stories to be featured? They are being covered already, what happened to the obscure stuff? Allen750 ( talk) 11:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What do people think about histmerging the Main Page with Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS? This idea's come up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 2, where the /CSS page was nominated for deletion. I don't believe it necessary, or even useful, because it was basically a test page that, when complete, was properly merged with attribution to the Main Page. However, Steel1943 (nominator at RFD, who apparently now doesn't want it to be deleted) has asked stewards for a histmerge here. I've opposed the request because we ought not go deleting the Main Page without consensus here first, so please offer opinions on whether we ought to merge or not. Note that two stewards have chimed in so far at Meta: Ajraddatz suggests using some new histmerge tool (which wouldn't require deletion?), which I oppose because I don't think that merger is necessary, while Snowolf has simply agreed with my contention that the stewards shouldn't take action without consensus here first. All the more reason to start discussing now. Nyttend ( talk) 21:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
So, I really don't understand how the subject of how many views the redirect receives has anything to do with this discussion, given that this discussion is solely about history merging.
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The expression "Eight years after the inauguration of the manifest" is meaningless. Deipnosophista ( talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The expression "Eight years after the inauguration of the manifest" is meaninglessis itself meaningless, because I had no idea what issue the OP is pointing out. To me, it sounded like he was saying that there was something grammatically or syntactically incorrect, like you can't use the word "inauguration" in this context. I would have been happy to fix the phrasing, perhaps by finding out which 'manifest' the expression was talking about. But I couldn't decipher what he was talking about (or even what you were talking about), so we were just left with the error all day. This is why the instructions at the top of WP:ERRORS say "Be specific"; otherwise it's a guessing game, and we have less than 24 hours to solve the riddle. -- tariqabjotu 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
James Molyneaux was very well known, at the moment the on-display feature only gives Dave MacKay, can I suggest Molyneaux is featured for people to see? -- !BSGT! ( talk) 17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)