Talk:Main Page/Archive 171

--24.171.120.83 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)×

WP:TAFI
A discussion is taking place here over whether the Main Page could be used to further the project's goals, namely promoting collaboration and encouraging potential new editors to take that first step. For those interested, this week's article for improvement is List of food preparation utensils. —WFC— FL wishlist 07:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only comment related to the Main Page there is 'Keep asking for the Main page', which doesn't really explain things. What are you trying to suggest? Modest Genius talk 12:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Their project is currently advertised from Community portal, and they want to be mentioned and linked directly from the Main Page. However, their predecessor was similarly banished to the community portal. Art LaPella (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Maybe they should say so, if they want editors here to comment. Modest Genius talk 12:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Error in Did You Know?
"Frank Chance (pictured) pursued a career in dentistry" The word "pursue" can mean to attempt to get, but when it is combined with "a career in," the generally accepted meaning is to practice. I went to the Wik page on Chance and found nothing indicating that he ever was a practicing dentist. All I found was that he studied dentistry. Kdammers (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To suggest changes to the hook, please go to WP:ERRORS above. --70.50.203.214 (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Marxist undertones in tagline of news story
"In the ongoing South African miners' strike, Anglo American Platinum fires 12,000 workers."

The term "workers" refers to an assumed classful distinction between "workers" and "capitalists". I propose changing the end of the sentence from "fires 12,000 workers" to "fires 12,000 employees". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTaylor (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In many contexts 'workers' and 'employees' are used more or less interchangeably - much like rectangles and oblongs. 93.97.45.17 (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't see it as having Marxist undertones. I would take the words to be perfect synonyms.  -- Jayron  32  18:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, they're not synonyms. In the non-legal sense, a worker is anyone who works, in any capacity, whereas an employee clearly has, at least, an employer. In UK law, they are different categories: anyone who works on behalf of any other person or body is a worker (I think); an employee has a contract and significantly more rights and entitlements. It may be that SA law is similar, but I don't know.


 * However - secondly, this complaint is obviously nonsense. The word 'worker' is an ordinary English word, used millions of times a day without people generally pushing a Marxist position to do so. Heavens, 'capitalist' (which certainly is, in origin, a Marxist term) is used by non-Marxists pretty frequently. I propose rejecting the proposed edit with great vigour. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Etymologically speaking "capitalist" is NOT a Marxist term — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTaylor (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking it up, I see that you are technically correct. Which has zero bearing on the utter spuriousness of your original claim and suggestion. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 0_o Resolute 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Alec, how about another glass of KoolAid? Help yourself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose we change it to say "12,000 proletarians" :) Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dreams of a worker's republic in South Africa are brutally suppressed as the platinum-hungry bourgeois quash the likelihoods of twelve thousand noble proletarians"? Has my support. GRAPPLE   X  21:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

what do i put hee
this articale shuod be deleteed becuz its no information and i ts stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.141.222 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which article are you having trouble with? Also, you may get a better response at Help desk or Reference desk depending on the nature of your problem.  And you'll definitely get a better response if you take the time to type in proper, standard English.  -- Jayron  32  04:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not bad astrony but best astronomy
There appears to be a piece of vandalism on the main page in the DYK section. The Discover price was not for Bad Astronomy Photgraph but for Best astronomy photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.104.73 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, although the "Bad Astronomy" part is correct, the text, imho, seems to suggest that the award "recognizes" (pans) poor work.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  14:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The text does no such thing and is perfectly correct, in fact one of the most intriguing hooks I've seen for some time. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Bad Astronomy website is rather fun and quite fascinating. Very first link if you search for it on Google -- which could be another reason for the name. - Tenebris 04:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.167 (talk)

Nobel prize?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physiology_or_Medicine

But the featured synopsis says otherwise for 2012! - Unless it's for 2013, in either case updates are required!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTaylor (talk • contribs) 12:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, AlecTaylor, this is a wiki. Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --174.89.157.213 (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Link Clarification
In the "In the News" section, wouldn't it be better for the link that goes to Stem cell to go to Induced pluripotent stem cell? Induced pluripotent stem cells are what the Nobel Prize winners actually discovered, but right now the link just goes to the article for stem cells in general, and one would have to scroll down to get to the section that actually relates to their work. It seems like it would make more sense to format the link as "stem cells" (piped to Induced pluripotent stem cell), or for it to just say "induced pluripotent stem cells". Alphius (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gurdon did not work on iPSC, but nuclear transplantation. Strictly speaking, those were NOT stem cells, but cells that behaved like stem cells. The blurb on ITN is inaccurate. --174.89.157.213 (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gurdon's Nobel Prize was awarded "for the discovery that mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent". Our Somatic-cell nuclear transfer article indicates that the creation of stem cells is a major objective of the research.  —David Levy 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * that's correct. It would be better to use ""for the discovery that mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent"" on ITN. After nuclear transfer, the resultant cell is not stable enough to fully character what it is -- it starts to change and move into the "next stage" quite quickly. They for sure behave like stem cells. But are they stem cells? For how long? It's debatable. --174.89.157.213 (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you cite reliable sources discussing this debate? No such distinction is drawn in our Cell potency article.  —David Levy 10:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And iPSC were not discovered. They are ***induced***, or made in the lab. --174.89.157.213 (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We aren't stating that the cells were discovered; we're stating that the ability to create them was. (I quoted the Nobel Foundation's official wording above.)  —David Levy 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The error was Alphius's "Induced pluripotent stem cells are what the Nobel Prize winners actually discovered..." --174.89.157.213 (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. —David Levy 10:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Remote trivia as a hook on DYK
I would like to question why this DYK hook was let through. I quite understand that DYK hooks are often elements that appear trivial but yet are interesting leads into the article. However, I do not find the particular hook for Ars Nova particularly relevant. I presume the T-shirt was washed in the interim, but that's not the point. ;-) As the article's on the MP right now, as raison d'etre for the hook, I wanted to raise the matter here instead of removing that section like a piece of mindless trivia which, the last time I looked, was discouraged. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 02:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Better ask at WT:DYK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many trivial DYK blurbs. This is just one of very few produced by pop-culture enthusiasts. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have flagged this as a reach had I reviewed it, but I can spend my Wikitime either writing articles or reviewing DYK hooks and I choose the former. You're welcome to help review hook noms and weed these out. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Redesign of main page
I vaguely recall seeing a discussion about various options for main page improvement. Can someone please point me to it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:2012 main page redesign proposal. AIR corn (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How low we've sunk ...
A cute cat as our featured picture? It took long enough, but now we've reached the same level as the rest of the Internet. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could take a better picture that could be used as our featured picture, instead of bitching about it, Daniel? No, that's too difficult.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For Pete's sake I was 'joking. Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm offended and outraged, I have 3-year-old children who use Wikipedia who are subject to this, I will never donate to Wikimedia Foundation again, etc.--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, they don't want your money anyway. I on the other hand would welcome it with gratitude.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ITN being squeezed out
Over the last few days, I've noticed that ITN seems to be getting smaller and smaller. Right now, ITN doesn't have a picture and there are only four (fairly short) items in the section and still (at least at my resolution and with my serifed font), the right side is a bit longer than the left side. I'm not sure if the TFA blurbs have just been too short (although this has never been a problem in the past), but can we get a couple more DYK items or shorter or fewer OTD blurbs so we can give ITN some space? --  tariq abjotu  22:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I shortened two of the OTD blurbs, put the oldest item back in ITN, and put in a new picture. — howcheng  {chat} 03:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The licensing for that picture is quite suspect though. It says it's cropped from a picture it's clearly not cropped from. And even if it were, I'm not even sure that makes it free to use. If a copyrighted picture were displayed in public, can I just take a picture of it with my own camera and suddenly it's free? --  tariq abjotu  03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And the reason I didn't use the picture when posting the item. It appears to be a photo of an offical poster.  --Stephen 03:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Countdown to complaints that the Main Page is too bird-centric
in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Once again, Wikipedia displays it's shameful bias towards waterfowl in the TFA and featured picture. This is probably because there are so many admins who are birds, they lord it over all the non-bird editors. Just what I've come to expect from this place. No wonder Wikipedia has the reputation it has. I will no longer donate to a site displaying such a willful, arrogant favoritism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I Always Thought It Was Because Editors Who Like To Follow Victorian Capitalization Conventions Had No Other Venue To Get Their Preferred Style On The Main Page... Now I Know The Truth. That Also Explains Why They Wouldn't Work On Anything To Do With Apple Products.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowl comments indeed. The founder asking for donations to cover all the bills of WP, and ornithologists nesting all the content they want on the main-page. I'm sick as a parrot over it. 83.70.170.48 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you could say that on the main page...


 * Yeaaaaaaaah! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, but everyone loves birds. Just look at the number of people searching Wikipedia for cocks, tits, and boobies;-). --Allen3 talk 12:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That there are, that there are. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a serious side note: We've had this discussion before — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a seemingly never ending stream of "bias" threads. How many also taste like chicken? --Allen3 talk 12:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, though, it was witty the first time, now we are down by about 50 percent.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In my defense, I was unaware of the previous thread, so for me it's up by 50%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Quack. – H T  D  13:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A duck on the main page!!!!! Again! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's WP:DUCKSEASON. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't feed the pigeons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's RABBIT SEASON! — howcheng  {chat} 22:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You know what, I just can't take it anymore. This site has truly gone to the birds. --MuZemike 20:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just step back and look at yourselves. What a pathetic bunch of childish tits. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just trying to lighten the mood... You can't always be serious ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣  Talk  23:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like that bird flew over your nest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I saw it. After all, I'm no spring chicken.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks screwy
Is something wrong with the templates? They're all appearing in default-hidden mode with a "show" button needed to expand them.122.172.15.72 (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw it too - seems to have been corrected now.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed with this revert. Legoktm (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Page's new look akin to Emperor's new clothes
Getting on Wikipedia this morning I was surprised at seeing all of the usual boxes using the hide\show feature. Just like the story, the new features are a complete disaster. Not only do some of the boxes not show up when opened up, the new layout is a complete mess and sometimes does not even display properly. I wish a notification would have been added in the last few days before something this big was tested. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was merely a bug in some js. See the section above. Legoktm (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Cheers. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 11:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple english wikipedia?
Please excuse me, this is my first time on this talk page and I don't know if this has been discussed before. Should we add a prominent link to the Simple English wikipedia. I know it is linked in the side bar, but it seems that a person who would benefit from using it may not know it exists. Cadiomals (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's treated in the same fashion as other language wikis, as it works in the same fashion as other language wikis... so I'm not sure that's really possible. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Side Bar Change?
Has there been any thought to changing the template for the pages so that the side bar is seperate from the main page so that when you scroll down the main page you do not lose the side bar? You could use a frame to make it so that the side bar is always there when you get to the end of the long articles.Arthurrw (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would look terrible. There's a reason why major websites haven't done that since the 1990s. Besides, I don't think T:MP is the best place for the suggestion, try WP:VPR. Modest Genius talk 15:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is going on?
On this day section reads: "1987 – Sri Lankan Civil War: Indian Army soldiers, belonging to the Indian Peace Keeping Force, entered the Jaffna Teaching Hospital in Jaffna, Sri Lanka, and began killing about 68–70 patients, nurses, doctors and other staff members."

The article says it was an allegation? This is a serious claim coming from wikipedia's voice, this is derogatory and nothing has been proved yet. Indian peace keeping force killed patients, nurses, doctors and other staff members??? This sort of embellishment is disgusting to the point of being offensive. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page history, it appears that the use of language such as "alleged" has only been introduced with the most recent edit, which was today, after the OTD blurb was written and added. GRAPPLE   X  17:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It happened Mrt3366, there are no allegations here. It is a fact this happened and it is a blemish on the Indian armies honor. See Trauma, War, and Violence: Public Mental Health in Socio-Cultural Context p213 Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @DS, yes I am not saying it didn't happen what I am upset about is the over-simplistic diction, it rather discounts the complexities of the grave situation. Even the article itself needs work. Now, it seems that Indian Army just out of nothing decided to kill 70 people. This is not the case, this can never be the case with any event involving the military (they do not get to choose their targets). There are always two sides of a conflict. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I added a decent ref and also the correct range of those killed, the low end is 60. However only an admin can update the front page, so you will have to find one and ask him to edit the front page to reflect the change I made to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to "at least 60". — howcheng  {chat} 20:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day Error 10/22/12
The description reads that it is a photograph of a damselfly nymph. Damselflies undergoe complete metamorphosis and their nymphs are aquatic. The photograph is of a juvenile adult form or imago. It is scientifically incorrect to refer to that photograph as a nymph.70.119.233.170 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed the wording to read "immature Azure Damselfly" rather than nymph. -- Jayron  32  04:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong
I'm one of the people here who believes in BLP the least, and yet ... doesn't it seem odd to be running a big news item about this guy getting banned by a second bicycle group? I mean, it's not an important day in history. More to the point, it's a very negative charge against a person, and so far as I understand, it's not a conviction in a court of law, but merely under some kind of private sports arbitration which may not care about a reasonable-doubt standard. Not saying it shouldn't be in the article, but splashing this up on the front page for a week or whatever it takes for people to pass new news items, while we probably will end up ignoring little things like the third presidential debate and the latest installment in Iran saber-rattling ... it seems like a perverse use of Wikipedia's main page. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. This is probably the biggest fraud committed in sports for decades, and the culmination of it is more noteworthy than a debate (not an election, just a debate) or some other political dick-waving that has yet to result in a proper story. BLP only really applies when we're talking about dubious or undue claims, not something which is given the appropriate weight with a suitable number of reliable sources. GRAPPLE   X  21:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The best comparison I can think of off-hand is Ben Johnson. Resolute 22:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a huge deal, the worlds most well known cyclist being stripped of his titles. AIR corn (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is huge. Very much an international news item. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the newsworthiness of such articles?
"Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg, marries Countess Stéphanie de Lannoy." Is this considered to be a newsworthy headline in the eyes of the news editors? Why are we wasting space on such trivia? (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC) it turned out people are stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runner00 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a big box at the top of this page, so that if you feel your opinion worthy of autocracy, other editors can refute you here. 129.234.235.80 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"Recently featured" runs out quickly
I noticed that under "Today's featured article" there is a list which today reads: Is it possible to link that to the today's featured article archive so we can read the blurbs and also look back through previously featured articles? Or even better do it by month so it reads like: That way editors would only have to change it once a month and readers would have easy access to articles they have read or enjoyed in the recent past. It would also expose more readers to even more of Wikipedia's best content. At the moment once the today's featured articles go past three days it is nearly impossible to find them again and anyone who is a completely new reader with no experience probably can't find them at all. If they see something on a Monday but do not have spare time until the following Sunday it has disappeared from the Main Page by then into the depths of Wikipedia. --86.40.108.76 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Recently featured: Nixon in China – Introduction to viruses – Andjar Asmara"
 * "Recently featured: August – September – October."


 * There actually is a link to both the monthly TFA archive, and to all our featured articles ("Archive – By email – More featured articles...", where the "archive" link goes to the current month's TFA logs, and "More featured articles" shows every featured article in a list divided by category). Perhaps the link text could be made a little clearer but it present. GRAPPLE   X  22:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is also an "archive" under OTD and there are still links to the dates there. So why is it not the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.76 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

All Greek to me ...
... sorry, Latin. Today's top "Did you know ..." goes "... that the bolete mushrooms B. illudens, B. carminiporus (pictured), B. miniato-olivaceus, B. projectellus, B. rubripes, B. subvelutipes, Boletinellus merulioides, Phylloporus leucomycelinus, P. rhodoxanthus, Pulveroboletus ravenelii, and Suillus cothurnatus can be used to make dyes?" Who but a biologist or Latin scholar would bother or could even manage to read through that list? Why not something more along the lines of "... that certain bolete mushrooms, such as B. carminiporus (pictured), can be used to make dyes?" and let those interested find the list at the Bolete article ... but there is no such list there ... shouldn't there be though? J IM ptalk·cont 23:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Each of the bold links are intended to be specifically highlighted, dropping them would defeat the purpose of the hook there. If common names exist for them, though, it might be easier on the eye than the scientific names. GRAPPLE   X  23:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Then the purpose of the hook is to send people to these mushroom articles rather than to something about the use of mushrooms for dying. Of course, it's a bit late in the day to be concerned over this ... it's already tomorrow. J IM ptalk·cont 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't that rather obvious? And you don't need to pronounce it. Just click it. The DYK hook is something interesting about a newly created/expanded article. Dropping the subjects because they have names most people can't pronounce would be missing the point entirely.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  02:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Word usage - Locusta and Destroying Angel for dying with mushrooms, bolete mushrooms for dyeing with mushrooms. 93.97.45.17 (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

History of articles
Can I suggest an article that contains, in order, a list of created wiki articles from the first one down and a rule that, if this occurs, you must put your created page on the page immediatly or somehow does it automatically? I have only been on here for about 5 months and was only 2 or 3 when wikipedia started, so someone who knows the history of it that would help. It would have to be done in each language, of course. Thanks. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2012 (AEDST)
 * Nothing to do with the main page. Go to WP:VP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Em. Jee. Is Wikipedia now attracting editors who weren't even born when it was? (I know "2 or 3" is not exactly unborn but still, pretty DAMN close!!!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of WP articles (with 'several million more across all languages' of deleted and merged articles) probably impractical.

Perhaps a Wikipedia Book or Records - first article(s) in each language, most edited etc? 93.97.45.17 (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mightn't it be possible to query the database for a list of articles in order of creation? (Obviously there is no reason to have a user-maintained list - this would be eternally incomplete and needlessly duplicating.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in Wikipedia's oldest articles, Milestone articles or History of Wikipedian processes and people. BencherliteTalk 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What happened to deaths list?
I've been clicking on "recent deaths" for the past four years, and today it disappeared. fds Talk 00:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's now linked to in the "more" in "Recent deaths: Yash Chopra – George McGovern – more...". GRAPPLE   X  00:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very confusing. Could "Recent deaths: Yash Chopra – George McGovern – " please at least be changed to "Recent deaths: Yash Chopra  – George McGovern" The other way is unnecessary and hurts my eyes.
 * To be honest, that's initially what I assumed would have been done; I clicked the non-link "Recent deaths" a few times before I stopped yelling at the computer and realised something was amiss. GRAPPLE   X  00:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made the suggested change. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Odd that you two reacted that way. You do realize that "Recently featured" (in TFA and POTD) and "More anniversaries" (in OTD) aren't links either, right? ITN now looks like the odd one out, although I suppose such an arrangement allows three, instead of two, deaths to fit there. --  tariq abjotu  23:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the other sections should be changed, this way seems more efficient. --Khajidha (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No more complaints that the Main Page is too bird-centric
I'm glad all that larking around has ended and that the discussion has ceased to be. 78.144.205.123 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of it was indeed pretty cuckoo . . . Awien (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to crow about it any longer.  dci  &#124;  TALK   03:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but we do need to remain eagle-eyed to watch out for any signs of it starting up again. 2.97.31.6 (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Guess everything went tits up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful, people - retribution may be swift. Awien (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can swallow whatever they dish out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Me, I quail. Awien (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Never fear, no-one will rail on you here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If they do, you can always duck. Froggerlaura  ribbit 04:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See, I only fear when if one should goose me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, I am cocksure that the page that is too bird-centric is not Main Page, but Talk:Main Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The quality of the puns is definitely taking a tern for the worse; we shall all look like boobies if this awkward situation continues. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, some people can always find something to grouse about. Awien (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Mind you, everything can be seen as a cock-up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(reset) Is this conversation quackers? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but we are all quacks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just don't call us bird brained. That is sure to ruffle people's feathers. --Allen3 talk 12:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone post a tweet about this?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I've been too chicken. Maybe I should pluck up courage. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweeting might cause people to flock here. 78.144.201.136 (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is tomorrow's featured article?
Why is there no link to tomorrow's featured article running along the bottom of today's featured article? On this day links to yesterday, today and tomorrow. And today's featured picture could have a tomorrow's featured picture link too. Then readers would have the option of being able to check ahead just like they have the option to look at tomorrow's date if they're reading on this day. In other words, why can't the YESTERDAY - TODAY - TOMORROW format seen at OTD also be used for TFA and TFP? --86.40.108.76 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Then it wouldn't be a surprise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it would, for anyone who wanted a "surprise", because anyone who wanted it as a surprise would avoid clicking the link just like they would avoid clicking the link at tomorrow's date in on this day if they wanted a surprise. It would be no less a surprise than today's featured article is right now and there would still be the surprise of the day after tomorrow's featured article. Readers might even one day have the surprise of discovering that the day after tomorrow's featured article has turned out to be one of the options at The Day After Tomorrow (disambiguation). There would still be plenty of surprises.


 * Readers are in different time zones and "On this day..." uses UTC for all readers. Links to yesterday and tomorrow are necessary if we want all readers to have easy access to their own "today". By the way, the links go to longer lists and not the small On this day version. Apart from curiosity there is no apparent reason for readers to have a link to tomorrow's featured article/picture, and the effect of being todays featured article/picture would diminish if it was linked on the main page the day before. It would probably also cause more complaints from people who don't follow the nomination process but suddenly want to object when they see what is planned. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The effect would not be diminished for those who avoided clicking the link just like they would avoid clicking the link at tomorrow's date in on this day if they did not want the effect to be diminished. So reader's objections to what is "planned", i.e. what has already been decided, is the reason why this is not done? If readers object they will still complain either way. If you reacted to every complaint like that there would probably be nothing left on the main page. --86.40.103.53 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing the reason this has never been done is because the "planned" stuff often isn't fully editing and ready to go 48 hours ahead of time. — foxj 09:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be. Then there would be no last-minute panic. --86.40.103.53 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world, sure, but we're all volunteers who, contrary to popular belief, do have lives outside of Wikipedia. Sometimes real life just gets in the way and you have to scramble to create the Main Page content (I once wrote the next day's POTD on my phone at 23:55 UTC while I was out). — howcheng  {chat} 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Poor you. That's not very fair at all. Are you in a union or have you ever considered joining one? But anyway, if you still want to "scramble to create the Main Page content" you could do that even anyway, if this was brought in. You'd just be trying to get the day after tomorrow's content ready at the last minute, rather than trying to get tomorrow's content ready at the last minute. Think of it as moving the clocks forward - but only having to do it once, not every year and not having to move them backwards again either. Real life can still get in the way of things the same way as before. --86.40.103.53 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a whole lot of complaining coming from someone who can't be bothered to create an account and help out. — howcheng  {chat} 01:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is account creation mandatory? No it is not. Would creating an account allow editing of the Main Page? No it would not. Would creating an account improve Wikipedia? No it would not. Is it possible to help Wikipedia without creating an account? Yes it is. Your narrow-minded contradictions are not helpful. Anyway - its hardly "complaining", more like a suggesting a way to make everyone's experience of Wikipedia better. Take it or leave it. --86.40.111.209 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well if you want to make a suggestion, how would you implement anyway? We already have the 'Recently featured' section. Adding another section would look silly and be duplicative. Putting tomorrow's TFA under recently featured doesn't work very well. For starters this is wrong since tomorrows TFA isn't really recently featured. We could just rename the section of course (and the link to 'archive' goes to the months TFA list which may include stuff not yet featured on the main page) but we'll still have the bigger problem namely that it's confusing to the reader to have something that is still going to be featured on the main page and stuff which has already been featured. Unlike with SA/OTD, putting the date (or something like tomorrow and yesterday) seems pointless, the date of the TFA is mostly unimportant and often arbiritary (yes I know a resonable number of TFAs are chosen to coincide with a specific date). In fact by putting the date or whatever, we may add confusion by making people think the date is somehow significant to the TFA. The date for SA/OTD as mentioned above is obviously fundamental to the whole section, so having the date is a given. Note also if we put the date in addition to the article name it will lengthen the section by a fair amount. If we put the date only, that's even worse since there's a fair number of people are simply not going to click on the date but they may click if they see an article which sounds interesting to them. Furthermore it will seem odd to have tomorrow and yesterday and then a few days extra. If we only put yesterday and not the previous few days, we're cutting down on the previous TFAs so reducing exposure. (Note that in any case we'd likely be reducing the previous TFAs by at least one, if we're going to extend the number, we could do that with the previous TFAs as well.) The fact we have tomorrow doesn't completely make up for that, it's resonable to assume some people may prefer to wait for the blurb rather then checking out something which hasn't actually been featured on the main page yet but clearly there's no reason to wait if you've already missed a TFA (the number of people who this may affect is perhaps small since most people aren't going to understanding the intrancys of TFA). And people may also mentally discard something having seen the link and decided it was uninteresting, and may do so as soon as they seen it again the next day yet if they had seen it the first time with the blurb they may read at least a bit of the blurb and decide it wasn't so uninteresting after all. (This isn't an issue for the previous TFAs since by that stage it's already too late barring perhaps them visiting the 'archive' link.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar
Gibraltar has featured ten times this month. This is on top of the controversy last month. Why is this tiny rock of just 30,000 people featured so regularly? Although I can't find anything wrong per se with the articles being promoted, I can't see that they are outstanding enough to be featured on the main page so often. Shritwod (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean 'featured'? I'm pretty sure Gibraltar hasn't been in TFA, TFP or TFL 10 times this month and those are the only three sections with featured content. Note also that we only ever feature content, never other things like locations, products or whatever. The ITN, OTD/SA and DYK sections do not have featured content. ITN highlights 'entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event'. SA/OTD highlights events and anniversaries occuring or that occured on a certain day. DYK highlights new content.
 * In the case of ITN, it depends primarily on what happens in the world, if for some reason Gibraltar is involved in significant events a lot then it's normal for it to be on ITN a lot. But I don't think Gibraltar has been on ITN at all this month. DYK's only real requirement is for an article to be new or significantly updated recently (except for odd cases). It's perfectly normal for something to appear regularly if someone or a group of people are on an article creation drive and this happens all the time. This usually dies down after a while. We've had complaints of this before and to be honest a lot of the other DYK groupings have IMO been far more insignificant.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been in the DYK section ten times. Gibraltar articles stopped for a while after the controversy, but now they have started up again at the same rate. I know the DYK section is very varied (as it should be). But isn't it odd that Gibraltar seems to get much more exposure than you would think for a place of its size? Shritwod (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

James Bond overkill
I would like to file a complaint to the effect that Wikipedia appears this day to have gone completely James Bond crazy. As if Ian Fleming being the featured article were not enough (above prominent references to communist infiltrators and biological warfare), "Skyfall" and Skyfall are both mentioned in DYK, OTD talks of "Mole Day" and "Vietnam" and fires and hostages and explosions, ITN of car bomb attacks and assassinations and TFP displays something Bond himself has no doubt used in one of his devious schemes. In turn, the evil Lance Armstrong (the archetypal Bond villain by name and by nature) stares menacingly at Fleming from the right side of the page, having hijacked the Luxembourgian Royal Wedding and carried off the Grand Duke Guillaume and the lovely Countess de Lannoy on the back of his bicycle. I count at least a dozen different references to "James Bond" across the page - many of which refer to Skyfall, coming soon to a movie theater near you - though there is also List of James Bond novels and stories, Casino Royale (novel), James Bond in film, James Bond and even a separate James Bond (literary character), to name a few other prominent James Bond related links. Please Wikipedia, why is this so? What's with all the violence all of a sudden? And one week before Halloween, when no doubt you'll have the usual scarefest lined up to terrify the wits out of us vulnerable viewers. We're not all James Bond fans. Some of us like rom coms and musicals. Some of us don't even like movies. And some of us are completely illiterate, thanks to a failed education system and inadequate healthcare, so what do we care about Britain's 14th greatest writer since 1945? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.76 (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is called being topical!   Cassianto Talk   10:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Two questions: 1)What does Mole Day have to do with any of this? and 2)If someone is "completely illiterate" how would any of this matter to them? --Khajidha (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A mole is an infiltrator, a spy. Hence, Mole Day = Spy Day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which has NOTHING TO DO with mole day. That part, at least, is all in the original poster's head. --Khajidha (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Literacy, as defined by Wikipedia, "refers to the ability to read for knowledge, write coherently, and think critically about the written word". Nothing in this statement would prevent those who experience literacy difficulties looking at the words or pictures and their brains responding accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.76 (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When one looks at a word in a title, it need not have its usual meaning. We can deconstruct said term. Here "mole" in mole day has been used not for the unit or the animal, but a spy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * * slow clap*... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that "a gesture of respect and deference" or one of "mocking dislike or disapproval"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.76 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The first one, as I got the satire immediately. The whole China --> communist --> James Bond's enemies gave it away. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto from me. Too bad (1) the art of irony is dying, and (2) contributions from IPs are so often taken as suspect just because they come from IPs. Sigh. - Tenebris (a determined IP) 03:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously trolling as thee has been no reply from our instigator. --  Cassianto Talk   11:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, "our instigator" had other things to be doing this hour. It was a serious comment about the lack of variety, admittedly submitted in a satirical way, but then I didn't think it would be taken so personally and so negatively and so lacking in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.76 (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how 3 James Bond items is a "lack of variety", personally. The rest is, y'know, news and stuff that actually happened.163.160.107.179 (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts. TFA is diverse in its listings. It's also, as I point out above, topical.  "Satirical" comments are a bitter pill to swallow when bearing in mind the other ludicrous comments posted on  talk page. --   Cassianto Talk   12:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which "ludicrous comments"? --86.40.108.76 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked it. See above. --   Cassianto Talk   13:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the link goes to the whole talk page. So everything there is "ludicrous"? Massive good faith failure there by the looks of it. --86.40.108.76 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All this Bond stuff makes one wonder if one of the people that edits the WIKI front page is a paid shill for whoever is publicizing and releasing the new film. Wiki may claim to be add free, but it need to be vigilant aGainst people using pages for their own agenda. Williamb (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which it doesn't of course. Why all the conspiracy theories? --   Cassianto Talk   13:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What conspiracy theories? This is an entirely rational discussion. --86.40.108.76 (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The OP may wish to consider grabbing the rights to "Overkill", which is a great name for a future James Bond film. If you do, you might make an overkilling. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Crikey! But who would sing the theme tune? Perhaps these cute and cuddly little chaps would be interested. --86.40.108.76 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And now Ian Fleming's tombstone has been added into the mix. Bit early much? --86.40.108.76 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Which is preferred - the above 'Bondage' or today's high-squick-factor circus act? 93.97.45.17 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Too bad (1) the art of irony is dying, and (2) contributions from IPs are so often taken as suspect just because they come from IPs. Sigh. - Tenebris (a determined IP) 03:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Birds 2
The above was what the 'Wikipedia humour pages' were meant to be about. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a sequail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. Just like the swallows of Capistrano, discussions of Main page bias (some even dealing with birds) will return. --Allen3 talk 22:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Flocking idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * humour pages? My post above was a serious complaint! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BJAODN --Dweller (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Birds 3
After all this, there came another bird on main page today? §§ §§ {T/C} 06:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani batsman day?
With two mentions on the same day, one in DYK and the other in TFL, today surely must be Pakistani batsman day. Strange that it wasn't mentioned next to "Republic Day in Turkey"...Robvanvee (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Howzat, then...?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm stumped...Robvanvee (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Go tell the person who seemed to complain above that non-whites only appear here "as some class of freak or circus act" that we've got two outstanding Pakistani masters of their art on the page today. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Commendation
May I commend Wikipedia on the marvellous juxtaposing of "Give Peace a Chance" (TFA) with the 1948 Safsaf massacre (OTD). A top drawer balancing act and praise where it is due. --86.40.206.234 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wording of "Did you know..." section (in general)
All "Did you know..." items are worded as if the words "Did you know..." introduced them. Unfortunately, the words immediately before the list of items is not "Did you know..." but "From Wikipedia's newest content:". This makes it a bit awkward: From Wikipedia's newest content:<li>... that Rewa Prasad Dwivedi said...?</ul> That doesn't make any sense—unless, of course, you notice that the "Did you know..." is there in the little colored bar above the section. I'm wondering whether we should move the "From Wikipedia's newest content:" line down below the list, to the left of "Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article". Something like: <blockquote style="background-color:#fed">Did you know...<ul><li>... that Rewa Prasad Dwivedi said...?<li>...<li>... that the ... cheerleaders?</ul>More from Wikipedia's newest content: Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article Maybe? - dcljr (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Or alternatively move it to just above the last line to retain its current layout. <blockquote style="background-color:#fed">Did you know...<ul><li>... that Rewa Prasad Dwivedi said...?<li>...<li>... that the ... cheerleaders?</ul>More from Wikipedia's newest content: Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are "archive", "start a new article", and "nominate an article" considered "more from Wikipedia's newest content?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggested (on the DYK talk page, I believe, but I can't seem to locate the archived discussion) that we switch to such a format (the heading "Did you know?", with the blurbs worded as statements). Editors responded that this made the hooks seem boring.  —David Levy 20:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would simply reverse the order of the two phrases. Make the section "From Wikipedia's newest content" and then have the "Did you know..." start off the section. This would parallel my proposal above to rename "Today's featured article" to "From today's featured article" and would tend to clarify the purpose of DYK. --Khajidha (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Khajidha's suggestion. Logical and clear, while keeping the teasing/intriguing aspect of phrasing the hook as a question. Visually, starting both sections with "From" balances nicely too. Awien (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK, I could go with that. Should this be formally proposed somewhere? - dcljr (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that Wikipedia talk:Did you know would be the logical place to do an RfC about this. (Duh.) Actually, there's a rather contentious RfC going on there already, although about a totally different proposal. Hmm. Not sure I want to wade into that with a proposal to rename the entire feature. (!) Would someone else like to do it? - dcljr (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And to further balance it could we convert the title "In the news" to "From the news" and "On this day" to "From this day" - please include that in any proposal too. There's really no need for two "from"s, an "in" and an "on" when four "from"s does just as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.206.234 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I like "From the news", but I'm not sure "From this day" works. Maybe, "From this day in history". But changing those section headers would have to be done at TFA, ITN and OTD, not at DYK.--Khajidha (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "From this day in history" sounds even better. Yet that would require four separate discussions on something that is so trivial and so minor... exchanging one word for another. Better to invite them all here or to some other central location. But this concerns the Main Page in general and this is "Talk:Main Page" after all... it says at the top this is "for discussing the main page" and this sounds like discussing the Main Page.
 * Could somebody not just be bold and do it? If changing an "in" to a "from" can actually break Wikipedia then we might as well give up altogether. I'm sure there would be somebody who can fix it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.206.234 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the best course of action is to get "Did you know" renamed to "From Wikipedia's newest content" first (if possible), and only then try to standardize everything else. (I don't actually have a problem mixing "From"s with "On" and "In". Seems fine to me.) Note, however, that further down the page there are "Today's featured list" (which I see someone just renamed "From today's featured list"—probably not a very good idea) and "Today's featured picture". It probably won't be possible/advisable to have everything start with "From". - dcljr (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I like "From today's featured list" and "Read the full list" on the same grounds as for the featured article. Otherwise, I agree with Dcljr: Make "From Wikipedia's newest content" the section heading, and put "Did you know..." directly before the hooks where it logically belongs, but refrain from trying to force everything on the main page into the same mould. The other sections are fine as they are. Awien (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason I don't like "From today's featured list" is because the information presented in that section is not so much from the list itself as it is about the list—unlike the information in "Today's featured article", which is information from the article. In any case, this is getting a little off-topic for this particular thread. So nevermind. [g] - dcljr (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, it's from the lead to the list. You could build a solid blurb around the ledes for most FLs — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK / OTD imbalance, redux
Once again, I would like to bring to the attention of whomever cares that we continually have this problem whereby OTD is substantially longer than DYK, thereby necessitating ITN to be shortened. While ITN's length is malleable, this level of imbalance is excessive. OTD blurbs could be shortened instead, but I'd rather post this in a somewhat prominent location [again] so as to encourage either DYK to post more articles per batch or OTD to shorten its often verbose blurbs. --  tariq abjotu  04:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes please. ITN looks pretty bad with only 3 items, like now.  Spencer T♦ C 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But ITN has been very slow recently, so you could say it's fair enough. If the idiocy of the death panel is continued, that automatically removes one paragraph, maybe two, and if nominations dry up as they currently seem to, you can see why it's considered better to reduce the size of ITN? doktorb wordsdeeds 10:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These are the kinds of comments that beg to be ignored. For probably most of our readers, the Recent deaths line and the "Syrian civil war - Wikinews - More current events..." line are both one line. This contrasts to before, where for many people the "Syrian civil war - Wikinews - Recent deaths - More current events..." piece was two lines. So for those readers (which I imagine is a large number), the new Recent deaths line has not changed the size of ITN one bit. For nearly everyone else, it made the entire section just one line longer. Most of the blurbs on ITN are at least two lines for most of our readers.
 * So this idea that the Recent deaths line is taking the place of one or (ha!) two blurbs is utterly ridiculous and yet another nonsense argument presented by someone who can't accept that he was in the minority on this. --  tariq abjotu  16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe the two election results can be posted now.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Haiti forgotten - not for the first time in its history
Why is the devastation in Haiti being slowly erased from Wikipedia's official history of the world? Your ITN feature previously referred to "more than 65 deaths in the Caribbean" - now it doesn't even mention these, the hurricane has merely been doing some "striking" in the Caribbean - a gust of wind has brushed against one or two hapless Haitians before turning its full rage on the poor, frightened citizens of New York and causing "widespread damage" to the United States. As currently phrased it implies New York City is more important than at least one country. There must be some non-American out there who is capable of correcting this glaringly biased approach to dealing with this disaster. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Haiti has been "forgotten" just as much as New Orleans was forgotten when Hurricane Katrina dropped off ITN more than seven years ago. But for its effect on the United States, Hurricane Sandy would probably have dropped off ITN by now, as all items eventually do. If it had struck the U.S. and Haiti on the same day, then, yes, the blurb should have mentioned both events in equal amounts. But, as it stands, the current story is its effect on the U.S., while its effect on the Caribbean is old(er) news. See also my explanation for the rewording at WP:ITN/C. --  tariq abjotu  17:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is from less than two hours ago. Contrary to perceived opinion Haiti is very much still relevant. Hurricane Katrina probably dropped off because it was replaced by other news relating to different topics. Are you really suggesting that the Hurricane Sandy that hit New York City is not the same bit of news that has killed at least 52 people and devastated Haiti? Double standards in evidence here. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying that. We are not expected to provide equal amounts of depth on the Main Page about a story that spans over several days. --  tariq abjotu  18:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? How does this fit in with the neutral point of view policy? --86.40.101.235 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be clearer if you think of it in reverse. If the path of the hurricane were reversed and it had struck NY prior to Haiti, the coverage of NYC would drop off while the coverage of Haiti were still on the main page, as the Haiti landfall would be the more current event. Mogism (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But it might also help if you think of it in reverse. If the path of the hurricane were reversed and it had struck NY prior to Haiti, and coverage of Haitians bracing themselves dominated the news, only for it to fall out of the news when the real damage was caused to New York. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured article link
I would like to propose changing the wording of the link at the end of the FA blurb from "more" to the more visible and more explicit "Read the full article here." Awien (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see why - it can be unclear at times what links are meant to send you where. I had been confused when I started to browse wikipedia because I found everything but the search box to be too complicated. 86.138.171.81 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 'full article' might work, but your suggestion is far too long. Besides, any link with 'here' in it is indicative of poor design. I agree 'more' isn't particularly good, especially since it could be confused with 'more featured articles'. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that "here" is superfluous, but I think a sentence is still better than a fragment. How about "Read the article"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awien (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the proposed change to "Read the full article". I also think that the section should be retitled "From today's Featured Article" to reinforce the fact that this is not the whole thing, misapprehension that User:Art LaPella mentioned that his wife had. --Khajidha (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I heartily endorse Khajidha's suggestion of changing the heading to "From today's Featured Article": I suspect that a lot of people are under the misapprehension that what appears on the Main Page is the whole thing. And we have only approval for changing the link to something more explicit than "more", so can we implement at least that? (I assume it needs to be done by an admin?) My preference too would be for "Read the full article", but "Read the article" would be better than nothing. Awien (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the full article is okay, but if that's too long, how about Continue...? It doesn't sound like it's linking to a list of other featured articles. --  tariq abjotu  16:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment—has anyone notified the active participants over at WT:TFA/R that suggest the articles? I see only four people commenting here with the OP calling for a change not even a day after the original post.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this really affects the folks at WT:TFA/R; we're discussing Main Page presentation, not TFA choice. Still, pointing them here couldn't hurt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I very much like both the idea to change it to "From Today's Featured Article" at the top, and the idea to replace "more..." with "continue..." or "Read the full article" or something similar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been the main editor on a lot of articles that have appeared as TFA. The suggestions for changes as indicated by Floquenbeam, above, seem to me to be unambiguous and absolutely sensible. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too; "full article" seems ok too. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: is there a set process to allow something to actually happen? A recommended waiting period? A minimum number of people in favour? Awien (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't a formal process, but compare this proposal with the GA one above. I suggest waiting a fortnight (from the start of this thread on 18 Oct) for anyone interested to comment. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this seems sensible. It's definitely clearer and doesn't really create any clutter, which would be the only drawback I could imagine.  Any combination of the proposed wordings would be an improvement I think, though if I had to pick one I'd go with "From today's Featured Article" at the top and just "Full article" at the bottom. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A change from "more" to the proposed wording makes sense.  dci  &#124;  TALK   02:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "From today's featured article" at the top and "Read the full article", "Read the article" or "Full article" at the bottom. I had never thought of it before, but I can see that people new to Wikipedia might get confused and view the blurb as the full entry. Lesgles (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a change if it improves clarity. Obviously, the more concise the better. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As I do my gnomish thing on WP, I am very conscious that a huge number of our readers have English as a second language, and try wherever I reasonably can to make the choices that make WP as accessible as possible to them. That includes avoiding excessive use of acronyms, jargon, abbreviations, and so on. For the same reason I also prefer the full-sentence version of wording for the link: Read the full article. Four short words, so still concise and uncluttered, but clear and explicit. So in the absence of opposition, and given the likelihood that this formulation is acceptable in terms of brevity to those for whom that is a concern, I request that an admin change the Featured article link from "more" to "Read the full article". Also, in the absence of opposition, that they change the heading from "Today's featured article" to "From today's featured article". Awien (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These proposals seem to be unanimously supported so I have made the changes. The Read the full article. link is created manually by the FA director who drafts the blurb, so you may need to inform them about this change. (I have changed the blurbs up to November 5.) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean the "primary editor of the FA who drafts the blurb"? The blurbs are created when submitted to TFA/R. Anyway, this proposal makes sense. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TFAs don't have to be nominated to appear; often they will be selected without being nominated. I will leave a message with and  and at WT:TFAR. BencherliteTalk 20:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, the same needs to be done now with the "Today's featured list"s for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.206.234 (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done by me before I saw your request. BencherliteTalk 20:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that the "..." is completely gone now. Would it not be possible to have "(Read the full article...)" and "(Read the full list...)"? It's kinda more inviting... and it lures you in... and urges you to read further... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.206.234 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP that this would be a good change, space permitting... --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings either way, but have no objection. And thanks, MSGJ! Awien (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nov 6 TFA
I'm not sure if this is being discussed elsewhere, but I noticed that on Nov. 4, 2008 both Barack Obama and John McCain were on the main page. Could we something similar this year for Nov. 6? Maybe not Mitt/Obama but something along those lines. I noticed that both Mitt's dad and Obama's inaugural are FAs but haven't been listed, for example.  Hot Stop     (Edits)   14:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be very against making a second special exception to the main page for a regional event, one was one too many. A regularly-run TFA with date relevance is fine; something US-presidenty without it being partisan (if something is available that fits the bill). GRAPPLE   X  15:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the Inauguration be run January 19 if he loses and January 20 (renamed with a "First") if he wins. I understand Mitt Romney is at FAC, perhaps it can be run January 20 if he wins.  No opinion on what should be run November 6, although it should not be the "twofer" we ran in 2008.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * just a side note the innaugartion won't be until 1/22 because 1/20 is a Sunday and that Monday is MLK day  Hot Stop     (Edits)   16:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think it will be on January 22; the Office of Personnel Management states that they don't give an extra holiday when the observance of Inauguration Day and the observance of MLK Jr Day coincide. In fact, the President-Elect still has to take the oath of office on January 20, even when it falls on a Sunday and he takes the oath in private. On those occasions, a public repeat has been scheduled for Monday, January 21, with the rest of the public ceremonies and speeches.
 * That said, I'm not in favor of running Barack Obama a third time as a TFA, nor would it seem appropriate to run an Obama-related article and the main Mitt Romney article as joint TFAs like four years ago. Maybe someday we can repeat the dual TFAs concept when we have two different candidates from the major parties, but not this time.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Wehwalt's idea of running an Obama- or Romney-themed TFA on inauguration day. I had thought it would be a good idea to run Romney on the 7th (if he passes FAC) if he wins... but then I realized that a winner won't be declared until UTC+2 on the 7th at the earliest, so strike that. Maybe we should run Sertraline on election day to help those of us who are panicking about the results of the election to calm down? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd be in favor a repeat of four years ago, ie, run Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. In lieu of that, though, I'd recommend something entirely apolitical as the TFA. It probably goes without saying, but featuring just one candidate without the other would be a monumentally bad move. Furthermore, for Jan 20 I'd go for either Obama's first inaugural or Mitt Romney, depending on who wins. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to all of these proposals as they are too America-centric. And that's coming from an American. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in support of running Obama and Romney (assuming it passes FAC in time) as dual TFAs. If not, then hopefully there is something else suitable. It's one day every four years and, like it or not, the result is a big deal to the whole world. And that's coming from a non-American. Jenks24 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not special enough to make it the only exception though. If we made a habit of re-running FAs for a third time, or having dual FAs, then maybe it'd be okay, but having the US presidential election be the only special TFA, and repeating that stunt, is wrong. If we want to see the US election given a special treatment we need to extend that treatment to other events - off the top of my head, I can see that, with a number of association football teams at FA, potential high-profile matches could be given the same treatment (should, for example, Liverpool FC and Manchester City FC meet in the FA Cup final, etc); but that's a larger discussion to see it implemented. One event given repeated special treatment shouldn't occur. GRAPPLE   X  16:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Make other exceptions then and show this as an example of when it worked well. Obviously a FA Cup final is not on the same level as a US Presidential election (I say this as someone who was gutted when Liverpool were robbed last season), but if those two teams did meet in the final this season I'd support running them as dual TFAs. Most importantly, we don't need special rules about this – it makes us look better to have high quality, relevant articles on the main page, therefore IAR applies. Jenks24 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I can slightly modify a sentence of yours, Jenks: 'high quality, timely, and relevant articles on the main page.' :-) If we have such important articles at FA and a superb date connection, we should run them. We won't have these types of occasions often. So I guess that means I'll be in support of this if Romney makes FA in time. In deference to Grapple's reservations (reservations I agree with), though, I think we should codify what level of 'importance' would allow a second TFA –albeit these should be relatively vague to allow for some interpretation. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * At the risk of duplicating discussion, might I invite attention to Today's featured article/requests where William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 has had some support for November 6th? BencherliteTalk 23:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of a twofer – Obama and Romney if Romney passes in time...Modernist (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I was involved in getting the getting the Obama-McCain twofer as TFA 4 years ago. Among the concerns then was that this would be repeated.  I only continued promoting the idea of a twofer then as a one-time IAR and promised that I would oppose any presidential (or prime ministerial) twofers in the future.  Thus I'm committed to oppose this.  But it goes beyond that.  Obama had then been TFA once, now the article has been TFA twice.  McCain had been an FA since August, Romney is still not an FA, and there is some opposition to it becoming an FA.  I may very well join that opposition - I dislike some of the sharp elbows that have been thrown in related articles and the rush to get this to FA status.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

USS President?

 * Run USS President (1800) instead. That way, you get your president and USA link, but on a subject not related to the election. Parrot of Doom 11:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this idea, it seems preferable to both the various split-screen ideas and to the idea of running William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896. There are two issues with running the Bryan Campaign article; we run the risk of appearing to have a bias as he was a democrat, and I seem to recall that the Cross of Gold speech was the TFA fairly recently. I will make a similar comment on the TFA/R page, and suggest that anyone voicing opinions here does the same. 99.233.46.60 (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose [move to oppose per Bencherlite's post below Truthkeeper (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)] - very good idea PoD! I'm opposed to running anything political on that date because polling is open well into the date in the states that lag much beyond UTC. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support Wow that's clever! :D &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 01:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's already been TFA once; the general rule is that FAs only appear once as TFA; that rule has been ignored only once, for the 2008 US Presidential election; for it to be ignored for the second time for the 2012 US Presidential election gives the election an unfair prominence in main page / FA terms. (And yes I know that one article appeared on two successive days for a total of 24 hours when Wikipedia was blacked out, but that's not the same as appearing twice for 24 hours). BencherliteTalk 12:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That'll teach me to only look at the "article milestones" section... Still, there must be plenty of FAs that can be linked to the election via punnage? Parrot of Doom 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not correct - Transit of Venus also appeared as TFA twice but that was a special case as it wouldn't happen again for 121 years. Richerman ''   (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for reminding me. A rather rarer event than a US Presidential election, anyway! BencherliteTalk 14:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How about Carlson's patrol, which is a FA which hasn't run on the main page, is an apolitical American topic, and has undisputable date relevance (70th anniversary)? Mogism (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Carlson's patrol at WP:TFAR. BencherliteTalk 12:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As a quick historic note (albeit possibly too late), the TFA on 2/11/04 was Air Force One, which fits nicely with the suggestion of USS President above - linked but neutral. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA: ...the latest screen incarnation, Skyfall, is due to premiere in London on 23 October 2012.
Advertisement on Wikipedia's Main Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Skyfall is not the Featured Article. This happens to be selecting an article to appear that is relevant to today's date. — howcheng  {chat} 03:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, the link just sneakily appeared in the TFA paragraph on the Main Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "This exists" is not the same "go purchase this". It's hardly advertisement to mention a timely event, especially as there's absolutely no positive endorsement of it, just a neutral statement that it exists and is to be released. Should we not link to it just because someone might go "oh, this massively hyped film I've never heard of has appeared on the main page of wikipedia in passing. I'll go pay money to see it now based solely on that fact"? Of course not. I certainly wouldn't go see Nixon in China just because it was a TFA, nor would the TFA slot encourage me to buy a copy of "Say Say Say" or Fertilisation of Orchids. GRAPPLE   X  03:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Product placement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of us reap any financial rewards for these sorts of edits. — howcheng  {chat} 16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Advertisement on Wikipedia's Main Page. For free. How generous of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you could not take the cynical approach. Is it so hard to imagine that WP editors are Bond fans and they wanted to have an article that was relevant to the date at hand? Regardless, this isn't the first time this has happened and it certainly won't be the last. — howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it so hard to imagine that some WP editors maybe professionals in marketing and promotion.... I have no problems if this happened on the 50th anniversary of Dr No, but for this to coincide with the release of the new movie, sorry, it looks too much like someone is using Wikipedia's Main Page for free advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which of the editors who took part in the making of this decision on this page do you suspect of being covert marketing professionals who, over a period of years, have developed sleeper accounts, accruing several hundred thousand edits to Wikipedia on a plethora of topics, just to lull us into a false sense of security and then hit us with this hideous example of guerrilla marketing? I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but your persistence with this non-complaint is exasperating. Can we drop it now? See WP:FLOG. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Occam's razor, dude. — howcheng  {chat} 19:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Vomiting Egyptian
Does today's vomiting Egyptian photograph not offend public morale? There are also Orientalist concerns. Foreign places like Egypt rarely feature on the Main Page and then when Africans and Arabs and other minorities get a chance they are portrayed in this highfalutin way as some class of freak or circus act. On top of that, there is the disgusting claim, prominently displayed, that "Ali's unusual gastric abilities led to rumors that the Rockefeller Institute had offered a large sum of money to obtain his stomach post-mortem." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not vomiting. Read the article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Ali was not vomiting. Please distinguish correctly between morale and morals. And I'm not sure why you find organ donation disgusting - nor do I very much care. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you planning on making these a regular feature? Not wanting to steal your thunder for tomorrow but look at the lascivious pose George II is adopting in the painting. Yomangani talk 10:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These? What regular feature? I should ask same question of Wikipedia (I hope the answer is no). OK, another way to put it. Why does Wikipedia present such an ancient culture in this way? Thousands of years of culture to choose from and instead it is a performer of vaudeville, "a theatrical genre of variety entertainment popular in the North America, England, Australia and New Zealand from the early 1880s until the early 1930s." It is almost worse than ignoring American people then putting a fat guy eating a hamburger on display, ignoring Irish people then putting a leprechaun eating a potato on display, ignoring French people then putting a performer dressed in frog costume and eating snails on display and so on, all for the amusement of others and to emphasise how "exotic" and "different" it all is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bring Culture of Egypt to featured status and we can run it; complaining without any accompanying constructive editing will never change what runs at TFA. Running Ali is not a comment on Egypt or Egyptian culture, but a display of a top-quality article on an interesting man. GRAPPLE   X  15:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, bring Le Petomane to FA status! A single novel individual is not representative of an entire nation or culture. We have FAs about people regarded as notable villains, who might by the same logic be regarded as bringing far greater discredit upon their homelands than a vaudeville spitter. But we'd still run those as homepage FAs if there was sufficient support - because we're not passing judgment or even comment on whole cultures by doing so. This is an encyclopedia, not the Eurovision Song Contest. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If Ali provokes this level of reaction, watch this space when Tarrare or Charles Domery hit the main page. – iridescent  19:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The (great) article is about an interesting man, not about Egyptian culture!88.98.32.209 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This article told me things I didn't know, it made me smile and it reminded me of what an extraordinary world we live in.Padres Hana (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it was about time for a Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells article. (I suppose sword swallowing is now off the Front Page menu for a while - unlinkage deliberate). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no problem with the article. It doesn't promote racism or bigotry - it's probable that the complexity and reality of Egyptian culture was missed by those who promoted or viewed this act, but the article merely relates his story.  Indeed, the interesting aspect of his tale comes not from the fact of his being Egyptian but from his "unusual gastronomic abilities."   dci  &#124;  TALK   03:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that Hadji Ali did not run "instead" of other articles about the thousands of years of Egyptian culture. Osiris myth, an article about an aspect of that culture that was important for three thousand of those years, ran in this same slot a month ago. But if the IP finds controlled regurgitation distasteful, he or she should be warned that Osiris myth contains dismemberment, beheading, adultery, necrophilic incest, and coercive homosexual incest. A. Parrot (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow Parrot! On having a quick glance at the Osiris myth article you have written and your comments above you seem to have excelled yourself in your one man campaign to run down this ancient civilization by cherry picking of every salacious detail fron non-religious texts and ignoring the extensive literature from ancient religious sources (and modern scholarship) that undermine the very points you have made above, e.g homosexuality and adultery are proscribed as is shown when the deceased appears before Osiris in the Hall of Judgement as described in the article Maat. I previously pointed at your sarcastic comments last year in edit summaries and bias relating to ancient Egyptian religion but it appears, like all determined pov pushers, you can't let go. Yt95 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comments at your old talk page (User talk:Taam). I don't want to get into it here. A. Parrot (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't read that article before it Featured. It's wonderful. I found absolutely nothing offensive about it, whatsoever. And my morale remains as high as I'd like to think my morals are. But I do like the challenge of trying to get "Africans and Arabs and other minorities" featured on Main Page more often and I'll see what I can do personally to help with this. -Dweller (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't about how badly written the article is. It's about Wikipedia's portrayal of the culture of "Africans and Arabs and other minorities", their lack of coverage and what is then promoted in a prominent position on the few occasions when it features. Wikipedia's Main Page constantly displays white-dominated pop culture - TV episodes, video games, and the like, all of western (mainly American) origin - and October has seen Ian Fleming, Nixon in China, Allegro, Tool, Fertilisation of Orchids and "Say Say Say", to give some examples of these and similar themes. Wikipedia doesn't usually very prominently display many Western freaks of nature at all. But when foreign cultures get their chance it is a performer of vaudeville, "a theatrical genre of variety entertainment popular in the North America, England, Australia and New Zealand from the early 1880s until the early 1930s." How about something that Egyptians can actually relate to, rather than how they are seen in England or in the United States? The United States didn't even exist in the times of Ancient Egypt (well it sort of did but not as it is known now, post-genocide of the native peoples and assimilation of those who survived and all that). It is virtually never anything found here. It is never, for a few random examples, Mathematics in medieval Islam or Music of Egypt or Egyptian cuisine - or, even more specifically, something like Oud or Mulukhiyah. Foreign parts of the world are only ever portrayed as somehow inferior, entirely without their own culture or history, or through the spectrum of being responsible for some "evil" or "terrorist" act against western values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the examples you give are WP:Featured Articles, so they couldn't appear as Today's Featured Article. Nonetheless, you're correct... Wikipedia does have a problem with this and we call it our systemic bias - see, we even have a page about it. WP:WHAAOE. --Dweller (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, if you (the unsigned commenter) care about it so much then why don't you be bold and help us make your suggested articles featured status? Also, sometimes "western stuff" such as video games make it to FA simply because it's easy to write about. Editing an article on the history of egypt is an entirely different matter (Hell editing and citing the history of my home country of Canada would be a fine way to eat up the day). I'm not saying its fair, im just saying thats the way it is. And by the way, I do believe Ali was a nice man and shouldn't be referred to as a freak of nature as you did. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to apologise to Hadji Ali for any misunderstanding for he is of course a nice man and much admired by such western pop culture figures as Judy Garland and David Blaine so his importance is unquestionable. The term "freak of nature" was not intended in a racist way but more as alluding to the fact that Hadji Ali would have been completely ignored by those of western origin were it not for his unusual abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (Isn't that pretty much true of Judy Garland and David Blaine, as well? - dcljr (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC))
 * You may be interested in looking at the existing featured articles on Egypt, Ancient Egypt, and Islam (to pick three relevant WikiProjects). Lesgles (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that just portrays things in a worse light than ever. There are barely 20 articles between the three projects - and, at a quick glance, one of them is an extremely average Hollywood movie from the 1990s that can be filed under "how the west sees the rest", while another is the autobiography of an American man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I get your point, but all I can say is what others have said; rather than criticizing this article, try to improve the ones that you would like to see featured. Lesgles (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "popular culture ... all of Western origin"... so Andjar Asmara was a Westerner? Never saw that coming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Get ready for an upcoming Egyptian-related article. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem?
Featured picture (Check back later for today's.)

What's going on? And can somebody please correct it to "Yesterday's featured picture" if that's what it is. --86.40.206.234 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not a problem, because soon, a Admin will replace it. Its only 14 minutes after midnight GMT so don't worry ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣  Talk  00:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But this doesn't usually happen, does it? I've never seen anything like it! Has somebody vandalised it? It doesn't look right without the "Yesterday" at all. --86.40.206.234 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's done now. The POTD is often selected last-minute, and the editor who usually handles it may have had more pressing things (like, say, a storm) to worry about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, you can stick with that story if you want. The picture is usually selected many hours in advance, but the process of creating the Main Page version of POTD is not done simultaneously (perhaps to allow people to reword the blurb). You may not see the "Check back later" message a lot, but I frequently sign on just before or just after 00:00 (UTC) to check if it has been created and more likely than not it hasn't. --  tariq abjotu  03:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Erp. What I meant to say (blaming it on me focusing more on my mid-terms) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That and I meant the protected POTD page, which is often made only a couple hours before 00:00 UTC — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. The POTD stays open for copyediting. If I'm really late writing the POTD, then I'll create the protected version at the same time. — howcheng  {chat} 04:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that not mean that some pictures get less time on show? This doesn't seem very fair at all. Will the picture changeover time be moved forward by the amount of minutes that were lost last night? Is someone even keeping track of all the minutes that are lost - especially if this has happened before and continues to happen? The windmill is much nicer than yesterday's square. It doesn't deserve this level or lack of attention and care. Will there be a divider down the middle tomorrow showing it as "yesterday's featured picture" alongside the new one? Is there a compensation package of any kind at all for those windmill enthusiasts who are feeling shortchanged by today's events? --86.40.101.235 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As Tariq said above, it's not usually too long (if it's even noticeable) so no, no make-up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But in this case it was noticeable. Very noticeable. It went on for about twenty minutes. The windmill deserves an extra twenty minutes exposure as compensation. Or even an hour or three if that's not too much. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata
Wikidata went live today; and so should now feature in the sister projects section. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would wait for few more days so as to not attract strangers and vandals. The project is still picking up and finding ways to deal with all sorts of we-dont-have-that-yet problems. I am sure that more well-meaning editors would join with this addition on main page, but that can be done by spreading word internally to our regular editors. §§<span style="font-family:;font-size:;color:;background-color:;"> §§ {T/C} 16:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. If Wikidata isn't ready for "strangers and vandals", it shouldn't be live. Let's give people the opportunity to know the project. {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits&#124;⚡}&#125; 05:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wax model?
What is that vile wax model thing with blood pouring out of it lurking at the bottom of the page and who built it? I know the company name is probably listed there but I fled before I peed myself so didn't manage to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.189 (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which page? --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.189 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that seemed like a daft question. I couldn't (and can't) see any picture that looks like your description. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The featured picture? That's not a wax model, its a person.143.210.174.23 (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's Enzifer, the guitarist of the Norwegian black metal band Urgehal. Urgehal are known for their extensive use of the traditional corpse paint and for Enzifer's striking on stage appearance, which incorporates facial spikes as well as traditional arm and body spikes. Their musical style and sound resemble that of the Norwegian black metal bands that arose in the early 1990s. :) — foxj 11:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Black metal? Racist.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope that was ironic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Black metal? Economic treason! How dare Wikipedia darken the good reputation of money! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.127 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it rather biased towards Western/Christian culture to post Halloween-themed content on the front page? I'm surprised there's not more outrage about this.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Samhain is western, but the concept is more northern than western. And certainly not Christian.83.70.170.48 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does there need to be outrage? I'd love to see other cultures celebrated more - but I see no point in pushing a popular international festival like Hallowe'en off with nothing to replace it. Let's do some good stuff for Hanukkah, Chinese New Year, etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Main Page slot proposal
This discussion has been moved here from the DYK Talk page, suggested that this is the appropriate place to post it: —   20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't GAs have a slot on the main page? Why should GA be a step child of anything else? —  18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That GAs get their own equal daily slot on the main page, neither subordinate, nor superior to anything else, nor blended in with anything else


 * Support But this is really not the right place to be having this proposal, like, at all. Silver  seren C 18:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur; move this to WT:main page then. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree with that. After all GA is almost 1 step off FA so it should have it's own part in the main page. It would allow GAs to get main page exposure without compromising DYK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and agree. Jona  talk to me  19:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support this, but why are we still discussing it here, it won't do anything. Village pump proposals or the talk page for the main page would be a better place. Ryan Vesey 19:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All Comments below this line are after the move from the DYK page


 * Support, but where to put it, and how to proceed it? --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The talk page says: "This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content. Please direct your suggestion to one of the forums listed above or your post may be removed or ignored.". --LauraHale (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the appropriate venue for a discussion about Main Page format. "Content" in that note I presume refers to which articles we choose to present on the Main Page. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Support expanding DYK's scope to include GAs (perhaps on weekends) in addition to new/expanded articles. —David Levy 22:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Good Article reviews are less thorough than DYK reviews and there is no discussion linked to which suggests a radical overhaul for GA, no suggestion for how to implement this and no link to a conversation showing WP:GAN actually wants this.--LauraHale (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a strange position to adopt, bordering on the delusional. In what way are GA reviews less thorough than DYK reviews? I'd go so far as to say that it's very evident that the majority of DYK reviewers don't even take the trouble to read the entire article, so they can hardly be producing thorough reviews. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Care to do a similar analysis for GA reviews? I've seen GA reviews where the comment has basically been "Good work! Keep it up!"  If you look at the discussions on how to handle GA review drives where they talk about fixing it to prevent such reviewing problems, you can see the problems with GA. --LauraHale (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Euphoria (Usher song)/GA1 is a recent GA review. There is no evidence the reviewer reviewed against the criteria.  Neutrality not mentioned.  Plagiarism not mentioned.  Copyright not mentioned.  Thoroughness of topic not mentioned. Stability not mentioned.  No evidence criteria considered in the review.  GA reviews frequently have this problem. --LauraHale (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In defence of the GA process, try Talk:Albertus Soegijapranata/GA1, Talk:Lynching of Jesse Washington/GA1, Talk:Early life of David Lynch/GA1 or Talk:Crime and Dissonance/GA1 for ones which do offer a broader and deeper look at the criteria; far beyond what DYK offers. Good Articles on the main page would plug a pretty obvious gap, and I see concerns about quality being a poor critique. Featured Articles can and do drop below the standard required and we're not going to abolish TFA, just vet what actually goes on the main page to ensure it looks good. GRAPPLE   X  22:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that you're in denial LauraHale. So pick any set of DYKs you like and I'll tell you why none of them would meet the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * She'll win that by picking a DYKs that is already a GA, like Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines. The GA process occasionally (but only occasionally) runs faster than DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As LauraHale appears reluctant to put her absurd claim that DYK reviews are more rigorous than GA reviews to the test I've just looked at the crop of DYKs on the main page as I type this. None of them meet the GA criteria and once again it's very evident that the DYK reviewers hadn't even read the article or looked for possible plagiarism/copyright violations, a long-standing complaint about the DYK process. Anyone interested in the details can find them here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not what she is saying. She says GA reviews are "less thorough than DYK reviews" and on past experience (I never look at GA reviews now) she may well be right. But that is meant (I presume) in terms of their own respective criteria.  Many GA reviews, no doubt including yours, are very thorough & good, others extremely skimpy. You never know what you are getting with GA. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Absurd her claims certainly are. "Neutrality not mentioned. Plagiarism not mentioned. Copyright not mentioned." ... well, welcome to the DYK reviewing queue (or should I say reviewing freeway?). Tony   (talk)  04:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DKY reviews are merely more pedantic IME, and less focussed on genuine quality in the article. bridies (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony1's claim is completely absurd and ill-informed nonsense. LauraHale is absolutely right. GA reviews are not as thorough as DYK. And they don't need to be; a GA is little more than a B class article. You get one reviewer, and the standard for a GA is quite low. Occasionally I get GA reviewers who want to conduct a FAC review instead, based on the idea that the article is going to FAC. That is a mistaken idea though; an article I write today cannot be an FA until 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would somewhat agree with LauraHale on the point that GAs are not really Good Articles. I have seen some comments on article talk pages post-GA or during PR or FAC showing discontent on the GA review that was done. Some key points on the topic are missing or language is poor or some other sorts. I have recently also been in DYKNs where they felt as good as FACs with all grilling of critical points. But i do not understand LH's opposition for a new slot of GAs on Main Page. In case LH has doubts against the GA review process i would suggest that GARs should also be done by multiple editors. Single editor doing a GA review could sometimes be a reason for missing or overlooking some factors in the article. I have seen multiple editors getting involved in DYKNs but hardly seen that happening on GAs. §§<span style="font-family:;font-size:;color:;background-color:;"> §§ {T/C} 08:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course FAC is going to be critical; it's at the top of the heap in terms of quality standards and policy compliance. On average, GA is likely to be much higher in that heap that DYK. Tony   (talk)  08:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support sounds like a good idea to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow Evan (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 October 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Oppose a TFA-style slot for GAs. Articles attain FA status at an average rate exceeding one per day, so many never will appear on the main page.  Given that fact, it seems illogical for GAs to receive that level of exposure.
 * Yes to GAs on the main page Would definitely lead to a lot of quality improvements to established articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In case my comment above is not clear support. I don't really care how we do it, options discussed in the past have been something like TFA, a random GA link, or a link to WP:GA.  I think any option that gets GA's placed on or linked from the main page is a good one. Ryan Vesey 22:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Dear Reader, this is an article of an article that is not too bad, but still somewhat short of what we ask our editors to strive for...": why would we do that? No likelihood of running out of FAs.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But what we have now with DYK is "Dear Reader, here are some articles that are basically crap, but maybe you can help us to improve them." Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with my comment? Make a proposal about DYK, and I'll give my response to it: this is my response to a proposal to have a TGA slot. Kevin McE (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be much better all round if it said that. Yomangani talk 23:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would, and a great deal more honest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How many editors do you know have written an FA? How many will never write one because of the sheer difficulty of going through the process? The jump between a DYK and an FA is vast. We encourage the legions new editors by giving them the incentive of main page exposure for their newly created articles. We encourage the very very elite subset of editors who have the patience and the time required to write and pass FAs. But why are we not encouraging the most valuable asset of Wikipedia? It's the experienced editors who arguably do the bulk of article expansion. Contributions that considerably improve the quality of existing articles, and yet are not recognized.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  13:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think Kevin hits the nail on the head. What are we promoting? A decent article that hasn't been rigorously reviewed? For that matter, I also support removing DYK, and replacing it with a daily list. Let's just have the best (and current events) on the main page. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, some GAs do receive fairly rigorous reviews, witness Talk:Heinrich Himmler/GA2. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose For the reasons listed by Kevin and Laura. Further, leave DYK as it is. Manxruler (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose I just can't how it will fit. We have best (FA, image, weekly list), newest and two sorts of most relevant (anniversaries, news). GAs are none of these. They are sort not quite best and definitely none of the others. Better to find space for some other featured content: featured portals, media, or extra featured articles. Good articles can of course make it onto the front page if promoted to featured.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 23:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, I have recently come to the understanding that it would be better to promote GA's over FA's as FA promote excess conformity, excess rules, endless arguments and put off newbies both in terms of rules, arguments and standards required. All this for 1 article a day while missing the bigger picture of improving the other 99.9% of articles, literally. In answer to 'Dear Reader, this is an article of an article that is not too bad, but still somewhat short of what we'd like...Wikipedia has millions of articles to improve, in fact over 99.9% of them, Join here. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose We already have people saying DYK has too broad a set of aims; this would mix in something very different and genuinely dilute those aims. No prejudice against GAs getting their own Main Page slot; I understand the category came about a couple of years ago? Now that it's well established, those who work in that area of endeavour should see about getting it incorporated into the Main Page if they want. But not mixed in with the very different category of new or newly expanded articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're opposing. This proposal is to prevent DYK being mixed with GA, by giving GA its own slot.  You're opposed to that?  —   01:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, essentially for the same reasons that everyone else has already raised. Prioryman (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This proposal has been made (more than once I think) in the past.  The main page already gives prominent focus to FAs reflecting contributions by those who have honed subjects extensively.  The DYK section of the main pages serves a different purposes.  It draws attention to newly created/expanded content.  By doing so, it attracts additional eyes to new content, helping to improve the new content with contributions from others.  It also serves as an excellent means to encourage creation of new content and to develop newer editors.  For these reasons, and as I have also voted in the past, I still oppose the proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia must resist the temptation to just cram every possible thing onto the already crowded main-page. What is the advantage, to the reader of having a GA of the day?  Besides distracting from the featured content it's confusing. (Which is better? Featured or Good? Who knows! Well, we do, but it's not obvious.) Being on the main-page is not a trophy, so we don't need to make a consolation prize category. APL (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though it is a good thought, I believe we would be having too much stuff stuffed into the main page. Users may also get confused as to what they are looking at (eg: Is this Good, Featured, what?), as noted by APL, and if people would like to see their article get on the main page, then they should work hard to get it up to FA status. Also, making matters worse, GAs are only reviewed by one person, and their review could have been poor, as well, lots of mistake could have been in the articles, and it wasn't even at that quality, due to a poor review, then. Only the best should be on the main page, IMO. Also as per the above. TBrandley 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to believe that anyone would claim that DYKs are the best of anything. Is that really your position? And how many "reviewers" does the typical DYK have? Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the featured lists, pictures, and articles, sorry, I missed DYK. Actually, after reading above, maybe the DYKs should be removed. I'm leaning to a support for the removal of DYKs. Thanks, TBrandley 02:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't make sense though. What about "In the news" or "On this day"? What are they the best of? Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not against having them there, although it is not fully related to Wikipedia and its articles. TBrandley 02:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What you very clearly said was "only the best should be on the main page", which makes me wonder if you've ever actually looked at the main page. But whatever. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Honestly, the quality of GAs vary from 'should be an FA' to 'should still be rated C class', and that alone is enough to leave me weary. If you want GAs on the main page, get Featured Topics on the main page. At least those are re-vetted.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean "wary"... ;) — foxj 15:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This proposal is scant on details and I cant support it as written. Where on the front page would they be placed?  I dont think there is much room to spare on the front page.  What would be dropped, or would share space with GAs?  How would they be selection?  I prefer GAs to be integrated into the existing DYK system, and I also like Sven's suggestion to elevate featured topics to the front page, perhaps by replacing ITN on slow news days, ;-) or replacing FL+FP when the featured topic has a good picture to accompany it. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose—far too much text on the main page already. I'd be looking to reduce it in all sections except for TFP. Please see the alternative proposal on the DYK talk page, which doesn't require more real estate. Tony   (talk)  09:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The main page already looks too cluttered, and rather dated. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with or replace DYK. I see no reason to dilute TFA, or to increase the amount of content on the Main Page. I would support replacing some or all of the current DYK content (which is rarely of much interest to readers) with GA material (which hopefully is, and is of a higher standard). This may require some additional vetting, along the lines currently done for DYK, but that needn't be onerous if the DYK content is reduced. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Neither fish nor fowl. I would be more interested in eliminating the Good articles process (and the Start, B, C article rankings). Rmhermen (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * More interested in eliminating the Good articles process than what? DYK is nothing more or less than vanity publishing, and not very good vanity publishing at that. It's also riddled with undetected plagiarism/copyright issues, even in the batch I looked at only a few minutes ago. High time the readers were put first, not the habitual stub creators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather see it eliminated than elevated to the main page. It was originally intended for articles too short for FA with longer articles being sent to Peer Review but then got mixed up with the 1.0 folks - and what purpose does it really serve? Rmhermen (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_articles&oldid=25275669 I think he does know what he's talking about]. He was on Wikipedia when the GA system was instituted; you weren't. Graham 87 05:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then he clearly misunderstood, just as you do. Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The main page should display the very best WP has to offer. I'm sorry, but GA's are not the very best.  It would make no sense having a lesser article in terms of quality on the main page. --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't, unless you believe that DYKs, ITNs and On this day articles are anything like the best that anyone could offer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In principal yes Cassianto but at Mal says it isn't the case. I'd be happy to see a mixture of GAs in with DYKs as the quality generally matches or exceeds the best DYKs.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen some excellent DYKs, which would easily meet the GA criteria, but they're few and far between. But too many have problems like this one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support I always supported GAs on the mainpage. Remove ITN as per WP:NOTNEWS and instead place something educational and encyclopedic. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Good articles are more important than lists, ITN, and DYKs. DYKs are good for encouraging new talent, so perhaps accounts could be allowed 2 DYKS in a smaller DYK section. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support --Make space by getting rid of DYK and ITN. Follow the lead of Spanish WP by plugging a couple of GAs (after the FA), and of French WP by making the links to the main portals more prominent. Et voilà! A less cluttered, more encyclopedic main page. Awien (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. If it means significantly revising or replacing existing sections, so be it. I supported that other proposal to introduce GAs into DYK, although just replacing DYK is fine by me. – Steel 21:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already have a "Featured article" section, so adding a selection of "second best" articles seems illogical to me. I appreciate many of the other links on the page are to non-FA articles, but I don’t see a reason to raise their prominence to something equalling the FAs. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but not merged with new articles. Personally I would add new articles as a daily list (like Hurracanehink suggested) and save the DYK concept for Good articles. We are an encyclopaedia with many weird and wonderful articles and disqualifying many of these articles from one of our more promising gimmicks is a waste. In my opinion one chosen good article a day with a decent hook is more likely to draw people in than 24 hooks a day, many with bland hooks and repeating topics from previous days. AIR corn (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The focus given to FA should be kept, not provided more visual competition. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support. I don't see a reason why not. Good and features articles both represent Wikipedia's best content. Zac (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Good articles are not on the same level as featured articles I'm afraid.  Just because an article is awarded GA status, it doesn't mean to say  it is a good article. It's quality is dependent on the level of review it receives from the reviewer.  Unlike FAC's, the community do not assess a GAC.  It's quality is assessed by the review of just one person, and its quality is dependant on that reviewers skills.   I sometimes see poorly reviewed GA's that pass the process that still have mistakes in them.  These are not "the best of Wikipedia". To base an articles quality on the review of just one editor is not the same as basing it on those of several people at FAC.  --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   04:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, I've seen them around as well, but overall, good articles are indeed good. If they were to be included, although it would be some work, I think it could work a bit like DYK. You nominate your GA to be included. Someone else takes a look at it to see if it's really good enough. Zac (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Obviously we should show our visitors our best good articles, which indeed are from a higher quality than the usual dd you know nominations (no offense intended, DYK guys do a good work and I've been there a lot). — ΛΧΣ  21™  03:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The goals of TFA and DYK are different. One is to showcase our best content, while the other is to showcase our newest interesting content. Clearly GA tends more towards the former. As someone mentioned above regarding the FA promotion rate being greater than one per day, we should not show GAs on the main page before we have exhausted our supply of featured articles. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It will be nice giving some attention to the GA's we (the editors) are working on, same as that attention is given to the FA's. I like this suggestion. — Tomíca (T2ME) 09:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now, at least) - on the whole, I prefer the approach of amalgamating GA into DYK rather than adding a new section. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- We have plenty of FA's to post, this is not the right place for this proposal so I doubt this discussion will be considered anyway, and please don't remove ITN.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't believe GA's should have a box as large as FA, rather something similar to the DYK box. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per King of Hearts. Currently, the different sections of the Main Page address different needs or interests: the best content, the newest content (that is at least marginally presentable), and so on. The quality of content that they feature varies, but they each fill their own niche. The same does not apply to Good Articles, since GA is largely just a step on the road toward FA. Featuring GAs on the Main Page would place them in direct competition with FAs, which is is counterproductive. If we start to experience a shortage of FAs, then that's a wholly different situation... -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With regard to the various calls to replace DYK or ITN with GA, I ask this: If either DYK or ITN was removed, would it not be better to feature two FAs instead of one FA and one GA? -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on how you view the main page. If it is for readers then it should not have any Good or new articles featured. If it is to encourage writers then GA serves a similar purpose to FA in that it encourages improving content (as opposed to the new content DYK encourages). A big difference is that GA is more accessable for many editors. AIR corn (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I do not see the need to feature GAs on the main page when we feature FAs, which are superior in quality.  Dough 48  72  00:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: FAs are articles that we should hold in high esteem, but GAs should also be held in high esteem. Are GAs of less "quality" to the point that we don't want to showcase them to viewers? If that is the case, doesn't that warp the whole purpose of being a "Good Article"? We should also showcase GAs in a separate section as an example of what high-quality articles look like. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 13:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I actually came to this page planning to support, but the arguments against (too much main page clutter, and the neither fish-nor-fowl nature of GAs) persuaded me. Khazar2 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If not the GAs-merged-with-DKYs proposal, then GA should have its own section. It doesn't make sense that we feature god knows how many DKYs per day and nothing from GA. We should be less obsessed with more-more-more content creation and be more willing to encourage, reward and display quality rewriting of existing coverage. There would be quality control issues, sure, as there are at DKY and TFA. bridies (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. When Wikipedia was young it made sense to incentivise the creation of new articles to help build the encyclopedia.  Today, most important articles already exist, so our focus needs to shift towards improving existing articles.  Putting GAs on the main page helps update our incentives to match Wikipedia's current needs. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Putting GAs on the Main Page primarily for being a superior process to others that feature content doesn't strike me as the right approach. GAs should stand on their own merits, and shouldn't be put in solely because GAN doesn't have some of the issues that have plagued DYK, for example. Personally, I think that too many GAs have difficulty meeting the project's own quality standards, due to the nature of the process. Letting any one reviewer's opinion decide an article's fate is always going to run the risk of a poor decision. Even GAN's advocates will likely admit as much. DYK has many well-known issues, but at least we aren't announcing to the world that they are high-quality articles, which is what we would be doing with GAs. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 17:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Main page should showcase Wikipedia's best content...featured articles. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Another contributor to Singapore-related articles shared with me that he prefers writing DYKs to writing GAs because only the former have Main Page exposure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as a replacement or alteration of DYK or replacement of the trivial "on this day". After over a decade of growth we have a giant baby encyclopaedia with two thirds of the articles at stub status, and is long overdue to shift focus on article improvement. -- ELEKHHT 05:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For reasons well-rehearsed by a number of editors above. NB I'd strongly support a proposal to remove DYK. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I think that GAs should have their own section and TFL should be a permanent affair. Saying so, I think that it not much worthy to discuss this issue here, village pump is the right place to go for it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I can't believe I'm supporting both proposals, but what the heck. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Personally I think quality is the most important part of what wikipedia needs, so things that encourage quality are a good thing, and working towards FP will help encourage people that are daunted by the FA standards, and might otherwise try and search for new trivia to put in DYK. The issue some have with the GA process seems irrelevant - this is a classic chicken and egg, while GA has no effect on anything, there is no real reason to tighten up the process. If the GA process was regularly reviewed in the process of choosing GAs for the FP, then the process will improve, plus as there are so many more GAs than FAs, only the best GAs will make the cut anyway, so the concern about poorly reviewed GAs seems misplaced to me. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to expand - personal I think the MP has a massive influence on how Wikipedia works dues to its' prominence. The current set up means the type of wikipedia editor that is "rewarded" with MP attention are 1) people with large amounts of time to make the massive commitment to shepherd an article to FA status 2) those that create new short articles on ever more obscure trivia to get into DYK and 3) recentist articles on things in the news to get into ITN. The 1 FA per day limit means editors that concentrate on creating good quality encyclopaedic articles on mainstream and important topics are competing for that 1 slot per day, where less "important" articles dominate everywhere else on the MP, so a way of increasing the balance towards quality rather than quantity would be good in my view, and highlighting GAs seems the only existing structure. The fact some GA reviews are not thorough enough seems an irrelevant point - items suggested for the MP in the GA category will be filtered and checked by the recommendation process, so poor quality "GA"s won't appear anyway. In terms of the actual resulting section, I could see something along the lines of 3-4 articles per day, with 1 or 2 sentences summarizing the article, and you could have it so down the left hand side of the page you had FA, GA, DYK - showing the pyramid of quality/progression of articles within wikipedia. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Netural. To tell the truth, I don't consider thatsome GAs are good enough for exhibiting in Main Page as high-quality contents.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points, but similar to TFA and TFL, I think that the articles will be put into discussion before coming on the big stage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: There are people here that the Main Page's purpose is to feature featured content, although obviously, it's not the case with ITN, DYK and OTD. So the question is, should it? Since when? – H T  D  13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly!! I don't understand why people have this misconception. Even TFP doesn't necessarily link to any better article. Also i am seeing that commenters are confused about the two discussions happening. Should GA get a separate place. Should GA be included as an additional criteria for DYK. §§<span style="font-family:;font-size:;color:;background-color:;"> §§ {T/C} 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support *"' - as a replacement for DYK with all GAs suitable for inclusion. It may promote GAs which is no bad thing but as an retired reviewer it may well increase the waiting lists. GAs must not be part of DYKs what form of combination would that make. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have plenty of FAs which have not appeared on the front page. Cannot see any value whatsoever in GAs having a spot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support We need people to improve upon GA's. This is a good way to make people want to edit them. ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣  Talk  03:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. GA's do need to be improved, but the Featured Article and Featured Picture spots are reserved for showcasing the very best work on the encyclopedia.  It wouldn't seem fitting to include work that's deemed second-class (albeit still very good) when many first-class articles haven't been featured.  It is also kind of nice to have only one article featured, as it focuses attention on that subject for the day.  Furthermore, comparing it to DYK doesn't make much sense as DYK, rather than showing quality, is showing that WP is still actively-producing articles.   dci  &#124;  TALK   20:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Corn cheese (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the Wikipedia main page should showcase a representative sample of our content. As others have noted, the main page is way too cluttered, and I do not support adding TGA to the current mess. TGA could run in place of TFA, ITN, or DYK. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already !voted, but I'd like to make a few comments down here. First, good articles are not meant to be Wikipedia's finest content.  Receiving a GA symbol certifies that, usually thanks to the hard work of a few editors, an article's quality has surpassed that of the majority and is about on par with a print encyclopedia.  It's a mark of excellence, yes, but it also leaves some room for improvement.  I also think that leaving the Main Page "featured" with one premier article is the most appealing manner of presentation.   dci  &#124;  TALK   23:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This would be quite sensible. If the GA process currently seems too weak then this would help improve it by drawing the attention of more editors.  To find space for this, please reduce the space given to the featured list which currently spans the page rather than being confined to half of it, like most other sections. Warden (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Support . DYK promotes the creation of new articles. FA promotes the creation of extremely well-researched articles, but ones which take a very long time to write. GA is the middle ground. While not as arduous as FA, it nevertheless has far more standards than a DYK. All three are the different stages of editor participation. I think we'll all agree that we're past the point of the article creation "race", we're now on the quality not quantity bit. So let's shift the incentive to improving existing articles and take advantage of the success of the DYK motivation. I don't really care where you might squeeze it in though, just as long as it's there.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  13:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. My !vote has been tempered somewhat by the explanation of the original proposal in DYK. I now more strongly support the original, as it is the least disruptive of the two options of how to include GAs. But whatever the means, I support any way of getting GAs featured on the Main Page.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S' OUL  08:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although it may seem like a nice idea, I am not seeing what purpose it would serve. I can give very good encyclopedic rationales for the ITN and DYK sections, and promoting featured content obviously serves an encyclopedic purpose, but Good Articles are just content of a higher quality than other articles that have not yet been determined to be the model for encyclopedic content.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only real purpose would be to encourage editors to work on improving articles. The lure of a main page slot is motivation for many editors. While FA does this, many articles are unlikely to reach FA standards either because the topic is to broad or the editors interested in them lack the skills. AIR corn (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for reasons of space. But I would support replacing DYK with good articles, or combining them in some way. Perhaps we could select the DYK list from the newest good articles. Lesgles (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse Lesgles's opposition for reasons of space and counter-proposal with combining Good Articles with Did You Know in some way. Do NOT endorse replacing DYN entirely. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, at least at current. There's not much argument that the main page ... well, features featured material because it is (or at least tries to be) the best we can produce.  The question comes down to whether we are well-served by using that space for any other purpose as well.  Currently, we have DYK, which are very much not the best we can produce.  But they are (or at least intended to be) presentable, newly-created articles.  And that's important, too, because it confirms to the public that this is still a work in progress, that there's still plenty to write about, and that we're still interested in growing the content of the project.  Now, the problems with copyvios and the like slipping past the DYK queue process ... are problems, but they aren't problems for here.  I wouldn't object to the idea that we replace ITN (on recentism grounds) with GAs, and use the GA system to highlight the way that articles are gradually improved: from a good start (at DYK) to a "good" article (at GA) to the best of our efforts (at FA).  But the GA process doesn't seem like it was exactly intended for that purpose, and it certainly isn't ready to shoulder that burden at the moment. I think elevating GAs to main page material will recreate the same problems that the DYK queue has, writ larger and in a different forum.  Those problems need a solution before we provide a means to repeat them.  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for many of the reasons already stated. The main page is already full.  The GA process isn't rigorous enough.  My response to the DYK section is that while the quality of many that pass to the main page is embarrassing, it does demonstrate the DYK's purpose: new articles are being created all the time, and while they're not the best examples of what articles should be, they show that's there's room for new additions.  I also see DYK as a way to recruit possible new editors by encouraging them to work on these new articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - see proposal below fo reasoning. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 17:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Makes more sense than mixing them in with DYK (apples and oranges belong in fruit salad). I suggest put in the Featured List spot and alternate the 2 as appropriate.  Royal broil  02:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good idea in theory, and I was thinking about supporting at first, but the opposers have raised some really good points. The main page is full as it is. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 19:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we have plenty of FAs, so there's no need to "add" to that collection by placing GAs in stead; nor is there any need to attract new potewntial editors to these highly-improved articles, so there's no need to add a section for it. DYKs serve 2 purposes - attract newe potential editors to these articles, which still need a lot of work; and to reward users who worked hard to create an article or improve a stub - merely getting a GA is reward enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: GAs already get too much coverage. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Where? You basically get a green dot on the article and a link on this page. AIR corn (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Adrian J. Hunter. Double sharp (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, a most sensible, logical, rational, and prudent proposal. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A FA is a "nearly complete" article - it's really good and new editors aren't going to want to mess with it, but it does show them what an article can become. DYKs are extremely simplistic and generally in need of expansion/improvement.  A GA is a nice intermediate step - it's a "good" article, but one that a newbie can edit without fear - indeed, one that he can still improve.  Towards this end, the GAs for the Main Page should be chosen somewhat-randomly, so we don't just get FA-wannabees, but get GAs at various stages of completion.  Also per Sun Creator, above. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we don't need an almost featured articles section; we already have a featured articles section. No point in duplicating it with a lower quality version. Wily D  08:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What is featured?\A new proposal
Has anyone already covered this? My understanding over the years is that when something gains featured status, it is the best-of-the-best and good enough to promote itself on Wikipedia's Main Page. The DYK is a nice exception and a good way to promote people's interest in new articles but does not promote the articles as they area. It is a stepping stone but I think it deserves to stay. I am thinking of a different idea altogether. How about a noticeboard at the bottom showing all pages that have gained GA or featured status at the bottom (similar to Signpost's Featured content)? Good articles are excellent but not the best.

Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 10:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of "Newly upgraded content" notice-boards, but I think we should try them out someplace a bit less visible first, such as on The Signpost. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

<Cough> At the top of this page: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. Support for the original proposal makes up about 45% of explicit support, neutral, or oppose comments or !votes.   dci  &#124;  TALK   23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (roughly 32 out of 69 or 70).  dci  &#124;  TALK   01:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Featured content is only 2 links (or 3 on mondays or whenever the list shows up), the vast majority of the links on the Main Page are not featured articles (all DYK links explictly, and most of ITN and OTD are not going to be featured articles), so the idea that things have to be featured articles to be on the MP seems really bizarre and counter to what you currently see on the MP every day. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Today's picture
Hi, today's picture is very good, but what is it? The caption refers to "oil windmill" and "oil mill", and the linked article also uses those same terms, but there seems no obvious way to find out what an "oil mill" is. I have never heard of such a thing. Of course, I expect I could find out with a bit more digging, but it would be nice if the information was readily available. 81.159.107.205 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an entry on Wiktionary oil mill and articles on the German, Swedish and Dutch wikipedias. Edgepedia (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just what I love about Wikipedia. Instead of fixing something, why not take more time explaining why it should not be fixed. 86.160.85.80 (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per, I see someone has fixed this in the article now, though not on the main page. 86.160.85.80 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this new wording preferable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See oil mill. -- Ferma (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Expired recent deaths
We now have two recent deaths with dates, 22nd and 25th October respectively, that are earlier than the item that just dropped off ITN, Berlusconi's conviction on 26th. What should we do? Remove the recent death ticker until it fills up again? Keep these deaths hanging around until they are pushed off? --Stephen 01:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggested at WT:ITN that the ticker should be hidden when it isn't needed, but nobody else really shared my view that staleness would be a problem. It's still not a problem yet: Russell Means is probably due to be removed, but Jacques Barzun has only been posted a little over three days, so I think that entry is fine for an extra day or two. But we definitely should develop a contingency plan for this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * J. Bernlef is a pretty big writer and he's just died. Add him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.101.235 (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely there are always plenty of people that have died, it is just the notability/article quality can be judged less harshly when no one more notable has died recently. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

'Expired recent deaths' sounds odd. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not go the whole hog and call it "recent expirations of life"? It is less disturbing than that horrible "D" word (I know it's Halloween and everything but not all of us are obsessed with guts and gore). Think of the children. They're getting younger every day.


 * I am given to understand that current recommendation in the UK is to declare a death by the words 'life extinct HH:MM'. How about :Jacques Barzun? 129.234.235.178 (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That really isn't the issue at hand. The wording of the "Recent deaths" section is fine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If the death is not recent enough, it should not appear on ITN. --174.89.157.213 (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In the news – barely
The most recent "news" item on ITN is still Disney buying up Lucasfilm, which happened on Tuesday. Every other section on the main page changes daily. ITN, despite being supposedly "topical", is updated at a glacial rate. What exactly is the point of this embarrassingly poor section? 87.114.31.223 (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ITN being slow is a good thing. It shows that our standards for posting ITN stories have increased.--WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a couple stories with consensus to post at WP:ITNC that aren't updated enough to post at the moment.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   14:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Imagine if everything featured in "On This Day" was five days out of date. How is "being slow a good thing" if it makes Wikipedia look crap? 87.114.31.223 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.31.223 (talk)
 * On This Day is designed to be daily. ITN is not. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For daily news, go to Portal:Current events, not the main page. --174.89.157.213 (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese wikipedia ranks unnecessarily low
It's 11th but ranked as 30th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:701:680F:6267:327C:AB40 (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not 'ranked'; it is alphabetical. 129.234.235.178 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A locked door on this day...

 * 1995 – André Dallaire was thwarted in his attempt to assassinate Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien when Chrétien's wife locked the door.

While this may be true there is no source after the sentence in the prime minister's article. On top of that the article on Jean Chrétien is in a state (with tags confirming a lack of references) and is a BLP to boot. But certainly no proof. None whatsoever. And, looking at the template, others are eligible? What about all the crimes and wars? Or even the 1980s radio program for a bit of variety? And, just wondering, if I take a random living prime minister and claim they survived an assassination attempt in the 1990s can it be featured tomorrow please? --86.40.105.207 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dallaire's article is the boldfaced article, so that should be the one that is up to standard. The other links aren't usually checked if they're good enough or not. I haven't checked any article, but if the Dallaire article has the appropriate references, that can be transferred to Chrétien's article. (Coincidentally, this was also the original complaint to another Canadian which was the subject, but not the content, that was being featured.) – H  T  D  19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Source added to the PM's article from the would-be assassin's article. BencherliteTalk 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

US Election - In The News
Why are we not linking to the US Presidential Election page from In The News. In what way is the US election not In The News right now? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone has to write about the result it first. – H T  D  04:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article - United States presidential election, 2012 - including a results section, is being edited contemporaneously, as is entirely normal on Wikipedia for *cough* the highest priority news story on just about every Western news network. (But not on Wikipedia In The News.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The results section doesn't have prose at the moment. No prose = no post. – H T  D  04:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah right. The most important elected post in the world has just been called, we have up-to-date info on this in the article, and you cannot see why we should provide users with a link to the page very many are likely to want to read. A baffling victory for bureaucracy over usability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have victory over bureaucracy over laziness to write a prose update on the article which should be just as long as the length your argument. Speaking of which, there's still no prose update, but it's posted already. Yay for laziness. – H T  D  06:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the fate of the most important election in the world linked to on the main page? Instead more comparatively trivial things are listed as the current news. J390 (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the fate of the most important election in the world is not happening right now, and did not happen yesterday. Sensationalist hyperbole aside, it probably will show up once Florida decides itself and someone writes about it.83.70.170.48 (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You all have good points. This is the wrong venue to discuss ITN items.  Please go to In the news/Candidates and carry on the discussion there.  This makes no statement on whether or not anyone is right or wrong, merely that the discussion happening here is entirely pointless.  Have this same discussion, but in the place where it will have the effect you want it to.  -- Jayron  32  05:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As a rule, ITN posts the results of major elections, not the simple fact that one is occurring. The truth is, "The United States heads to the polls to elect its president on November 6" is a rather worthless update for ITN. Resolute 14:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article link redux
I'm not in the habit of doing things like this, so I'm probably doing it wrong. If so, I apologise.

We had consensus (in the form of absence of objection) for the full-sentence form of the Featured Article link. It was changed on the basis of an exchange on Dabomb's user page. I am moving the discussion here, where I believe it belongs. I still favour the full-sentence version for the reasons I gave in the original discussion. Awien (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Text copied and pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dabomb87:


 * You copied the text from the rendered page (instead of the edit window), thereby removing the proper formatting (including the heading, line breaks, linking and indentation). This has been corrected.
 * As noted in the pasted discussion, I don't understand your claim that there was consensus for your preferred wording in particular. The variant currently in use (which is more similar to the longstanding link) had about the same amount of support, and its wording is that which both versions have in common.  —David Levy 22:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please link the discussion that resulted in taking out the ellipsis. I don't have this page watched and didn't see it, did mention in the discussion copied below that the discussion should take place elsewhere, and I believe the ellipsis should be kept. Thanks all. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Link to previous discussion: Talk:Main Page/Archive 171. BencherliteTalk 13:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dots
(Read the full article...) - this is now on the Main page, and similar for the next days. A space is missing between the word article and the ellipsis, and what does the ellipsis stand for anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dabomb, I was just thinking that "read the full article" sounds fine as a full sentence... any particular reason for keeping the elipses? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The ellipsis, as punctuation, is an indication that something's missing, i.e. in this case the rest of the article. In my view, the ellipsis should stay, but maybe this conversation should take place somewhere else. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What Truthkeeper said, basically. I feel that the ellipsis adds an element of anticipation that draws the reader in to read more. Am I being a bit corny? Probably. If it's that big an issue I can remove them. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the ellipsis and shortening the link's text to "Full article...". That's consistent with other usage of ellipses on the main page (and I believe that it's equally clear). —David Levy 03:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the ellipsis functions in the manner you describe. The issue, as noted by Crisco 1492, is that "Read the full article" is an independent clause.  Similar links ("Start a new article" and "Nominate an article") lack ellipses.


 * The discussion migrated here? Hmm.
 * I liked the full sentence, with or without ellipses, as I said on Main Page talk.
 * David Levy, "Read the full article" is a full sentence, not an independent clause. And a link to the rest of an article is different in kind from an invitation to contribute or nominate an article. For a different function, a different form may be appropriate.
 * That being said, I don't intend to get into a fight about it.
 * Awien (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How, in your view, is it superior to the current link? Do you believe that it's clearer or conveys additional information?  It certainly is less applicable to persons utilizing text-to-speech software.
 * An independent clause is a complete sentence. What distinction do you seek to draw?
 * Agreed. And on the main page, such invitations (including "More featured articles...", "More current events..." and "More featured pictures...") take this form.  —David Levy 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An independent clause is a complete sentence. What distinction do you seek to draw?
 * Agreed. And on the main page, such invitations (including "More featured articles...", "More current events..." and "More featured pictures...") take this form.  —David Levy 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And on the main page, such invitations (including "More featured articles...", "More current events..." and "More featured pictures...") take this form.  —David Levy 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OED: clause...(Gramm.) distinct member of a sentence....
 * I request that the consensus version of the link be restored (Read the full article, or Read the full article...), subject to modification if a new consensus is achieved through discussion in the appropriate forum. Thank you. Awien (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Right. And an independent clause is referred to as such because it can stand alone as a simple sentence.  It also can be part of a complex sentence, compound sentence or complex-compound sentence.
 * In the discussion that occurred, three users supported the wording "Full article", three users (including you) supported "Read the full article" (with one suggesting that something shorter be considered if that was too long), one supported "'Read the full article' or something similar" and one supported "'Read the full article', 'Read the article' or 'Full article'". (Note that I didn't participate, so I'm not including myself.)
 * How, in your view, does this constitute consensus for your preferred wording in particular (as opposed to the variant more similar to the longstanding link)?
 * You've ignored my above question as to how it's clearer or more informative and my comment about its inapplicability to persons utilizing text-to-speech software. —David Levy 18:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How, in your view, does this constitute consensus for your preferred wording in particular (as opposed to the variant more similar to the longstanding link)?
 * You've ignored my above question as to how it's clearer or more informative and my comment about its inapplicability to persons utilizing text-to-speech software. —David Levy 18:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Took the liberty of spacing the discussion. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And I replaced Awien's plain-text copy with one containing the correct wiki markup. —David Levy 22:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * David Levy’s claim above that there was no consensus for “Read the full article” is simply not valid. As can be seen here, there was collegial discussion during which various formulations were considered. There was unanimity that any of the suggestions was an improvement over “more”, and the objection regarding the length of what I originally suggested, “Read the full article here”, by dropping “here”. When discussion died down with several suggestions on the table, I put the question to the vote, so to speak, by proposing that we adopt “Read the full article”. When no objections were raised over the next two days, MSGJ concluded that the proposals were “unanimously supported” and made the change. No objection whatsoever surely amounts to consensus by any reasonable definition.
 * I therefore request again that that version (“Read the full article”) be restored until potentially consensus emerges here, now that we are in the right place for this discussion, that it needs to be changed.
 * As for DL’s objection that the full-sentence version is a problem for text-to-speech software, I don’t know enough about the technology to understand. He needs to explain what the problem is.
 * Awien (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I find your summary of the discussion rather perplexing. Indeed, the idea of modifying the link was unanimously supported, but your preferred wording was not.  Again, the variant currently in use (which is more similar to the longstanding link) had about the same amount of support, and its wording is that which both versions have in common.
 * Secondly, you appear to have misunderstood my point regarding text-to-speech software, which is simply that its users don't "read" Wikipedia's articles (so that wording is less applicable to them). —David Levy 01:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not one single objection raised in 48 hours means that “Read the full article” was acceptable to everyone. In what way is that not a consensus? Will an admin please restore that version till a consensus emerges that it needs to be changed? The change to "Full article" was not discussed here at all. Awien (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's entirely possible. (As you noted, "there was unanimity that any of the suggestions was an improvement over 'more'.")  But it wasn't everyone's first choice.
 * You reiterated your preferred course of action, and no one responded with the opinion that it was bad (or any opinion at all). How, in your view, does this negate other editors' opinions that different wording was equally good or better?  Are you under the impression that they were obliged to reiterate their preferences as well (with silence constituting a retraction)?
 * Again, in the very same discussion to which you've referred, that exact wording had about the same amount of support, and it's the two popular options' commonality. —David Levy 03:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, in the very same discussion to which you've referred, that exact wording had about the same amount of support, and it's the two popular options' commonality. —David Levy 03:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, in the very same discussion to which you've referred, that exact wording had about the same amount of support, and it's the two popular options' commonality. —David Levy 03:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

David Levy, are you being disingenuous, or do you actually not understand the difference between discussion and adoption? Awien (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the words' meanings. Their contextual relevance is less clear.
 * My best guess (which you're welcome to correct) is that you perceive Wikipedia as a bureaucracy in which your preferred wording's implementation formally established a new status quo that mustn't be disrupted without starting over from scratch (despite the support received by an alternative option in the aforementioned discussion, which you believe was rendered moot).
 * Am I close? —David Levy 14:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(adding) And what was adopted here should not have been changed on the basis of a suggestion made behind the scenes on a user's talk page. Admins, what was adopted here should be restored till there is consensus to change it. Awien (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, the current wording was discussed and supported here too. (And for the reasons outlined above, I'd argue that it received the widest support.)
 * Subsequently, specific issues regarding your preferred wording (its inapplicability to users of text-to-speech software and our inability to append an ellipsis without deviating from the formatting used elsewhere on the main page) were raised. Rather than address these concerns, you've repeatedly cited a procedural technicality that you believe exists.  —David Levy 14:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Come on, admins. What these guys did was wrong, changing what had been adopted with neither notice nor discussion, still less consensus. Put back the version that was adopted, then let them secure consensus for their change. Awien (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You've continually ignored my responses and reiterated your fallacious claims (based upon your apparent belief that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy in which a change's "adoption" nullifies all previous discussion and remains set in stone — irrespective of circumstances warranting otherwise — unless and until a formal process is completed). You know perfectly well that the current wording received about the same amount of support (if not more), and you assert that this is irrelevant because your preferred wording happened to be implemented first.  That isn't how Wikipedia works.  —David Levy 18:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: (1) There was a discussion in which only a few people participated. (2) No strong preferences were expressed for "Read the full article" over "Full article" - most of the participants seemed to be happy with anything, with or without dots (3) Some preferences were expressed, before the discussion was closed, that whatever was used should have "..." after it, to increase the enticement into the full version of the article, and so (TFA delegate) added the dots to to the queueing TFA blurbs (and, FWIW, I added the dots to the TFL blurb template) (4) It was pointed out at Dabomb's talk page (which seems as good a place as any to raise an issue with one of his actions, and frankly it makes little difference where the issue was raised) that it was not the best usage of "..." to use it after a full sentence such as "Read the full article", so Dabomb changed it to "Full article...". (5) There is no such problem with "..." after "Full article..." (6) "Full article..." is more compact than "Read the full article" and has the advantage of not using an inappropriate verb for users of text-to-speech software. (7) WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and WP:LAME spring to mind. (8) However the decision to use "Full article..." was eventually reached, instead of "more...", I endorse it. (9) Category:Wikipedia cleanup is not empty and is a better use of anyone's time than this. BencherliteTalk 17:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above summary is thoughtful and accurate. —David Levy 18:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur. Frankly, I wish we would spend as much time as this worrying about what comes before the parens, i.e. fine-tuning blurbs, though the quality has improved since Dabomb took the responsibility for scheduling.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Bencherlite, David Levy and Wehwalt. Other ways to better use our time than long discussions about this. And with Dabomb87, who is the TFA delegate. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing that is conspicuously absent from Bencherlite's summary is the fact that I supported my motion that “Read the full article” be adopted from among the possibilities with the explanation:

"I am very conscious that a huge number of our readers have English as a second language, and try wherever I reasonably can to make the choices that make WP as accessible as possible to them. That includes avoiding excessive use of acronyms, jargon, abbreviations, and so on. For the same reason I also prefer the full-sentence version of wording for the link..."

Absolutely nobody demurred, and the change was made.

That consensus should not have been disregarded and the wording changed without reference to the people who thought about the issue and reached it. However, all of this could have been avoided with an “Oops, sorry” when I first protested, and Dabomb and David Levy reading my reasoning rather than demanding explanations that had already been given, and explaining civilly why the putative inapplicability of the word “read” to users of text-to-voice technology overrode improving accessibility for our ESL users, etc. The ball was in their court.

Another thing that is conspicuously absent is any reference to the overall intransigent tone of David Levy’s argumentation. At no point does he come across as willing to engage constructively.

And there is, of course, a subtext here. Dabomb and particularly David Levy should not be allowed to get away with this kind of uncollegial and uncivil behaviour, which discourages and drives away unspectacular but useful editors like me. Given the concern there is to attract and retain editors, they should not get off scot free. There is a principle at stake, and an issue that is significant to the project.

Awien (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Awien (and good to see you back - hope you don't leave). I never saw the proposal here, but commented on Dabomb's page. There's nothing wrong with "Read the full article" but I do think the ellipsis should stay. I've just read the original discussion and you didn't seem to mind having the ellipsis - which was the point brought up on Dabomb's page. Maybe we should start over? I'd say let's keep the "Read the full article" with the ellipsis (which suggests something is missing from the blurb, i.e. the rest of the article). Truthkeeper (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with continuing the discussion (which has been fairly minimal). There's something very wrong with Awien's belief that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy in which decisions are formally enacted via "motions" and cannot be repealed without fulfilling procedural technicalities.  —David Levy 02:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Truthkeeper, our paths haven't crossed in a while. How are you? Of course I completely agree with you, keep the consensus version "Read the full article...", subject to being convinced that there's a problem with it. Awien (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, your continued insistence that your preferred wording is "the consensus version" has made the assumption of good faith difficult. —David Levy 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Please see WP:HEAR.
 * 2. I disagree with your ESL argument. (If "full article" is unclear, appending "read the" is unlikely to help.)
 * 3. I'm taken aback by your assertion that I've been "uncivil" and "[un]willing to engage constructively". Over and over, on Dabomb87's talk page and here, I've responded to your arguments and invited you to respond to mine.  Over and over, you've ignored the crux of my replies and reiterated the same claims (without addressing my criticisms thereof).  Meanwhile, you've alleged blatant wrongdoing and demanded that we not be permitted to "get away with it".  Is this your idea of "collegial" discourse?  —David Levy 02:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * David Levy, once you knew there had been a discussion and a consensus, the onus was on you to read it, not keep demanding that I repeat my points for your benefit. As for procedures, please see below. Awien (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I read the discussion. "Demanding that [you] repeat [your] points" is the opposite of what I'm doing.  I'm requesting that you stop reiterating your argument (as you've done yet again below) and address my (and others') responses thereto (particularly those pertaining to your belief that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy in which decisions are formally enacted via "motions" and cannot be repealed without adhering to procedural technicalities).  —David Levy 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The bigger picture

I want to say to anyone suggesting that we have more important things to do than this, that the issue here is much more fundamental than the exact wording of the featured article link, it’s a matter of process. All of us have a stake in the main page, and while it is obvious that editing it can’t be open, the present balance has swung too far towards making it the exclusive domain of the admins.

As a non-admin, I came to the talk page and made a suggestion for what I regarded as an improvement. After a couple of days without disagreement, I asked that an admin make the change. I was rebuked for impatience (that comment has since vanished), and advised to wait for a fortnight.

In fact in the total absence of any fundamental disagreement, I proposed a slightly amended version after nine days. No disagreement emerged for two more days, and MSGJ implemented the change.

If that is what it takes for regular editors to get a unanimously supported change made, how can it be acceptable for an admin to partially overturn it without notice, without comment, and with no possibility for the original participants to have input?

And it’s not that I or any of the participants is “wedded” to one form come hell or high water. People were and I am open to negotiation. It’s the profound disrespect shown to the people who made or stood behind the proposal to have it altered unilaterally. We should have been given the chance to have input.

Given the above, self-evident fairness requires that the version that was adopted by consensus should be restored, any potential amendment should be proposed here, and time allowed for discussion.

Also, given the strong suggestion of collusion between David Levy and Bencherlite that is given by this exchange on DL’s talk page, Bencherlite should exclude himself or be excluded from taking any further administrative action in this matter.

Awien (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh grow up, Awien. David Levy complimented me, and I thanked him for the compliment in what I hoped was a suitably humorous fashion.  Stop seeing conspiracies behind every keyboard. BencherliteTalk 18:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahem, to quote Awien: "strong suggestion of collusion". Really?  It just looks like two long-standing editors "chewing the fat" or "talking shit" or whatever way you want to see it.  I honestly cannot see any subversive behaviour here at all.  Please remain calm with regard to conspiracy theories.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not more fundamental than what it really is. Find something better to do, or at least do this somewhere that doesn't pollute Talk:Main Page. --  tariq abjotu  19:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As you've been told repeatedly, your understanding of Wikipedia process is incorrect. Consensus is a product of discussion, not bureaucratic technicalities surrounding "motions" and formal enactments.
 * Again, among "the original participants", the current wording received about the same amount of support (if not more). Why have you continually implied that it was introduced out of thin air?
 * Now you're just tilting at windmills. —David Levy 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, among "the original participants", the current wording received about the same amount of support (if not more). Why have you continually implied that it was introduced out of thin air?
 * Now you're just tilting at windmills. —David Levy 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're just tilting at windmills. —David Levy 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Bencherlite: During the part of this discussion that took place on Dabomb's talk page, David Levy responded to a comment of mine with a series of questions that were in serious breach of civility. You very quickly closed that interchange before I was able to respond, and very soon after that, it disappeared, presumably, although not necessarily, archived by you. It is nowhere to be found in the page's 2012 archives - would you be so kind as to provide a link to where it is? Thank you in advance, Awien (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, Awien. If you check the page history of User talk:Dabomb87, you will see that I notified him of the issue and thereafter I took no part in the discussion on his talk page about it, let alone close it, archive it (in whole or in part) or remove any comments from his talk page. I think you're imagining things. BencherliteTalk 23:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I, too, am at a loss. You've described a scenario unlike any with which I'm familiar.  —David Levy 00:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How David Levy ever got to be an admin boggles the mind. Bencherlite’s blatant siding with his buddy is at best very poor judgment. At best.
 * But worse, the lack of process in matters concerning the Main Page, and the blatant abuse of admin power on the part of these two and Dabomb, along with the the silence of others in turning a blind eye to it, truly bode ill for the future of the project.
 * Awien (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you have completely lost me now. In what way have I abused my "admin power" at all in this context?  Did you read my reply to your last accusation? And apart from David Levy paying me a compliment (in which he was not alone) and my thanks, what makes you think that he is my "buddy"? That was the first time I had edited his talk page and he has never edited mine. I was tempted to ignore your inaccurate accusations but I cannot take the risk that readers of this talk page might think that there is any truth in them whatsoever, or that they might think that a failure to reply on my part was acceptance of wrongdoing. And have you ever considered that the silence of others is because you're not convincing anybody but yourself with your arguments? BencherliteTalk 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Alternatives to that implausible theory? Let’s see. Admins hang together? No ordinary editor with any sense would wade into this snakepit? Time-strapped people who don’t have time to plough through everything to form a considered opinion stay out of it? Awien (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Awien, when you said above "That being said, I don't intend to get into a fight about it." did you mean it? I think you're digging the hole a whole lot holier.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Holier - yes, sounds about right. Feel free to join the cause. Awien (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As Bencherlite noted above, this was the first instance in which either of us edited the other's talk page.
 * You claim that I posted a series of uncivil questions, with Bencherlite closing the discussion before you were able to respond and someone (possibly Bencherlite) removing it. You (and anyone else) can view  and see that no such acts occurred.
 * I assume that you're referring to Dabomb87's (discussion-backed) link format revision and Bencherlite's (imaginary) discussion closure. What "admin power" do you allege I abused?  —David Levy 19:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume that you're referring to Dabomb87's (discussion-backed) link format revision and Bencherlite's (imaginary) discussion closure. What "admin power" do you allege I abused?  —David Levy 19:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume that you're referring to Dabomb87's (discussion-backed) link format revision and Bencherlite's (imaginary) discussion closure. What "admin power" do you allege I abused?  —David Levy 19:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please close this thread or take it elsewhere. I don't see what relevance it has here. Dabomb is the delegate for the TFA, so he has the last word, in my mind. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)