Talk:Main Page/Archive 172

Tomorrow's Featured Picture...
.... is great. But the article it links to (Victoria Police) with a lovely bold link, is really weak. We try to ensure quality in our TFA, our TFL, our DYKs, our ITNs, but we have an anomaly that our featured pictures can be used in articles bold-linked on the main page which are simply low quality. I looked at this article in question and found whole sections unreferenced. Before I'd even started, it had maintenance tags from a few months ago. Shouldn't we apply some quality control to the articles our featured pictures link to? Or are we happy to link to articles covered in maintenance tags, stubs, etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no article with such tags would be allowed to appear in bold face at TFA, TFL, ITN, DYK or OTD. Why should TFP be any different? I know that the picture is featured, not the article, but as it's featured on the basis of encyclopaedic value (and the article in bold face is the best example of that, one assumes) the picture should only appear when the article is in acceptable shape.  After all, we're not short of FPs waiting their turn, are we? BencherliteTalk 19:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a difficult enough time keeping track of which pictures are in the queue, what with making sure we don't have frequently appearing subjects (currently birds, sea creatures, and minerals) to also keep track of images skipped due to article quality. More importantly, I think it is patently unfair to image creators and restorers to withhold their works from Main Page appearances due to article quality issues that may be beyond their control or ability to fix. — howcheng  {chat} 06:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can be bold and fix it, Rambles.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if you could be bothered to look, I've made some adjustments to the last three articles featured on the main page within the featured picture section. Often the articles are not selected until a few hours before the picture is posted to the main page.  Also, if editors want their images featured with no regard to the encyclopedic content of the article in question, Commons is the place for that.  Commons has a "picture of the day", doesn't it?  This is an encyclopedia, and encouraging our readers to head to articles which are very poor indeed, plastered with maintenance tags etc, is not a good thing at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's super!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wont insult your intelligence by explaining it. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm here to try to improve the main page, what are you attempting? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Trying and failing. More to do - best crack on with it.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reply to Howcheng) Why is fairness to photographers and image restorers so important, and apparently more important than highlighting in bold face articles that would be ineligible to appear in any other main page section in bold face? If you find, when going through the queue of FPs, that there's an appropriate article that is in too poor a condition to be highlighted, let the nominator/photographer/restorer (whoever) know, and skip over it (and add it to Picture of the day/Unused). If they can fix it, great! Problem solved, and you can run it as planned ASAP. If they can't fix it straight away, then the onus is on them to find others who can, perhaps through an associated Wikiproject, and if fixed they can come back to you to request the image be run. If you won't run stubs in bold, a policy of yours that I've noticed at Picture of the day/Unused, why run articles with major problems? In fact, you have refused to run Dharmaraya Swamy Temple for exactly that reason, so why not apply that same test more often? BencherliteTalk 15:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bencherlite, I'm not sure stubs are excluded... Knut Steen and his fine portrait are slated for main page on 19 November, his article containing fewer than 100 words. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was simply going by Picture of the day/Unused, which has 20 unused stubs on it. I'm not sure why that picture shouldn't be no.21on the list. An article of that length wouldn't be acceptable at DYK, or I imagine OTD or ITN, however lovely the picture. BencherliteTalk 15:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't write a blurb based on a one-line stub, which is why they are excluded. I need a minimum of a few sentences to give enough context on the Main Page. As for Knut Steen, I scheduled that image for his birthday almost a year ago in the hopes that the article might get written in the meantime, but it looks like he will end up being on the unused list. I did not schedule Dharmaraya Swamy Temple because even if my standards are lower for the POTD article than for other sections, there is still some sort of minimum and that one is just a complete mess. Fairness to image creators is important because it's Today's Featured Picture. They're responsible for their images, not the associated articles. — howcheng  {chat} 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Images can be featured at Commons, this is an encyclopedia. We should not advocate links to really poor articles, particularly bold links, on the main page.  Surely you must agree with that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And these are Wikipedia Featured Pictures, not Commons Featured Pictures. The two FP projects are similar, but not equivalent. — howcheng  {chat} 00:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the point is to feature the picture, not the article it comes from, de-link (or at minimum de-bold) links to articles that are not up to scratch, like is (should be?) done in the other sections. The image should link to its own larger version anyway, I'd think it's better to have no link in the blurb than to link it to a grossly sub-par article. I've said once or twice before that featured picture blurbs should be stored with the image (the description, presumably, or failing that on the talk page) and written by the community, rather than an FP admin. If a picture doesn't have a blurb that's up to scratch, it doesn't get featured on the main page. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  05:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If all some editors are interested in is getting their pictures featured and presented to the world on the internet, they should use Commons. This is an encyclopedia.  I agree that a good short-term solution is not to have a bold link in the blurb if the bold link could lead to something quite weak and embarrassing for an encyclopedia to be promoting on its main page.  We should also have at least a few days (preferably a week) to examine any proposed blurbs and associated articles.  Right now, tomorrow's featured picture has not been selected, nor is it likely to be selected for several hours.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe they want their pictures featured in context, which is what you don't get on Commons. Regardless, I don't think it's wise to question the motives of people who are contributing featured content. To your other point, I've gone ahead and scheduled images up to November 16, although I did not write any of the blurbs. If you would like to spend the time vetting those articles, please go ahead and do so. — howcheng  {chat} 17:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In context with some of our worst articles? Sounds like a strange approach.  I will spend time trying to help these appalling articles but we should not be bold-linking them on the main page, it's embarrassing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, tomorrow's featured picture includes a bold-link to Industrial CT scanning which is one of the poorest articles I've seen on Wikipedia for a while, especially since we're promoting it on our main page via a bold link. It's written like an advert, it's tagged for clean up, it's got far too many images (many without any explanation whatsoever), is this really what the main page is about? I keep hearing the same old "not fair on image creators" argument trotted out, but image creators can use Commons for POTD, this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, and every single article we bold-link on the main page is quality controlled with the exception of this detritus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

St Michael's
Today is St Michael's day in Eastern Christianity (Gregorian calendar) and the only reason it is St Demetrius in any eastern Church (including Coptic) is because that is Julian calendar. We always have this duplication that actually ends up omitting important feasts (notwithstanding the fairly valid view that there shouldn't be feasts on an encylopaedia main page altogether. Although that is not my view)Eugene-elgato (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fundraiser
This is on everypage. So I will just post it here. If I donate does the banner go away? If not I will not. Simple. Jshflynn (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Or you can just supress the banner.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Beasties on the main page
'Two of them!' or 'Only two of them?' (according to taste). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, Wikipedia is a bastion of speciesism. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Today's featured pic (Alexz Johnson)
Just curious... today's featured pic is a non-famous actor/singer named Alexz Johnson who hasn't really done much, and the accompanying article is full of "needs citation" warnings. I thought I'd go look up the discussion in Featured picture candidates to see if there was something I was missing, and I couldn't find the discussion? Can someone explain why this person is considered notable enough not just for inclusion, but to be featured on the front page? Or at least point me towards the discussion? Thanks. &rarr; mrs smartygirl &larr; | Talk 03:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The featured content in this case is the picture, not the cited article. It's like the other links in FAs and OTDs aside from the main boldface link; in FPs, the "main boldfaced link" is the picture per se. – H T  D  04:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

" What concerns me more is why such a blatantly promotional picture is being given main page prominence. This is tantamount to highly valuable advertising space: are we really happy to offer that to any advertising agency/record company/broadcaster that offers to licence their pictures?  Kevin McE (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Kevin McE has it exactly right. This picture should not have been given this prominence. Awien (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, if this leads companies to donate good images of their actors and actresses, I don't mind an occasional image like this. I'd much rather have 50 companies donate 1 good image of 1 person in hopes that it reaches FP, because even if it doesn't it's still 50 good images for articles which may not have them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the discussion: Featured picture candidates/Alexz Johnson. The way to address the choice of featured pictures is to participate in future discussions.  This one has been decided and there's no practical way to generate a new consensus before this picture's day is done. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That discussion was about granting the picture FP status, not its suitability for Main Page prominence. I appreciate that it will probably not be changed before midnight, but that does not mean that discussion about the suitability of promotional pics on the main page is invalid.  Kevin McE (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By definition a featured picture is eligible to be featured. Jehochman Talk 16:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That need not be the case at all, and ability to provide a play on words does not change the purpose of a category. We had Featured lists for years before there was any proposal of a weekly FL space, we still have featured topics and featured portals without regular main page attention, and the rate of creation of FAs and FPs means that many will never see the main page.  If there is nothing in the selection criteria for the TFP slot on the main page to prevent its use for promotional pics that are of current commercial relevance, then the responses here suggest that there should be.  That does not prejudice their being given FP status (such professionally taken pictures ought to be of high technical merit and well composed), but would avoid any appearance of MP promotion being offered as inducement to donate images under licence.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking the original discussion Jehochman - from 2 years ago! I went through a few months of archives, kind of surprised that a selected pic could wait 2 years before being featured... maybe in 2010 there would have been some relevance (though I doubt it). I agree with Kevin that the discussion about suitability has merit. Will probably participate in the feature discussions in the future. Cheers &rarr; mrs smartygirl &larr; | Talk 16:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Then the criteria there should be amended so that promotional material isn't eligible to be a featured picture. Awien (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to start a discussion about that. Perhaps Wikipedia talk: Featured pictures is a good place to start, but others may have better suggestions.  The scheduling is just a long queue with occasional adjustments so that things sometimes appear on dates that are more relevant, such as anniversaries of historic events.  If something shouldn't be appearing on the main page at all, it should not be granted featured status. Jehochman Talk 17:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Discusion started, with proposal to ban professional promotional pictures from MP slot. Kevin McE (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Surprised this got on. There is very little to say about her, judging by the sentence beside the picture. The picture itself isn't particularly great and not on a particularly interesting topic. It really doesn't compare well at all with the hafnium, honey bee, or nuclear test. Thin, white blond, female... now if it was somebody like Marilyn Monroe there would at least be some historic significance... but an extremely average Disney popstar? With hands clasped around crotch? Gazing seductively into the distance? Massive (and extremely distasteful) drop in standards. There must be some mistake. Suspiciously like it was chosen by a crowd of overly hormonal male editors drooling over their computer screens. How soon will Wikipedia feature a young white (or maybe even non-white if that's actually possible and doesn't violate any Wikipedia codes) male actor? I come here because it's (purportedly) an encyclopedia. There are plenty of places I can go to get porn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.135 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, this not even remotely close to porn. I wouldn't even call it risqué. Regardless, almost every Featured Picture is eligible to appear on the Main Page. There are some exceptions, but this image doesn't fit any of the criteria. We have had plenty of pictures of minor celebrities that have made Main Page appearances, and this certainly won't be the last. — howcheng  {chat} 19:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One of those not allowed is this? What's the difference? Several of those not allowed have "No context available." There isn't much context available with this one either. --86.40.105.207 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't see the difference between "scantily clad female" and "fully clothed female", then I'm afraid there isn't much more to discuss here. — howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but there really is not much difference at all between skinny blonde girl in t-shirt clasping crotch while staring seductively at the viewer and skinny blond girl in bikini clasping breasts while staring seductively at the viewer. That you cannot see that and are attempting to shut down all opposition with a "not much more to discuss here" is pretty depressing. The level of nudity or how many clothes they wear is only a minor aspect of what is on show here. --86.40.105.207 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been a while since there was some significant crying and bellyaching about what appears on the main page. Nice to see TFP picking up TFA's slack! Resolute 18:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have an intelligent comment to make about the use of promotional images on the main page, or are you just trolling? Kevin McE (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not replying to an intelligent complaint, so no. This, ultimately, is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 18:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And, for clarity, I am referring to your "OMG PROMOTIONAL" argument, not the OP. The truth is, TFA and TFP are selected based on the quality of the article or picture.  If Coca Cola gains featured status, it is eligible to be TFA, regardless of so-called promotion.  The same is true of TFP.  As soon as we start making value judgements on what we consider the merits of the subject itself, we're deep into POV territory. Resolute 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fussed about whether this image is "perceived" to be promotional or not, but it is troubling that we have a bold link on the main page linking to an article which is not in a good state. Sure, we bold-link to DYKs, ITNs, FLs, FAs etc, but these all have some level of quality control on them, whereas it seems the bold link on the FP blurb could lead our dear readers to a truly substandard article. Of course, some may claim this is a good thing, proposing it would encourage others to improve the article themselves, but alternatively it may lead readers to conclude that we really don't care too much what our bold main page links actually lead to. I think there may be some merit in the FP people considering this before selecting images for main page inclusion. It would even help the whole project to include a check on the subject's article just to ensure no maintenance tags (for instance) are present. That looks particularly shoddy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but POTD is about the quality the image, not the accompanying article. There was only one picture that I skipped because the article was in such a ridiculously horrible state that I really felt it couldn't be posted. Otherwise, if we limited the images only to those that appear in good-quality articles, we'd end up skipping a lot of them, and how would that be fair to those people who spent a lot of time taking the photos, or doing the restoration work? — howcheng  {chat} 19:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the "good quality" has to be that high, but at the very least shouldn't be plastered with maintenance tags. The main page is about the collective project, not just one element of it. How do I find which article will be presented along with tomorrow's FP please? Also, presumably Commons would be the place for those editors you refer to to demonstrate their good work, Commons POTD doesn't rely on encyclopedic content to back it up, does it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Picture of the day/Archive contains the listings for the current month. — howcheng  {chat} 21:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks but the blurbs/articles that are "featured" aren't shown there until (I assume) the day before? We should have a chance to work on the sub-standard articles before they're "featured" on the main page, surely?  Also, can you comment on the fact the article featured today behind the picture was plastered with maintenance tags?  Also, can you comment on the idea that those editors seeking their just rewards should seek to have their images featured at Commons and not Wikipedia, as Commons is an image repository while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (removed large image) Yes, I would have to agree. The subject is barely notable and the linked page is rife with references to Twitter, Youtube, primary source websites and tabloid fluff. The FP also has to demonstrate educational quality, not really sure what makes the photograph educational or extraordinary either. The temple picture had merit, this one does not. Froggerlaura  ribbit 19:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're wrong there. The FP has to demonstrate encyclopedic value, not "educational quality". So the value here is it that is a technically well-done image that accurately portrays the subject (in this case, yes, she's in character, but the character's appearance is not significantly different from the actress's normal appearance, so that's not of concern). — howcheng  {chat} 21:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment. The picture is also used to illustrate the article Blonde stereotype.  Jehochman Talk 21:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, but in all seriousness I'm not sure a pic of a living person is suitable in an article with those connotations. Froggerlaura  ribbit 21:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable request, and represents a consensus of what the community would want, that before a picture is featured, the article that will be bold-linked should be free of major issues and maintenance tags. There is no deadline. If the article needs to be cleaned up, the picture can go to the end of the line and the next suitable picture can be featured. Jehochman Talk 21:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely (as proposer, of course I would) and not only that, I'm happy to help out with that task. Having said that, I'll need some notice on what articles will be getting the bold-linked treatment.  Right now it seems TFP works about 24 hours in advance (if lucky) so we perhaps need to look into modifying the selection criteria for the bold-linked article in the blurb of TFP so we either have a chance to spot sub-standard articles or better, do something about them.  That way, everyone benefits. (Worth also noting I know nothing about the governance of WP:TFP and it seems to me that Howcheng does all the background work on his own, so I don't want this to be some kind of Howcheng-bashing session, and particularly from my point of view, I'd like to help out in any way I can).... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For those concerned about there not being enough time to work on the associated articles, my suggestion is you could always get involved to try and increase the lead time. One possibility is to involved in the scheduling yourself, however the simpler option would likely be to just help write the blurbs, that seems to be what was suggested at Talk:Main Page/Request for comment: minimum prep-time for blurbs. Either way you should familiarise yourself with the Picture of the day/Guidelines and also familiarise yourself with the history both to get an idea of how to write a blurb and also to avoid repetition. My understanding is Howcheng would likely welcome help provided you're willing to do a decent job of it and understand the commitment (particularly if you want to get involved in the scheduling) and of course are going to largely follow the existing guidelines and practice (if you want to exclude 'promotional' pictures or whatever this probably won't work). Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's not just about the time to address associated issues, it's the basic principle that the bold link on TFP is the only article bold link on the main page without any real quality control. Leaving it until the day before to select TFP is an issue that should be addressed by those who are knowledgeable in that area, but linking to really poor articles on the main page is inexcusable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Main page image's article in a day or so (Samuel Reshevsky‎) contains many "His complete results were ", not withstanding the fact that most of it is unreferenced.  Is this what we want to advertise via bold links on the main page of Wikipedia?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

suggestion for In The News
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-82980-4-.htm#82980 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestions for "in the news" items belong at In the news/Candidates, not here. Graham 87 00:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As dinosaur-related topics are one of Wikipedias strong points, you may have some success with this one. (Oh, and as above, post it there not here :p)--Τασουλα (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, this is a good suggestion and it has an excellent chance of being posted, as long as the article is expanded. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've formally nominated it. But the article needs significant work. --Tone 10:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving on
Enough of Obama's mug! can we see Justin Welby please. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justin-Welby.jpg Robvanvee (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since that photo was a copyright violation, the answer would be no. — howcheng  {chat} 21:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops...my bad. At least we have moved on...Robvanvee (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your butthurtness is not a valid point for taking the photo down. There is currently no photo up, and there needs to be one. If a photo of Obama is the only photo available that is relevant to the news stories, it needs to go back up. Though I think one of the photos of the Guatemala earthquake would also be a choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.188.176 (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't 'need to be one'. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In your opinion perhaps. Robvanvee (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not just NULL's opinion. Images are enhancements to the text, not a necessity. --Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not a necessity, but it does enhance an article. When an event happens on a Tuesday, and a photo related to that story is still up on the Sunday, it does beg for replacement or at the very least, removal. But hey, thats just my opinion...Robvanvee (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bring back Lugo!
Since that has left ITN imageless for the first time in a while, why don't we just bring back Lugo? Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose that Lugo become a sort of placeholder image to be displayed wherever an image isn't currently displayed on the Main Page but might be, due to his obvious encyclopaedic value and dashing good looks. Lugo's relevance in any particular situation can be derived like so: Obama is currently on ITN; Obama -> politican -> Lugo. Q.E.D. Thoughts? (e • nn • en!) 17:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it's been proposed before, but "Lugo is still alive" could accompany the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for it. GRAPPLE   X  23:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Lugo!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That mic! Bring back the Mic!--85.210.106.83 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata and Wikivoyage
I assume once Wikivoyage is better established it will be joining the list of sister projects at the bottom of the Main Page. What about Wikidata? Will that also be considered a sister project? I see that Meta is listing both as "content projects"... - dcljr (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually... why isn't Wikivoyage there already? It's in the site matrix and has a working interwiki prefix. - dcljr (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both sites are still in a "beta state" which is why I think they haven't been added. Legoktm (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikivoyage is an awful mess right now and still a beta version - the Foundation probably don't want to encourage people to see it yet. Mogism (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Pillar of Defense
Shouldn't Operation Pillar of Defense be showcased in the News section? It is not every day that Israel rids a top terrorist figure (Ahmed Jabari) and have the entirety of Hamas declare the first war to have been declared online (by means of twitter. --DarkKunai (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't continue to abuse my personal data.
I wrote an article, and at the end i was asked if i had founded, what i was looking for. I did. I clicked. I had no improvment to add. My IP is printed on the feedback list without my permission.

I don't like that. I would appreciate to get my data back. Cause where I live i own my personal data. And you are using it whitout my permisson, like I said, by publishing it (the IP not the improvement text that I wrote itself - or to be more concrete the link between the IP and the usage of it).

Please don't do that again.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsfg80 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the article. I didn't wrote the article. Sorry for the confusion. I inserted this after the responses below. -Dsfg80 (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All unregistered contributions to wikipedia are attached to the IP address from which they were made; mostly through page histories. This isn't a new development, so although you can request your contribution be deleted (providing the page in question might be helpful), asking that it not be done again isn't going to happen. The ability to post without revealing your IP is one of the benefits of creating an account, which is quick and free anyway, so it's not something that is difficult to avoid. GRAPPLE   X  21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reply. When you write sth. down in the edit frame, there is a warning that your ip will be published. That is ok, because you have my permisson when i give you my permission. There is no warning in the feedback feature. That is not good. Dsfg80 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Dsfg80 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)-minor edited-


 * I have left a message about your complaint at Wikipedia talk:Article feedback. BencherliteTalk 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have left a message there. I agree wholeheartedly with the original poster. The article feedback tool is intended to reach out to readers beyond the Wikipedian community, who have no idea about the norms of "anonymous" editing on Wikipedia, and who do not expect their private, personal data to be published online. It is absolutely unfair to describe it as "easy to avoid". The "just get an account, then you'll be more truly anonymous" line works when addressing editors, particularly given the warnings they receive on the edit page. But you can't get an account retrospectively, and it's not easy to be psychic and realise you needed one, when you didn't get any advanced warning from the feedback tool of what is about to happen to your data. In fact unless you look for it, you can't even see that your personal details have been published online - I am sure a lot there would be a lot more complaints if feedbackers realised the way their data had been treated. ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are also free to use whichever computers you have access to without signing in. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC) feel free to browse wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.238.33 (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh no! Next.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to the above person's issue, rather than suggesting a general policy for Wikipedians. (And we have all probably made a few IP-asigned changes for whatever reasons)

As a further comment - an IP address can apply to a number of computers, so things are not always obvious. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The feedback form says: "By posting, you agree to transparency under these terms." I agree it's not very prominent and you have to click "terms" to see that your IP address may be published. See Requests for oversight if you want the IP address removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

On this Day
It should've been noted that William III/II was also James II/VII's nephew. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It should perhaps also be noted that this event occurred on 5 November OS (which was what England was using at the time), and that those who commemorate such things did so ten days ago. Can we remove this OTD in favour of something that, you know, actually happened on this date, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Firefox Mozilla
Wikipedia main page looking weird in Firefox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.15.122 (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied at Village pump (technical). Please keep discussion in one place and post follow-ups there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is Rex Hunt's death that important?
Who thinks that Rex Hunt's death is that much more important than all the other deaths of these past few days that one absolutely has got to see his name already on the Main page and be able to go directly to his page from the main page, whereas for all the other deaths one has to click on the Recent deaths link first to even see whose they were? And the worst is that no one seems to have noticed in several days! Basemetal (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus at ITN/C determined that his death is worth posting.  If you think that any other recently deceased person is of sufficient interest to the readership to merit main page attention, then propose it at ITN/C to see if that also gains consensus.  It is not that no-one else has noticed: it is that other people have recognised that this is within the terms of a recently changed policy. Kevin McE (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, someone should put a photo of him on his article. Preferably, wearing his plumed hat. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did recent deaths go from the main page?
124.254.75.48 (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * About a centimetre above where it used to be, under the last news item but above the Syria link. GRAPPLE   X  00:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that, every time I click on "Recent deaths", I am directed to the edit page for the Main Page, and have to try again. Is this happening to anyone else and can anyone explain it? Deb (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hamas-Israeli Conflict
Why is there no mention of the Operation Pillar of Cloud - the Hamas-Israeli rocket and air conflict in the News Section of this page? It's been going on for several days now. Dinky town  talk  01:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean, the one that's been there for the last two days and is second only to the most populous country in the world changing leader? Mogism (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that it's not 'second only to the most populous country in the world changing leader'. Items are ordered chronologically so if you want to use the word 'second' the most accurate statement is it's currently the second most recent item. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or Second Gaza War. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wheres the picture?
wheres the 'In the news' picture?-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  19:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to concerns that some persons in the news might be offended with having their names associated with other stories, we got rid of them.--WaltCip (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...only in cases where someone's photo would appear next to a negative story, like having Obama's picture next to a story on how a gunman shot 15 people at a university. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably what it should be, but it's currently wherever someone's photo would appear next to any story. So we also wouldn't have Obama's picture next to a story on how someone saved 15 kittens from falling off a cliff. --  tariq abjotu  01:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't know it was expanded like that. I suppose it might be intended as a catch-all so there's no debate over what does or doesn't constitute a 'negative' story. In any case, I don't mind there being no image in the ITN section, personally, so that might shift weight on my view of the rule. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  02:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose
... The 50th anniversary of the death of CS Lewis will be marked on the main page somehow next year, rather than the 49th today.

There are several creatures on the main page today - bird and two corals: is this overdoing it?

When is the next 'entry on the main page liable to cause wailing and gnashing of teeth' due? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Answering your points, respectively, I can't see CS Lewis on there today, no and see Today's featured article/November 2012 and decide for yourself. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * C.S. Lewis's death won't be listed in OTD, as only centennials are included there. — howcheng  {chat} 21:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

According to one of the papers yesterday Lewis will be given a plaque in Westminster Abbey's Poet's Corner next year: and suggesting that WP avoid the topic that will have wall-to-wall mass coverage (see below).

'Topics causing annoyance to certain fractions of WP readers' (which 'other readers' cosider are of differing degrees of validity) can occur anywhere on the main page (and there is another beastie on the MP today).

What is the profile for 'topics that cause annoyance or discussion' - 'certain post-watershed topics, Americana, 'cute creatures' and sports are the most obvious - and how can they be combined on the main page over several days :) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Today's featured antivirus
Am I the only one who feels that today's featured article blurb reads very much like an advertisement? The logo is there and everything...--WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you propose to write text which describes the features of a product without describing the features of that product? -- Jayron  32  18:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that only the wordmark was present. The icon, arguably a more important part of the logo was not because it is likely eligble for copyright protection (unlike the wordmark) and hasn't been released under a free licence so wasn't suitable for the main page. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Rap Genius feels like a wiki
I like the way rapgenius.com references explanations of users... How about add-on/plug-in for WP which uses the same approach? (comment/explanation bubbles)

--Foerdi (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot like original research, which we don't allow here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article
Given that one of the most read BBC news story is about multiple deaths from eating a soup made from poisonous mushrooms, is this featured article entirely appropriate? I know Wikipedia is not censored, but that is different from promoting an article on the front-page, the entrance to the English language Wikipedia, describing something so totally inappropriate at this time. 86.13.97.144 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Being able to clearly identify toxic fungi Is rather important for the budding mushroom collector, what better way to educate than to have an excellent article on one particular (albiet, non-deadly but with many edible relations in its group) toxic fungi on the front page? There is no intention to cause offense, and it's not as if it's a person who just murdered 100 people on the front page. If people get offended by mere association that isn't wikipedia's problem.--85.210.97.62 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I don't see what's "inappropriate" about running the article at this time. If the subject were, for example, a comedic fictional story about the accidental consumption of poisonous mushrooms leading to zany hijinks, I might understand the criticism.  But it's simply about a mushroom species (and not even the one involved in the incident).  If anything, the timing seems good (as reader interest in mushroom-related topics might be elevated).
 * Secondly, it's far too late to act on such a concern. Last-minute rescheduling is possible (and has occurred due to unfortunate timing), but once a featured article is on the main page (in this instance, almost finished with its run), only extraordinary factors (e.g. the discovery of plagiarism or other legal issues) will get it pulled.  —David Levy 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

JFK assassination
I guess the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, is not an important enough event to include in the list of events that happened on this day in history.

The death of Blackbeard, however, is. . . . ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.243.67 (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most years it has been there, but it is replaced by other items some other years to expose more history. I'm sure it will be back next year. --mav (reviews needed) 20:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More importantly, the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article has a yellow-level maintenance tag in the "External links" section, making the article ineligible. Hopefully someone will get around to fixing that so we can have it for next year's 50th anniversary. — howcheng  {chat} 21:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The assassination was listed in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010. It's not that it isn't important enough, we just want to have some sort of variety in our choice of events listed. Hut 8.5 23:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if it was fixed up prior to next year's 50th anniversary. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit ridiculous to me, even with such policies, that we could not at least mention the event with a link to Kennedy's article and the necessary section. It's over, though, so not much that can be done about it.   dci  &#124;  TALK   04:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would have argued for keeping it out this year in favor of highlighting it next year, the 50th anniversary. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think complaints show that OTD needs an open process like TFA/ITN/DYK have.   Hot Stop     (Talk)   13:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that TFA, ITN, and DYK all have endless new content to feature, whereas OTD can only select from a limited pool of events each year. Some days we have a large pool, some days we have barely enough items to fit. Having a whole process where you "!vote for which 5 items out of these 8 get to appear this year" seems to be overkill to me (in addition to the fact that it may be subject to systemic bias; if it were up to some people, the JFK assassination would be included every single year, for example). The other primary difference is that OTD is editable by anyone. You want some article to appear on a certain day? Go put it in. As long as it meets the criteria, it will make an appearance. — howcheng  {chat} 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although the JFK bit is a bit unusual, I get the rationales behind it.  I can't see any reason to have a review process for On this Day articles, as long as they aren't so egregious in some way that we don't want the casual main page viewer to see them.  An additional process would, in my opinion, be a waste of time.   dci  &#124;  TALK   04:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured Picture of the Day
Am I the only person whose breath was simply taken away by the sight of the Galeries Lafayette? That is truly one of the most amazing buildings that I think I have ever seen – for the artistry and the architectural detail and the grandeur to exist in something as ultimately mundane as a department store absolutely astounds me. This photograph in a nutshell is what keeps me opening up the Main Page on Wikipedia as the first thing I do when I turn on my computer every single morning, and what keeps me going back to the site regularly throughout the day so that I don't miss something. Shocking Blue (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed quite grand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to be that guy, but I'm more astounded by how poor the Galeries Lafayette article is. I'm not saying the image shouldn't have been selected due to the poor state of the article, but I was under the impression this was France's Harrods and, frankly, there is no comparison between the two articles. --  tariq abjotu  07:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some info which an anon removed about a half a year ago. It's still not a great article by any stretch, but it's slightly better now. Garion96 (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible "on this day…" BLP violation?
A blurb currently on display in the "Selected Anniversaries" section of the main page is as follows: "1971 – Fred Quilt, a leader of the Tsilhqot'in First Nation, was severely beaten by Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables." A quick scan through the article shows that two inquiries were held, with both rejecting police brutality as a cause of death, thus directly contradicting the blurb. I would suggest that either the blurb be taken off the main page or the word "allegedly" be added to the blurb, which could otherwise be considered defamatory (assuming the officers allegedly involved are still alive). Made the mistake of starting two discussions because I thought no one was responding to this one *sigh*. Link here to other discussion, and I really should avoid doing that, no matter what.  IgnorantArmies  – 09:04, Wednesday November 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks like a great big clanger. Formerip (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually per the main part of the article, the second inquest doesn't seem to have rejected police brutality but rather seemed to have been unable to determine precisely how the injury occured and therefore returned an open verdict and did not lay the blame against anyone (which is likely different from them saying there was no police brutality involved or rejecting it as a cause). The LEDE was misleading, but I've modified it. However I agree based on the article, the wording above is clearly not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've swapped out the OTD item (forgive me if I've been too bold in doing so or if I've done something wrong—I've not made such an edit to the MP before). matt (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm no great expert on OTD, but I think the item will return next year unless you take this further. Please also note the two other issues with this item raised in WP:ERRORS today. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit won't cause a return next year because it completely removed Fred Quilt. He wasn't just moved to "Eligible", where return next year would have been possible (not inevitable) unless someone (not just admins; the page will soon be unprotected when it comes off the Main Page) takes it further. Art LaPella (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would we be OK with "Fred Quilt, a leader of the Tsilhqot'in First Nation, died while in Royal Canadian Mounted Police custody, leading to charges of police brutality, although the constables were later cleared of all wrongdoing." — howcheng  {chat} 17:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't help with the issue I raised at ERRORS, which is that the blurb you suggest does not suggest any great significance to the event even in Canada, making its appearance in OTD seem inappropriate. Worse, the article does not suggest any great significance either. --Dweller (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an issue to bring up at WP:AFD. — howcheng  {chat} 21:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I don't mean it should be deleted because it's not notable. I mean that the level of prominence required to appear in OTD is not clear in the blurb or the article. --Dweller (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think User:Howcheng is happy to feature sub-standard articles on the main page, as exemplified almost daily by WP:POTD. Recently, the main page blurb for POTD was the entire content of the article.  Recently we've seen articles littered with maintenance tags featured.  Apparently WP:POTD and Howcheng are happy with that.  I think it's disgraceful.  Our main page should point people to decent articles, not trash. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article in question, Fred Quilt inquiry, is not as bad as the POTD articles you mention. Tags at OTD will make an article unsuitable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't make assumptions about what I do. Standards for OTD are different than for POTD. I've been scheduling OTD for 2 years now daily and POTD since May 2006. I know what I'm doing. — howcheng  {chat} 06:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, using POTD to feature stubs and articles littered with maintenance tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering you don't like when other people touch your precious Main Page section, I suggest you temper your POTD crusade. --  tariq abjotu  13:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Entirely different things. POTD has a bold link often as not to a stub or an article cluttered with maintenance tags. I'm surprised it's considered acceptable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * POTD is about the picture, not the article. It would be unfair to expect FA blurbs to maintain high quality image standards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's just about the picture, Commons is the place for it. This is an encyclopedia. At the very least, the bold-linked article in the blurb should not be a stub, should not have maintenance tags, particularly when, in many cases, the bold-linked article gets more hits than the selected image... e.g. article 3969 views, ... article 26,846 views,. I'm just surprised with such a huge POTD backlog, it's so hard to select images whose bold-linked article isn't in such a poor state. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be amenable to debolding the article, although my opinion is of little weight at POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just think it'd be better for the encyclopedia if we ensured bold-linked articles were up to scratch. I think it's the only bold-linked article in the "featured" section of the main page that has virtually no standard applied.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I explained to you on your talk page, if you have a preferred way of scheduling POTD blurbs, I am happy to cede my unofficial POTD director role. — howcheng  {chat} 18:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said all along, it's nothing to do with scheduling, or blurbs, but selection of articles which are really sub-standard, like stubs or those with maintenance tags. Pretty obvious we shouldn't be "featuring" these kind of articles via bold links on our main page, isn't it?  Especially if there is such a backlog of featured pictures....  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wonder if it's time for User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive? Art LaPella (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Scheduling is the process of determining which pictures and which associated articles will be making appearances. You have a complaint about which articles should be shown. I don't understand your assertion about how this has nothing to do with scheduling when it appears to be exactly what you're talking about. — howcheng  {chat} 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, then so how about if I let you know that the bold-linked articles you've selected are either stubs or have maintenance tags and shouldn't be selected? I'd be happy to then suggest alternatives.  That way, the only bold-linked article on the featured section of the main page would at least be of a minimum quality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting alternative articles or alternative TFPs? If it's the former, bear in mind it doesn't seem this would often work well. As I understand it, the picture is supposed to significantly enhance the article. A lot of the time the number of articles a picture is used in is small possibly only one. If we're going to bold link articles the picture does not appear in, I don't see how this is any better then simply not bold linking at all. (On the other hand, I guess any article the picture appears in would be okay. While the article/s a picture appears in is mentioned in the FP discussion and I believe how useful it is from an encyclopaedic POV is considered, I think in most cases the FP isn't clearly linked to its appearance in a specific article.) And either way, if the link you're proposing is already used in the blurb so the bolding just has to be changed then perhaps the proposal would be acceptable. However if you're going to suggest an alternative link which would require rewriting of the blurb and you're not going to be doing that (or are going to produce a worse blurb then what is used) then I'm not sure your proposal works. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is straightforward. The bold-linked article in the blurb for POTD should link to an article which isn't a stub, doesn't have maintenance tags all over and has a similar minimum quality to a DYK, ITN or similar. By all accounts we have a massive backlog of pictures that could be featured, picking one with a related article of a reasonable quality can't be that hard. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Picking an image with a good-quality article is not hard in and of itself. The problem is because, unlike TFA, we go in a rough FIFO order based on time of promotion, if a picture gets skipped, it's very unlikely that I'm going to come back to it later. The other day we just had File:Jessie Willcox Smith - The Water Babies - p236 (Restored).jpg. Its counterpart File:Water Babies(Restored, Alternate crop 2).jpg appeared on March 20, 2010, and I had meant to space out the two images so that the same article wouldn't be featured twice in succession, and that gap ended up being 2.5 years. In the meantime, the person who restored it retired from Wikipedia never having gotten to see his second image on the Main Page. If you're so concerned about poor quality articles appearing, then you could also take the time to fix them up instead of just slapping maintenance tags on them. Obviously, you're not going to have the time or expertise to deal with every article, but this was a particularly easy fix. — howcheng  {chat} 21:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice that you pick one edit where I've added tags (oh, and actually improved the article per our various guidelines etc....), and missed the dozens where I've tried my best to improve articles about which I know nothing. Go check my recent contribs and tell the truth about how much I've tried to do to make your choices somehow acceptable for mainpage inclusion.  Your spin is unnecessary and disingenuous.  There are no rules saying you must pick images in a first-come-first-served approach, or did I miss that guideline?  I don't care about editors "seeing their images" on the mainpage, that's not what editing Wikipedia is about.  Not at all.  You need to understand this is an encyclopedia, if an editor is particularly obsessed with seeing their image on the internet, Commons is the place for that, as I've said many times.  Now then, how do I help you pick reasonable quality articles?  I'm happy to do that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your improvements were very minor: punctuation, en-dashes, reference consolidation... I don't know anything about the book either, but I was able to add a few sentences to the lede. I didn't make a comment about any other improvements you may have made because I don't stalk your contributions. And yes, you did miss that guideline: WP:POTD/G, which I wrote in March 2007. — howcheng  {chat} 06:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the only POTD article I've updated, as I'm sure you're aware. And as for the guideline, it should be changed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny that you missed the guideline which I linked to at Talk:Main Page/Archive 172 which you replied to. As I said there, anyone wanting to get involved would do well to understand the existing guidelines and practice, which obviously included the FIFO practice (which I've been well aware of for several years despite no involvement). I'm sure you've done some good work with TFP articles, but from what you've demonstrated so far, I can't see why I would prefer you involved in scheduling TFP instead of Howcheng. (And I'm still not entirely sure what you're proposing to do anyway. You say the proposal is straightforward and how the article should not be whatever, but what exactly are you planning to do about it? As Howcheng said, there's obviously no reason why he needs you to see if an article is a stub or has maitenence tags. It seems clear you're not proposing to take over scheduling entirely.) Of course if you have a proposal on a different method of scheduling to you're welcome to make it and see if you can get community consensus bearing in mind someone would need to be in charge which may not be Howcheng if he finds your proposal too difficult to implent. In any case, I don't see how continually complaining is going to get anywhere useful. As it stands, I would personally prefer TFPs to be featured even if the article is not that good because ultimately the picture and the encyclopaedic value it adds to wikipedia and the article/s it is in should stand for itself. And I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise, if anything I've become more in favour. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer: the guideline precedes my involvement, having been introduced in November 2004. — howcheng  {chat} 17:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The easiest solution here is to not boldface any link, as that gives the impression that the linked article is the one being featured. I was going to say not to link anything at all, but that creates more problems when there's jargon that can't be avoided. As much as possible, the centerpiece should be the picture and not bolding anyhing reinforces that. – H T  D  15:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a solution. Alternatively we should not selected images for POTD whose bold-linked articles are stubs or have maintenance tags as a minimum.  Why is that so hard?  And to Nil, as for "continually complaining", not true, I'm asking what I can do to help (funny how you missed it where I said "Now then, how do I help you pick reasonable quality articles? " above...).  But it seems several editors are happy to have only one bold-linked article in featured section of the main page which links to possible rubbish.  I can see I'm wasting my time here, so I'll just get back to ensuring other bold-linked articles are in top shape for the main page and leave the stubs etc to POTD.  Thanks for the interest from those who have shown an interest though.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss it, from where I stand you are complaining. As I said it's silly to suggest Howcheng can't see if an article doesn't meet the criteria you have listed. You're asking what you can do to help but at the same time offering no useful suggestions on what you can do to help. Simply suggesting a criteria is fairly useless if you aren't proposing how it be implemented or the person who is going to have to do the work says it's too difficult or does not agree with it, you've offered no suggestions as to how exactly you're going to help implement the proposed criteria (which means as I've said several times you're likely going to have to do more then simply spot articles which are stubs or maintenence tags). And you didn't even read the existing guidelines or bother to familiarise yourself with how TFP selection works despite all these complaints, and even after said guidelines were pointed out to you and it was politely suggested you probably should do so. Nor have you tried to constructively propose a new set of guidelines, either developed in collobration with the person who is going to be doing the work or if you can't seek an agreement then developed with the proposal that you or someone else who agrees take over schedulings, which you then plan to try to seek consensus for (bearing in mind the history of Main Page proposals suggests this could easily be quite a long process). Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Totally outside opinion here. I fail to see what is so hard to understand about The Rambling Man's point. To me it seems completely obvious and irrefutable. A picture, in and of itself (without any labels or associated text), has NO encyclopedic value. It only has encyclopedic value as an illustration of something else. If the article an image is used in is factually unsound, unsourced, poorly written or simply too short then the picture is not useful as there is little or nothing for it to illustrate. How hard is it to look at the linked article and ask yourself "If an individual with no prior knowledge of this subject comes here through the link from this picture, will they actually be able to learn anything?" If the answer is no, you should not post the picture. The FIFO guideline already has several obvious exceptions listed, this is simply one more obvious exception. As for the whole "but the contributor won't get to see his/her picture" point, I again have to agree with TRM: that simply isn't what Wikipedia is for and is not why they should have been contributing in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No maintenance tags on articles linked from the main page would be good. There is nothing wrong with a good stub article though. Garion96 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This interesting discussion might be helped by the one which follows it below . A great picture but, apparently, not-so-good blue-linked article. The greatness of the picture, though, seems to have spurned someone to go and at least start improving the article. Bazza (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I question the claim a picture in itself has no encylopaedic value. For starters diagrams usually do have labels. But more importantly for people who are not blind, pictures often play important part in helping them understand something (the common cliche about a pictures worth didn't come from nothing) and visual imagery plays an important part in their understanding (this is after all one of the reasons we get so many complaints about our copyright policy). I'm not saying we should ignore articles, one reason why I haven't really pushed debolding as a suitable solution as arguably the picture in the context of the article or topic is what matters most (the FP criteria does after all require a picture be used in an article). But this doesn't mean the article needs to be that much, the point of a FP is that by nature it significantly adds to the article/topic and provides encyclopaedic value to the viewer just by being there. In other words all the article really needs to do is to put the picture in a minimal amount of context. (It would of course be ideal if it gives more, but the point is the picture itself gives sufficient encylopaedic information to the viewer by itself which is what we are featuring.) Note while this context is normally provided by the blurb, this doesn't mean the failure of the article to add anything new is flawed. Rather it just reflects the fact that TFP is about the encyclopaedic value of pictures. The difference with all the other sections is in all the other sections the encyclopaedic value is supposed to come from the article (or list in case of TFL). The extra encyclopaedic value in the case of TFP actually comes to the viewer from looking at the picture, perhaps in closeup. If we've done our job right in selecting FPs, it should be obvious to the viewer what it provides to the article, in some case this may mean making a totally shit article, far better. (And plenty of shit articles do make it to the bold link on the main page, while there are standard reflective of the fact the encyclopaedic value comes from the article, the bar is fairly low for SA/OTD and to some extent ITN/DYK. I mean heck it's been like 3 times or so when I've followed a link about some company agreeing to buy out some other company only to find the article suggesting it already happened when in reality it's of course still awaiting regulator and in some cases shareholder approval.) P.S. If you anyone is thinking of suggesting people go to commons in response to my statements on pictures I would suggest they missed my point. It's not just about great pictures, but great pictures which significantly help the readers understanding. In other words when looking at them the reader shouldn't say be able to say wow that's a great picture and admire it is a great picture but rather 'oh, so thats what.....' Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To give an example today's Blue-winged Parrot is a stub although it does have 2 paragraphs. But imagine if it were an even shorter stub, let's say all it provided were the first sentence 'The Blue-winged Parrot can fly (Neophema chrysostoma) also known as the Blue-banded Parakeet or Blue-banded Grass-parakeet, is a small parrot (20 cm) found in Tasmania and southeast Australia.' For me this doesn't mean the picture is useless or there is no encycloapedic value added. I have a good idea of what a male bird looks like, I've even seen the feathers and claws in a fair degree of detail. For some, this value could easily be more significant to them then the textual content of say a B class or even a FA since they may simply have no desire to learn about the range, habitat, migration patterns, mating behaviour, when it was first identified and whatever else. And similarly for some, the picture is likely something they're far more likely to remember then a description of what is visible in the picture. This doesn't mean the text in articles are useless since there are some people who always want and many cases when most people do want the textual details even more then a picture, it simply means an encyclopaedic picture isn't useless even with minimal details in the article since the point of such a picture is it provides encyclopaedic value by itself. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did say devoid of labels and associated text. People had said that the image alone has value, you are still saying it but are using examples of images associated with articles or with your previous knowledge. The image BY ITSELF tells you nothing. Images need context to really convey meaning. A poor article does not supply context or supplies only a poor context so that the picture becomes merely a "great picture" (OOOOHHH! PRETTTTYY!) instead of a "great picture which significantly helps the reader's understanding". --Khajidha (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to re-appear, despite saying I wouldn't, but once again, let me reiterate, this is an encyclopedia, not a gallery of images. If we want sexy images, go to Commons.  We need to promote good, if not excellent articles.  I've never said images are useless based on their pathetic associated articles, all I've said is we shouldn't bold-link articles in the featured section of our main page that are stubs or contain maintenance tags.  Nil, you've written an awful lot of text, but I can sum up my idea in one sentence, what's so hard about a simple answer why we should promote really subs-standard articles on the main page, the only section of the main page featured section that has zero quality control.  ITN, DYK, FA, FL, all have some level of control, why not POTD?  How difficult is it to just select the next image (even if the FIFO system is insisted upon) with a reasonable article associated with it?  The fact that, as often as not, the article promoted by the POTD blurb has more hits than the picture promoted by POTD is indisputable evidence that we should be considering the bold-linked article as seriously, if not more seriously, than the pretty picture.  Oh, and Nil, you say "It's not just about great pictures, but great pictures which significantly help the readers understanding", so what makes an image of a big Christmas tree "significantly help the readers understanding" of Galeries Lafayette?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Unwanted headers
Why am I getting unwanted and seemingly irrelevant headers on all wikipedia pages?--Petebutt (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the relevant page to complain, but yeah me too. – H T  D  14:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it look like this page: Fundraising? Art LaPella (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Frankly it looks like used to denote what the code is for when you're editing webpages via the old school method. – H  T  D  14:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the problem discussed at WP:VP/T, it should clear up if you purge your cache. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They're gone now. – H T  D  15:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TAFI proposal
A proposal to include a WP:TAFI reference on the main page has reached consensus at Village_pump_(proposals). Should we start discussing how to implement this proposal? -—Kvng 14:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A proposal to alter the Main Page requires far more participation than the linked discussion. Where was this proposal advertised? I may not be as active as I once was, but I don't recall seeing a notice on my watchlist or within WP:CENT. -- auburn pilot  talk  16:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it originated as a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. How do you propose advertising this? Should an RfC be opened here?  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 21:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've linked to the WP:VPP from centralized discussion. — Theo polisme  21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 22:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion (made previously on occasion) is that there should be a "Random article requiring development" (or similar) under the 'Random article' link: selecting from the various appropriate tags (stub, wikify...). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Eh... isn't this what DYK is for? – H T  D  13:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion hasn't reached a consensus, it's ongoing. Constructive, reasoned participation (whether in support, opposition or simply to make a comment) is welcome and encouraged. —WFC— FL wishlist 10:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Montreal Massacre
As this is the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, I've started a discussion here. Based on the listed OTD criteria, my feeling is that as a featured article of an historically notable event, that falls outside of the Anglosphere, this article really should be mentioned for Dec. 6 events. Sorry to mention this here, as it's not for discussing Main Page content but I wanted to get some points of view at a talk page with little traffic. Thanks.  freshacconci  talk talk  15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Error in the Tutorial/Citing sources
3.1.4 Repeated citations

In the following I have substituted parentheses for angle brackets so that it will display properly. Second illustration should read:
 * (ref name="name")(ref/)

Will9194 (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to this? If so, post it on the guideline's talkpage. Are you saying  should be changed to ? It is my understanding that both variations work, but the former is more efficient and preferred. Mysterious Whisper  (SHOUT)  14:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

FLs
This isn't a proposal to change the current situation, but why was it decided to only include featured lists once a week. By my count we'd have about 8 year's worth of lists if we ran them each day.  Hot Stop     (Talk)   05:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is much material in the archives, please read that first. Let's not restart the argument without meaning to.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was serious talk a few months ago about going to two a week. I haven't been around since, so I'm not sure what the outcome was. —WFC— FL wishlist 10:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was considerable support within the FL community to move to twice a week, but it was considered the variety of FLs selected (by me) was not consistent with what the project would most benefit from. So we've re-jigged the system a little to trim the nomination procedure and I've stepped back from selecting the TFL.  I would be more than happy to push for two slots a week, as you say Hot Stop, we have more than enough of a backlog (we promote more than a dozen a month) to sustain the extra slot without compromising quality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tense in "Antarctic Exploration" TFL
The summary begins [t]he Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration is an era.... But standard English grammar refers to past eras in the past tense. So I went to the article itself to correct it, and I find that it didn't (at the time) say "is" but rather "defines", so it appears that whoever wrote the summary took it upon himself/herself to add the strange use of "is". ("Defines" is a different sort of error &mdash; it's not the Heroic Age that defines the era, but rather the phrase "...Heroic Age...", so this is a use–mention confusion, which I have now corrected.) --Trovatore (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ugly yellow donation banner when I'm logged out!
Omg! There's an ugly yellow banner at the top of the screen when I'm logged out! Kill it!-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pestering you to donate, obviously. --85.210.97.62 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been there for quite a while, actually. If you want to make a proposal, though, Village pump (proposals) is the place to make it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't log out?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

On the adequacy of the term "numerous atrocities"
Considering the severe odiousness of the Japanese actions in Nanking during the Second World War and the horrific death toll, I do not believe that the term "numerous atrocities" adequately conveys the seriousness of the event described, and the numbers victimised. 12:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.194.178.22 (talk)
 * Part of the problem is there is not a widely agreed upon number to put in the blurb, nor is there room in the brief sentence on the main page to itemize each individual atrocity. If someone wants to know all of the details, they can read the article.  -- Jayron  32  14:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Atrocity means "an extremely wicked" or "cruel and violent act". Does this not describe the situation in the Rape of Nanking? Numerous means "great in number". Were there not a great number of such atrocities committed? How else would you describe the events (remembering that this is just a blurb to draw interest to the article where more details may be found)? --Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for a change...
I'd like to praise the geographic coverage of ITN. Right now we have stories which relate to India, Mali, Ghana, Romania, Qatar and Egypt. There are two further indirect references to Japan and Tanzania, whilst Recent Deaths currently list a Bangladeshi, Mexican-American and Briton. Good going. Modest Genius talk 23:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but remember that just like times when there are five articles about British events or something like that, it is not through design. If you'd like to keep it the way it is, with a wide representation, it is incumbent upon you to take an active role in improving articles which deal with a wide variety of geographic areas, and to nominate those articles at ITN.  ITN can only work with the raw material (in the form of quality articles) that it is provided.  -- Jayron  32  03:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Err, yes, of course. You do realise that I have over 1500 edits to ITN/C alone, and have made dozens of nominations? I'm not new to ITN, or unaware of how it works. Was just trying to encourage the good work that's being done there at present. Modest Genius talk 11:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

'Pleased of Tunbridge Wells'?

People do tend to comment when there is 'an excess of a particular topic' (on one day or over several days) - but not when 'the balance is reasonable/there is nothing that particularly irks them' (much as 'XX had a pleasant day' is not news but 'YY was chased by a sheep' is). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For god's sake, man, will you please stop trotting out your tired old Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells references every couple of months. If you look in the Talk: Main Page archives, you turn up with the exact same phrase on archive pages 146, 147, 149 (twice), 150 (twice), 151, 152, 154 (twice), 155 (three times), 156, 157 (twice), 164, 165 (twice), 167, 168 and 171. We get the point. It's getting beyond tedious – change the record. 87.114.90.71 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Don't shoot the messenger - good messengers are hard to find' (as it says on the Evil Overlord list somewhere). Perhaps if people did something rather than just complained I would use the phrase less (or there were a 'vanilla/totally random' version and a 'non-work-safe/theme-of-the-week' version there would be fewer complaints. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All I ask for, messenger, is a little variety in your posts. 87.114.90.71 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ^^^ "Fed Up of Tunbridge Wells".--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The intent of the post varies - 'these things happen' or 'topics causing much discussion haven't surfaced on the MP lately.'

What is 'the face looking over the wall' annotated 'Wot! no....' again? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Show respect to them that Died today
Please put a picture of the Baby Jesus and the Lord's Prayer to show respect to them that got Shot Dead in a school. AmenMomaPraiseUp (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this is an encyclopedia, not a prayer meeting. The baby Jesus will be in the news plenty in two weeks' time, and the Lord's Prayer already has an article. We will report the facts, and permit people the freedom to grieve, or pray, or not, in their own way and time, as they choose. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are they even all Christians? What if some of them were Hindus or Muslims or something. It could get really complicated if everyone's deity or deities have to be included. And then what of the atheists? --86.40.198.87 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * MomaPraiseUp: you're allright, you've obviously come to the right place. You check Luke:6,41. Then you be happy twice: once for Christmas, once for a Happy New Year. --80.185.66.185 (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Elementary school shooting
This news story is breaking in every international news agency in the world and it hasn't been posted on Wikipedia?! How crazy are we?--68.101.71.187 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting GB fan 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure: not too crazy to know the difference between an encyclopaedia and a breaking news source though. Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well there also the school stabbing. That happened even earlier. Why didn't anybody complain about that craziness? --86.40.198.87 (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing if anybody is interested. --86.40.198.87 (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, maybe because there were no fatalities? 132.162.113.171 (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do children have to die to get some sympathy? It's not enough to slash their faces? --86.40.198.87 (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I really, really hope that's just distasteful sarcasm. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  07:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Eric, are you really suggesting that we should not take murders more seriously than non-fatal attacks? Accusing others of bad faith or bad taste distracts from the substantive point here. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that it's distasteful to think that children have to die in order to get our sympathy. Stop extrapolating. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Sympathy and ITN space on the homepage are not the same thing. Wikipedia is not a memorial, or a condolence book. Don't extrapolate a lack of sympathy on my part from what I've said here. You really don't know me. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Boobys on the front page? Really this is too far.
Birds should be banned from the main page for a month at least 24.136.136.42 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL at section heading...but why should we ban birds? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * At least it was the Nazca Booby and not a Nascar booby... HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 05:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasn't anyone confused by the fact that the photo was missing from the main article on the day it appeared as PoTD? --101.108.236.190 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination
There is a discussion underway at DYK to discuss whether or not to commemorate Dr. Blofeld's 1000th DYK as a special Christmas DYK. Please leave your opinion there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Village Bulgaria.
Your articles (stub) about the village of Bulgaria does not have interwiki, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisovo. Please improve Drzewianin (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. GRAPPLE   X  12:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed Lisovo. --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is this on Talk:Main Page? --142.1.32.35 (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Subject of Today's Featured Article
I moved this thread from WP:ERRORS to here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Begin cut/paste job

Could a more disgusting article be selected for the Main Page? Do we need to subject worldwide readers of all ages to the coarsest of American culture? How about "how to dismember a murder victim", or "how to bring a woman to orgasm" for tomorrow's main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.119.156.229 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "how to bring a woman to orgasm" is a valuable life skill which we should be encouraging as many readers (of both sexes) to learn about as possible. Modest Genius talk 18:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. While the featured article may be factually correct I find little value to having such an article either be: a) a featured article or b)featured on the main page. One need not look much further than our main page today to see a portrait of what ails society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.254.106 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For the discussions about running the article today, please read Today's featured article/requests/Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo. For details on what the criteria for featured articles and how they are given featured status, see Featured article criteria and Featured article candidates. For details of how "today's featured article" is chosen, see the requests page and its instructions, with further links.
 * The underlying quality or otherwise of the subject matter is not relevant to the award of featured article status. In other words, poor-quality articles can be written about "good things", and excellent articles can be written about "bad things".  Few people would be able to agree on what "bad things" are in the first place, and Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view and is not censored.  If you have specific criticisms of the article, apart from its very existence, that would help to improve it, then Talk:Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo is the place to raise them. BencherliteTalk 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Another tasteless featured article. Is it not time to finally have a conversation about this? Can't we enact some standard of censorship for the sake of decency? And I don't just mean cultural decency; I mean universal decency. This should be an obvious candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.71.187 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * End cut/paste job
 * I find whining and crying about a topic that amounts to nothing worth wasting brain cells on more offensive than anything. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose we place a placebo button at the top of this page along the lines of "Complain about something featured on today's Main Page". A user who clicks the icon can then type a message that will be sent to no-one, but will at least make them feel that their voice has been heard. Jinjibïar (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't say that it is something I particularly like to see, but given the subject matter, it is treated in a remarkably restrained and responsible matter in the blurb. The puerile will scuttle off to read the article, the sensitive will bristle with umbrage, and the sensible will hope for something of greater valkue tomorrow.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a new low for Wikipedia and I am ashamed and embarrassed to be a part of this project right now. I am an academic with years of education...and may I say it...class. This is not the face of an encyclopedia. I am appalled. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you read the article and the encyclopedic treatment of the episode therein? Or is it just the word "poo" on the main page you didn't "academically" like? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for South Park to be on the main page. Wikipedia is an experiment in academia, not an indiscriminate collection of cultural schlock.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.71.187 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an experiment in many things, actually. Among them is encyclopedic treatment of topics you will not find in a traditional encyclopedia. Our main page reflects that, as this month's list of TFAs includes other pop-culture topics (Final Fantasy is running tomorrow), sports people and associations, major historical people (William the Conqueror is upcoming), and other subject areas.  This article is no different, and deserves to be treated no differently.  Which is to say, it is a valid topic for the main page, even if some people find the topic matter distasteful. Resolute 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, including people who like South Park.  Once again, have you read the article or are you just reacting to the word "poo"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how much "an experiment in academia" Wikipedia is, the concept that South Park is not a fitting subject for academic discussion would be news to Boston College's Lisa Patel Stevens ("South Park and society: Curricular implications of popular culture in the classroom."), University of Louisville's Bronwyn Williams ("What South Park Character Are You?”: Popular Culture, Literacy, and Online Performances of Identity"), and University of Illinois at Chicago's Judith Kegan Gardiner ("South Park, Blue Men, Anality, and Market Masculinity"), among others (they're just from the first two pages of a quick Google Scholar search). People who loudly declaim "this is not a fitting subject for an academic to study/concern themselves with" tend to come off looking rather provincial. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of us are academics with years of education (indeed, I think I have 25, from junior kindergarten to the end of my Ph.D.), but the complaining is far more embarrassing to the project than the article, which is perfectly cromulent. That particular episode of South Park is unwatchably bad (indeed, as most are), but the article is a necessary part of the encyclopaedia.   If we were writing only about stodgy subjects in a dry tone, there're be only a handful of editors, virtually no readers, and only a paltry few articles.  Articles like this are what makes Wikipedia a valuable resource - articles on more "traditional" subjects only duplicate what we can find elsewhere anyways. Wily D  22:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may politely suggest any experienced users unhappy with the TFAs nominate -- or review -- a Featured Article of their own. Only 0.09 percent of the wiki is of that quality, and article reviews at all levels are pressed with backlogs, as usual. — Ed! (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And now it's over. I was hoping for some more complaints, just to read The Rambling Man's response.  freshacconci  talk talk  00:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just be glad it wasn't run on December 25, as was originally suggested... Modest Genius talk 01:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, and I say this lightly without wanting to start anything mega, but I think what people are trying to say here is that it seems so easy for the recent, recent as in last century, crass toilet humor type cultural crap to get displayed, but you know, it's never the actual proper cultural stuff from a while ago, like before movies and TV and video games were invented, I mean there are so many crap movies, TV episodes and video games out there but you'd never open up the wikipedia on your desk or hand or wherever and think, my god, today it's another of Beethoven's symphonies or another of Ibsen's snoring boring old plays - ANOTHER ONE? what are these people on? are they on drugs or something? Are they for real, why do they keep shoving this Ibsen guy in our faces, when was he last relevant? - because there probably never has been one in the first place, or if there has been it's probably not been very recently, so maybe a bit of variety is what the academic people are looking for, maybe they're feeling a little squeezed out, and maybe then when they get that they might not kick up such a stink about a piece of poo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.33 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps they should write, review or nominate article; standing at the sideline until it's your turn to shout "rabble rabble rabble" isn't going to create quality content, it'll just embitter those who put their own free time into creating it for you. If you feel that A Doll's House, Peer Gynt or Hedda Gabbler should be featured, then the best way to ensure it is to contribute. GRAPPLE   X  01:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a question of volume. The number of notable works has exploded in the last century. To get the sort of artificial balance you're hoping for there would need to be a strong selection bias against modern, popular works. APL (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets try and get Cartman Joins NAMBLA on the mainpage.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I object strongly to seeing the coarsest of American culture here. It's time we stopped being so US-centric and found some coarse culture from elsewhere in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to the crazy idea that the English Wikipedia shouldn't focus on English culture and language topics. If you want to read about Wazoo's culture and language then go look at Wazoo's web site. Malleus Fatuorum 08:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I thought it was great. I learnt quite a lot of interesting things from the article, and seeing "poo" solemnly and seriously rendered on the main page was if anything an affirmation of the maturity and taste of the community here. It's to Wikipedia's credit that it doesn't shy away from its comprehensive encyclopedic mission. I really don't understand many of the objections here. People are invoking words like "taste", "decency", "class", "disgusting", "crass". I know, let's have a competition to find as many ways as possible to say "I don't like it"! --Noiratsi (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Up with this I will not put!--WaltCip (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 17:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's get this Mozart-related article up to Featured Article status. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Be our guest.--WaltCip (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed that someone hasn't written an essay by now about how South Park generates a storm of complaints every time it gets featured on the Main Page. --125.25.154.4 (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad. It didn't in 2008. --125.25.154.4 (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

'Usual comment.' :)

Until 'the proverbial someone' designs 'main pages with different themes' from which one can select (including 'the media', 'American theme', 'sports', 'the natural world' and 'yuck') we will have to put up with this discussion. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are called portals. — howcheng  {chat} 17:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Can they be offered more visibly, so that 'conversations of this nature' can be minimised?

Possibly 'unsigned in = vanilla/worksafe/public access terminal safe' and 'select from various options on signing in' Jackiespeel (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do we want to minimise 'conversations of this nature'? They're fun! HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What is defined as worksafe? What is defined as culturally acceptable? For instance, what if the prophet Muhammad became today's featured article and an artistic depiction was shown? Where is the line drawn?--WaltCip (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are massive differences around the world as to what is culturally acceptable. Naked boobs are regularly featured on Page Three of several of Rupert Murdoch's British newspapers, obviously visible to children of all ages, but put them here and some will want to close us down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The portals are already in the main title section, to the right of "Welcome to Wikipedia". — howcheng  {chat} 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For those wondering why 2012 phenomenon is today's featured article on December 20
The relevant discussion is here. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it's because the world will cease to exist tomorrow, so there's no point in running it then! -- Jayron  32  04:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to put Today's featured article/requests on my watch list and pay more attention so I don't get blindsided by this kind of low quality content in the future. --Keithonearth (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is quite a credible article, tbh. Low quality ≠ pop culture articles. – H T  D  06:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Display of the number of articles overdone and wrong
It has been raised multiple times that (a) the number of English Wikipedia articles is duplicated on the main page, that (b) it shouldn't be on the top of the page as it puts too much emphasis on a valueless quantitative measure and that (c) is a wrong number not reflecting the real number of articles. These problems are coming up again and again, now with a discussion at Village pump (technical) pointing out that disambiguation pages are included in the current count. If we continue to not be able to solve such simple issues, don't be surprised the number of editors is diminishing. -- ELEKHHT 07:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'd leave when someone puts words into my mouth (or more accurately, thoughts to my mind). – H T  D  08:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Worlds End State Park featured article
Very good. Currently removing coffee from screen and keyboard ... 86.134.92.33 (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that. Someone has a finely tuned case of "I told you so"s today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Perfect choice! HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Bows modestly) Thanks. Glad people spotted the... oh, I have to go, there's a huge fireball hurtling through the sky towards m... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencherlite (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Funeral march... until the band bursts into flaming zombies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

When the unverse finally 'cools down' and the last 'biological life' and 'constructed life' are flitting between the remaining stars, planets and other bodies, there will be discussions on Wikipedia's ultimate successor about the latest 'failed prediction about the end of the universe.' Jackiespeel (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which would be perfectly appropriate. Modest Genius talk 17:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding new projects to the sister sites
Wikivoyage is tentatively planning on officially launching January 15th, 2013 on Wikipedia's birthday. Was looking at adding both the Wikivoyage's new logo and Wikidata to the list of sister sites. Was looking at two main formats as discussed here. Wondering if other had comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Grossed out
I was suckered into linking to sheela na gig by it's association with a beautiful picture of what I thought was a English Church on the "Did you Know?" heading. I did not know what a Sheela na gig was. After I found out, I realized that I really did not want to know. I know some of you are just dying to share your arcane knowledge, but to lure people, maybe little kids to this sort of article is a little nasty. I am 60 years old and am tired of having sexual references stuck in my face. I am tired of viagra commercials that talk about erections lasting 4 hours. I am interested in all things as much of everyone but I am not interested in this sort of thing all the time. Please use some discretion in the future. At LEAST don't put it on the "Did you know?" Wiki Intro page. Gee whiz.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.70.253 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me to that article, I found it very interesting. One presumes that if little kids can go to church by walking beneath such carved stone figures, they won't be particularly bothered by reading about the history and origins of the figures either. Wikipedia doesn't currently have any Viagra commercials as far as I know, so if you're seeing those on Wikipedia then the problem is at your end. As for "all the time", there's a nice warship further up the page to look at, and the current content of Did You Know has plenty of other non-sexual items, such as an interesting article concerning a film about a fellow who liked to dissolve people in acid. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So as not to drape this poor man in sarcasm, Demiurge, can I suggest that we remind people somewhere on the front page that Wikipedia is not censored (or at least, it's not supposed to be.) Maybe a discrete note advising visitors that content might offend? doktorb wordsdeeds 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's nothing sarcastic about suggesting that he may have a computer issue if he's seeing Viagra commercials here; nor in suggesting that an active Anglican parish church is likely to be used by "little kids" without any sort of advance disclaimer at all; nor in pointing out that the main page currently has plenty of content on it that has little or nothing to do with sex. (The extent to which the stone figures in question are explicitly sexual is also arguable, but that's a rather finer point.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * He didn't say that he had commercials for Viagra on Wikipedia. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * He said he was seeing them, and he didn't say where - so I'm covering all bases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The allegation of "luring" intrigues me. I don't think it stands up, but if it did, that would be a serious objection that can't be countered by NOTCENSORED. --Dweller (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Luring" certainly doesn't apply. The hook clearly stated "sheila na gig", with no piping. If you follow a link not knowing what it is, there's always a risk it's something you don't want to see. Not knowing what something means is not grounds for claiming to have been blindsided by it; a reader unfamiliar with the Holodomor or Tuol Sleng might be equally shocked by what they see in those articles but ignorance doesn't give you a free pass to claim you were lured there. GRAPPLE   X  23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I wish to withdraw my remarks. I promise I will never bother you again, unless of course you do not let me do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.70.253 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article image
Could the main page feature an actual photo of the Notorious B.I.G.? Plopping weird tribute art on the main page seems slightly unprofessional. 96.246.28.108 (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd guess we don't have a suitable photograph, properly licensed for the Main Page. If you, or anyone else would like to contribute one, we'll happily use it. This is a common problem for Wikipedia. We won't use poorly licensed images, because it doesn't just seem unprofessional, but is unprofessional. --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I was thinking the same thing. Wow. We should just yank that and have no image instead. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's a nice enough image, but it just seems like some random fan art. I doesn't really help identify Biggie, and it's not used in the article at all. Is the artist even notable? 86.164.150.90 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears not. I've removed it.  —David Levy 19:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What does 12-33 mean?
It says Rutgers coaches combined for a record of 12–33? What on earth does 12-33 mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.245.213 (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Standard sports notation: 12 games won, 33 games lost. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be foreign to many English speakers. We should change the name of en:wikipedia to us:wikipedia ):. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.245.213 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think that our main page hasn't contained sport items that most Americans would find incomprehensible, you're mistaken. —David Levy 04:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not "standard notation" on this side of the Atlantic. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What would the notation be on the East Side of the Atlantic? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * European sports tend not to worry about win/loss ratios. Most are organised in leagues, you'll hear the Premier League or IFA Premiership refer to points totals intead (with 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, "XX is sitting on 42 points" is standard); other sports like hurling or real football use relatively simple knockout-style tournaments for their big events so it's simply a case of reporting who won. Wins versus losses with no other context doesn't often come into sports here. GRAPPLE   X  00:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So the IP is saying that a hook on European sports should not use that parlance as it's not common in North America? I don't see what the problem is, if Americans/Canadians are interested they'll click the link, no? I don't forecast complaints about this becoming gb.wikipedia. I must be missing something... <b style="color:#136">PhnomPencil</b> (<b style="color:#99f">✉</b>) 02:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I believe they're stating it's not common outside North America, rather in not being common in it. At the end of the day it'll be argued that "North American content = North American usage" but something wholly universal ("twelve wins and thirty-three losses", "winning less than a quarter of their games", etc) could easily be produced. GRAPPLE   X  02:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it not just be simple enough to state "a 12–33 win–loss record" and appease everyone? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that would help, but as has been mentioned, we don't really measure things in the same way over here, so it's not just something which looks unnatural, it sounds unnatural too. I think this is another case where the "en" bit of en.wikipedia can't cope with the differences in culture. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've come across this problem before; it is indeed utterly incomprehensible to anyone unfamiliar with North American sport. The simple solution would be to have an article which explains the win-loss-(draw) notation so we could link to it. But I've been unable to find one, or any reliable sources to base one on. Also, that hook uses 'record' in completely the wrong way (it's not a record). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Win-loss record is simply a redirect to Winning percentage, which assumes knowledge of the notation, and is only marginally related. And it is a record, in the sense of "to record", as opposed to the other common sport-related usage. (So definition 1 of, as opposed to definition 5.) -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is aproblem. I generally feel that local topics should use local style, as is the general intent of WP:ENGVAR. But as with a few other DYK hooks lately, this usage is sufficiently opaque to those outside the affected area that a clarification would have been really helpful. ETA: I would expect cricket results to say 'X runs for Y wickets' rather than the usual 'X for Y', for the same reason. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get us started on whether "wickets" or "runs" should go first! ;-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC).
 * I suppose to us Americans, where in most of our sports the won-loss record is what it's all about, the notation is so obvious that we wouldn't even think that it would be a problem. That's probably why it was put in as it was.  Here is a page that translates wins and losses to w-l and w-l to 12-33:  http://www.nettally.com/jcarr/Baseball/region/1998.html.  By the way, if cricket results say "X runs for Y wickets," they will be completely meaningless to almost all Americans.  Watching BBC sports' results for cricket is like watching a report in Mongolian for me (except that I sometimes understand what the Mongolian reports are driving at).  So, thanks for calling the issue to our attention. . . and try to be as aware of our blind-spots as well. Kdammers (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever do you mean? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/hi/english/static/cricket/statistics/scorecards/2012/12/87695/html/scorecard.stm :) doktorb wordsdeeds 13:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There' a difference, though, between regional jargon and sport-specific jargon. If you don't follow association football, then the term "offside" might not mean a thing to you at all, but it's the same in every country that plays the sport. The win-loss ratio is regional, and is used in its home region in sports that don't use it elsewhere. 600 run for 9 wickets is universally understood in cricket no matter where it's played, 22-34 isn't. I suppose it would be equivalent to car-related article using horsepower (universal standard but perhaps not known to the layman) versus using "bonnet" or "hood". GRAPPLE   X  14:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Boxing, I presume, is quite popular on both sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific), and boxers are usually noted by their win-loss record (such as Wladimir Klitschko having a 59-3-3 record). Unless of course, boxing is an American sport. This should not have been the first time Europeans have come across such notation. – H T  D  15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, any time boxing is reported here, those stats are usually given in full, not in that brief notation—Klitschko would be described as having a record of "59 wins and 3 losses", rather than "59-3" (not sure where your second 3 is coming from though, which I guess again goes against raw number notation and in favour of more prose). GRAPPLE   X  15:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno if there had been boxing-related DYKs, but with the limited number of characters, it's bound to happen that their boxing records, if it's included in the hook/blurb, be noted in that "brief" notation, such as "Boxer A, which had a 4-9 record before the fight, surprised Boxer B when he knocked B out."
 * As for the second "3", I mixed it up; I thought Klitschko had 3 draws. Interestingly, European notation puts the number of draws in between the wins and losses, but British boxer Lennox Lewis states his record as "41-2-1" and not "41-1-2". – H T  D  15:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And how does each region show soccer results? Where do the draws go? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Only ever listed in tables, like this: (not always split between home and away though). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated earlier, soccer "team standings" are never listed in "W-D-L" or "W-L-D" but in points notation. If ever a DYK about a soccer team gets in, it's always "Arsenal, which was 10 points behind Chelsea..." instead of "Arsenal, with a 3-1-6 record..." or even "Arsenal, which is 4 games behind...".
 * I dunno if how soccer denotes these things should come into play into how American football does theirs. If we're into making things easier to understand for European readers, we might as well ditch cricket blurbs as they don't mean anything to anyone except for like 8 (if WI is one "country") countries. – H T  D  10:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Never let a little matter like facts get in the way of a 'good' argument. The West Indies is one cricket team representing 15 countries.
 * There are 10 teams (counting the West Indies as one) at the top tier of cricket not the eight you alluded to. One of those being India with the world's second largest population and where English is an official language.
 * There are over 100 countries that are members of the ICC.
 * Finally, following your 'logic' rigourously we would omit all reference to basketball because it is only played in one country.
 * FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah so OK, it's ten instead of 8. I was off by 2 lol. Outside of those ten countries cricket has very little presence. There aren't event categories for cricketers in South Korea or Mexico, for example. The people at Chilean cricketers are all dead, and don't even have entries in the Spanish Wikipedia.
 * As for basketball, I wonder what country that is? Lithuania or Latvia (which neither, in ICC's view, play official cricket matches)?
 * BTW, has any one any ideas on how to go about this eh... "problem"? Do we start banning blurbs that use the "W-L" notation, and anything else that is too foreign for a significant amount of Wikipedia's audience, at the Main Page? Do we link it to a relevant article? Linking doesn't really help most of the time, as shown above. – H T  D  18:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "England" team also represents Wales, so there's another country. And there are another six teams that regularly play two of the three formats of top-level international cricket, and many others that occasionally do, as outlined in Cricket. --Dweller (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh good. England and Wales are 2 countries; I figured the Irish team represents both ROI and NI. Looking at the Cricket World Cup, there had been 19 countries that had participated in the final tournament since 1975; compare that to FIFA's 76, and to think the Cricket World Cup has been billed as the "second most largest sporting event". The qualifying is so important, those ten teams didn't have to qualify (I dunno which other "world cup" automatically reserves so many berths... maybe rugby's.). The final of the 2009 tournament should've been big news to the losing finalist, Canada, but it's not in the archives of The Globe and Mail. – H T  D  18:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Canada have never appeared in the Cricket World Cup final and there was no competition in 2009, it being held every four years, most recently in 2011 and 2007. See List_of_ICC_Cricket_World_Cup_finals. --Dweller (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the final of the qualifying tournament. Canada has appeared in men's world cups/championships in soccer, hockey (ice and field), rugby union, basketball, volleyball and baseball... but never in cricket or rugby league. Guess they didn't care enough. Can you imagine Canadians whacking their heads reading those cricket blurbs yet they haven't complained here... – H T  D  18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(reindent) More to my last point, it seems what would-be Americans or Canadians either don't read blurbs that don't interest them, or are just confused, don't complain, and don't bother/avoid reading a similar blurb again; meanwhile those blurbs that concerns Americans (or Canadians) would occasionally have someone complain either of US bias, or "not this again" (screw Gibraltar DYK haters, as those are nice; there should be a moratorium on Michigan football blurbs.), or "I can't make out what it is trying to say." That either means would-be Americans (or Canadians) either don't complain that much or are easily disinterested, or non-Americans want to know about US culture... yeah right. And I still have to see a feasible solution to the problem. – H T  D  19:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not put it in a style everyone can understand universally? I can't see the logic of the resistance to this.  Surely we are trying to make information as easily understandable and accessible to as wide an audience as possible? Lots of readers don't understand 12-33. I don't.  It just takes a few more characters to put it in a form that makes sense to everyone, rather than one group of users. 86.134.92.33 (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated earlier, writing it as "x wins and y losses" doesn't really help as team/athlete performance is usually not denoted by wins and losses in those countries... unless you're into boxing and probably other combat sports. There's no "universal" notation (I'd actually argue wins-losses should be the "universal" notation as it it the simplest way in denoting how good a team is, without computing 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss.) Also, it lengthens the blurb and if there are limits to how long the blurb is, it compromises how the hook would've been formulated.
 * BTW, if you're into cricket, you should've seen the "W-L" notation before, as seen on 2010–11 Ashes series: "England won the 5-Test series 3–1". – H T  D  01:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See, it's obviously an Americanism then, because cricket is really not known in England. -- Jayron  32  02:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bashing the great history of Chilean cricket then. I should've realized earlier that it holds the key to all of this. Now unless you'd exclusively watch soccer or rugby then you wouldn't have seen notation at all. – H T  D  02:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To thoroughly muddy the waters, consider the records of racehorses: Bayakoa, a great Argentine horse (later sold to Americans): "Record 39: 29-1-0", Miesque (mostly European races): "Record 16: 12-3-1" and Brigadier Gerard (British): "Record 18: 17-1-0"  in Wikipedia.  The Boat Race article does not give W-L per se but very definitely focuses on the number of wins each of the two teams has accrued. But  I think it's time this discussion gets moved to the Village Pump. Kdammers (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Reappearance
Apparently this discussion has taught us nothing - there's currently a DYK item which states 'record of 20–1–1', which is utterly impenetrable to the majority of our readers. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Americans, those who watch cricket, boxing and MMA, and probably Aussies are minority of our readers. As demonstrated earlier, a cricket fan would've deciphered what "20-1" in "20-1-1" means. Boxing and MMA fans would certainly know what "20-1-1" means. Even the Euroleague uses the W-L notation.
 * Now why doesn't anyone complain about things when the "that Munir Malik played 49 first-class matches and took 197 wickets, including 14 five-wicket hauls, at the average of 21.75?" blurb appeared earlier? That sounded like Klingon to me... and I'd imagine a clear majority of our readers, without a doubt.– H  T  D  15:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could try to move us towards a solution rather than spout defensive tripe. The notation 20-1-1 is not self explanatory, and if an encyclopaedia is intended to explain things, it should avoid bewildering the reader.  "Why doesn't anyone complain about...?"  Well, for myself, I didn't because I didn't look at the main page during those hours: what your excuse is I have no idea.  If you found the cricket blurb indecipherable, you had the option of raising it with a request for clarification: that you chose not to do so does not undermine the validity of Modest Genius's comment. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the Malik blurb you mentioned, you forgot to include all the wikilinks which were in the original blurb to help our global audience understand what each of those "Klingon" phrases means (i.e. "... that Munir Malik played 49 first-class matches and took 197 wickets, including 14 five-wicket hauls, at the average of 21.75?"). The current DYK as discussed here has no such assistance for our audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've said it before and I'll say it again. Cricket jargon makes sense to all cricket fans from any country. Regional jargon isn't the same for everyone even within the same sport—UK boxing scores use a different order for win/draw/loss than US scores, MLS versus UEFA use wholly different notations, etc. Comparing regional variations that differ within the same sport to universal sport jargon isn't the same thing; this is an ENGVAR issue and not a WP:MTAU one (which the cricket hook, with universal-within-all-cricketing-nations terms which were linked for the layman, adhered to). GRAPPLE   X  18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For the sake of clarity, you say 'As demonstrated earlier, a cricket fan would've deciphered what "20-1" in "20-1-1" means' and that is patently not true as a cricket 'result' saying "20-1-1" would be meaningless.
 * Possibly you are referring to your earlier suggestion that cricket uses the 'W-L' notation as in "England won the 5-Test series 3–1". That is only used in connection to a Test series between two countries.  Noone would ever add up the Tests England have played in an English season (or calendar year) and say that England were 2-2-2 in 2012.
 * The case referred to is about a team competing in a league with something like 10 other teams. In a cricket league a team would never be described in a W-L-D-T fashion.  [A cricket match can end in a draw or a tie and they are totally different things.]
 * You comment on "Munir Malik played 49 first-class matches and took 197 wickets, including 14 five-wicket hauls, at the average of 21.75", but each of those numbers is qualified. If someone want to understand that sentence they can look up what a first-class match is, what a five-wicket haul is etc.  Given "a record of 20–1–1" a reader has no idea what those numbers are supposed to mean.
 * A couple of people, including you, have said that the purely numeric notion is ambiguous, in some cases being W-L-D and in other cases being W-D-L. If it is ambiguous it is essentially meaningless.
 * You might think that W-L should be the universal notation but there are many, many people who would disagree as that does not reflect the nature of their sport. A fairly extreme case is probably bumps racing where the results do not use any numbers at all.
 * Whatever your personal likes or dislike, the reality is that some sports use the W-L-D (W-D-L) notation and some do not. Therefore we have to reflect that fact and makes the information we provide as clear to a many people as we reasonably can.
 * As we don't, according to Modest Genius have an article on the W-L-D notation, I think that we should just add W-L-D (or W-D-L) after the numbers. It is a sporting context and I think that most people will interpret 'W', 'L' & 'D' appropriately.
 * FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Um... has anyone suggested we just make a template that shows the full form of W-L and W-L-D records in the title text? Like this: <abbr title="4 wins, 3 losses, 1 draw">4–3–1 . If we really went nuts with it we could make the W-L-D vs. W-D-L order user-configurable. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 05:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be an excellent solution. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just please check that any solution that includes this kind of "hover over" text is compatible with screen reading software please. We shouldn't be prejudicing against a large number of our main page readers who may not be able to get the best out of this kind of trick.  The best solution is to make these kind of blurbs actually explanatory, rather than rely on inherent knowledge or coding trickery.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked into this when working on an FL using something similar, using the tags will work fine with screen-readers. GRAPPLE   X  21:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Just confirming that 20-1-1 means nothing to cricket fans, without further explanation. In most countries, it's also impenetrable to football (soccer) fans, too. --Dweller (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Solution
I have created Template:Win-loss record which implements a simple template as described above. It is used like this: It doesn't have an option for switching W-L-D vs. W-D-L order, it doesn't have any documentation, and no one except the people who read this talk page will know it exists. So I guess what I'm saying is that there's some room for improvement. =) Use it or don't, I don't necessarily think it's the best solution but it would work. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 02:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you. Now we just to get people to use it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've written some basic documentation. It's still not linked to from anywhere. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an observation. We verify things at Wikipedia, and all we have here is one (maybe two) people claiming that something so simple as a won-loss record is somehow incomprehensible.  Can the editor(s) that have a problem show in any way that they speak for "the rest of the world, besides North America"?  As the editor mentioned above, boxing is a world-wide sport and the records of individual boxers are always expressed as W-L-D. It doesn't seem like it is too big of a leap for a person to figure out what is meant by "Foo's record is xx-yy".  This seems more like someone wanting to make something out of nothing to me. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, people might make a lucky guess, or an extrapolation that happens to work from other knowledge into an unknown field from knowledge derived elsewhere. But the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to explain and clarify, not to invite unconfirmable guesses.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Today in China
I have two problems with the headline/link about the Chinese high-speed railroad. 1. (This is a general problem that have not very often but some-times.) I didn't know what to click on to get the rest of the story: None of the blue links seemed specific to the topic. Is there some way we could have of differentiating 'sentence' links and 'term/word' links? 2. When I clicked on the "opens" link, I started reading about a high-speed rail line that would be ....  And I read that "It will be long." Come on, what sort of low-quality article is that to link to? According to the headline, it is out of date or the word "opens" is a bit misleading (maybe it is only partly finished), and "long" is a, um, squirrel? word. Maybe the article was vandalized from "it will be X km long." But a front-page item should be checked regularly by those putting it up. Kdammers (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For your first problem, the bold link is always the one you want to check out, we already have a way of differentiating. For your second problem, it may help if you read more then the first paragraph. is apparently the version you are referring to or close to it and there is nothing wrong with it. The railway line isn't completely open but parts of it are as mentioned in the second paragraph. One of the parts open is apparently the longest high speed line in the world, the fact it will be longer doesn't change the accuracy of this statement. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This thread was moved to WP:ERRORS, then re-opened here, splitting the discussion; the following is copy/pasted from WP:ERRORS.
 * 1. The link to click on in ITN items is the bolded blue link ("opens" for this item); I'm not sure how we can make this more evident without becoming too obtrusive/distracting. If you have any suggestions, the best place to make them is WT:ITN.
 * 2. The second bit is vandalism; when assessing article quality the vandalism hadn't occurred yet, and probably occurred after the item was posted (I can't find the exact revision; maybe it had something to do with this edit, which is maintenance-related?).  Spencer T♦ C 02:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * actually I'm pretty sure the OP is not referring to vandalism. The article did and does indeed state how long the railway line is supposed to be when completely open and this is I presume an accurate statement based on RS. In the very next paragraph it also states parts of it have already open and these parts make it the longest line in the world. Again this is I presume an accurate statement. So there was never any error, simply the OPs confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(end of copy/paste from WP:ERRORS)
 * Is it possible the OP is looking at this using Popups? Popups can't handle transcluded templates, so it would read "it will be long"; the distance in the conversion template doesn't show. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was reading a pop-up (if I were click over to the article, it would take longer than I want and possibly crash my computer -- I'm in a third-world country with unstable access -- so I only click over when some-thing seems especially worthwhile. Shouldn't the pop-ups be consistent with a headline?  On the other point, what bold  link?  All the links look the same depth of blue to me.Kdammers (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rereading the article, perhaps I was a little unfair anyway. It isn't entirely clear whether the open section is the longest railway line although since the unopen section is only 36km I suspect it is. As for the problem you have with the popups gadget that's unfortunate but as the gadget itself page notes "Please note that these tools are not part of the core MediaWiki software, and are generally developed and maintained by users on Wikipedia." I suggest you peruse Tools/Navigation popups and Tools/Navigation popups/FAQ to be aware of the limitations of what you're using. While I appreciate the problems your connection impose, you may want to consider some other option if you can't live with the limitations of popups. Remember that gadgets are only of use to registered users. Do note either way that while we appreciate your desire to help, I'm not sure if there's much point commenting on errors based either on popups or if you haven't actually read more of the article then what's shown in the small popup view. As for your problems with bold links, one link should show up as bold and does in most modern browsers. Perhaps given your computing and connection issues you're using a fairly odd browser. You may want to ask WP:Help Desk for help, presuming the page isn't too long for you. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Description of Commons ambiguous
Currently, the description for Commons on the Main Page is "free media repository", which can mean 1. A repository for freely licensed media. 2. A media repository that is free to use, which, taking into account that ENWP is one of the most visited sites in the Wikimedia Project, it would most likely be the very first encounter with Commons, therefore, I think it should be reworded in a way so that the visitor can clearly distinguish between Commons and other image sharing sites which does not limit licensing, such as Flickr. The description on Commons is "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone, in their own language." --FrankDev (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While the description is ambiguous, I don't think such a complete change is necessary. At least not for the Main Page link, that description works fine for Commons itself but is more than is needed here. I suggest changing to "a repository of free media". --Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The exact same issue applies to the Wikipedia slogan itself ('the free encylopedia...') but we manage to survive with the ambiguous meaning of 'free' there. I don't see why there's a bigger problem with Commons. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The double meaning of "free" has always made for an excellent, short, punchy slogan for Wikimedia projects.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Khajidha, most online images are non-free, while most online texts are also non-free, a user would probably not bother to produce a image himself and upload a non-free instead to Commons, on the contrary, a user would probably bother to write an article for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankDev (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While there is something of an ambiguous nature to the description, in careful English writing, a repository of free media would be described as a "free-media repository" or, as Khajidha puts it a "repository of free media." So, if that is what is actually meant, maybe it should be changed; but Peter Isotalo's point of the positive side of ambiguity is well taken. Kdammers (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --FrankDev (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you just asking for 'free media' to be hyphenated? That seems reasonable. is the page that needs updating (by an admin). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree and done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Validation
I just put this page through the w3 validator, and it found 14 markup errors and 4 warnings. Will someone please fix this? Pokajanje &#124; Talk 05:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is currently an outstanding bug involving the MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia. See 35914 and 41346, for example. Unfortunately, the developers have placed this under very low priority. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot: there is more information page on this at 'Help:Markup validation. Again, many of these issues require developer fixes. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar again?
I've noticed Gibraltar-related DYKs have been showing up quite a lot. Especially within the last week or so, but December has had several. Wasn't there a huge controversy about Gibraltar being featured so much not so long ago? Tupin (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC) At the risk of offending someone, at least it wasn't a bird in TFP! Robvanvee (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This time next month they should be all but gone; the contest is over. The limitations which were instated on them after the Gibraltarpedia thing blew up were recently lifted, which is why there seems to be an increase in G-related articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would have been a real cock up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas...(albeit it extinct) I spoke too soon. Robvanvee (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture again!
What is this, Wikipedia? Not only are we hit with yet another pop culture article, but one from a state that doesn't even exist anymore! Give us Mozart, Beethoven, or Caligula, but for the love of all that is right in this world (whatever is left of it, at least) don't dump seventy-year old films on us. We have the right to remain blissful in our ignorance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Congrats, Crisco. Nice to see an international flavour in the project. PhnomPencil (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great job, exactly what we want, old and non anglo..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Great job? For what, defiling the name of "culture"? We need Mozart and Beethoven and Einstein! Think of the children being poisoned by this rubbish! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand the curiosity of having an article on a 70 year old film nobody cares about on the front page exceeds expectations.(sarcasm). Shouldn' t matter, anything non anglo centric on the front page is a blessing!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not Wikipedia's responsibility to provide teaching for children. If a parent isn't providing a broad, deep education, that's the parent's fault. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always "blame the parents". How can we raise our kids to be misogynists and anti-humanists with the liberal 'pedia shoving irrelevancies in front of us? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to feel this dispute is for the birds... BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm? A dispute for chicks and cocky tits? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So now that the main page is once again for the birds... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If only there were some article that could combine the two and still be useless... GRAPPLE   X  01:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we could just go for the obvious... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The main page has gone tits up again? How long until a hysterical parent complains about the words "barf barf" featuring prominently in the article blurb?--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection
Should this talk page be semi-protected due to persistent spamming as noted in the history? An issue to consider is that new users would not be able to report errors on the Main Page easily. --FrankDev (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, since the spamming isn't constant nor is it particularly hard to deal with. And as you say, it'd cause newbie confusion. — foxj 10:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of those sort of posts come from new accounts anyway, so semi-protection wouldn't help. I don't think there's any need for it - misuse of this page never takes more than a few minutes before someone removes it, and rarely comes back. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You say that like its EVERY newbie's fault! A Wiggin13 (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not, I wasn't implying that at all. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well thats sure what it sounded like. However, I will assume good faith on this one! A Wiggin13 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally false conclusion. The observation that a lot of opera singers are overweight does not logically lead to the conclusion that every obese person is capable of singing to concert standard. Kevin McE (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know that all obese people CAN'T sing? Sorry I am sure I kind of seem argumentative. I just enjoy a good debate. A Wiggin13 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Until you accept basic premises of logic, you cannot have a good debate. Kevin McE (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Trust me. I debate well for my age. I have been told this several times :) A Wiggin13 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop it ^^. Happy New Year! —Noiratsi (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? :PA Wiggin13 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because WP:NOTFORUM and therefore not a place for debates intended purely for purposes of amusement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh hello again you! Maybe I would know all the rules a little better of a few more users would adopt me? But NOOOOAndrew Wiggin (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's enough of that. -- Jayron  32  07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I despise having a today's featured article without a picture.
There are already too few pictures on the main page as it is. Can't we just throw up a free image of Jesus? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To balance this, I prefer to see no image when nothing obvious and free exists; to me, no file is better than something tangential being shoe-horned in. GRAPPLE   X  00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. An image is intended to illustrate the article's subject.  One that's merely decorative is a superfluous distraction.  —David Levy 03:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the article itself prominently features File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd Face.jpg, so I'm not sure it would really be any more decorative or superfluous to include the same image in the featured article blurb.
 * Rreagan007: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. :-) The featured article blurbs are scheduled (sometimes weeks in advance). You should stop by Today's featured article/requests occasionally (and probably a few related pages) and suggest images to use for the image-less blurbs. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's part of the Christianity navigation template, not the article proper. Few would question the image's relevance to the subject of Christianity (the context in which it appears), but it doesn't illustrate the concept of prosperity theology.  —David Levy 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's part of the Christianity navigation template, not the article proper. Few would question the image's relevance to the subject of Christianity (the context in which it appears), but it doesn't illustrate the concept of prosperity theology.  —David Levy 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you think that image (File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd Face.jpg) illustrates the concept of Christianity? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Christianity, yes. Prosperity theology? No. GRAPPLE   X  00:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, a traditional artistic depiction of a deity illustrates the religion's existence and a core belief held by its adherents. But it doesn't illustrate any and all concepts that have arisen within the religion.  —David Levy 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Though I'm left to wonder if there is any image that would be appropriate to include alongside a blurb about this topic (licensing issues aside). Perhaps it is simply a fact of life that certain concepts cannot be (well) illustrated? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Chess?
Wikipedia thinks the world's most significant news story right now is some chess guy got a high rating that nobody but other chess guys cares about? Really, Wikipedia? This is how Wikipedia interprets the world around it? Has DYK staged a coup on the news section? Embarrassing. Townlake (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is solely your fault that this happened, because you didn't contribute to the discussion at WP:ITN/C where it gets chosen. If you want to prevent such a horrific event from occuring in the future, it is imperative that you contribute to discussions there.  -- Jayron  32  03:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it doesn't anywhere say that is "the world's most significant news story right now". (Clearly the world's most significant news story right now is that it's been raining a lot.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jayron, apparently the participants in those discussions are completely unaware of what people in the real world care about. I can't imagine wanting to engage with such a group. Townlake (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think that ITN covers the "most significant" news then you have no idea of its purpose; use an actual news service if you want a sense of perspective. The "top" item on ITN is almost the most recent one, and if that means that a newsworthy story of narrow interest (chess, which does actually matter to non-chessmen, like myself) is newer than a wider story, it goes on top.The fact that you took the time to complain about this rather than learn why it's the case shows it's not really worth trying to change your mind on the matter, though. GRAPPLE   X  04:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the discussion and saw the discussers think chess is a sport, apparently because anything involving competition is a sport, and chess thus deserves the same prominence as football or tennis achievements. Baffling. I just played the best game of Hungry Hungry Hippos ever; when do I get to be on the front page? Townlake (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you just become certified as the best player in history? GRAPPLE   X  04:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Assuming a photo of you at you moment of triumph would be a reliable source, why not upload one to Twitpic and nominate the story? Formerip (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Presumably soon after it becomes a sport that's played competitively on an international level. I'd quite like to get involved, actually.


 * Regarding your earlier comments, if you choose not to engage with the Wikipedia community, then don't be surprised that you have no input on what goes on Wikipedia's main page.


 * As for "the real world", which part of the real world do you mean? When I made my comment above, the story about it raining harder more, really was the biggest item (literally) on the BBC News website. Personally, I have no interest in chess, but I like the variety. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, Townlake, it is only because you don't take a prior interest in ITN/C which is why this travesty has occured. In the future, it is imperative that you comment on each and every nomination to ensure that your voice is heard.  Complaining here, after the fact, is less than worthless in preventing future tragedies.  -- Jayron  32  04:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I commented because this choice makes the project's editors look unaware of the real world's interests. (Marginal stuff like this is what DYK is for.) You don't need to pretend I'm treating this bad decision as a life and death matter, in what appears to be a weird attempt to discourage the criticism. Townlake (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant article doesn't meet any of the DYK requirements; for the second time this thread you've shown ignorance of the main page's functions. Figure out what everything is actually meant for, rather than what you think it's meant for, and then complain about it being misused. Thanks. GRAPPLE   X  04:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You care about the good process. I care about the bad result. We won't see eye to eye. Townlake (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Process isn't the main point. The main point is each section serves a different purpose. DYK isn't for 'marginal stuff'. ITN isn't for the 'most significant news story'. In fact it isn't really for news per se as we don't have a news section. Note that this isn't even the first time we have featured a chess related item on ITN by a long shot so the suggestion this is something new is a bit off. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Idle criticism doesn't affect change. I assumed you'd like to change something about the way Wikipedia works.  I've given you the means to cause that change.  Complaining here has zero effect on causing change.  Becoming an active participant at WP:ITNC does.  It's your choice: to impotently complain in a way that has no means to cause the sort of corrections to the system you are advocating for in your complaint, or to take a role in bringing about the change your criticism seems to wish to see.  -- Jayron  32  04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am no chess fan at all but really enjoyed reading about this guy. Just sayin.88.98.32.209 (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried my best in opposing the nomination and I agree with the criticism from the OP. Chess is not a sport, one, and the nomination was not for an important person doing an important thing, two. But the will of the majority was to post, and so here we are. I think it might be worth looking into whether chess is put onto some kind of "bargepole list" in the future to stop this happening again (Let's call it "the Penn State nomination clause") doktorb wordsdeeds 04:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Not being a sport" is no reason for non-inclusion on its own. Chess is played at the international level, is regarded with great seriousness by non-specialist media, and has a long history of competitive play and rankings. I'm neutral on this particular story, but I regard 'it's not a sport' as a useless objection. And I think a 'bargepole list' fetters our discretion unreasonably, and dragging the Penn State case into this is in poor taste. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I want 'news' I look at the newspapers/news channels: 'most people' who observe the WP main page regularly #expect# to be presented with entries from the more obscure corners of the news-verse. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, we need some sort of mechanism to prevent news subjects that Doktorbuk doesn't like from making it to ITN. --  tariq abjotu  15:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that automatically takes half of the Western Hemisphere out of ITN consideration. --WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So long as we retain an "In the News" section on the Main Page using its current methodology, we will receive complaints of this nature. Unhappy users have the option to get consensus to either get rid of ITN altogether, make it some sort of feed from another project, or change its criteria. Carping about the results of ITN's criteria won't achieve anything, I'm afraid. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not get things rolling then? Let's start a proposal to abolish ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with ITN is that its name does not fit its purpose. Fixing this small point would probably solve what has been a long-running issue of misunderstanding. Bazza (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that people will always whine when we put stuff on the main page that they either don't care about or don't want to see is hardly a valid reason to abolish ITN. In this case, one can *GASP* simply ignore the entry. Resolute 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As Abraham Lincoln might have said - you can't please all the people all the time - even if there was a more prominent link to Wikinews (which might resolve some carpers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * I'm pretty sure he only said the first part of that. Formerip (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Turning the argument around - if #nobody# ever commented on ITN #then# there would be something wrong with it - whether because 'nobody reads it anyway' or 'it is read but does not provide anything that intrigues people.' 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * More to the point: If n = the number of people who have seen the main page since this was posted, we so far have (2/n x 100)% of all people who were so offended by a chess article appearing on the main page that they felt the need to complain. Given the likely value of "n", that number is functionally 0%.  Every single thing we ever do at Wikipedia is significantly likely to piss off a single person or two or ten enough to feel the need to complain.  It doesn't mean we are doing anything wrong.  -- Jayron  32  19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's terribly distracting. How are we to get any work done with such a stud decorating the MAIN PAGE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellers & Tinkers (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He does look quite handsome, yes? And yet we worship Justin Bieber...--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this thread. I may try and look up the last few times chess was on ITN (I know it was up there when Carlsen was the youngest to get to World number one, and it was probably up there for each of the World Championships since Wikipedia started). That is around 4-5 times. Possibly Fisher's death was posted as well, I can't remember. The other point is that the length of time an item is on ITN depends to a large extent on whether new items are nominated and come through to push older nominations down. Sometimes a single item (including picture) can get stuck on ITN for longer than is really reasonable. I had expected this item to get pushed down a bit by newer items by now, so it is a bit disconcerting to see it and the picture still there. Oh well. I'm sure as the weekend arrives something will get posted with a picture and things will get moving again. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is only man who deserves this much ITN time... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and who would that be? The Most Interesting Man in the World, perhaps? I understand how Magnus Carlsen is distracting. It's his charming Norwegian face. Jonathunder (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well played, although you missed my rook. Check — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that this thread (and any chance of more Lugo-ness) has been checkmated by the deadly Swiss banking gambit. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Da winner, and still champeen... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this WP:CIVIL?
Yes, yes, we need some sort of mechanism to prevent news subjects that Doktorbuk doesn't like from making it to ITN. -- tariqabjotu 15:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Well, that automatically takes half of the Western Hemisphere out of ITN consideration.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it to be uncivil, and as it comes from an admin and one of their cohorts, I demand an apology. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps go talk to them directly, with the right approach, instead of posting here? (which I am pretty sure is inappropriate). --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy I have struck through my original comment, but no apology will be "demanded" of me. If you do not want to message me directly, please go to WP:ANI if you feel so inclined.--WaltCip (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Eggshells armed with hammers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Doktorbuk, you can't be serious. If you were really interested in an apology rather than just publicly complaining, you would have at least notified the editors you were demanding an apology from. That being said, you're not getting an apology and I'm not striking my comment. --  tariq abjotu  20:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone pass the popcorn please. --82.132.249.220 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's back.
Gibraltar. DYK. Again.--85.210.109.66 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's back. Complaints about something without basis. Again. GRAPPLE   X  00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a Slim Shady song. And guess what? Eminem grew up not too far from Gibraltar — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess some people wouldn't want DYKs about that Gibraltar either... – H T  D  02:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have directed the original poster to the FAQ, although that explanation lumps two different issues together. 67.160.69.105 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Back again. Small place seems to get lots of attention!--85.210.109.66 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I were back home I'd start work on some Gibraltar-related articles, just to meet you again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)