Talk:Main Page/Archive 179

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Reading the Bjørndalen blurb, I find myself immediately wondering what he's won his 13 medals in. One could argue that makes readers more likely to check out the article itself, but I think a blurb should generally be able to stand on its own too. I know the blurb's already running a tad long, but could we possibly change Norway's ... to Norwegian [[biathlon|biathlete]] ...? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, I added the sport. --Tone 12:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't we also mention Marit Bjoergen who just became the most successful female Winter Olympian? (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fair. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Not sure if it was intentional or not, but congratulations to Bencherlite for scheduling Tropical Depression Ten today, the tenth anniversary (as far as I can tell) of WP:TFA (earliest entries). Optimist on the run (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Entirely planned. Thanks for noticing! BencherliteTalk 08:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: "Tropical Depression Ten" is an appropriate title for the first ten years of TFA given the shear number of tropical cyclones that have made featured status and made TFA. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Holy crap it has been 10 years! /me feeling old (still lurking) --mav (reviews needed) 19:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Vanilla main page

Presumably the various 'main page topics which are causes of howls of alarm, gnashing of teeth and statements that WP ain't as good as it used to be' will all come together.

Do not shoot the messenger - good messengers are hard to find - and do not mess with hamsters. Don't ask. Just don't. (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

March 1 will come soon enough. Just a couple more hours. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
March 1 is here; where is the new article? --XndrK (talk | contribs) 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Is it really noncontroversial?

Redesign... again

Continued from Talk:Main Page/Archive 177#Main page redesign

There is now Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal, initially set up by Guy Macon and basically has the 'submit and vote' format. I don't like this setup one bit; there is no discusion to speak of and it lacks any process needed to build a new main page from the ground up. The 2013 process also halted to a grind in the middle.

I would like to reboot the idea of forming a comitee that will handle the main page redesign, based on conclusion from the initial 2013 RFC. Ideas on how to proceed are welcome. Edokter (talk) — 01:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

These processes keep halting in the middle for four reasons:
1) There is nowhere near a critical mass of people that see the current main page as a problem that needs fixing, which means that very few people will be motivated to be involved in the redesign process itself.
2) There have been a number of people that looked at the late-stage proposals from previous rounds as being worse than the current page, which I feel is indicative of a disconnect between the people that are working on the redesigns and the general community.
3) The community has historically done poorly at making major changes through discussions where there are too many options on the table at once (see the medical disclaimer or pending changes RfCs, for example). It does a much better job when a discussion presents either a single binary choice (majority of proposal RfCs), or a set of binary choices isolated from each other (ArbCom election RfCs).
4) There is what I consider to be an entirely irrational belief that redesign efforts have to be pegged to years. What should be a long term, continuous process instead seems to restart from scratch every at the beginning of each year.
Those are my observations, at least. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 02:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice analysis. I said it before... Any structured process is guaranteed to fail. It basically takes a rogue faction to force anything. I do not look forward to still seeing this dinosaur in 2020. Edokter (talk) — 13:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have completed my framework; the entire page is fluid and adapts to any screen width. Not a table in sight! Have a look. Edokter (talk) — 16:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you join the discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal? It seems we are all in agreement that we need to try a different process. Basically, the idea is for the organizers to come up with a single new design that has the best chance of the community support. We have already spent enough time on the philosophical question that is "what is the main page?" This time we will just aim for modest cosmetic change. I think this is perfectly achievable. We can always "rethink" the main page in the future. -- Taku (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am going to stay away from there as far as I can. Already there is a dispute on whether the page should state the process is "to be determined". I am more interested in colaborating with people that simply want stuff done. Read Svens comments above; the 2014 page has failed before it even started. Edokter (talk) — 18:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Taku, you don't get to decide that "This time we will just aim for modest cosmetic change". If you want that to be the process, get consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not really me pushing the process, but, from the RFC last time, this is what the community wants: they are mostly happy with the current design. They don't want any substantial structural change. But they would like to see the main page less 90s. This is why it is relevant that we shouldn't be proposing "simple main page" but something, for example, Chinese Wikipedia. Think like legislatures: we need to focus on what is passable. -- Taku (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@TakuyaMurata: It might amuse you to hear that the Chinese Wikipedia's front page is actually based on my proposal from the 2012 English Wikipedia redesign. The footer is also used on the Commons main page. — Pretzels Hii! 16:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
May I have a link to that RfC, please? --Guy Macon (talk)
How was the last redesign effected? Could the same process (which obviously worked once) be reused? (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was I not notified about this conversation? I just happened to run across it when checking out the AN "Recently featured" thread. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're interested in the Main Page, I would think it is on your watchlist. Edokter (talk) — 15:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Why on earth would I be interested in the main page? I don't like the main page, I think it should be far simpler, I don't think any small changes of the sort that would be acceptable to those who frequent this talk page will help, and I proposed a far simpler alternative at Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon. I aim to replace the main page, not improve it. If I watched this page I would be tempted to post my opinions, and my opinions, posted here, would be purely disruptive. It is a matter of basic etiquette to let someone know you are talking about them.--Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If your intent is to replace it, then you are by definition interested. If you want to have any influence regarding the main page, you cannot ignore its talk page. And for the record, I don't think your opinion is disruptive, just unrealistic and not compatible with the purpose of the main page. Edokter (talk) — 18:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Edokter You might want to check out the above page and list your proposal there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Forget it. I already stated above why I'm staying clear there. We should instead resume the 2013 procedure, which already has a clear and approved process. We just need to build on that if we want to have any result. Edokter (talk) — 18:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Resume the 2013 procedure? why would we want to repeat something that didn't work the last time we tried it? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Not repeat... continue where we left off. Edokter (talk) — 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We could really learn something from MediaWiki/Homepage redesign. Edokter (talk) — 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I really like it. I wouldn't mind if we did what they are doing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't care less if the page name has "2013" or "2014". -- Taku (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Re Edokter's comment "Not repeat... continue where we left off.", I suggest that we implement the idea as follows: cut and paste what we did last year into Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal#Process and open up a new thread at Wikipedia talk:2014 main page redesign proposal where we can analyze what went wrong last time and brainstorm in an attempt to come up with something better. Does anyone disagree with this? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


I've put my design up for evaluation on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Main Page redesign. Edokter (talk) — 15:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


I put this before, but I suppose that it failed to go through. Anyway, the main page is looking glitched. The text seems to be jumping out of the boxes and overlapping the images. Is anybody else having this problem? (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Browser, version, resolution, OS? MP looks fine to me (Firefox 25, 1366*768, Windows 7) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any issue either (Opera/1920x1200/Linux). Sounds like a font rendering issue although we won't know for sure without more info. I ran the main page through and it rendered fine in all 131 browsers/versions. --CyberXRef 07:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes get the above variously if the webpage has been 'half-sized' (and it apparently also occurs with small screens). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Libya military intervention was not authorized

Security Council Resolution 1973 did not authorize military intervention, that is an obvious lie, read this document yourself. It only authorized no-fly zone for libyan aircraft.Viktor Š 18:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain what part of the main page this relates to? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
He is talking about OTD. However the linked article says, inter alia, that the resolution "authorizes all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas". In UN-speak "all necessary means" means military action. As the MP defers to the article, that would need to be changed first. FerdinandFrog (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Six Nations

Today you can read "in rugby union, the Six Nations concludes with Ireland winning the championship". And women's rugby? You should also speak about Women's Six Nations with France winning the championship. Killer4979 (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Go to WP:ITN/C, please, Killer4979. -- (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Warsaw monument

Not an error, but suggest Monument to the Fallen and Murdered in the East blurb include "in Warsaw." Sca (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent Deaths

Khushwant Singh should be mentioned in recent deaths. He was a major Indian author who wrote numerous influential books. Besides, it seems much too Eurocentric. JDiala (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Phelps was a closet european; that aside, WP:ITN/C (which is where this should go) has already been discussing Singh's passing. The hurdle to getting it posted is the poor state of the article itself rather than any concern over notability. GRAPPLE X 02:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It was posted briefly, but justifiable concern over the state of the article caused it to be pulled. If any person wants to fix the problems already noted in the article, it will be posted to RD within minutes of the fixes being made. All one has to do is fix the problems. --Jayron32 03:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


In the "In the news" section, it says Malaysia Airlines announced the Flight 370 crashed, but there's not certainty of that; it should say that Malaysia officials announced that it is presumed to have crashed. (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the announcement by the officials was more definitive than that. They did not say "We presume the plane crashed". They announced "The plane crashed". See [1] where the official states "As you will hear in the next hour from Malaysia's Prime Minister, we must now accept all evidence suggests the plane went down in the Southern Indian Ocean" --Jayron32 17:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
They do not know. They assume, but that is a far cry from knowing. As my dad used to say, never assume anything. It only makes an ASS out of U and ME. We can say that they report this, but to put it out there as fact is stupid. Arzel (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've thought this through too, the plane could have descended at 600mph vertically, or attempted to land on the surface of the sea, we just don't know. This euphemistic "went down" or "was lost" etc is unhelpful. Still, right now we have "crashed" which is probably right, although the rush to get this posted is a little coarse, we still don't know what happened, but yet we use the main page of the world's biggest encyclopaedia to predict it. Still WP:V trumps truth, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
It's worth remembering (at least in the current version and from the first comment I assume the initial one) we aren't actually saying the plane crashed in wikivoice. We're saying that they announced it crashed. We can never be wrong about this if they did make the annoucement.
While Dyspeptic skeptic is true the primary public annoucement came from the PM, I don't even think it's wrong to claim the Malaysian Airlines also annouced that since they made public their statement to the families [2] (currently on page 2).
Some may feel saying the PM announced is better but while that's a valid issue for discussion, it's seperate.
The only other issues are whether we should put the announcement with nothing else and whether the announcement is significant enough to be on ITN for both. I say yes to both. The announcement is a very significant development and there's nothing credible suggesting it's wrong, as much as families (or really most people in the world who know about it) may understandably wish it were otherwise so no reason to mention anything else.
The only real other possible quibble I can imagine relates to what TRM mention namely whether 'went down' or 'ended' and 'crashed' mean the same thing.
I've often suggested we shouldn't be in too much of a rush to mention stuff even if clearly true and well supported if it may change soon. But I don't consider that applies here. Even if it turns out against all odds that they were wrong, this is the sort of stuff it's fine for us to mention.
P.S. in case it's unclear, it would actually be more wrong for us to say they announced it's "presumed" to have whatever, since they didn't use that wording.
Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
While the families of those aboard the plane were informed privately, in private (or by email, reportedly) earlier, the announcement to the public wasn't made by Malaysia Airlines or any officials, it was made by the prime minister of Malaysia. The word he used is ended. Why not attribute the announcement to him and use the same word, in double quotes? Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This stuff is decided at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. You may want add to discussions there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why "did you know?"

The DYK section of the Main Page is populated with the newest content. Given Wikipedia's already exhaustive nature, any new content is always going to be obscure and little-known. So the answer to 'did you know?' is always going to be a depressingly overwhelming 'No'. The title 'Did you know?' implies interesting facts which you might not know but would be pleased and fascinated to be told. By contrast, Wikipedia's DYK section is obscure and trivial by design. Might there be a more appropriate title for it? It rather smacks of sarcasm and satire to sincerely ask readers whether they knew that Général de Brigade Henri Vanwaetermeulen began his career in the French Army as a private soldier (a random example from today's DYK). —Noiratsi (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point: Maybe a better title would be “You may not know this, but…”. OTOH maybe, in English, “Did you know” is shorthand for just that. Interesting argument, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The MP is a 'lucky dip bag' - and 'DYK' is short for 'You may not know - but may be interested to find out that...' (and it would have been amusing to have a link to watermelons near Vanwaetermeulen). (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"Given Wikipedia's already exhaustive nature, any new content is always going to be obscure and little-known." Didn't we just have a DYK from a brand new article for "cup" just a few weeks ago? --Khajidha (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you knows come not just from newly written articles, but also newly expanded articles and (as of a few months ago) articles just promoted at GAC. This means that we do occasionally get very high-traffic articles at DYK, but I agree with Noiratsi that it's perhaps not the best title. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed we do, for example Silver Cross Tavern got almost 200,000 views when it appeared on DYK. Proof that DYK is definitely not just a collection of facts that one might have a passing interest on. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It's simply a snappy name to apply to a section designed to showcase the newest content added to the wiki, in the form of easily digestible interesting trivia. I don't have a problem with the name at all, to be honest. --Connelly90 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
A new title would be change for the sake of change.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with the existing title. It's not meant to be taken literally. No one is expected to run down the list answering "No, No, No, ..." (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The expected answer is "No, but I will check it out." or "No, and I don't care." or "Yes, good that Wikipedia also knows it!" Maybe the title could be changed, but I don't see an overwhelming reason why. I don't oppose it, but a good title must be found. --Constructor 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with OP. It's condescending to the max as it is. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see there's people on both sides. Myself I'm divided too; I can see why 'DYK' is an okay title, but at the same time it still strikes me as far from perfect every time I see it on the MP. I wonder would it be better or worse if it were simply titled "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content"? At the moment that line is rather awkwardly placed as a sort of cross between an aside and a subtitle. —Noiratsi (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've got it! Let's call it "What if I told you that..." (WITYT) or maybe "Consider that...". Maybe something else, but WITYT is very catchy, in my opinion.მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 08:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Probably because it reminds you of the Morpheus meme.[3] howcheng {chat} 18:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that's it, ha-ha! In any case though, most of the facts on the DYK page really are facts that the average person wouldn't have any clue about. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 18:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think 'Did you know' sort of indicates obscurity in it's connotation. I wouldn't talk to somebody and say 'Did you know...' about something most people knew. It's generally used linguistically to prepare someone for information they did not know. If it's information they may know you'd be more likely to say 'Of course, ...' or 'Well, you know that...' or 'As you know...' Zkbt (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think "Did you know" is fine. It's metaphorical and not meant to question one's knowledge. However, since it's a collection of supposedly interesting factoids, "Believe it or not..." could be an alternative. cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 20:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
"Believe it or not..." may be quite nice; it makes me think of Ripley's Believe It Or Not! Also, I understand the metaphorical principle of DYK; I can see how that, in practical speech, we normally only say "Did you know..." before we tell someone information we have recently found out and think is pretty neat. Based on this, I could see the title of "Did you know..." being a "trivia" section that's wanting you to find out the information and tell your friends, "Hey man, did you know that...?" So either way I find okay. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 18:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to our new sister project!

New framework for main page


This is nuts! There's more Gibraltar spam on the home page! Jehochman Talk 01:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What on earth has some loose April Fool's hooks got to do with Gibraltar? And for the record 3 or 4 of the "Gibraltar spam" articles passed GA fairly recently. And no, I wasn't paid to promote them, I didn't need much work on them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's face it. Wikipedia is ruined now. GamerPro64 01:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm 100% serious. Don't mock me!! Jehochman Talk 01:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Great. Goddamn April First complainers all over again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Its April First? How the hell am I able to know when that comes around? GamerPro64 03:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
      • You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out. You put your right foot in and shake it all about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for this, I think I'll work on Gibraltar articles just to get them on the main page to piss off the anti-Gibraltar crowd. How's that for pissing in your cheerios.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


There's not enough material about cricket and video games on the front page. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm more annoyed by the front page displaying the feminist agenda everywhere. I mean, where does The Hulk get off stating his opinions like that? GamerPro64 18:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But there are minors visiting here all the time! And we now have fucking and titties right at the start! ... XD :D Abhinav (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Right you are. Around 12 hours ago it was quite entertaining, but in the last few hours we've been back to the same kind of silly vulgarity we had last year, and was commented on then. Do we really have an average age of 4? --Stfg (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't grumping about that so much as about the fugging and the wankard and the titties. We did that kind of stuff last year. To death. --Stfg (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • To insult and mock feminists? Fucking, breasts, Wanker(d), hooker cockups, then slap those feminists. All this talk about the 90% male editorial posse, and everyone wonders how and why. Next time I see one of those posts, I'll just paste today's April Fools main page DYK list as the final answer. 4 might be generous. And, yes, it will be just as laugh gaining next year. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
  • Who is saying Feminist Hulk is a dig at feminists / women? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, we'll put Feminist Hulk on the main page, but only after we get our "boys will be boys fun" out of the way to show that, sure, we'll put Feminist Hulk on the main page, but first the fucking breasts wanker(d) hooker Little and Big Cockups, then, just to show we're equal opportunity, after a long line of filth, that's exactly where Feminist Hulk belongs. Sure, who is saying it is a dig at feminists to put them in the sewer and the whorehouse and with the porno jokes where they belong? --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
  • (ec) "Titties" (small white breasts) = one of the sexist hooks I was referring to. No, it was not nominated to be run like that, but I tried to mitigate the "childishness" of it with some more succinct humor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 6:50 am, Today (UTC+7)
  • It just came off as the typical misogynistic-dominated fun of boys at Wikipedia. From reading outside and inside reports, this is obviously something women have to quickly get used to on en.Wikipedia. You want me to like it and laugh, also? A smart April Fools was not possible? It had to be sexually graphic and offensive for humor? Again, 4 might be generous. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
  • If you find it offensive, I understand. However, if you are saying it came off as "misogynistic-dominated fun of boys at Wikipedia" owing to its placement on a page with fugging and breasts, please give me an example of how Feminist Hulk could be presented as actually smashing (read: combating) these and other patriarchal and misogynistic constructions (i.e. women's breasts as a symbol of their worth, among others) without "put[ting] them in the sewer and the whorehouse and with the porno jokes"? Those "whorehouse" / porno jokes are a manifestation of what Feminist Hulk is combating, along with ideas such as there only being two genders (and that one must fit into one, otherwise one is deviant), and possibly the construction of masculinity / masculinities (likely, as Feminist Hulk smashes the gender binary, which would by definition include the traditional concept of men needing to be masculine, but unclear from the article).
To shoot down the obvious examples, having Feminist Hulk smashing the gender binary first, followed by hooks which are possibly sexist, would be to say "No matter what women do, they will never have have equality, even if they appropriate the epitome of (the patriarchy's idolization of) brute strength". Having Feminist Hulk on a day without any possibly sexist hooks would be to have Feminist Hulk smashing things which are not present (and thus out of mind, and thus generally not considered an immediate threat, an issue considering the fact that women's rights are at the forefront of discourse in certain areas of the globe). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, can't have an article about feminism on the main page, unless it's in its appropriate context. I think you made my point. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
  • And you are misreading my post (my apologies, I did not clearly indicate that I was referring to the joke). My concern was with the meta-joke of Feminist Hulk literally "smashing" the gender binary (only possible on April Fools Day, under current rules). The article could certainly have been run as a normal hook, on any day, as with the numerous articles related to women and feminism which were run through March. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you realize why there were "numerous articles related to women and feminism" in March? So it could have been run in March, along with other womanly things about the 50% of the population that gets main page attention 8% of the time? No, I don't get the meta-joke, because it was buried beneath a juvenile pile of garbage. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a little boys' playground. The hooks were disgusting, especially when looked at in a line of breasts, wankar(d), fucking Little and Big Cockups. It just said, "No, we're not an encyclopedia, we're a social network, but don't think Facebook or LinkedIn, head right to Reddit and keep going downhill from there. It just put feminism where it usually sits on en.Wikipedia, buried beneath the juvenile, vulgar boys in-club. Glad you had your laugh, but, hope you're not really going to make this argument next big RFC or discussion about why en.Wikipedia can't get and retain women editors. That's my say, more effort than anything could possibly return, so why bother to say anything more. I am woman, hear me no more--got that covered on en.Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
  • International Women's Day on 8 March, with the month (Women's History Month) also dedicated to commemorating women's struggle for equality. I contributed several hooks, and I'm having trouble AGFing with these patronizing questions.
If you believe that Feminist Hulk should have not been run as an April Fools hook, then you should discuss this with the article's writer and the reviewer. My involvement with the article begins and ends with its inclusion on the template (and the attempt to make a meta joke with the ordering). That's all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
And with your attempt to hijack the discussion about the juvenile and offensive article hooks on the main page by somehow relating these hooks to your meta joke, in a way that I have yet to understand. You're the one who foisted your hook or whatever your contribution is onto the bottom of the fucking wankards Little and Big Cockups pile, not me. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
  • Lack of GF = Confirmed. Thank you, and have a nice day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not even just British; I've seen it across the Pond as well. The issue is the word "cock" itself. As if there were never roosters. Mind you, if the term were "tits up" (as in "We tried to reach the pole, but everything went tits up"), there'd be complaints as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Mutual high five and mockery of those who were offended and targeted by those who weren't. Well done, en.Wikipedia style. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

Fucking is something that can be engaged in between a number of variations of genders. Isn't it rather misogynistic to assume that mentioning it is particularly offensive only to females? Likewise, isn't it rather misogynistic to assume that mentioning a variety of body parts some of which belong to various genders, is particularly offensive only to females?

It's been said before; historically, quite a high proportion of the editors who work on bringing controversial articles like this to reviewed high quality status, have been female.

Personally, I'm glad at least some sections of the main page escaped the silliness. It made a nice contrast. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Pine Tavern

It may be the oldest restaurant in Oregon, but the article reads like one giant advert. What do the DYK team actually check? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. I see zero EV in this article or DYK blurb. The Pine Tavern may be a charming establishment in the charming tourist town of Bend (to which I've been several times), but this is free advertising. Sca (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another zero EV DYK blurb on the main page that took one of the most interesting areas of science today, the evolutionary biology of the Liliaceae, a major plant family, and turned it into another article completely, the tulip trade article.

... that when the tulip trade reached Antwerp in Belgium in 1562, they were mistaken as vegetables?

Except, tulip is not linked to the tulip trade article, the DYK is about the Liliaceae, a fascinating group of plants, and botanists have made major advances in the understanding of this huge plant family, its evolutionary relationships, and how this relates to the spread of angiosperms, the diversification of the monocots and modern plant ecosystems. But we have a DYK that conveys nothing about this fascinating subject, and is a bad link when there already is an article about the tulip trade. DYK the most boring thing about the Liliaceae is already written up in another article?

I don't think the DYK team have the interest to check much of anything. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

But you do, so you can be that difference! Welcome to the team! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Being that difference would be removing a bad DYK from the main page, and that is impossible. Errors are largely ignored. DYK editors fight you when you point out mistakes, then removing your comments about the problems with the DYK articles from the template, so the articles can be promoted without the errors being corrected. Meanwhile the bad article, to which editors are indifferent, is copied into cyberspace permanently. Like the 50,000 google hits I got for a misspelled plant family. Be that difference would require that Wikipedia be able to correct errors and have editors who welcomed editors who could point out errors. Correcting them gets too many nasty comments. So, no, being that difference does not seem likely in a hostile editing environment. At some point, though, editors ought to care how bad Wikipedia looks when it makes silly DYK quotes. There are other problems with this quote, besides the offense of dismissing the interesting evolutionary science. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
I'd be interested to see how many ERRORS report against TFA, TFP, TFL, ITN and DYK. It feels like every single day I see someone noting a serious (i.e. pull it off the main page) issue with a DYK article. Because DYK offers a quid pro quo review structure, it's clearly always a conflict of interest to "sanction" a DYK because it means that your own DYK will be more likely to be "sanctioned". Anyone fancy doing some analysis of ERRORS? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
It's often pointless to report an error with DYK, because they rotate quicker than the typical admin response time. I've lost count of the number of times I pointed out a problem with a DYK blurb only for it to rotate off the MP without any action being taken. These days I don't bother looking at it, let alone reporting mistakes. Modest Genius talk 00:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
And then the ignored errors are in the articles forever, they sit on the DYK templates, they're prominent as a hook on the top of article talk pages. Why not make a place for them, a category at least, "Articles that appeared on the main page with errors?" The interesting thing would be to tally how many times WikiCup racers contributed to errors. Maybe getting articles on the main page and winning contests on Wikipedia will eventually require accuracy.
Every time someone just moves an uncorrected error off of the main page, they are accepting that article as it is, approving an error. The main page is read by many editors who don't edit Wikipedia. One of my office mates used to post corrections about errors, but her error reports were always ignored, the mistakes staying in the articles for years. The errors are never repaired, as far as I can tell, no matter how bad they are, such as a hook that redefined Tunicates--it was nonsense, yet it was on the main page. Of course, it's not only the main page where errors remain uncorrected--I corrected a misspelling of a plant family name that sat on en.Wikipedia for 7 years, and had generated 50,000 Google hits of the misspelling. Errors that hit the main page are bad. They need corrected in the article, on the template, everywhere they occur. Too bad getting them off of the main page while creating an accurate encyclopedia is so much lower in priority than making quick repartee at ANI. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC))
The error is usually in the blurb, rather than the article per se. Modest Genius talk 23:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes it is in both. Should I be more or less worried that DYK editors can't read their own articles well enough to write an accurate blurb from them? --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC))

Another one

The main page says, "DYK ... that the moss species Chorisodontium aciphyllum can survive for more than 1,500 years frozen?"

The article did not make this conclusion, it discussed that a single group of scientists is making this claim based on results of an experiment that grew the plants once from one moss core. But en.Wikipedia is reporting this primary research as established fact.

Must be WikiCup season again, time to avoid the main page. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC))

Most every DYK reads like an April Fools Joke, or some faux-clever witticism. Cosprings (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they often do miss the interesting fact to make up something faux-clever. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
You are taking the one or two errors in a process that churns out 20-30 articles per day for the main page, 140-210 articles each week. Given that whenever you self nominate an article you have to review someone else's nomination, there are bound to be one or two errors in reviews. And the statement DYK editors can't read their own articles well enough to write an accurate blurb from them is wrong, not all nominations are self nominations, many articles are nominate by other editors who find the article, and nominate it crediting the creator. Thanks, Matty.007 18:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

About ″Article in English″

In the main page,there have already said "English Wikipedia",so it's no need to say "English" again in "Article in English".--昏君 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think he means at the top, where it says "4,485,090 articles in English". If it didn't say "in English", we might think 4,485,090 articles total for every language – even though the page is written in English, and even though much later at the bottom where everyone has forgotten the top, it says "This Wikipedia is written in English." Art LaPella (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any notification on the page itself that this is the English Wikipedia, at least not before the "in English" note. The address is, but that may not be understood by some people.

There is real merit in this. It would make far better sense if the line above welcomed people to the English (wikilinked) Wikipedia, and the wikilink in the line below disappeared. --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sahara desert sand in Britain

Why is there no news of the Sahara desert sand and pollution causing a smog in Britain, I think this is just as newsworthy as the volcanic eruptions that brought Britain to a standstill--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 16:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it is not that rare thing to happen in the UK, rather than a lot less often volcano activity. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates Art LaPella (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It's minor local news here: most of the UK isn't effected. It's getting disproportionate coverage on e.g. the BBC as they're based in London and somehow think it's special but it's really just local news. It doesn't compare to the volcano that grounded flights across much of Europe, or the far worse pollution problems in E.g. China.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a slow news day story and a scam by those people who want me to wash my car. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Lol that comment made me laugh--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

New system for suggesting "Today's featured article"

WP:Today's featured article/requests is using a new system on an experimental basis. Firstly, the old requirement to calculate how many "points" the suggested article had has gone. Secondly, we are using a nomination template based on that used at DYK in the hope that this will make the process easier to complete. If you would like to nominate a featured article that has yet to appear on the main page – whether written by you or by others – please come along to WP:TFAR and give the new system a go. All feedback welcome. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Font of mainpage headers

Has the font of the headers on the mainpage changed for anyone else? I just reset my browser preferences (Google Chrome), and I'm still seeing a different font for the headers. Seattle (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Look!! Another much-loved wiki improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
mw:Typography refresh Stephen 22:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Voting after the event always seems to get more participation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it changed for me. I have to disagree, I think it looks terrible. Really disappointed in whoever changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooo –HTD 22:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite so. Can we please go back to something more traditional? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, absolutely awful. On default zoom the letters are too squat and far apart, zoom in one level and the lines are practically on top of each other. Why do people feel the need to change things that are perfectly fine just to make themselves feel they've had some sort of "influence"? -- (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)]

I am not happy at all with the new font. How can I put this? It doesn't carry the authoritative weight of the original font, and articles now appear much larger than they actually are, potentially putting off the reader from scrolling through at all. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree and am utterly livid, outraged, wroth, yea, vexed by such insolent indiscretions such as this uncalled for adulteration. Let us know peace through what was right, the original, classic font scheme. (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The original, classic font scheme can be seen at I suspect that you don't actually want the original font scheme back. Face-wink.svg WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If we want, it's not hard to change the Main Page headers back to sans-serif. It's definitely a special case. Let me know if you want me to take a stab at it. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering what was going on at first when I was reading something, followed a link and suddenly the font was different. I don't care for it at all, the old one was much more pleasant to read.

The serif headings look almost kitschy. I guess I could be down for that, but it looks pretty comically unprofessional. (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The new font has made it easier for image captions to bleed into other sections, resulting in more mess. Was this font change discussed at all, or put to a vote? - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree this new typography is rather ugly, and makes reading more difficult. Please return to the old one. Thanks in advance and have a great weekend. --Maarten1963 (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I'm still using Monobook. The fonts on the MP (and every other page) look exactly the same as they always did. Another victory for consistency over flashy 'improvements'. Modest Genius talk 13:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Un-bold Main Page headers?

I like the new typography and the serif headers elsewhere, but on the Main Page they look weird because of the extra bold applied to the font which was there before. This is too black, and not in line with the headers elsewhere. Any objection to me removing the bold, leaving it looking more like this? the wub "?!" 23:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind the bolding. Note that the headers already have their fontsize reduced to 120% (from 150%) and removing the bold makes them look like regular text. You would have to increase their font size to retain their appearence of headers. Or like Steven suggestes above, we could change them back to sans-serif. Edokter (talk) — 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the sans-serif for the box headers. Edokter (talk) — 00:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not just MP headers, it's all H1 headers, and it looks out of place. Please change back. --Robert.Labrie (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I realized it's global change. But I don't like it. Because not good looking Cyrillic letters (᠌᠌᠋"ү", "ө") for Mongolian in headers. --MongolWiki (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the annoying things one usually runs in to at some point is that English speakers will be given priority over speakers of other languages. This is because...well, a number of reasons, mainly that English seems to be the most widely spoken language, and in any case it's often unpleasant for other languages though I can't really say anyone's to blame, but still it would probably have been a good idea to test things with the other languages considering that wikipedia et al are in like 200 of them. I also got a complaint on my talk page that the Catalan middle dot had no italic version in Liberation Sans - just another example of this. Notice I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just floating this on the water of the talk page. Also I'm quite aware this should probably be going on mw:Talk:Typography refresh, though a more cynical mind than mine might suggest that people are being told to discuss things elsewhere so that they can be better obscured. Cathfolant (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


I'm getting a warning from an extension on Chrome that [ this site] is vulnerable. If that's true, the main page should be flagged with a banner.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#Heartbleed bug? and this post on wikitech-ambassadors for details about this. Many other wikis are also mentioning this on their sitenotice (eg. German, Spanish Dutch, and Hebrew Wikipedia and Commons). I was actually quite surprised this wasn't mentioned here at English Wikipedia. --Glaisher [talk] 17:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Vote - Previous font discussion

Not sure where the previous font discussion has gone; at least leave the link to the vote here on the village pump. —Neotarf (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is where it went. While it may have been a bit angry and full of curse words, I disagree that it was 'crap'. It was feedback like any other, nothing particularly invalid about it, we're trying to make the user interface 'better' aren't we? Cathfolant (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Beyond the fact any discussion of this here is in the wrong place (even if you want to complain here on wikipedia, it's still the wrong place and always was and complaints here were never going to get much attention from anyone), you realise that removing that was beneficial to those opposed to the changes rights? :::
If the first thing someone sees are those dodgy posts, it's rather easy to assume most people complaining are of similar ilk and therefore not worthy of any attention. In reality some people concerned about the changes have some good points and can do without being associated with that poster.
Or to put it simply, if someone can't learn that shouting, a continual stream of curse words and bringing up the Nazis, Satan, Zionists and the CIA doesn't improve your feedback and can't even find the right place to complain, they shouldn't have any expectation their feedback will stay.
Besides all that, seeing the horror of the OPs complaint may be enough to make people think the problems with the changes are so minor in comparison perhaps it's not even worth commenting on.
In fact, reading their comments more closely are we even sure they are genuine? I'm starting to think it may have been trolling or mockery, perhaps even by someone who supported the changes (or more likely didn't give a damn).
Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

They are genuine and true. The forced font denies our freedom of font's choice.--FoureychEightess (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Here here, we want Comic sans!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
bring back the way it looked before the change. (talk)

I want to see the people who unilaterally decide on these changes sent on formal change management training, for several years. It's obvious that right now they have no idea how introduce even great new ideas. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the discussion goes here. (Unilateral??) Art LaPella (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious that most of the unhappy people were completely unaware of the proposed change. That, by definition, is bad change management. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I dunno, I can't remember the last time a major website asked my opinion, or even warned be before a redesign. APL (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Most websites aren't user generated either. --Khajidha (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Offhand I can think of the Guardian and Facebook, both of which had prominent "Try out our new design" banners in the run up, allowing users to get used to the changes and to comment if they felt strongly. If the new design had been as poor as Wikipedia's was, they would certainly have realised very quickly from the feedback and been able to change it.
One of my trade papers has also recently changed its design - they started off with some of the sister titles that came within the main paper, and only after those had been running successfully with the new design for a few months did they do the same for the main paper. For a few weeks the old masthead was shown "peeling off" and the new masthead with more modern type was revealed underneath, which meant that the redesign didn't have any "shock" value and didn't induce an instinctive negative reaction.
So that's three examples of how to do it properly. I can't think of any websites that suddenly changed to a significantly inferior design without any warning at all, on the whim of a tiny minority of users. -- (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither can I. I'd be able to think of at least one, if that's what had happened here. The new design is objectively, measurably more readable for the vast majority of people, and deals with actual readability problems which were so common that people didn't really think twice about zooming in every time they wanted to read a Wikipedia article. That the response has been "I personally find it harder to read", from heavy users of Wikipedia who presumably have very high reading skills, and "It changed, and I liked the old style" from heavy users of Wikipedia who could have easily been following Signpost and Village Pump proposals, says a lot. I'm an IP editor, and so don't receive Signpost or get notified about much, but even I had read the page describing what was changing and why before this change was implemented. If other editors actually care about this stuff (beyond complaining), they could have been aware of it too. (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It's completely impossible to make everyone aware of a proposed change. Strangely, the number of people who complain about not having had advance notice doesn't really seem to change depending on whether it was advertised through repeated spamming sitenotices, central notices, watchlist notice, central discussion links, endless repeated village pump spam, direct user interface modification spam, mailing list spam, etc., or barely mentioned at all in advance. Even stranger, there are approximately the same amount of complaints even when the change was made by the community as a direct result of clear consensus. Strange. --Yair rand (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that. We all notice Wikipedia's requests for donations, and opportunities to vote. there was nothing of the kind about this. Have those responsible for introducing change here done formal change management training? HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't all notice these things. It's been a couple of years since I noticed a fundraising banner. Last year, when people were talking about the new design, I had to search through pages on Meta just to find out what it looked like.
Running banners doesn't stop people from complaining that they weren't notified. I've had conversations with people that run like this: "There should have been a watchlist notice!" "You mean like the one in this diff from last month?" "Yes, exactly like that! Why didn't they run that?"
Some of this is technical: If you have a very old computer or if you don't have Javascript enabled, some of these notifications don't display (others can't be dismissed). If you set your language to en-gb, or to anything except plain "English" for most en.wp-local messages, most of them disappear. Some are cookie-dependent.
Some of it is non-technical: "displaying" and "being noticed" and "being remembered" are three very different steps. I've got a pretty serious case of banner blindness for watchlist notices at en.wp. Anyone who's busy, sleepy, or otherwise distracted might physically see the notice, but not remember having seen it a week (or a month) later when the change happens. This problem with forgetfulness isn't specific to banners: A couple of months ago, we had a round of "How dare people change this without telling me" followed by "Funny, but these diffs from last month show not only them telling you about this proposal, but you making suggestions on how to do it". I'm certain that s/he honestly didn't remember the earlier discussions/notifications. There are a lot of moving pieces here at the English Wikipedia. People can't remember everything they're told (or even that they say or do). Until we're willing to make access to the site conditional upon publicly acknowledging receipt of the notice, we will always have people who didn't get the message and/or don't remember getting the message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not a reason to give up telling people. It's a reason to try harder. Use every platform possible. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
So that other people will be annoyed by constant message-spam? That's the practical result. When discussions or announcements are advertised in multiple platforms (or repeatedly), then the people who do read and remember the messages are upset.
There really is no perfect solution. A level of announcement that is barely enough to impinge upon the consciousness of one person is intolerable spam for the next person. "More" is not necessarily better, especially because message overload means that fewer messages are noticed or remembered (talk to any highway engineer about why putting up extra safety signs harms safety). A more rational solution is to target your message delivery according to both the importance (more for big changes, less for minor ones) and the people who will likely notice and care. That means watchlist notices for things that primarily affect dedicated editors, VPT and meta:Tech/News announcements for things that primarily affect template editors, CentralNotices for major changes that affects casual editors, etc. And no matter what you do, you have to assume that some editors will not remember the announcement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

horrible histories

How come this is a FA? It looks to me to be a thin promotion for the show. I see no positive reception and the article is basically saying how good the show is. Is there really no negative source about it? There needs to be some balance. Beerest 2 Talk page 00:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I mean no poor reception. The historical accuracy seems to have a lot of "In the defence of the show..." I think the Reception section could use some negative critique. Mostly because right now its a big giant wall of "this rox". Beerest 2 Talk page 01:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Congratulations on having twins on the main page. Much easier than that merry-go-round during the US election years ago. Simply south ...... discombobulating confusing ideas for just 8 years 10:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC) If anyone is wondering, I am referring to featured articles.

Shh! Don't mention the United States! I did, but I think I got away with it! (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
What about Gibraltar? Or Lugo?! Bring back the old ones I say!--Somchai Sun (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ia, Ia, Lugo F'taghn MChesterMC (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Play the MP game.

Click on random page until you find 'an obscure topic with a short article' and develop it until it features on the MP. Alternatively - a group each gets 'a little list' of obscure topics and attempts to get as many as possible onto the MP/achieving a portal on the topic etc. (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

April 17th

I would like to propose a small edit, but an edit nonetheless. Perhaps it would be better to have "Evacuation Day" link to the actual page for it, rather than a list of Syrian public holdiays? DFliyerz (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Evacuation Day (Syria) has a big orange maintenance on it, and is also a stub. Per the rules, either one of those conditions disqualifies the article from being included. howcheng {chat} 21:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article a bit and removed the tag, but it's still a stub and I'm probably too late anyways. Isa (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering about this as well. Also, wouldn't a more appropriate place for this comment be Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries? -- Kndimov (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Since Selected Anniversaries was the topic, this is an appropriate venue for discussion. howcheng {chat} 02:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

He's back!

Is it just me, or has Lugo made another Main page appearance? --Allen3 talk 00:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Damn skippy. Well done, whoever put him there. It's been too long... --Jayron32 00:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • All hail the unstoppable one! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been waiting two years to put that photo up. :DDDD howcheng {chat} 05:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Noooooooooooo!!!!!! Anyone but Fernando Lugo! He's like the mascot at this point. I hope he at least makes a donation for all the free publicity :P Kaldari (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm nuts for Lugo! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

When I saw it, I thought it had something to do with Easter (I mean, he was a priest once, wasn't he?) Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I will now make love to the front page because of this. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice to see this Wikipedia tradition is still going strong :) And he was even a Bishop :) (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Transgender Representation

I just wanted to say that it's been great seeing some representation of transgender topics on the main page. There is today's DYK on Transgender History, and there was an ITN headline about the Indian Supreme Court ruling recently too. Thanks! :-) Katie R (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe Hijra (South Asia) was on ITN before (according to the talk page in 2009) Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

Is anything going on on the main page for William Shakespeare's 450th birthday?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are any suitable FAs at WP:FANMP. I don't immediately see anything at DYK that's related. File:Detroit Publishing Company - Shakespeare's Memorial Theatre, Stratford-on-Avon, England.jpg might work, although I never enjoy trying to find FPs that haven't been POTD and may have missed something obvious - pinging Crisco 1492 just in case he doesn't see this thread. BencherliteTalk 15:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed this date in one of the sources (Sun-Times) for Romeo and Juliet (Pastor), which is new but a very modest presentation for such a celebrated birthday. Apparently some recognize the 23rd as his birthday, although we seem to recognize the baptism on the 26th.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Plays of William Shakespeare might be a good article for the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2014‎

I just remember that I posted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titus Andronicus (character) at WT:BARD to see if anyone could do anything there. That would be a third article if someone can make something of this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, I am alerting you to an urgent need for content, which has me edumpster diving. I have dug up Titus Andronicus (character). The article was failed at WP:AFC with a note that one additional source was needed. I have added one source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Deeper in the dumpster could be restoring deleted content. I assume you have fished through all the declined AFCs! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Screenshot from a videogame is eligible as a featured picture? Colour me surprised. Th4n3r (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you prefer another bird? (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks like someone successfully gained permission to have that screenshot released CC-BY-SA, thus making it eligible. Resolute 03:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As Resolute says, it was released under a free license by the publisher, and thus qualified. Several indie publishers have released screenshots (though only three or four are FPs); Blendo Games, for instance, has released CC game covers and screen captions through their Flickr feed (their games include Gravity Bone and Thirty Flights of Loving, among others). We also have full-length films which passed FPC (as moving pictures), such as Experiments in the Revival of Organisms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the artwork is feature-worthy, but shouldn't the credit line mention the name of the artist? --Bavi H (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Bavi, are you talking about the photochrom or the video game screenshot? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The screenshot of Incredipede. --Bavi H (talk)
  • Perhaps the credit line was misleading; Northway was the game designer, and he also supplied us with the screenshot used in the article. What would a better term than "Screenshot" be, though? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Um, I was suggesting the credit line say something like "Artist: Thomas Shahan" instead of "Screenshot: Colin Northway". --Bavi H (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh. Reason I missed that is he is not credited on the image page. But we can do something in the future, sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

More Current Events...

Where has the "More Current Events" section gone? Guyb123321 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like in this edit, which links to this discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this too. I liked the old version better. (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
"ongoing" still links to the current events portal. Calidum 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)