Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
→Redesign... again: ++MediaWiki Homepage redesign |
|||
Line 242: | Line 242: | ||
:::::::There was a long discussion in which over 100 editors took part. That discussion was closed by a TFA person. The resulting compromise (to run the article as TFA, without censoring it, but to use the star when it was no longer TFA) was the closure of that discussion. So it seems rather like the compromise (which the unregistered editor above doesn't like) is what consensus decided on. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 06:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::There was a long discussion in which over 100 editors took part. That discussion was closed by a TFA person. The resulting compromise (to run the article as TFA, without censoring it, but to use the star when it was no longer TFA) was the closure of that discussion. So it seems rather like the compromise (which the unregistered editor above doesn't like) is what consensus decided on. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 06:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Yes, I know all this, but it is far more important for 88.104.30.86 for the Main Page to say the word "Fuck" for as long as possible, because, you know, uncensored. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 12:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::Yes, I know all this, but it is far more important for 88.104.30.86 for the Main Page to say the word "Fuck" for as long as possible, because, you know, uncensored. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 12:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
Please understand that my request is not based on some puerile juvenile wish to see the naughty word on the main page. It is a serious and important issue relating to freedom of speech and censorship - the very subject of the article itself. |
|||
In general, Wikipedia consensus agrees to not promote any kind of viewpoint ([[WP:NPOV]]]) and to avoid all forms of ''opinion'', but instead to present factual information (based on reliable sources, yada yada). This featured article is indisputably about a movie which is called "Fuck". Some people might take offence at that word - but then again, others take offence at imagines of Mohammed, or exposed flesh, or stating the Earth is billions of years old, or that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The consensus has wisely decreed that opinions should play no part in what is presented on this website. |
|||
I welcome the fact that logic prevailed in featuring the article, but I am disappointed that this insidious form of censorship has crept in with the 'recently featured' part. |
|||
In the past, many other articles have appeared on the front-page which various people may find offensive - but consensus has ''always'' strongly been opposed to censoring them. That's why I don't think it is reasonable to request a debate and consensus ''in favour'' of this specific small edit request - due to prior well-established consensus. |
|||
I have read the previous discussions and see no actual arguments suggesting "it is OK to feature it, but we'll censor it when it is on the recently-featured". The only rationale I see is, "in the hope that this will help avoid unnecessarily tripping filters" - yet in the very same closure, the admin said, "filters are unpredictable at the best of times (see [[Scunthorpe problem]]); it would be inappropriate self-censorship to refuse to run an article on the mainpage for fear of filter problems". |
|||
It's extraordinarily inappropriate for Wikipedia to now start putting ★ over naughty language; there's been endless pages over many years about suggestions to hide things people find offensive - and they have all concluded that it's a Bad Idea. |
|||
For f★★ks' sake, would someone please make the edit. [[Special:Contributions/88.104.30.86|88.104.30.86]] ([[User talk:88.104.30.86|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Is it ''really'' noncontroversial?=== |
===Is it ''really'' noncontroversial?=== |
||
{{hat|it doesn't matter now, since it is off the main page. Discussions about the appropriateness of Russian Battleships as main page articles need to happen at VPP.}} |
{{hat|it doesn't matter now, since it is off the main page. Discussions about the appropriateness of Russian Battleships as main page articles need to happen at VPP.}} |
Revision as of 19:47, 4 March 2014
Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia's Main Page.
For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below. To add content to an article, edit that article's page. Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed. Click here to report errors on the Main Page. If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed: For questions about using and contributing to the English Wikipedia:
To suggest content for a Main Page section:
|
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
Main Page error report
![]() | Most issues relating to national variations of the English language have already been discussed here at length:
|
To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.
- Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
- Offer a correction if possible.
- References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
- Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 17:18 on 6 July 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
- Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
- Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
- No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
- Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
- Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Today's FA
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
Way Less Sad
I don’t understand how this song passed DYKINT. One song sampled another. How is this unusual? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let's ask those who were involved in this: Koopastar (as nominator), Dharmadhyaksha (as reviewer), Hey man im josh (as promoter to prep), and Premeditated Chaos (as promoter to queue). Link to nom page. Schwede66 03:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- At WT:DYK#Way Less Sad, I wrote the alternative hook "... that AJR built "Way Less Sad" around a barely audible trumpet riff from Simon & Garfunkel's "My Little Town"?" as it highlights a more unique aspect of the sampling and is mentioned as such in multiple sources. This was supported by User:AirshipJungleman29 but opposed by User:Launchballer, who opted for a reworded version of ALT0 from the original nomination page. Neither of these went through though. Koopastar (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I objected to "barely audible" as factually inaccurate (it's the same riff twice at the end and it's playing at about 50% volume at the end of the first). How are the sources describing it?--Launchballer 05:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the currently sourced article for the DYK (1) and other interviews such as (2), they continuously emphasize that they had to turn up their volume to hear it and the riff being in the fade-out. I agree that it doesn't sound that quiet, but when combined with their phrasing in multiple places, it seems low enough to warrant the label. Koopastar (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- From the interview, you could try "... that AJR built "Way Less Sad" around the "last three seconds" of the fade-out of Simon & Garfunkel's "My Little Town"?". You will need to add that to the article, probably as a quote. (I don't expect Simon & Garfunkel to do a Skynyrd's Innyrds and release a non-fade version even though they should, but belt and braces and all that...)--Launchballer 07:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the currently sourced article for the DYK (1) and other interviews such as (2), they continuously emphasize that they had to turn up their volume to hear it and the riff being in the fade-out. I agree that it doesn't sound that quiet, but when combined with their phrasing in multiple places, it seems low enough to warrant the label. Koopastar (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I objected to "barely audible" as factually inaccurate (it's the same riff twice at the end and it's playing at about 50% volume at the end of the first). How are the sources describing it?--Launchballer 05:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a reviewer of the hook I found it to be passing the DYKINT criteria as majority of the songs are like completely independent. If the complainer has a List of songs that sample other songs to prove the contrary then we can discuss the un-interestingness of the hook. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- At WT:DYK#Way Less Sad, I wrote the alternative hook "... that AJR built "Way Less Sad" around a barely audible trumpet riff from Simon & Garfunkel's "My Little Town"?" as it highlights a more unique aspect of the sampling and is mentioned as such in multiple sources. This was supported by User:AirshipJungleman29 but opposed by User:Launchballer, who opted for a reworded version of ALT0 from the original nomination page. Neither of these went through though. Koopastar (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- At the time of moving from the approved area to the prep area I just thought the hook was interesting. If others do not, I'll make note of that. I'm new to helping out at DYK so I'll adjust appropriately based on feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Disappointed to see that the issues I raised at WT:DYK#Way Less Sad were left unaddressed. Sampling a song is extremely common: this website lists one million examples. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Next DYK
- ... that the Akinada Tobishima Kaido, an island-hopping road, was named after its resemblance to stepping stones in a garden?
@Jpatokal, Hybernator, AirshipJungleman29, and Premeditated Chaos: Hook is sourced to two travel websites with no editorial control? I wouldn't think those are reliable sources... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize they were user-generated.I think I misunderstood what Leek was saying was wrong, I should really not comment without coffee. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)- Huh? HPRC is the Hiroshima Prefecture Roads Public Corporation, the government-owned entity which operates the road and just about the most reliable source you could get. Jpatokal (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- One of them is a reliable government website. I'm not convinced that the second website has no editorial control with such a big corporation behind it. Also take a look at this journal article. There is other significant coverage as well. SL93 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jpatokal, it would help most readers if you could add translated titles |trans-title= to references and translate website names. TSventon (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Next-but-one DYK
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
Tomorrow's OTD
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Friday's FL
Monday's FL
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
Today's POTD
Tomorrow's POTD
General discussion
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. 80.254.147.68 (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
As of now, the featured article is a noncontroversial article about an American musician. Further discussion of general Wikipedia policy can happen at WP:VPP. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What on Earth is everyone thinking putting that inappropriate title for the FEATURED ARTICLE today?!! You guys know that little kids and schools use Wikipedia trusting that it is a safe and reliable resource. Can someone tell me what in the world they were thinking? Leoesb1032 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I also oppose this. Reasons should be self-evident. It's verbal assault on children, teachers, and any parents trying to raise their children in a profanity-free environment. Very disappointing. GrimmC (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I for one have absolutely no problem with this article being featured on the main page. GRAPPLE X 01:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I totally oppose this choice of featured article. I am a huge fan of Wikipedia, but this kind of willful stupidity depresses me greatly. 86.151.119.17 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody said a word about this a month ago, when it might have made a difference. Not here, anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
George Carlin would be proud about today's featured article. I'm sure somewhere he's looking up at us. The Wookieepedian (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if those opposed to our mention of this article realise that the film in question is actually about them and their attitudes? HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, I don't support wide ranging censorship, but my family and I raised over eighty six thousand dollars in contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation in 2013 by appealing mainly to parents and educators. We promoted Wikimedia projects, primarily Wikipedia, as beneficial educational resources. We never once complained about what was in the recesses of Wikipedia pages, accepting these things as examples of free speech. But if the Wikimedia Foundation can not keep their front page decent - a page viewed innocently by people who have no desire to view filth, then we can no longer provide financial support. Seeing this article on the main page, we have decided to withdraw all future financial support for all Wikimedia projects. I encourage all decent people world wide to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.138.95 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Per NOTCENSORED I don't see anything wrong with it. If there was a problem then articles like Fucking Hell, Shit Brook, Shitterton and The finger (with picture) would never have made it onto the main page. This set a precedence that there is nothing wrong with having sweary based articles on the main page The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has put a user edited generalist encyclopædia as the home page on the computers of elementary school children, that is a bigger problem than the F-word on the main page. The poor judgement was by whoever just assumed that everything on the main page would be suitable for kids, not on those who worked on and promoted this article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
"Mum's out, Dad's out, let's talk rude: Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers!" Grow up, main page team. This is equivalent to a bookstore owner pasting "Fuck" in large cutout letters across the front window. Yes you can do it, but it's just inconsiderate.82.3.243.45 (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the word Fuck appearing on the Main Page. That's the beginning and end of it. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Not really. A fair number of female editors over 50 actually supported it as TFA per freedom of speech and not censored during the proposal. It's an article about a documentary film. I once objected to a gay pornographic film being a DYK on a Saturday afternoon and was told it was perfectly appropriate content for the main page. In my book that was far worse and obscene than this documentary as TFA. My argument against it was similar to what is being presented here. At the end of the day it's an opinion based on what the majority of society are likely to think as inappropriate. It's a legitimate article though, using a vulgar word or not. You have a point though that many reputable mainstream websites would refrain from doing so for obvious reasons.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it is important to give a reasoned explanation as to why it's not a bad thing to have an article like this on the main page. Reiterating what has already been stated in numerous ways, the very fact that opposers to the FA are against the 4 letter word "fuck" regardless of the context in which it's being used, is in itself an example of why such a documentary about free speech and the way language is interpreted within a culture is so relevant (not to mention notable) to a modern day audience. I would like to ask a question: why does the word "fuck" offend you so much? If it is because someone says it when they're angry, then I would point out that it's the intent behind the word and not the word itself that hurts you. They could be saying an innocent word like "fat", but when put into context can be offensive to a person. Secondly, are those four letters when put in that particular order, or that sound made up of two consonants and one vowel, inherently vile? Would someone who doesn't speak English be naturally offended by them? if an alien came to earth and heard the word fuck would they run away in disgust? The obvious answer is no, and the reason is because language only has as much power as we ascribe to it. Fuck is offensive because someone else told us it was offensive. And even then, within this particular context the word is not being used in an offensive way at all, merely being used to describe the name of a film about the very discussion we're having right now. I for one would sure like to see Mr. Anderson make an addendum to his work where he analyses and dissects this very discussion about the main page FA for his documentary.--Coin945 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
A box at the top of this discussion cautions: "This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content." Nonetheless, feelings run strong. Putting the article into Wikipedia is a matter of freedom of speech and press and avoidance of censorship, as various arguments supra have noted. Featuring the article on the main page, however, is poor discretion and insensitive judgment, as many others have argued. That something can be done does not mean it should be done. Having the word "fire" in your vocabulary does not mean you should go into a crowded cinema and shout it. Wikipedia's leaders have the right to publish the article and, correspondingly, must now take responsibility for fronting it. Rammer (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
How different nations, cultures, and generations view "profanity"I just now attempted to explain to my mother why there was such a fuss over this item appearing on the Main Page. "Well," I said, "in America, some religious groups, and others, are really very against what they call 'profanity' being published in any form. Or at least, widely published without a very good reason." I nodded to myself, sure that my mother would understand that we, as Wikipedians, need to be understanding of all nations' preferences, even Americans. That sometimes profanity is natural in extreme circumstances, but we shouldn't make an exhibition of it. She glared at me in angry bafflement. "AMERICANS?!?", she said. "It's the Americans I BLAME for it!" Make of that what you will. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Both myself as a Canadian and my wife as a Jamaican, think this was a crass, attention-whoring stunt, that has exemplifies stereotypical American behavior. Most nationalities have enough empathy and good sense not to rub dirt in the faces of others because of "muh rights". Only in America are the libertines so pseudo-religiously dogmatic, that they'd deliberately harass and offend the rest of the english-speaking world for a cheap and puerile talking point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.193.181 (talk • contribs)
I read the talk page every so often (to find these kind of pointless arguments, I'll be honest), but I've never commented before, but I feel the need to now. It makes me sick when people somehow asume that this article was ONLY nominated by Americans, and that Americans are hateful, apathetic, and only do things to piss off other American speaking cultures. This hateful bigotry is disgusting. Why do you assume that Americans nominated and pushed this to become TFA? Because you see American TV programs and think "that MUST be the way all Americans act! Jersey Shore and the Housewives series are what America is!"? I have enough sense to know a rude and hateful bigot like yourself does not represent all Canadians, but you seem unable to realize that America is not the cespool that TV programs show it to be. Though I do find it funny that you call the article being TFA "self-whoring" in a rather "self-whoring" comment. But that's just me.Pseudohippie (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) It's interesting that on the relatively rare occasions that something like this comes up, a certain segment of people automatically assume that it was done specifically to offend them. (AKA, "to be edgy".)
Why censored ?Why is the link to Fuck (film) censored on the page now? In a mildly entertaining way - that's a FA star surely preserving its modesty – but, er, WP:NOTCENSORED.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Why the fuck does it currently say, "Recently featured: Fakih Usman – F★CK – Starfish" instead of the actual title of the article? Fucking ridiculous - it seems like someone is making up their own special rule, and is making Wikipedia look stupidly hypocritical in its views on so-called "censorship". 88.104.10.105 (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please correct the title of the recently-featured article as listed on the main page from the current "F★CK" to the actual title of the film which is "Fuck" - as explained in my post above. 88.104.10.105 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please note, the above request had been moved inside the collapsed section by Daniel Case with these edits, but I have moved it back 'outside' the hat because it is a request regarding the current situation regarding the "recently featured articles", not the actual TFA (which is of course over). (In addition, the adminhelp was still 'active' and unanswered, even though it was collapsed) I would have tried to ask Case to move it back, but his talk is protected so I cannot edit it. I hope that explains why I've moved it back here. 88.104.10.105 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I hadn't understood why it kept moving. No problem. Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that, in order to decide how to handle 88.104.10.105's request, that we open a formal poll to run no less than 7 days, and see where consensus lies. If, after a minimum of 7 days, there is a consensus to change the star to a U, we can do so, but we should leave the status quo until enough people have had time to comment on this vital issue. --Jayron32 23:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- The status quo has been thoroughly established - there was a large-scale discussion about whether or not the article should be featured on the main page. The consensus was 'yes'. During that discussion, some (minority) put forth the suggestion that it be featured using the censored version (F★CK) instead of the actual title; several counter-arguments were presented at the time, and the consensus was clearly in favour of not censoring the title.
- Therefore, the status quo is to use the title of the film, and not to censor it.
- One person should not over-ride an established consensus, so it should be immediately changed back.
- If Jayron requires a 7-day discussion to re-open the debate, then of course that's fine. In the meantime, I hope the previously established consensus in line with policy and guidelines can be applied - instead of allowing 1 or 2 admins to override the consensus-agreed decision.
- Therefore the request stands; would an admin please change it, immediately, in-line with agreed prior consensus and policy. Thanks, 88.104.30.86 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that we need consensus to change it, and to get widespread consensus to change the star to a U on the main page, we need to allow people to comment and discuss the matter. I think seven days should be enough time for everyone who wants to comment to do so, and then an admin can assess the discussion, and after careful deliberation, can decide to make the change to the main page. --Jayron32 01:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- It should be the other way around. The article is still at Fuck (film) and it was kept the name Fuck here this until it was unilaterally changed without anything even remotely close to a consensus ( I would in fact ague that the discussion at the nomination page achieved a consensus against the change).I would argue that the people wanting to make the change should require a consensus to make the change not the people supporting the status quo It should also be noted that Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2014 does not use the altered wording either meaning that this page is out of sinc with everywhere else on Wikipedia.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if I am misunderstanding something, but the offending item will only be on the Main Page "Recently featured" list for one more day, won't it? How is a seven-day discussion period appropriate? The mistake of featuring the item on the main page has already been made and cannot be corrected. It hardly matters now what happens to that item for one more day. 86.160.217.154 (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, you are not misunderstanding.
- Jayron knows very well that forcing a "7 day discussion" would render the point moot.
- It's just a few people over-riding clear consensus.
- Prior to the actual TFA, there were discussions about whether or not it was OK - and through appropriate discussion, it was decided that it was OK.
- What we have right now is, a person overriding that decision due to their own views.
- I'd simply change it myself - but I can't, due to the protection of the main page. As I understand it, that protection is necessary to prevent vandalism - and admins are supposed to take care allowing reasonable edits. That's why I asked them to make this edit. Otherwise, it's certain-admins taking over consensus with a "supervote".
- I made my request 6 hours ago, so the lack of action means it looks like the minority (who seem to believe that such censorship is vital, despite consensus) have "won".88.104.30.86 (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whose own views? The view that it doesn't fucking matter? Because that appears to be the Majority View, because among the hundreds of other admins that have watched this page, no one has done jack shit about it. So you know what, the majority view appears to be "it's not worth it to worry about it". So it looks like that IS the consensus view. --Jayron32 04:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- There was a long discussion in which over 100 editors took part. That discussion was closed by a TFA person. The resulting compromise (to run the article as TFA, without censoring it, but to use the star when it was no longer TFA) was the closure of that discussion. So it seems rather like the compromise (which the unregistered editor above doesn't like) is what consensus decided on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I know all this, but it is far more important for 88.104.30.86 for the Main Page to say the word "Fuck" for as long as possible, because, you know, uncensored. --Jayron32 12:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- There was a long discussion in which over 100 editors took part. That discussion was closed by a TFA person. The resulting compromise (to run the article as TFA, without censoring it, but to use the star when it was no longer TFA) was the closure of that discussion. So it seems rather like the compromise (which the unregistered editor above doesn't like) is what consensus decided on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whose own views? The view that it doesn't fucking matter? Because that appears to be the Majority View, because among the hundreds of other admins that have watched this page, no one has done jack shit about it. So you know what, the majority view appears to be "it's not worth it to worry about it". So it looks like that IS the consensus view. --Jayron32 04:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if I am misunderstanding something, but the offending item will only be on the Main Page "Recently featured" list for one more day, won't it? How is a seven-day discussion period appropriate? The mistake of featuring the item on the main page has already been made and cannot be corrected. It hardly matters now what happens to that item for one more day. 86.160.217.154 (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Please understand that my request is not based on some puerile juvenile wish to see the naughty word on the main page. It is a serious and important issue relating to freedom of speech and censorship - the very subject of the article itself.
In general, Wikipedia consensus agrees to not promote any kind of viewpoint (WP:NPOV]) and to avoid all forms of opinion, but instead to present factual information (based on reliable sources, yada yada). This featured article is indisputably about a movie which is called "Fuck". Some people might take offence at that word - but then again, others take offence at imagines of Mohammed, or exposed flesh, or stating the Earth is billions of years old, or that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The consensus has wisely decreed that opinions should play no part in what is presented on this website.
I welcome the fact that logic prevailed in featuring the article, but I am disappointed that this insidious form of censorship has crept in with the 'recently featured' part.
In the past, many other articles have appeared on the front-page which various people may find offensive - but consensus has always strongly been opposed to censoring them. That's why I don't think it is reasonable to request a debate and consensus in favour of this specific small edit request - due to prior well-established consensus.
I have read the previous discussions and see no actual arguments suggesting "it is OK to feature it, but we'll censor it when it is on the recently-featured". The only rationale I see is, "in the hope that this will help avoid unnecessarily tripping filters" - yet in the very same closure, the admin said, "filters are unpredictable at the best of times (see Scunthorpe problem); it would be inappropriate self-censorship to refuse to run an article on the mainpage for fear of filter problems".
It's extraordinarily inappropriate for Wikipedia to now start putting ★ over naughty language; there's been endless pages over many years about suggestions to hide things people find offensive - and they have all concluded that it's a Bad Idea.
For f★★ks' sake, would someone please make the edit. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it really noncontroversial?
it doesn't matter now, since it is off the main page. Discussions about the appropriateness of Russian Battleships as main page articles need to happen at VPP. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
- How was the last redesign effected? Could the same process (which obviously worked once) be reused? 86.160.217.154 (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)
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)