Talk:Main Page

Ἤ

|archiveheader =

|maxarchivesize = 200k |counter = 202 |minthreadsleft = 3 |algo = old(3d) |archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d }}

Main Page error reports

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 21:46 on 10 November 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.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

Olaf Scholz

• The German ruling coalition (Chancellor Olaf Scholz pictured) collapses over disagreements on economic policies.

The word "collapses" seems too strong as the linked article, 2024 German government crisis, does not use it. What it actually says is "...FDP effectively moved into the opposition, rendering the current coalition a two-party minority government." So, there's still a coalition but it has lost one of its members and so will continue as a minority government for now. Scholz is negotiating what happens next and it seems to be too soon to say exactly what that will be. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN given that the government is still very much in place. There will presumably be elections soon and we should post then.

  Also, when I first read this I thought it was Scholz himself who had collapsed. It's a poorly worded hook, given the presence of the photo caption in the middle, making it look like the Chancellor has had a mishap.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the first two sources at the ITNC nom were "Scholz sets stage for German snap election as government collapses" and "Germany’s Coalition Collapses, Leaving the Government Teetering".—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that Abraham Hamadeh lost one of the closest elections in Arizona history by 280 votes, and has filed multiple lawsuits challenging the results?

@DukeOfDelTaco, Cambalachero, Kimikel, and RoySmith: borderline case, but possible a WP:DYKBLP problem for undue focus on a negative aspect of a living person? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's OK. They're a politician. Winning and losing elections is what politicians do. RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• One could nix the lawsuits, but when you have a margin of 280 votes in an election of that level, it's also par for the course.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would've nixed the lawsuits, not necessarily on DYBLP grounds but just because it's punchier to focus on one piece of trivia. But that's style, not an error. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

Meijer de Hond (nom)

The hook currently uses italics (''Volksrebbe'') to mark the Dutch-language term Volksrebbe. Per MOS:LANG, this should instead be {{lang|nl|Volksrebbe}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Is it OK from a copyright point of view to use Oscar the Grouch on the main page like this? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Copyright may be okay as the original is released into the public domain but it's an interior photo featuring a copyrighted character. It's on commons but should it be? One for commons? Secretlondon (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Actually the photo is File:Carroll Spinney and Oscar the Grouch 2014.jpg. I'm still going to get advice from commons. Secretlondon (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've asked Commons (here Secretlondon (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think these are Commons:Derivative works and should be deleted. It's like a photo of a toy or copyrighted character. Secretlondon (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

• Afzal Khan (d. 1659) - article has died 20 November and 10 November as the Julian date. JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 15)

Monday's FL

(November 11, tomorrow)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

Recent deaths

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stop posting so many recent deaths of barely notable athletes on the front page, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:3:5ea6:ba0e:d4d9:723f:82ee (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• No.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• No --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. Your wish is our command.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• @WaltCip, Jeromi Mikhael, and Amakuru: I'm disappointed by the bitey snark. The IP's feedback wasn't particularly long, but their point is perfectly reasonable. Systemic bias toward sports topics is something we should always be on the watch for, and while I don't follow RD that closely, ITN as a whole has definitely over-covered sports. Looking at the current RDs, 50% of them are athletes (and all are male); I don't know how representative that is, but I certainly don't think that 50% of the notable people in the world are male athletes. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's completely beside the point. RDs are listed once they are of sufficient quality. If you or anyone else thinks it's not diverse enough, the way to fix it is to fix up articles, not just complaining or attempting to tell people what to do. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: you link to that discussion as if it proves some point, but in the end it looks like yet another tiresome argument about why there's a supposed imbalance in ITN topics when all it really boils down to is whether people put the effort in to bring articles up to scratch and/or nominate them for ITN. That's even more the case for RDs, in which inclusion IS automatic if the article is up to snuff and someone nominates it. As for WP:BITE, I certainly take that seriously and it's very wrong when established users are rude to newbies who don't know the ropes yet. I'm not so sure in this case though. Even if you're a newbie you can present your point better than coming to main page talk making blunt demands, without even so much as a please. I'm happy to engage with the IP of they want to, but I'm sceptical. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  I know you know enough about the limitations of anecdotal evidence to know that a selection of RD items at any given time on any given day in any given year does not constitute a general pattern. Just because 50% of the entries now are male athletes, that doesn't mean they will always be male athletes. WaltCip-(talk) 20:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man and Amakuru: I've objected strenuously to the "well then just write more articles" line in the past, and I'm going to do so again here. That line is invoked all the time when systemic bias issues are raised as a way of shutting down the discussion, and it's wrong on several levels. First, I am one contributor out of thousands, so even if I spent the rest of my wiki career improving underrepresented bios in preparation for their death, that would make only a tiny dent in the issue. Systemic reforms are needed (see #3), and individual action will not be the solution. Second, pointing out problems is a valid way to contribute to Wikipedia, even if one doesn't solve them, and requiring that editors solve them in order to talk about them means we'll never talk about them (and also goes against WP:VOLUNTEER). Third, you take ITN's current functioning as a given. There is no divine law requiring that the criteria for RD be a quality threshold and that every notable enough article that passes that threshold be listed. I'm not saying we should be putting stubs on the main page, but merely checking our biases about how truly significant someone is before !voting at ITNC would go a ways. Remember that ITN should be serving readers, not editors, and I would guess that readers assume the RD listings are chosen based off significance rather than quality. When they see a ton of athletes, they don't go "oh, the athlete articles are in better shape," they go "Wikipedia really places way too much focus on athletes and that's not the only kind of article I want to see". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Feel free to object to anything you like. It won't actually improve anything. If you want to change RD, propose something. If you want other articles at RD, improve and nominate them. Otherwise it's just moaning and trying to tell other people they're wrong and that's a recipe for being completely ignored, just like now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: OK so in fact, per your point 3, there is a second possible solutions to your issue in addition to the proposal to which you "strenuously object", and that's to propose a change in procedure at WT:ITN and convince enough people of your change to get a consensus. The floor's yours - make it as reader-centric and systematically unbiased as you like, as long as it will convince people. But until that happens, I'll continue pushing back when you complain about the status quo. Because it is working the way it's supposed to work.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  There is a quality requirement that is set by ITN being part of the main page - articles that are featured (which include those listed on the RD line) should be considered examples of WP's best work. We're not going to put sub-quality bios on RD just because the implication that our quality requirements appear to bias against certain types of individuals. --Masem (t) 00:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  so even if I spent the rest of my wiki career improving underrepresented bios in preparation for their death, that would make only a tiny dent in the issue. I'm not showing off here, but in January 2021 — just for a month — I've spent most of my wikitime creating (not fixing) RD articles on Indonesian people. Although I only did it alone, (CMIIW) in that month I saw that there is mostly no less than one Indonesian in the RD, as opposed to the lack of Indonesian representation before (and after the month). That's only one person and one month. Imagine if we expand it into two person and two months. Yes, I believe that we could achieve the IP's goal! You could make a moon-sized dent on this issue, even with only one person. But what we need more is commitment, commitment to fix RDs, check the news for dead persons, searching sources through thick and thin, accept inputs from others. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  One of the challenges RD faces for biographies of people from non-English speaking countries is the lack of English language sources for contributors. For example, User:Zanhe was a prolific updater of RD bios from China and had access to Chinese language sources. However, since s/he's stopped editing, the number of Chinese bios on RD has dropped drastically. Spencer^T•C 21:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: Yes, no problem. If you'd just like to inform every barely-notable athlete in the world who has a decent Wikipedia article that they're not allowed to die at the moment, that should sort the issue out. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, articles supported on WP:ITN/C gets put on the main page? How is this not on ITN yet, this is a groundbreaking discovery. max20characters 🇺🇸 20:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Currently on the main page:
  • Vassos Lyssarides - Cypriot politician
  • John Konrads - Australian swimmer
  • Adrian Garrett - American baseball player
  • Alber Elbaz - Israeli fashion designer
  • Christa Ludwig - German soprano
  • Milva - Italian singer and actress
  • Terrence Clarke - 20-year-old American basketball player
• I think we should be bloody proud of such a diverse set of individuals. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• A month ago (roughly):
  • Leon Hale - American journalist
  • Stan Albeck - American basketball coach
  • Finian's Rainbow (horse) - horse
  • José Baselga - Spanish oncologist
  • Peng Shilu - Chinese nuclear engineer
  • Beverly Cleary - American children's author
• Lovely. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Two months ago (approximately):
  • Barbara Ann Rowan - American attorney
  • Luca Attanasio - Italian diplomat
  • Arturo Di Modica - Italian-born American sculptor
  • Martha Stewart (actress) - American actress
  • Clotilde Niragira - Burundian politician
• Yeah, these bloody non-notable male athletes ruining the main page for everyone.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Sdkb, even if we're to accept that you're right here about the volume of athlete postings, which I disagree with per TRM above, it's a problem without a solution. Grueling consensus determined that all articles on people are eligible for RDs. Any effort to slow the rate of athletes (or any other grouping of people) from being posted goes against that consensus. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  If that consensus is untouchable, then there is indeed no solution. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, consensus can change. However, it doesn't mean that people will accept what one is proposing. Maybe it's not better? Maybe it's not persuasive? Or one could assume the worst and blame "them".—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Also, one of those "non-notable athletes" on the front page now is an Olympic gold medallist who set 26 world records. Definitely not notable... Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hard to believe we went five whole years before someone made a stink. Kind of reaffirms the original RFC doesn't it? If Sdkb or the IP or someone wants to kick off a new RFC, here is the old one Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/2016_RD_proposal have at it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Main problem isn't the number of athlete deaths on the front page; the issue is that there aren't enough people nominating or fixing up the articles of non-athletes for RD. Putting any sort of artificial cap on athletes in RD won't change that. Approximately 20 people with Wikipedia articles die each day; maybe someone could organize a WikiProject to improve all recent death articles. That would solve this problem. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  20 per day? Surely a decent portion of those are high-quality enough to pass RD, so maybe the issue is mostly with tendencies about which bios get nominated. That's absolutely something that the ITN folks could work on, but from the replies in this thread so far, most of which are along the lines of "this isn't a problem and how dare you bring it up", I don't get the impression that there is much interest. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's absolutely something that the ITN folks could work on ...: Feel free to make a compelling argument that wins supporters, while being respectful not to sound like you are giving orders or that people have been volunteering wrongly. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY reads: Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If people like sports, they'll edit sports articles; so it goes with every other topic. The WikiProjects are a good way of grouping by interests; if editors in them are made aware of ITN/C and put in an effort to polish the articles on recently deceased figures in their respective fields to Main Page quality, then problem solved. Just because one area of the site's being productive doesn't mean we should discourage that behavior, though. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sdkb where is the evidence that there is an actual problem here? The three random examples I gave have been conveniently overlooked. What are your proposals for "fixing" this "problem"? Is it to mandate which kinds of articles people work on? Is it to limit the number of a certain gender/nationality/vocation at any one time on RD? Is it something else? Just making some kind of vague claim that there's some kind of systemic bias specific to RD and then ignoring evidence to the contrary isn't a good look. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have some silver bullet, otherwise I would have suggested it. But how's this for something concrete: it would be nice to have some solid data on RDs, so that it's not just my anecdotes vs. yours. I imagine that if someone has enough technical skill, it'd be possible to take the list of RDs and analyze the categories/Wikidata information to get percentages by gender/nationality/vocation/etc. If we find that those values are representative, excellent, no need to take any action. If we find that they're wildly skewed, even moreso than the rest of Wikipedia, that might prompt us to change our behavior. There would be a bunch of possible ways to do that—based on what NorthernFalcoln said, a task force to nominate RDs from underrepresented groups might be a good approach. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Um, mine aren't anecdotes, they're real. I didn't think we needed to do such an analysis, you'd already declared there to be a systemic bias problem specific to RD that needed to be fixed, right? Here's things you won't change here (a) what people want to edit (b) which topics have wider coverage on Wikipedia. I don't see what "behavior" (sic) you are looking to change. You don't need data to create a task force to nominate RDs, you can just do it. It would be simply marvellous to improve other areas, but that's nothing to do with RD per se, that's something Wikipedia would benefit from. People coming here and demanding we stop posting certain demographics to RD or making unsubstantiated claims of some kind of enhanced systemic bias at RD without any kind of evidence are not being helpful in the slightest. Indeed, get the evidence before making such a fuss. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes indeed. Don't wait for others to start the "task force", go ahead WP:BOLDly create it yourself. Let's see how it goes and improving more articles is obviously a good thing. To be clear, I agree with the general principle of WP:Countering systemic bias, and I'm neutral on whether we actually have a genuine problem right now. But I just don't agree with the notion of deliberately restricting particular types of RD as a means of "rectifying" the problem, if indeed we have a problem.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose change yes sometimes there are 2 or even 3 sportspeople on Recent Deaths, but that's not always the case, as there's ebbs and flows. All people who die are eligible for RD, and it might just so happen that lots of sportspeople die in a short space of time. If we're trying to implement a rule against multiple sportspeople on there at one time, then we would also have to limit it to one American article at a time too. Because, by the same logic, we're not all American. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  ... we would also have to limit it to one American article at a time too: The U.S. has the largest English-speaking population in the world at ~300M. Setting a quota of 1/6, and other complaints about the MP being "too American", don't account for this.—Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think he's just pointing out that having a "sporting quota" would be as unfeasible as having an "American quota". Which it would. Skdb is actually approaching this from the wrong direction - the issue is not that we have too many sporting biographies, it's that we don't have enough biographies on people that aren't sportspeople, and we don't have enough biographies on people outside the Anglosphere either. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• And right now, on RD we have 4 males and 2 females, from 6 different nationalities. That seems pretty balanced to me- we shouldn't be enforceing quotas. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Sdkb is being given a hard time here, somewhat unfairly I think given the reasonable tone of their comments. Their positive suggestions are to quantify the systematic biases in RDs appearing, and to think about a way to encourage ourselves to improve/nominate the articles about recently dead people in neglected categories. Just pointing out that there is a need to address a specific bias in this way may make some people think, "Oh, OK, if that would be appreciated I can do that occasionally when I read a relevant obituary". It's not completely hopeless trying to engineer a change in behaviour. Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  What positive suggestions? Initially he they had NO suggestion but to grouse at us. He They just said "something needs to be done" and it took another editor to suggest a task force before he they would finally commit himself themself to any given proposal. WaltCip-(talk) 12:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would AGF and say it started fair but digressed from 20:53 on with charges like "That line is invoked all the time when systemic bias issues are raised as a way of shutting down the discussion, and it's wrong on several levels"—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose change As above, there's no need for such a thing. It's part of the natural ebb and flow of the world today. All that matters is the quality of the article, not labels or artificially forced positioning. I understand where Sdkb is coming from but I do feel that it would require a full RFC to bring in what he is asking for. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Personally, the incidence of sports RDs sometimes does strike me as excessive, but trying to police RDs according to some subjective criterion of interest would lead to endless argument, as it did – how many years ago? Our system many not be perfect, particularly during this lethal pandemic, but at least it's consistent – the best we can do under the circumstances. – Sca (talk)
• Comment I think it's best to drop this quote here: The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river. In our case: The editor is not the man who says the RD is dirty. The editor is the man who cleans up the RD. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Jeromi Mikhael, here's an essay: Wikipedia:Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Which might be of interest if there was a problem that had been identified. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Consider where your essay says ... deemed by prior consensus to be a necessary evil. RD currently, by design, posts any article with quality content. It's up to editors to nominate and improve them as required. It's not a bug, it's a feature, that posted RDs are not subjectively approved for "balance" or "importance". There's no barriers to what gets promoted other than what the editing community neglects. However, WP is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so it's not wrong for an individual editor if they choose to mostly work on a specific category of RDs.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm feeling ya, Sdkb. I've gotten to the point that I am reluctant to work on articles about white men because soooo many other editors are willing to do that. I'll do it when I see a real issue, but otherwise I'm like "where are my women and people of color?" :D Unfortunately there aren't a lot of people who are willing to do much work outside their own highest interests, and for many editors their highest interest is sports. I mean, it's good when our coverage of a particular area is really comprehensive, as it is with men's sports. But it's unfortunate that so few editors are interested in, for instance, Indonesian activists. I laugh sometimes when I see editors arguing with one another about when we can create, say, 2036 Summer Olympics! :D —valereee (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  The thing is, we have an article called Deaths in 2021. It's easy to find minority and/or female recent deaths. If anyone really thinks we have a problem, just head there, pick an RD which hasn't yet been nominated (we do sometimes get up to half a dozen RDs, sometimes more, nominated in a single day), get it up to the quality expected to make it to the main page, and bob's your uncle. It's all there, for those who are worried about it, start there. Problem solved. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's some non-athletes currently being nominated for RDs:

• David Beriain, Spanish journalist
• El Risitas, Spanish comedian
• Denny Freeman, American blues musician
• Monte Hellman, American filmmaker
• Aristóbulo Istúriz, Venezuelan politician
• Dan Kaminsky, American computer security researcher
• Jagdish Khattar, Indian businessman and bureaucrat
• Leela Nambudiripad, Indian children's author
• Shock G, American rapper

Have a field day. And you want to know how many athletes I had to leave out? TWO. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but watch out, next up we'll have to leave out Americans. Or musicians. The humanity!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the two athletes in this case were a Soviet Olympian and a Czech hockey player. These things balance themselves pretty well... suppose that's what happens when you have six million articles. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Barely notable non-Americans. Shouldn't be allowed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Had they been Brits, that would've been a different story. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Well who knows who's verboten these days. This non-problem came with a set of non-solutions based on non-data and non-explanations. The humanity. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chernobyl?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's April 26, 35th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. I don't see a 1986 date thingy on "On This Day" talking about the Chernobyl disaster, so I just wanna point that out. Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. That article on the disaster has seen better days. Level-4 vital article and it's not even a GA. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chloe Zhao next Lugo?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How many more days would it take for her to match Lugo? She's on the main page twice --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Zhao's image had been up for less than 24 hours at the time you wrote that. Lugo managed 13.5 days in one visit. No idea how long Zhao's first visit was, but it certainly wasn't close to Lugo. Modest Genius ^talk 11:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what the record for a pic on the main page is? At least when it comes to ITN, it definitely isn't Lugo, because the composite of Djokovic and Osaka after they won this year's Australian open was posted on 23 Feb and not replaced until 15 March. (Djokovic and Osaka had had individual pics up in rotation for a couple of days prior to that as well).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I certainly didn't notice that - could well be a record. I'm amazed we weren't inundated with complaints. Modest Genius ^talk 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Especially considering that people will complain over stuff like the ITN image not relating to the topmost blurb. WaltCip-(talk) 14:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember there was some grumbling at WP:ERRORS, to the point that a corporate logo mislabeled as under CC license was put up for a few hours... oops. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The licensing (for this) ended up not being an issue, but there was also objections with displaying a logo for the blurb.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't see how that one concluded when it happened. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm no copyright expert, but I think the decision to allow that logo is quite dubious under copyright law. The US courts have held that the "amount of creativity necessary for copyright protection is "extremely low"; even independent elements that are unprotectable may be protected by copyright when selected or arranged in an original way" and that "only those works that are "garden-variety," "typical," "obvious," reflect "an age-old practice" and are "commonplace" are not copyrightable".[2] The only potential saving grace is that apparently the copyright office has a much higher bar than the courts do, and generally refuses to register such logos. In any case, I agree with the decision not to post it. Even if it's in copyright, the fact that we're declaring it "uncreative" should in itself be an indication that it's not a sensible thing to be putting on the main page, since it adds nothing to reader understanding of the topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: By licensing "not being an issue", I really meant it never got deleted and is now marked as being in public domain.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If you claim the copyright requirement in US is low you should consider that in the UK and China is even lower since logos with just text can be copyrighted in those countries unlike in the US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Zhao is now off MP. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please remove Marad massacre from OTD, it is poorly written and has copyvio (date confirmed with Wikiblame, addition was a year after newspaper article). Removing the copyvio stuff removes a massive amount of info from the article. (also, are OTD entries not normally vetted for copyvio like DYKs and GAs?) W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 11:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

We normally list issues like this at WP:ERRORS for faster service. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, thanks, should I shift it there? (It's the 2003 entry btw) W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 11:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I would, just in case an admin is passing by there ... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ᾜἂἎἎἎἎἎἎἎἎἎἎἎἎἎἎἎfmnqwf,mbqef,f.bndknbknvnv;,mzxcvnLKEf,vasjjvcn,mqbw;fka,mbV>sv.kASOWJ fmghjkrhgkjsebnsdfmnbv,jndf,bvkjdfbvkjfhbnfjbvf,jbcvjLaB LVjebv la<fvnas/.,vANWF lkjb,efvm.sdjlabnwmbjxzn