Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

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 19:56 on 9 June 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 in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Possibly...

... that Carrie Swain was possibly the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface?

Per WP:DYKHOOK, hooks "should include a definite fact...". The word "possibly" makes it quite clear that this is not definite. See The Masque of Blackness for an earlier counterexample. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to @4meter4, Dahn, PrimalMustelid, and RoySmith – without comment on this interpretation of the "definite fact" clause, pulled due to the counterexample that seems to check out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. We should just have a blanket rule against running "first" hooks. RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There are more interesting things to say about this woman. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, Theleekycauldron, and Valereee So, was this hook pulled? What happened to it? If it was pulled what can be done now? It should be re-opened at hook review. Regardless, I think this was a bad decision as it is not a fact likely to change given the age and subject matter. The cited policy in context reads "definite fact that is unlikely to change". We could have been cautious and said one of the earliest women to perform in blackface, but that's not actually what the source said, which was she was likely the first. 4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Beatified

The word “beatified” ought to be linked in the Great Genna Martyrdom hook. Anyone unfamiliar with the Catholic church’s treatment of saints will be confused. Zanahary (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 14)

Monday's FL

(June 10, 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.

Tomorrow's POTD

• 10 June - at "is a shock wave that, unlike a normal shock, is inclined" the two links are the same.

Could perhaps pipe a link to "supersonic" ie Supersonic speed? JennyOz (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate link removed. I'm neutral on the supersonic link. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

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 think it is important for little kids and schools to read and learn about freedom of speech and expression, which the documentary that is today's featured article examines. Resolute 00:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Among other things, "they" were thinking that Wikipedia is not censored. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC) This same argument is always dragged out by someone not being able to understand that the guideline applies to content within the encyclopedia, rather than what is displayed on the main page. Stephen 00:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Certainly that is your opinion. However, every time we end up in one of these debates, the majority agrees that the guideline also applies to the main page. Besides, this article isn't even a tiny fraction as offensive as The Human Centipede was. Resolute 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Or Gropecunt Lane for that matter.--ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Then they were both stupid. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Obviously not good judgment, plastering it up on the Main Page...I don't care if Wikipedia hosts the article, but featuring on the Main Page it is a little much. If you want your kids to read and learn about freedom of speech and expression, then just dump them off in a moral cesspool, and let them learn already. Time will tell if that's an effective strategy. 128.187.97.26 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC) The MP is part of the encyclopedia... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I would like to note that this is the TFA for March 1st, which is on a Saturday. What school would be opened on a Saturday? GamerPro64 01:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Depends on the time zone. Don't kids do homework on the weekends too?128.187.97.26 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC) If the kids are like my students, they wait until 6 p.m. on Sunday. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Interestingly, wikipedia is also not biased, something which, from what I can tell, is higher-priority than NOTCENSORED. Deliberately promoting something that will clearly offend a great deal of the English-speaking world to promote one particular issue is, by its very nature, bias. It's also amusing to watch editors here treat dissenters from the pack disrespectfully, as per usual, also violating one of the five pillars. Maybe they aren't so "fundamental" after all. GrimmC (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Well, I have to give you a lot of credit for such a creative argument. Also, for one that is so horribly incorrect. To censor the main page on the basis of some group finding offence in a topic is to introduce bias. OTOH, allowing any topic that meets the required quality criteria to run as TFA would be the unbiased way to do things, and that is what we have done here. I'm sorry man, but as far as arguments against running the article goes, this is one hell of a reach. Resolute 01:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC) It's still the F-bombing F-bomb. Whoever decides what is the featured article of the day had a judgment lapse, if you ask me. Argue all you want, but there is a difference between censorship and decency. It was just a bad, bad idea, and it needs to be fixed, or an apology needs writing. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 04:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Don't quite recall seeing you at the nomination. You could have weighed in there, rather than waited to complain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I'm a newcomer. I am not yet familiar with the nomination process. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Of course there is a difference between censorship and decency. "Decency" is a common excuse used to try and justify censorship. Resolute 05:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC) ...so nothing should be censored? We should be screaming obscenities in the streets (or on the front page of Wikipedia) for no understandable reason? Because decency is a terrible idea, right? It's an obscenity one way or the other, and needs addressing. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "for no understandable reason"? I think there's a very clear contextual reason. If the FA space was filled up with something alone the line of "FUUUCKKKKKKKK OFFF YOU FFAGGGGSSSSSSS", then I can see how the criticms might be justified. But by using the proper title of a documentary about the history and usage of the word "fuck", there is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with this decision. You choose to be offended by this because you can't differentiate baseless and rampant use of a word intended to offend, and the same word used in its proper context. The onus is on the offendee, not the supposed offender.--Coin945 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC) The reason is, in fact, very easy to understand: It is a featured article, and Today's Featured Article displays our highest quality articles. Decency is not a terrible idea, but it is not an argument to justify censorship. Wikipedia's front page exists to promote Wikipedia's content. It does not exist to present a sanitized world view in order to placate the easily offended. More over, I keep asking the question and people like you keep ignoring it: what is so offensive about running an article about freedom of speech? Resolute 22:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC) If you'd like to know what everyone was thinking when this was selected, reading the article's nomination discussion would give you a good idea. 27.122.12.75 (talk) 00:55, 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) LOL "Verbal assault" indeed. Please, get a grip. It's silly getting worked up about something like this Somchai Sun (talk) 01:07, 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) Neither do I.--ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I'm a teacher, in a church sponsored school. I'm a parent. I have no problem with the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 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) I would be curious to know why you find running a documentary about freedom of speech to be "willful stupidity". Resolute 01:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC) If it is not already obvious to you then you would be unlikely to understand the explanation. 86.171.43.8 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC) You're dodging the question. But yes, I do understand the nature of your complaint. You got one word into the blurb and closed your mind immediately. The word "fuck" is only a word, and one that takes only as much power as you deign to give it. The fact that you choose to be offended by the word in isolation rather than consider it in its proper context is not a failing of our editorial process. Resolute 02:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC) How exactly is this stupid? Its not like this is the worst thing to ever happen. Not like it'll start a war. For this to have been stupid would be the article being in shambles or have a copyright issue. Both of which has happened before but not the case here. All it is is four letters making a word that people do not like. GamerPro64 01:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Not all people. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC) You got me on that one. GamerPro64 02:21, 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) There were 100+ people who commented at the nomination, however. Partly because the notification said the discussion was taking place at TFAR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 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) This is truly unacceptable. and anyone arguing WP:CENSOR is ridiculous and should get a reality check. We have Wikipedia set as the homepage at the libraries of the local elementary school and middle school. WHAT THE HELL WERE PEOPLE THINKING? --CyberXRef☎ 04:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I was thinking that we shouldn't avoid an article on an important topic. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 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) A most intriguing thought, HiLo48, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Ladies and gentlemen: Irony. GamerPro64 04:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Oh my GOD! What about the CHILDREN! Oh the horror. (end sarcasm) This isn't a discussion. This is a bitch session. If you don't like it, take Wikipedia off your homepage. What is unacceptable is hosting nothing more than complaints here. I don't see how complaining here is improving the mainpage. This was discussed a good deal. Get over it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I'm curious as to what spasm of incredibly bad judgment led to the decision to put that particular article on the main page. I mean I'm sure everyone was feeling edgy and hip and giggling about how the prudes were going to flip out, but wasn't there at least an adult present to caution against such inanity? You're not making a bold statement against censorship, you're just rubbing a crudity in peoples faces. Seriously, this has to be the most puerile, asinine decision ever made by wikipedia. Philip72 (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Yep. Flipping out. I guess you don't like it. Do please try to come up with a better reason. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC) No, this is about WP:RECKLESS decisions. --CyberXRef☎ 05:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Yes. This is the free flow of information. Don't like it...I don't care. Morality is no excuse for complaining. Your morality is not going to be the next person's. This was NOT a reckless decision. It was discussed, brought up on Jimbo's talk page and decided on be a consensus of editors...as EVERYTHING is done here.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "Morality is no excuse for complaining." Yes it is. "Oh, someone's being killed, but I shouldn't complain because it's my morals, not his." That's what law is for. "Your morality is not the next person's." See above. "...decided [sic] on be a consensus of editors..." Tyranny of the majority here. There's a reason that the jury system (in the United States, at least) has to be unanimous. I'm not saying that that's what we should do (there's always going to be at least one dissenter), but maybe a 2/3 majority? --XndrK (talk | contribs) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC) CyberXRef - Do you realise that the article in question is about a film that discusses freedom of speech, something you want to prevent. That you want to censor a discussion on freedom of speech is ironic. That link to WP:RECKLESS (which seems quite irrelevant now that I have read it) mentions the common good. As a teacher I know lots of kids. I can guarantee that they have all heard the word "fuck" many times. Most are great kids. Almost all will become great adults (not because I'm their teacher). I cannot fathom your concerns. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I know what's the film is about; don't misconstrued my words. I have no problem with the article or with it being on wikipedia at all; quite the contrary, I am happy to see it's a high-quality article. My issue is with that sort of thing appearing on the main page which has high exposure to many people of all ages and all backgrounds. Therefore we need to be a little more cautious in the things we put there. --CyberXRef☎ 18:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC) You note that the main page "has high exposure to many people of all ages and all backgrounds". So how is it feasible to avoid offending all of them? We run "objectionable" content on a daily basis. Why are you complaining today? Because a particular word happens to upset you? —David Levy 21:10, 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) To the anonymous contributor above - This is not filth. That's a stupid thing to say. And I wouldn't want to be part of a project where those delivering the most money control the content. I'm also getting sick of the implication that a person who thinks this is OK cannot be a "good" teacher (or parent). Given that I have "outed" myself as a teacher here, that's pretty insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Agreed and I will add to that, if you think your money has bought you more weight here....stop giving as you are fooling yourself. I feel that people should donate more to support freedom of information and not just what YOU think is acceptable or NOT. And you don't get that money back. Frankly, I really don't trust the word of an IP stating they raised such and such amount but cant be bothered to register an account...or are you sock puppeting here with your IP?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC) There is considerable irony in proclaiming that one does not support censorship in the very same breath that they demand it. But the real question is to wonder why someone would view an article about freedom of speech as being "filth". Resolute 05:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC) As I type this reply, File:Clara Breed.jpg appears on the main page. To members of some cultures, that image is "indecent" (either because its subject's face was unveiled or simply because she was a woman). Please ask yourself how an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view can allow a particular culture's mores to dictate its content (appearing on the main page or elsewhere). Had you even considered other cultures in this context, or do you simply regard yours as the correct one (whose determinations of what constitutes "filth" are sacrosanct)? —David Levy 06:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC) No see, that's different, because the norms and taboos of the culture in which I was raised are self-evidently and objectively correct, while those of other cultures are obviously foolish nonsense. Come on now, this is simple stuff. --108.38.196.65 (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Should that comment have sarcasm tags on it? Or did you mean it literally? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I'm guessing sarcasm...as everyone knows my culture is the REAL correct culture for the world to live by....(and yeah...that WAS heavy sarcasm).--Mark Miller (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I'm just gonna bring this up like I did once before: If people don't like what they see on the main page, I recommend that they try working on articles themselves. I've suggested this once before but why not get Unicorn to FA status? GamerPro64 05:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Haven't you heard about the symbolism of that long straight horn? HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "You guys know that little kids and schools use Wikipedia" - On school on a Saturday? Fuck 'em. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:55, 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) The presence of this article on the Main Page is nowhere as offensive as our recent TFA about a professional killer. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "You guys know that little kids and schools use Wikipedia trusting that it is a safe and reliable resource" If that is the case then by occasionally putting articles like this on the main page we are providing a service by making them realise that, as an uncensored encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, Wikipedia should not be considered a safe or reliable source. As with the rest of the internet, children should not be allowed unsupervised access to it and Wikipedia's own policies tell you that it should not be considered reliable - see: wp:reliable source. It is a good place for finding information on any particular subject gathered in one place but the accuracy of that information should be checked out, either from the references given, or from other sources. Richerman (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Partially agreed. It is no secret that a number of editors have been noted to have identified themselves as pedophiles or been deduced by name to have been convicted of related counts. We have millions of more or less unmonitored talk pages where kids can be (a real example) invited to visit a different non-WMF wiki or web site that the editor administers. The caveat I would make though is that who whole point of raising a child is to convert him from someone who is vulnerable into someone who is not. There's an age when a child can't be trusted with a gun because he'd point it at his head and pull the trigger as a game, and there's an age when a parent proudly brings him back from his first hunt. There's an age when a child might hear a "bad word" and start saying it over and over at his grandma's wedding because it's funny how people look at him, and there's an age when he's heard it all before and it's no big deal. (That age is very young - there are very few 'objectionable' terms I didn't hear on the school bus the first year) There's even an age, hopefully not too old, when parents, with a little apprehension, allow the child to take a subway downtown and disappear into the maw of a four-story block-sized city library building. Wikipedia is a lot like that city library, with nooks and crannies full of useful information ... still nooks and crannies where something bad could happen, though. Wnt (talk) 13:42, 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). Gosh all this hoo-haa, anybody would think there was a fuck film on the main page. :-] ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 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) Shall we replace it with The Dirty Picture instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 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) Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. It calls into serious question the creditability of the governance process for the main page and of Wikipedia itself. Indignant abuse of the audience and their concerns is no way to run a shop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.30.127 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 March 2014‎ (UTC) There is nothing wrong with having he word fuck on the main page. It is in fact a fitting testimony to how wikipedia is basically fueled by the puerile imaginations of American boys between 12 and 30.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Totally agree. This is a peurile pointy gesture by people who need proper adult supervision. 86.160.87.26 (talk) 19:42, 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) The most obvious reason being that they would be afraid of scaring off their advertisers. Since we don't have advertising here, we are free of censorship, including self-censorship. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Same old same old... we'd be having the same discussion if FCUK was TFA. Now, if we really wanted to offend, we could get Allah to FA status and have it as TFA. Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "You guys know that little kids and schools use Wikipedia trusting that it is a safe and reliable resource" says a comment above. Er, since when did Wikipedia promise to be child safe? Anyway, I will be sorely disappointed if the Daily Mail or Fox News do not mention today's featured article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I think it is rather undergraduate and unprofessional. I agree that it seems as if it is just being done to make a point. But surely freedom of speech and internet freedom could be raised in a more fitting or credible way?LordFixit (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Sadly a lot of you seem to think it is very clever and rebellious and an attack on the right-wing media. Surely Wikipedia should be about more than that? LordFixit (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC) The point that I was trying to make is that if even the Daily Mail and Fox News cannot be bothered to get worked up over this, it is not as big a deal as some people are trying to make out. This is a Featured Article about a film, not swearing for the sake of it. There was a very extensive debate about the suitability of this article for the Main Page, with clear support for inclusion and not making an exception because someone might be offended, Think of the children etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:03, 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) I'd like to add that swear words essentially fall into three categories: those that describe taboo bodily functions like "shit" and "piss (off)", those that relate to sex or sexual acts like "fuck" and "dick", and then those that are religiously themed like "Jesus Christ" or "Hell". Make of that what you will.. just thought that was an interesting point to bring up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coin945 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Suggestion: For those crying, "Think of the children!!!", I suggest you read the American Library Association-recognized-award-winning-book, Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth by Free Expression Policy Project-director Marjorie Heins. I hope you enjoy it, — Cirt (talk) 20:50, 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) Richard David Ramsey, the article and the film present a serious treatment of the topic -- including interviewing the Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Cirt: Does the OED put the F-word on its front cover? Rammer (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Is that a rhetorical question? — Cirt (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC) From my quick analysis of dictionary front covers, I've concluded that there's no contextual reason why the word "fuck" *should* be featured on a dictionary front cover. Althoguh I could picture it being included if the title of the work was in the centre of the page, with various interesting words scattered along the outside. But from what I've seen the most famous and reputable ones tend to just have the main title and author/publisher etc on the page.--Coin945 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC) How DARE you attempt to consider context?! If it's illogical for one publication to display "fuck" on its cover, the word surely is inherently unsuitable for inclusion in any superficially similar circumstance! —David Levy 21:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "That something can be done does not mean it should be done." I agree entirely. That we could censor the main page does not mean we should. Resolute 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC) And as has already been explained with the Unicorn example above, if you simply are offended by this article for illogical reasons and there's nothing we can say or do to change your mind, then at least acknowledge that it's been promoted to FA status because of the hard working Wikipedians who slaved away to locate sources, write, and copyedit til the cows came home to present unbiased, comprehensive information on this topic which obviously intrigued and fascinated them. If you want to see different types of content on the main page, show that amount of dedication to an article on the topic of your choice. Be the change you want to see in the world, rather than whinging from the sidelines.--Coin945 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Coin945: With >15 thousand edits and hundreds of articles and redirects created and countless hours applied to improvement of Wikipedia, User:Rammer has hardly been on the sidelines. The substantive issue is the main-page featuring of the article, not any individual's deficiencies as a reviewer or as a person. And as you point out, the writers and editors of the featured article in question are obviously competent and hardworking. But one suspects that they have parts which in public they conceal with clothes even though those parts are every bit as essential to livelihood as the parts which are customarily revealed, as on the face. The current removal of the article from FA status at least provides time for considering the terms of peace. Happy Mardi Gras! Rammer (talk) 03:18, 2 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) Thank you very much, Demiurge1000, for this most insightful comment. You and your mother might find the book Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties informative on this matter. Hope you find it as much of an enjoyable read as I did, — Cirt (talk) 22:55, 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) And I am a Canadian who is not the least bit offended. So please do not be so arrogant as to presume you speak for the "rest of the english-speaking world". Resolute 23:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I am in the same demographic and lack of a state of offence as Resolute. In fact, I find many Nefoundlanders can be prone to using the word in place of a comma. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC) I too am Canadian and was not offended nor did I see this as an American attention whoring stunt to offend the rest of the English speaking world..--70.49.72.34 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 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".) This must come from a place where people think "Everyone has the same opinions as me. (even if they deny it) And I wouldn't do this, therefore someone must be intentionally doing the wrong thing." It's even more interesting that people are so convinced by this line of thought that they have no shame expressing it, even though Wikipedia specifically has rules that you must assume "good faith" in all discussion. APL (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC) I'm closing this down, as the article in question is no longer on the main page as the TFA. Discussion about Wikipedia policy with regards to writing the word "fuck" on the main page can happen at WP:VPP. --Jayron32 02:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 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) I agree with this comment by JohnBlackburne. — Cirt (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC) It echoes the way the film's title is styled on promotional material, but we don't do this elsewhere on wikipedia—Alien 3 is not parsed as Alien3, for example. GRAPPLE X 22:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, another good point by Grapple X, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Bencherlite said he would be doing this when he closed the nomination (link buried above) to minimize drama. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Yeah, but it seemed like there wasn't much drama yesterday for the TFA itself, probably wouldn't be much for an un-censored link. — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC) The conservatives are winning. I wish someone would make a film about this. Oh, wait. They have. It's called "Fuck"! HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Actually, I suggested the idea of using "F*ck" for the film per the promotional material (but linking "fuck" directly rather than using 'the titular word' or whatever they said in the text). Using it inconsistently for the later links and not for the first wasn't my idea, and I'm not too keen on it, but since the film itself was widely advertised and cited under this alternate title, I don't have a huge problem with that particular compromise. Wikipedia is no better than its sources - some use the star and some don't, and our attitude rightly should reflect that. Wnt (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Well, I agree with the sentiment by Wnt that it does seem a bit of an inconsistent application. — Cirt (talk) 04:00, 3 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) 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) 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) You know what, I've read all of the arguments. You're right. I think someone should go change the star back to a U. You've convinced me. I'll leave it to another admin to do so, since I have been priorly involved in the discussion, but an uninvolved admin should probably go ahead and change the main page now to reflect this consensus. You've made some cogent points, and I have been convinced the change should now be made. --Jayron32 00:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I am happy to see that Jayron will now listen to reason.98.180.50.55 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Yeah, and only 4 minutes after it dropped off the main page! *Sigh* 88.104.31.21 (talk) 19:29, 6 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.
An article about a Russian battleship named after a major port in Crimea runs while the headlines are full of news about masked Russian troops in Crimea. Are we sure about calling it that? Could we be perceived as taking Russia's side in this putative Second Crimean War? Or would that be too wild a charge to make?) Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) I would say its about as wild a claim that the likely appearance of Mitt Romney on the main page on the twelfth would mean that Wikipedia is promoting that he should have won the last election.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Don't rule that one out. Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC) I don't mean to hijack the post, but shouldn't the Russia/Ukraine news be updated to something about Russia actually invading Crimea now? Maybe along with a license free photo of said troops in Crimea? 99.54.188.176 (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) At OP: Considering the article was scheduled last February, while the only news coming out of Russia was the Games and Russia's heavy-handedness (yeah, some things never change) it is simply a coincidence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Off the main page, does not belong here anymore. Closing. --Jayron32 01:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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? 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)

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)

Poll

I've put my design up for evaluation on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Main Page redesign. — Edokter (talk) — 15:24, 8 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). 80.254.147.68 (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)

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)