Talk:Main Page

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 04:39 on 29 August 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 the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 30, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(September 2)

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

Request to be sensitive to ENGVAR issues on the main page

Of course this is a triviality compared to the sadness of the event itself, but I would request that the news segment on the violence in Egypt refer to an association football match, rather than just a "football" match. This is the accepted compromise for football (all codes) content on Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed a piped link to Association football because this information is not directly relevant. (Which code of football was played before the deadly rioting broke out is an unimportant detail.)

I'm American, incidentally. —David Levy 01:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The piped link doesn't address my concern in any case. I think it should say association football in the text. I agree it's unimportant compared to the event, but that isn't my point. --Trovatore (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I considered switching to "association football", but because this term is unfamiliar to many, it requires a link to Association football. And the item is about deadly rioting (not the football match itself), so it seems inappropriate to include such a link (which has very little relevance).

My point is that it's unnecessary to specify which code of football was played. To comprehend the blurb, readers needn't possess this information (just as they needn't know which clubs participated or the name of the league to which they belong). —David Levy 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but beside the point. The point is that the term football should not appear anywhere in Wikipedia without being glossed at some point in the page. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? —David Levy 02:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because there are contingents that want football to mean their preferred code by default. The use of the term association football is part of a compromise that prevents the establishment of such a default, which would violate the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an Association football article. We also have a Football article, which pertains to football in general. In this context, conveying "football in general" is sufficient. We aren't assigning the word "football" to a particular code, nor are we setting any sort of precedent to not specify the code when it actually matters. —David Levy 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's not necessary to specify which type of football, why would it be necessary to specify what type of sporting event? Or that it was a sporting event rather than some other gathering? Why not just say simply "More than 70 people are killed in crowd violence in Port Said, Egypt."? My view is that if mentioning it was a football match specifically is deemed necessary, then the type of football match is relevant as well. -- 140.142.20.101 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning "crowd violence" alone would leave readers wondering why a crowd was assembled.

"Sporting event" would convey sufficient context, but such wording would be highly unusual (in reference to a specific event) and would provide absolutely no benefit. The idea is to use normal English in a manner that focuses on the key details, not to deliberately introduce inexplicable vagueness. —David Levy 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• This means we won't use the obnoxious term "American football" for the Super Bowl on Sunday, right? Midnite Joker (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In that context, the football code is directly relevant (and I see nothing "obnoxious" about specifying it). —David Levy 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody in the world habitually refers to the game as association football: although the word soccer is used in UK media, many UK football fans dislike the word because it is interpreted as an Americanism. Association football should no more be used in prose than any other formal but unused term: William Clinton anyone? Kevin McE (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase soccer of course is not an Americanism; it comes from Britain. The only thing that's American about it is using it as the official name of the sport rather than as an informal nickname. But I have no problem with avoiding soccer; what's unacceptable is the unmodified use of football at first reference, as though football were association football by default. The accepted compromise seems to be, call it association football at first reference and football thereafter (similarly American football at first reference and football thereafter). --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, we aren't treating association football as the default meaning of "football". (I'll remind you that I'm American.) We're simply mentioning "football" without elaboration/linking that's largely irrelevant to the blurb (which is about deadly rioting, not a football competition). The same wording would be equally appropriate if the tragedy had occurred in the United States, Canada, Australia or Ireland.

You've acknowledged that the football code is unimportant in this context. Your desire to specify "association football" seems to be based on principle, not on a concern that the current wording fails to convey essential information. —David Levy 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to Kevin McE in the above post, not to you. I reluctantly acknowledge that your argument holds water for the specific instance in question. --Trovatore (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, I thought that you were still referring to the blurb. My apologies for the confusion. —David Levy 22:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

While we are making it clear: I was not describing soccer as an Americanism, but surmising the (irrational) reason that many English fans of the game dislike the term. I would uphold it as the most ENGVAR/VNE friendly name for the sport, although my natural inclination (apart from when talking to my nephews in Ireland) is to call it football. Kevin McE (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The more rational objection to the use of soccer is that it is colloquial in British English and it is strange (from a British point if view) to read it in formal writing. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, is it irrelevant what code of football was played? Is there not some kind of association between association football and hooliganism? What if the riot had followed an American football game, a rugby game, a curling competition, a figure-skating event? How do we decide what's relevant? JIMp _talk·cont 01:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is one of many aspects that can be covered in an in-depth encyclopedia article (provided that there are reliable sources). In the context of a one-sentence blurb, it isn't a fundamental detail. The ITN item is intended to convey the event's basic nature and direct readers to the article for more information, not to address its broader societal implications. —David Levy 02:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You could use this logic to include the religion of the rioters. After all, isn't there "some kind of association" between Muslims and violence? 97.89.52.45 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated comment: I think it's pretty obvious what code is being played if we're given the country, with the exceptions of Australia and Canada; if I read "football" in relation to the Super Bowl, I'd think of handegg. If I read "football" in relation to the FA Cup, I'd think of soccer. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A The More You Know moment. (cue music) I had no idea that American football had even had the nickname "handegg," but it does, first reference dated to 1909, so says Wiktionary. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Sceptre, we can safely assume that the "football" being played anywhere in the world other than in North America is "soccer". Only in a North American context would we need to worry about clarifying it. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

Your statement covers American football and Canadian football. Australian rules football and Gaelic football are commonly referred to as "football" too. —David Levy 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What David said. Rugby league, rugby union, touch football, gridiron football in Australia are all football codes in Australia. The context of who uses what is dependent on a region in Australia and a person's background. (Association football in Australia is problematic as a term, because in several places the term actually means Australian rules football.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, there are some other places too. But the general gist of my point remains. In "almost every" country, "football" means "soccer". 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Among residents of countries in which the English language predominates (collectively), "football" is more likely to mean something other than "soccer". —David Levy 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The "global" meaning of "football" is "soccer". There are local exceptions. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

When two-thirds of a language's native speakers use a word to mean something other than x, this hardly constitutes an "exception" within said language. —David Levy 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

When the term "football" is searched within Wikipedia it refers to a "genre" of sports, if you will, that involve the handling of the ball with feet i.e. kicking. In the "Football" article, the term is divided between different sports including but not limited to: American football, Australian rules football, and rugby. --talk 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.128.73 (talk)

According to some sources, the name "football" was derived from the fact that the games were played on foot (i.e. not on horseback). —David Levy 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Current Events/Egypt

I believe the tagline "More than 70 killed" should be changed to "Nearly 80..." it more accurately describes the total number of kills, which is 79. 74.190.83.54 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

See #Errors in In the news above. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Calabria earthquake

"The first of five strong earthquakes hit the region of Calabria in present-day southern Italy." Was Calabria somewhere else in 1783? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.190.77 (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As 'Italy as a state' did not exist until the second half of the 19th century the statement is correct. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But Italy as a geographical area has been around for considerably longer, and Calabria is in the southern part of it. 87.115.38.213 (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To avoid this dichotomy, I changed it to "Calabria on the Italian Peninsula" instead. —howcheng {chat} 17:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia practices NPOV?

Really? So the 2012 European Men's Handball Championship, whose existence is known but to a few paltry millions, is more noteworthy than the Super Bowl, an event watched by hundreds of millions of people. Y'all wouldn't be suffering from a mild case of Americaphobia, would ya? 98.82.34.127 (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a right venue - the entries are prepared at WP:ITN, and the Super Bowl entry is here. Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I've posted over there. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What the Dickens?

Nothing at all about Charlie on the main page today. Bit of a shame.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If Charles Dickens were a featured article, it probably would have been scheduled to appear on the main page today. Unfortunately, it isn't; its 2006 nomination was unsuccessful. —David Levy 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you see "Bloomsbury" in DYK? ;-> --PFHLai (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad choice of featured article

The choice of "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" as Today's Featured Article seems gratuitous. I think it was a bad decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.214.88 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because its subject matter offends you? That's irrelevant to our criteria. —David Levy 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And you think this one set of criteria has reached a state of perfection because ...? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just unnecessary. We put something gratuitously unsuitable for family consumption in big letters on Wikipedia's main page just because we can? Not clever. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Your use of this website is at your sole risk.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for missing the point. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The en. Wikipedia boast millions of articles and yet there's nowhere to go for a lead story other than "anal probe"? I don't see a page-wide banner with Jimmy's picture at the top stating your risk comment. Invoke the word "censored" to give it a Hitler hedge - nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It also means that nothing stops us. Like I said below this is an adult website.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, think of the most offensive or "adult" Wikipedia articles that you can. I'm sure I don't need to spell out some candidates for you. Would you be happy to see all of those highlighted on the main page? 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. We only have 3,465 featured articles of which at a complete guess only about half are eligble for the main page (the other half have already been on the main page). Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I just checked Wikipedia's core values. Suitable for family consumption wasn't there. Could you point to the Wikipedia policy, guideline, or official statement where suitability for family consumption is included. Because I can't find it... --Jayron32 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That is no justification. I would not reply to you with a stream of profanities just to assert my freedom of speech -- just because I can. Sensible judgement must be applied. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's something else, called civility, which is currently being debated about in the editor community. However, articles are not censored. If we can't document a topic without bad words, we have to use the bad words, plain and simple.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing against the existence of the article, or saying that Wikipedia's article space should be censored for bad words where they are necessary to explain the subject matter. I am saying that the decision to highlight this article -- to give it such prominence -- was a bad idea, in my opinion. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just how we remark at the professional-level writing we can make. This site's intended audience is mainly for adults. See Wikipedia:Guidance for parents.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just saying, permitting that article to exist on Wikipedia isn't the same as sticking it up on the front page.  Marlith (Talk)  01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Where should we draw the line? —David Levy 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do thinking people need others to draw the line for them?

Here is a criterion for you: "What would Jimbo do?"

Let's set up a scenario:

• It is fund raising time.
• Your picture is at the top of the Wikipedia main page.
• You are making an appeal for people to contribute.
• You are trying to make the case that Wikipedia is worth funding because it allows knowledgeable people to share their knowledge with the world. For example, here is a feature article to showcase the kinds of things editors spend their time on to share with the world.
• One of your volunteers decides it is time to get in everyone's face with something just a little naughty appearing immediately below your photo and your appeal on the Wikipedia main page.

Question: Is the fund raising effort helped or hindered by the bit of naughtiness on the main page? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The intended purpose of such hypothetical behavior would be to insult/offend. Are you suggesting that this is the motive behind the selection of Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as today's featured article?

Please define "sensible judgement". Some readers might be offended by articles about religious/non-religious beliefs other than their own (e.g. Intelligent design or Evolution, both of which are featured articles). Should those articles not have appeared on the main page? Should we institute a main page ban on anything that might offend someone, or just the articles that you deem objectionable? —David Levy 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We use common sense. You're not going to lead me down that well-trodden and fruitless "anything might be offensive to someone" road, I'm afraid. At some point someone makes a decision, and at the point that person saw "anal probe", some mechanism should have kicked in to say, "nah, no need to put that on the main page". 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wikipedia hosts a variety of material that would not be suitable for certain demographics or could otherwise cause controversy. And of course, what could be deemed "inappropriate" varies massively from person to person. But how can we define this standard? To a parent, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is no more suitable for the main page than History of Erotic Art, Human Centipede, or Vulva (which was featured on the main page of the German Wikipedia some time ago, if I remember correctly). To a deeply Christian person, featuring Scientology or Same-sex marriage would likely elicit disgust. Bloody Sunday or Gaza strip would be equally controversial for political reasons if they were featured on the main page. Even Missingno and Bulbasaur had their share of controversy.

In summation, it is understandable that to the parent of a young child, seeing this article on the front page is most likely less than desirable. But to anyone over the age of 14 (a random pick, please don't quibble over it) who is not in that situation, there is no reason why such an article should not be featured; it is after all just a television episode, and I would hazard a guess that the most unseemingly aspect of the article is the episode title. This is the reason why Wikipedia is not censored; what is controversial to one person doesn't elicit even the thought of that in another. We cannot police what people have access to. Doing so is not our responsibility. Taking care of what a child has access to online falls first and foremost to the parent. As to what a parent should say to a child if they are asked about today's featured article? I'd suggest a simple "it's about a TV show for grownups" would suffice. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I cited non-hypothetical examples. The concepts of evolution and intelligent design are far more controversial than the aforementioned cartoon episode is. Should they have appeared on the main page? Why or why not? (Others have cited numerous other examples.)

You evidently find a particular word more bothersome than you find those subjects, but you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't objectionable. Neither is Wikipedia. —David Levy 02:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The cartoon episode title is (mildly) offensive in a peurile and pointless way. I'm afraid I do not see any connection with any of the lofty subjects you mention. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Those articles' subjects are highly controversial. Their prominent display is likely to offend many people. Your description of the cartoon episode's title as "(mildly) offensive in a [puerile] and pointless way" doesn't bolster your argument; it increases my curiosity as to why you're complaining about it and dismissing my question about subjects that generate massive societal controversy. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am equally curious as to why you think objections to the prominence of a schoolboy joke about body parts has anything to do with questions about religion etc. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

On what basis do you object to the decision to display Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as today's featured article? Its likelihood to offend, or something else? —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Children on the Internet

My seven-year old (who uses this web site for school) just asked me about this. Thanks Wikipedia brain trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of parent lets their seven-year-old child surf Wikipedia, which hosts most decidedly adult content throughout. Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

On what planet do you live?

http://www.ieminc.org/handbook/curriculum/Firstsecgrwebsites.htm

Third item on the list: Kindergarten, First, & Second Grade - Free Educational Website Links - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - Wikipedia offers free encyclopedia with close to 1.5 million articles. - Ac44ck (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a problem with the list, not Wikipedia. Modest Genius ^talk 10:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I do sympathise that this leaves you with a rather uncomfortable discussion to have with the young one, but if we turn this perfectly good article down simply on the basis that it might make some people somewhat uncomfortable, where does that end? Many of our articles about painters contain nudes. Many of the articles about religion will offend someone. So it is about AIDS, about Palastine, about Mohammed, the King of Thailand, the Indian border, global warming, (London)Derry, or evolution. Featured articles are the best of Wikipedia, not the blandest. We never set out to offend, but if we pulled back every time someone might feel uncomfortable or think the content wasn't suitable for their kids, their wife, or their servants, we'd compromise or most basic standard, that of neutrality. We have a (fairly) objective standard for where lies the quality threshold for a Featured Article, and if an article meets that it gets promoted. And FAs are eligible for the front page. Once we let someone decide on their own subjective criteria which articles to reject (from this most public, most important, position) we've subtly jaundiced the neutral position we claim to have. If you discovered we had super-high quality content that we were scared to publicise, wouldn't that offend you too? 91.125.80.151 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've yet gotten an answer to my question: what responsible parent would let their seven-year-old browse Wikipedia? It hosts serious adult content; why on earth would a parent who lets a very young child browse this site have the audacity to come here and complain about a cartoon? See Fisting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a borked question. "Browsing Wikipedia" and "surfing to the Wikipedia home page" are entirely different things. Why would a responsible parent allow browsing to the Wikipedia home page? For the same reason they allow browsing to the Google home page. Google contains links to things that would not be allowed on Wikipedia. Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What a silly rhetorical device. Do you murder people? If not, why not? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Because people are generally nice and huggable creatures. They're just misunderstood. Some of my best friends are people. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But would you want your daughter to marry one? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You call the analogy silly in a transparent attempt to discredit that which exposes the hypocrisy of your position. Your question about murder is irrelevant. Murder isn't merely offending sensibilities, it is the destruction of life itself.

Two situations:

1. The editor is anonymous and can hide behind a policy which prohibits censoring to offend the sensibilities of millions of people, then declare: "F them if they don't like it!"
2. The same person is in an elevator with others. They can hold a fart until they exit the elevator, or they can let fly with full audio while others are confined in the elevator with them. Will that same person let fly and say "F you if you don't like it!"?

Isn't the issue about offending sensibilities in both cases? Everyone farts. Why should this avant-garde editor refrain from farting in an elevator? Don't they believe in freedom of action? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're letting your child browse the web unsupervised, and you're surprised and upset that he learned about a massively popular pop-culture television show that runs on basic cable?

That doesn't make sense at all, and frankly isn't entirely believable.

If true, it betrays a deep misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Most articles are less than a dozen clicks away from depictions of sexual activity and close-up photographs of human naughty bits. If you're upset that your child might hear the word "Anal", what insanity possessed you to let him browse a website where you can find full color, high-resolution, closeup photographs of the human anus?

Sometimes, things aren't designed to be 100% child safe, even if they're educational. (A good example is National Geographic magazine. Children can learn a lot from that publication, but if you don't want to risk you child occasionally seeing a naked human, or a gory nature photo, you have to pre-screen them. That's normal.)

Even if everyone agreed with you 100% and promised never to run such an article again, it still wouldn't excuse you from your responsibility to pre-screen your child's reading material. That's part of a parent's job. Yelling at strangers on the Internet doesn't make it any less your job. How could it? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Break

I get that the article is what it is (and that far more graphic content within is a given). Placing it as the Featured Article is where I question the application of editorial common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Whose common sense? It's just a fantasy to imagine that different people the entire world over have much common view about what is or isn't appropriate. 91.125.80.151 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's appropriate or not. If it's good writing it's featured, usually on the main page, fair and square.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors always seem to come out guns-blazing on this particular topic. I'll just note here that the Wikimedia Foundation did pass a resolution regarding controversial content here, which contained the phrasing "We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement." I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that, even though the article in question may well be very well written, it would be a stretch to call its educational value 'realistic' and its placement as featured article may not satisfy the 'principle of least astonishment'. Just putting that out there, anyway. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"If it's good writing it's featured" -- Jasper, per my question above, would you be happy to see any Wikipedia content featured on the front page, if the other quality standards were met? 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. I might be flipped off by something like the current featured article but I would not oppose it and would endorse it if it had the sufficient quality standards.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Any and all articles can be featured articles if they meet the criteria for featured articles, which someone has linked to above. The subject matter is irrelevant. freshacconci talktalk 02:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that most people would baulk, at, say, featuring the article about the n-word on the front page (to pick just one example). So, to pick up David's comment above, somewhere we draw the line... 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Realistically, that line usually is at any form of pornography or any bad word not used in science, in general, though this is not a set rule and there are exceptions.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I really do think it comes down to the much-derided "common sense". We don't all agree on the details, but there are some things, such as the one I mentioned, or putting big photographs of genitalia on the front page, that, I assume, we just wouldn't do, even though the rules allow it. I think the present example is a weaker case of the same thing. I do not think the idea that Wikipedia should be completely unconcerned with people's sensibilities in the matter of front-page content can really be sustained. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And for some reason, you apparently believe that an article about a cartoon episode is more likely to offend than articles on subjects inconsistent with people's religious beliefs are. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The two things really are not comparable. The question about religious beliefs is much more difficult. Not putting (mildly) offensive material of a "schoolboy" nature on the front page is an easy call. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But the "schoolboy" nature of the offending words are South Park's creators', not Wikipedia's. Did you read the article? It's about the pilot episode of South Park and it clearly states that they created it to push buttons. Wikipedia's choice for featuring it is not "schoolboy" naughtiness, but the quality of the article, with a secondary consideration being its cultural significance. I'm not a fan of the show but it is important around issues in the culture wars. freshacconci talktalk 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you're okay with material that's more likely to offend, provided that it reflects your sensibilities. Conversely, a "(mildly) offensive" cartoon episode title should be off-limits because you find the subject matter childish. —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If Nigger were a featured article, I would strongly support its appearance on the main page. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be in a minority there. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but most people are mostly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a b-class article and could be brought up to good article and then featured. Sure, it would be controversial but I think the point is that Wikipedia isn't promoting the subject of the featured article, it's promoting the quality of the article. The whole featured article process is daunting and that's why I don't get involved with it. Articles aren't just randomly picked. If the article is of featured article quality, it will usually get featured at some point. freshacconci talktalk 03:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "controversial" is an understatement. To be honest, I think there would be a shit-storm if you did that. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. I've never understood the belief that censoring a word (in this context, censoring history) is a logical response to bigotry. To me, it makes no more sense to bar the word "nigger" from appearing on the main page than it does to bar the appearance of articles about slavery or the Holocaust. How is scholarly coverage of these subjects inappropriate? —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The word is historically important and the current article is actually pretty good. There would be no reason to not feature it other than squeamishness. And no, I don't think people should throw that word around (or actually use it at all). But there's nothing wrong with an article on the word itself or to bring it up to featured article standards. freshacconci talktalk 03:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it is a minority of at least two as I would also support that. In a couple of conversations, I have been more than a little surprised that people who strongly think that "nigger" is a taboo word don't realise how recently this has come to be the case. For example in 1955 in Britain it was used without any concern. Also the same people don't object to calling a black dog Blackie. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So, Today's Featured Article is controversial, but no one mentions Today's Featured Picture? Chris857 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm offended by side boob. freshacconci talktalk 03:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that later. I usually don't go to the main page. More rarely do I scroll to the bottom. When I saw the nude painting as a featured picture in the same setting as the featured article about an anal probe, I thought, "Someone wanted to be particularly provocative today." I think the featured article is spam. Is South Park falling in the ratings and needs a boost from Wikipedia? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I think it's a shame there is no way to make the featured picture visible without scrolling. I often miss them, and often they are superb. I suppose the layout constraints just won't permit it. Anyway, gotta go now, thanks for the intersting debate... 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

These complaints seem to stem more from the perception that a subject is trivial or unimportant than from anything else (hence the flood of angry posts whenever an article about something from popular culture appears). A "naughty" word merely helps to stir up the sentiment.

Today's featured picture will generate less criticism because it's an "important" work of art. Likewise, if today's featured article were about a classic work of literature whose title contained a word regarded as obscene, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• An excellent choice for this particular date. Besides, the FA-director-for-life is infallible. Alarbus (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but Wikipedia is made for human beings. It is not made for an alien race neutrally seeking to learn more about humans. "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."[1] Many of these human beings are young children. Many of them are accessing Wikipedia in public schools. Many of these human beings don't want to read about anal probes or see pictures of naked women (or homoeroticism or other topics from the past). I'm not saying these things are "bad"—there isn't bad knowledge. But forcing every single human being who goes to en.wikipedia.org to view pictures or read content offensive to them isn't helping "every single human being . . . freely share in the sum of all knowledge." It's alienating people. I foresee parents and schools blocking Wikipedia for this kind of thing. How does that help Wikipedia?

Remember that Wikipedians do not represent a fair sample of English-speaking readers (consider this graph). What is acceptable to the general public must be considered when making decisions on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.21 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not buying your Jedi mind trick there. The "general public" is generally made up of people of different faiths and belief systems, and what flies with one person won't necessarily fly with many other people. South Park spoofed this line of reasoning, to very poignant effect, in Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo (their first Christmas special), where the school holiday pageant gets neutered to one song that has bugger-all to do with the holiday season en generale because members of the general public keep taking offense to the most innocuous (not the most religious, the most innocuous) elements of the pageant. Arguing that the general public knows what is best for it is garbage at best - largely because the general public will always disagree with itself on any given matter. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I first became aware of anal probes as part of the stories of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. It's only becomes a puerile adolescent joke because people made fun of those "abductees". I think we need to remember how the expression hit the mainstream. It was mainly via weirdos with vivid imaginations. Would those complaining still complain if the article was about such abduction claims? HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the Wikimedia Foundation's commitment is to enable "every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." In order for Wikipedia to achieve that goal, it must strive to be accessible to as many human beings as possible. I entirely agree with the statement that "what flies with one person won't necessarily fly with many other people." If Wikipedia is actually trying to share knowledge with every human being, it must strive to "fly" with as many people as possible. Wikimedia Foundation's statement is people-oriented, not content-oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.21 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to voice my agreement with the complainers that this is a poor choice for today's featured article. It makes wikipedia look like it's run by a bunch of seventeen-year-old boys, which I suppose it probably is. After the Human Centipede debacle, I thought there was also going to be broader discussion of potentially offensive featured articles before they went on the mian page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Debacle? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the minds of some users, "decision with which I disagree" = "debacle". —David Levy 06:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Your personal opinion of "South Park" (i.e. that its audience comprises "a bunch of seventeen-year-old boys") is irrelevant to our mission to treat it as we do any other notable subject. Only failing to do so would make Wikipedia appear juvenile. ("Mommy, Mommy, I saw a bad word! Make it go away!")

2. All subjects are "potentially offensive". —David Levy 06:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure decisions about curation and selection have to interfere with the neutrality of the project's content. The spirit of the Board resolution on controversial content might be relevant here. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the title of the pilot episode of a major television program that has appeared in US and international television for years. Bowdlerization is not in Wikipedia's best interest. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If anything, it should have been the episode where he joins NAMBLA... Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So, when is a sexual position or fetish gonna be thrown onto the front page?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to test David Levy's theory a bit above. Get Lick me in the ass to featured status and put it on the main page :D Someguy1221 (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible April Fools Day material there. I do see Anal people & Fabulous Willy are in April Fools DYK. Of course, I'm against the FA on different merits.......--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well we had Gropecunt Lane a while back. Is that close enough? FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I assume that no-one recalls the day when Gropecunt Lane was the TFA? Manning (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that while there may be a consensus that the content of Wikipedia is not censored and that there shouldn't be limits on what Wikipedia is "allowed" to have articles about, there is not a consensus on what is appropriate for display on the Main Page. We have a number of people saying "this is appropriate" and a number saying "this isn't". This is not the first time this has happened, I was here for the discussion four months ago on The Human Centipede which, like the South Park episode here, was about a subject which is deliberately trying to be noticed by transgressing boundaries. There was a long debate after the Human Centipede was put here on the Main Page too, after a while a admin closed the debate with the words "Article no longer TFA; reasonable concluding remark made and further discussion can be taken elsewhere". The concluding remark he refers to was "Since the article is off Main page for a while now, could we just say something like "if the choice of Main page content is expected to raise several eyebrows, someone should drop a message to some frequently-monitored page, such as this one, so that we can have a discussion prior to the apperance on the Main page"?" by User:Tone. My question is... was this advice taken? It seems to me that nothing changed, there was no attempt to gain consensus on this issue and now we are back in the same place again. Fine, some of you don't think these sorts of articles are a problem, but why hasn't there been an attempt to see if that is the consensus? Kaid100 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I just came here because i knew by reading the main article, there would be an interesting discussion here. Its one of thosse common sense things that is going to stir up trouble with some readers, but proceeds anyway under the not censored (or in some cases- no consensus established yet) umbrella. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I for one wish the editors responsible for the main page wouldn't do things that they should know are going to 'stir up trouble'. I don't particularly care about today's FA myself - in the grand scheme of things, South Park is not all that offensive. But obviously some other editors do think it inappropriate, and it's depressing that the main page people either failed to see that coming, or decided they just didn't care and went ahead anyway. After the Human Centipede fiasco - an article that definitely should not have appeared on the main page - I really would have thought they'd know better. Robofish (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Displaying an article about a Pokémon character as TFA "stirs up trouble". You apparently want us to base such decisions on mob rule (i.e. to exclude whatever subjects people dislike) instead of relying on our featured article criteria. —David Levy 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And the less said about Gropecunt Lane, the better. I've ranted about this before, but to be brief: WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean we should purposefully go out of our way to offend people just because we can get away with it. Robofish (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor should we pretend featured content does not exist because some people are easily offended. The purpose of TFA is to show our best work, not to make people happy and fluffy inside. Count me as someone fully and completely in support of TFA being allowed to fulfill its mandate without interference. Resolute 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

These are your views, but are they the consensus? Kaid100 (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We aren't going out of our way to offend people, nor are we going out of our way to avoid offending people by banning "objectionable" subjects from the main page. (As discussed above, that would cover an enormous number of articles, many of which you might be more reluctant to exclude.) —David Levy 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, it contains the word "anal probe", big deal. Please stop pretending to be offended by something that is not offensive. If you child asks you what anal means just explain to them that it's a grown up word for their bottom, and that they shouldn't repeat it at school because it's a silly technical word that won't sound right. Then stop your children from reading a website that is full of adult content. Coolug (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Any child able to read this site is probably old enough to know what the word "anal" (and far, far worse) means. There's this real attitude in the Western World that kids learn bad language from the mass-media. And it's absolute bullshit. They learn bad language from other kids and often from their parents. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say that the next 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells main page was due (g).

Until and unless 'vanilla/worksafe Wikipedia mainpage', 'ordinary/occasionally annoying' and 'anything controversial is encouraged' options are created this situation will occur occasionally (along with 'too much of the main page is devoted to (insert topic of choice discussions).

Scarlett O'Hara's most famous quote applies here. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"As God is my witness, I won't go hungry again"? Or do you mean Rhett Butler's most famous quote?  ;) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to stay out of debating whether it was sensible to mainpage this particular article, but I will point out that treating "WP:NOTCENSORED" as the be-all and end-all of a discussion on the issue, as several commenters in this thread have done, is very poor reasoning. As I observed in a recent arbitration decision:

"The principle that "Wikipedia is not censored" is properly invoked in resisting attempts to control the content of Wikipedia articles based on factors other than our editors' informed and mature collective editorial judgments. In controversial instances, reminding fellow editors that 'Wikipedia is not censored' will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content.... A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

In other words, to reaffirm that Wikipedia does not allow itself to be censored does not meant that we abdicate making our own collective editorial judgments as to what content should be contained in the encyclopedia, and in what parts of the encyclopedia, including the main page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It actually goes both ways though. "I'm offended." "Well Wikipedia is not censored." "But, I'm offended!", rinse and repeat. The discussion pretty much stops there anyway because the opposition to the article is not based in any rational argument. It is based around the fact that some people find the words "anal probe" distasteful. Consequently, they seek to suppress the words they don't like. That, IMNSHO, is not a credible reason to deny the article a place at TFA. Resolute 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's quite true that WP:NOTCENSORED isn't blanket justification for the inclusion of any and all material. But it does mean that content meeting our normal editorial standards shouldn't be removed on the basis that it offends someone. —David Levy 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why:

• It could be a problem if a 7-year-old sees todays featured article?
• It could be a problem if a 7-year-old sees todays features picture?

Is there any evidence that either is bad for childs' psychological development and all that? Apart from the risk of hypothermia, where is de danger in nudity? Thanks! --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of asking the question of whether we could explain it to you (because of course you could refuse to accept any explanation), ask the question of how many parents would intentionally show their seven-year-old this article or this picture. In fact, I'm not quite as bothered by today's Main Page as I was about the Human Centipede one a few months ago, the main reason for me bringing this up is because lessons weren't learnt from that incident. There has still been no attempt to establish consensus on what should be shown on the Main Page - the first thing people see when they get here and the content of which is involuntary to them. They could choose not to search for The Human Centipede or Cartman gets a Anal Probe, but they can't choose not to see it as the main article until they get here. Incidentally, the notion of not all articles being suitable for the Main Page is not new, Jenna Jameson (a porn star) has deliberately not been put on the front page for its subject matter- so the whole NOTCENSORED argument doesn't apply. As the Jenna Jameson example shows, The subject matter of TFA already is censored, but there has been no attempt to establish consensus on how it should be. Kaid100 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Many parents wouldn't want their children to read about evolution or intelligent design. Should those articles not have appeared as TFA? Adherents to certain religions find photographs of unveiled women (or even women in general) highly objectionable. Should those be banned from the main page as well? To whose moral standards should we defer? The ones that seem reasonable to you?

2. Our featured article director has explicitly stated that he decided against making Jenna Jameson TFA not because its content is objectionable, but because he doesn't want to deal with complaints to that effect. (Users have commented that he's scheduled articles more likely to draw such criticism, so we don't quite understand this decision and aren't certain that it still stands.) —David Levy 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You mention the Featured Articles Director: his exact words were "As far as putting this article on the main page, I am undecided, but leaning a bit towards 'no'. IMO, 'History of erotic depictions' was close to the line, but still a few steps inside the boundary. I'm not so sure about Jenna Jamison though." In other words, he considers that there is a boundary which History of erotic depictions is a few steps on the right side of, but Jenna Jameson might not be. Now, why has there not been an attempt to establish for the whole community, rather than just one person's whims, where that boundary is? As for evolution and intelligent design, those are controversial not because they are deliberatly transgressive, but because people disagree as to whether or not they are correct. It makes no sense to ask if "The Human Centipede" or "Cartman gets an anal probe" is correct or incorrect, as they are not factual statements but motion-picture portrayals which transgress boundaries in order to gain notoriety. Kaid100 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I will speak only anecdotally, but I saw the South Park Christmas Special when I was 7 years old at someone else's house, and I didn't develop any psychological issues because of it. It's not going to cause anyone harm, and quite frankly what 7 year old is even going to be seriously looking things up on Wikipedia? I remember being around that age and deliberately opening dictionaries to the pages with swear words and/or gory pictures on them; that was the only time I ever opened such books. To quote someone who wrote in defense of a Far Side cartoon that was a satire of torture, "As for the children, don't worry about them. They don't get it. And when they do, they will not be nearly as affected as you seem to think." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "I was asked to comment here about my position vis-a-vis Jenna Jamison as daily FA. As David said, I'm not planning on scheduling it, because I don't want to deal with the inevitable controversy that would erupt. The decision is mine, and it is discretionary -- I decided of my own volition not to run it, not because of any particular policy. Nor is my position set in stone -- I may change my mind at some point in the future." — Raul654 [diff]

2. The concern is that people find certain content objectionable (because it offends them and/or because they don't want their children exposed to it), right? So how is the reason why a topic is controversial relevant? If anything, readers are more likely to be deeply offended by claims inconsistent with their personal/religious beliefs than they are by "motion-picture portrayals which transgress boundaries in order to gain notoriety".

And what about the photographs of unveiled women (and women in general)? The offense that they cause has nothing to do with a factual dispute. In certain cultures, their display transgresses the established boundaries of decency (to a far greater extent than use of the phrase "anal probe" does).

I ask again: to whose moral standards should we defer? Those whose beliefs we deem "reasonable"? —David Levy 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked a question which you already answered with your quote. You are already deferring to the moral standards of the person you quoted. Kaid100 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the point, which is that Raul's decision stems not from his "moral standards", but from a desire to avoid inconvenience.

And no, I don't defer to this position; I've expressed disagreement on several occasions.

Regardless, my question is "To whose moral standards should we defer?" (You obviously aren't satisfied with the status quo.) —David Levy 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Then balance it out: Make it clear that the home page (which is the only point of debate here as opposed to all this "censored" babbling) tempers any impression of Wikipedia as an academic resource (what with all the "History...Geography...Mathematics" portal links at the top) by including some links at the portal masthead to some of the more colorful topics from this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Carman article placed at sole discretion of FA Director

Don't like it? There's a current RfC on FA's leadership:

• Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership

Alarbus (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This information is false: see next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's quite true, Sandy. Nowhere was there any discussion about this particular TFA; it just appeared. Alarbus (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

TFAs are chosen by the community

In fact, TFAs are chosen by the community at WP:TFA/R-- a place which the "community" largely ignores in spite of the the FA director's attempts to leave article choice more in the hands of the community. When no TFA is requested there, then the TFA is chosen from those that haven't been run. Nice try, but every time we see these complaints, we do not see people going over to WP:TFA/R and helping to choose the TFAs. In fact, at this moment, the page is in complete disrepair because no one seems to care. Yet, the person posting here is one of only a very small handful of people who called for tossing out the FA leadership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

!votes there are mere suggestions; nothing binding at all about it. Alarbus (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading; provide a legitimate case where the director or delegates have ignored community consensus or requests on that page. I'm aware of none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Provide anything that says he has to abide by what is said there. It's sole discretion — for life. Alarbus (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm pretty sure that Cartman Gets an Anal Probe was never requested at WP:TFA/R. User:Raul654 just pulled it out of his hat. Alarbus (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're free to present a diff showing the community uses, updates, pays attention to, or cares about the TFA requests page in general, and requested an article for that date. The fact is that Raul set up the page so the community could take an active role in scheduling the mainpage TFA, and the fact is that the community ignores that opportunity. Talk is cheap, and complaining here is more fun than, you know, actually doing some work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think no one much bothers making suggestions at tfar because posts there matter little. mere suggestions from the peons. nb: I do plenty of heavy lifting around here. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy for linking to the requests page. I wasn't aware of it and I've added it to my watchlist. Cloveapple (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged, Clove; more active editors getting involved there would be great.

@Alarbus: Once again, you are welcome to provide diffs of articles that had consensus there and were ignored, or stop spreading these false allegations on a high-profile page. Now let's see, why would the same editor who called for FAC leadership to be tossed out want to spread information here that isn't true ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is aware of TFAR and has both nominated and voted on submissions there on many occasions, I have to say you are full of shit, Alarbus. Resolute 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No wonder there's a civility case at present. Alarbus (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolute, would you mind striking and rephrasing that? We don't need another side show, do we? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say any articles that had 'consensus' were ignored (not saying either way); I said that:

• [Cartman Gets an Anal Probe] [was] placed at [the] sole discretion of [the] FA Director.

That article wasn't requested at all, it was simply selected by one person: User:Raul654. Alarbus (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Still false. The TFA/R page is underutilized, no request was made for today, hence the community had a role-- they just ignored it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree with that. I also support Raul's decision on that front (and thanks for the notice above, btw, it reminded me to vote in support of Raul's reconfirmation.) However, your dismissive attitude towards TFAR and how it exists to placate the "peons" is no more useful than Sandy running around everywhere overreacting to the slightest criticism of the FA process. Resolute 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I for one have added TFA/R to my watchlist and intend to be somewhat active there in the future. Hopefully these long-winded, multi-prong arguments will at least have made others more aware of the process too and maybe some good will come out this. Think positive, y'all! :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the TFA/R process is that it is where requests are made by those wanting a featured article to appear on a particular date. That is only a small proportion of the featured articles available for TFA, though. The vast majority, as far as I'm aware, are selected by Raul654 and Dabomb87 from the available pool of those not mentioned at TFA/R. If people want to make any objections to those selections in advance, the only way to do this, as far as I know, is to watch the 'TFA archive' list, or 'tomorrow's main page' page, and see the future TFAs appear as Raul and Dabomb slot them in. I would suggest that objections would need to be raised a few days in advance for any traction to be gained. I'm not sure if any objections have ever been raised in advance. I do recall a few instances where possible selections were discussed in advance in a venue other than TFA/R (apart from the one's like the April Fools selections), such as the decision to put two articles as TFA during a US presidential election (or was that a TFA/R discussion as well?).

Of course, rather than object to articles after they've been selected, it might be more productive to peruse the list of FAs not yet featured on the main page, and point to any you think might not be suitable, and make your views known to Raul and Dabomb. And then return periodically and note the promotions to FA made since you last looked, and update your list of your personal vetos. Maybe someone should also rustle up a list of which TFA articles have prompted threads like this, though that would involve a fair amount of digging through various archives. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No complaints, on the contray : thanks

a lot for your choosing "Cartman's anal probe" , and that gorgeous Bouguereau's nude ! Reminds us our flesh is yet here, and needs its spring revival (we had our La Fête de la Chandeleur lately, but weather as worsened just after it, & there is now a sound 15°C under zero, & North-East Wind force 9, on the Lake Leman shores...) . Cheers ! (& please gon on digging out some more L'art pompier masterpieces for your "Today's f. pic." , many of us just love it !). BTW , we have here an expression : "te laisse pas abattre par les pisse-vinaigres" (don't vinegar pissers deter you...)Arapaima (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No complaints about the Bouguereau, but who wrote that stuff accompanying it? It's "an example of an art nude, an art form where the naked human form is the dominant theme and is not intentionally erotic." Oh please! Of course it's erotic. "It does not involve the subject interacting with anyone or the face of the nude as a prominent feature." Er, yes, it does. She's looking right at the viewer - interacting with and smiling at you, the person who is imagined to be there with her naked on the beach. She is skinny dipping. OK, so it draws on mythological imagery of water nymphs, Naiads, etc, but the context is clearly a beach not a pool or river, typically associated with nymphs, so it links to contemporary social practices of sea bathing, which was a widely discussed issue at the time. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I compiled the caption based on what's in the art nude article. If the article is incorrect or if the image not suitable to be placed in the article, there's really no way I could have known that. —howcheng {chat} 17:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done!

On the handling of the two potentially-controversial sections of the main page. The nude painting's text clearly states "naked human form is the dominant theme and is not intentionally erotic" and the South Park episode's text is clearly shown to focus on the reasons for, and the cultural impact of, the gratuitous nature of the content within that episode. Wikipedia is indeed not censored and it's a shame that the same cannot be said of general education in the overwhelming majority of the planet's countries. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Endorse too

The main page is where we showcase our content, that as a community we can take subjects from the sublime and profound, the complex and painful, the humorous, the unreal, and the crude, and as a community we can provide high quality neutral encyclopedic coverage of them all.

Articles based on body parts, sex, religious controversies, etc, are an opportunity too. They are no less articles than any other; their writing is no less meritworthy (and no more so) than any other. They show what can be done with South Park and a toilet/abduction joke, by skilled content writers. To our readers, who are incredibly varied, our articles may have immense and varied value. I wrote a large part of an article related to drowning, I have no doubt by doing that task, I will have saved lives. Wikipedia will have saved lives. To a reader it has great value - immense perhaps. Other articles benefit other readers (they will, or they wouldn't return). To readers, each article has differing value.

As writings and articles, they are all equal examples of our community's endeavors. They are all measured by the same yardstick - that they are each well written, neutral, sourced, and comprehensively informative on the important points of their topic. The test is whether Cartman Gets an Anal Probe describes its topic well and informatively, and whether Mona Lisa describes its topic well and informatively.

For everyone who may take offense at some article -- almost any topic can cause offense -- someone else will go "wow, I didn't realize..." and ten others will laugh, chuckle, blink, tweet and then move on. Part of spreading knowledge is spreading knowledge of what kind of knowledge may be there. Never forget, some will want to know, some will use it for research or for their own work. Never, ever assume any article has not got a time, place and reader who will benefit from it. The main page, as Raul explained when he was Director of FA back in 2006, is a place where sometimes we will be boring, and sometimes we will be controversial or post an article that will raise eyebrows. Mona Lisa can be there, so can Lady Gaga, so can HIV vaccine, so can Walt Disney, bullying, Cold War, and cunt. Each is capable of informing and each can be the subject of an article that children may giggle over and others will learn from in a non-crude and very genuine and worthwhile sense.

Any article can inform, any article can be written to a high standard.

The Bus Uncle and Xenu do so, though neither are weighty topics -- and so can the fictitious Eric Cartman and his anomalous anal probe. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It always makes me laugh to see people so offended by such things. Especially as that mock indignation is never present for reports on mass murder, war, terrorist bombings, miscarriages of justice...etc. Priorities, eh? Let's get offended by a middle finger, but not by the several dancers behind her making sexually suggestive dance moves. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support- It's nice to see that Wikipedia remains uncensored and such topics can still appear on the main page.Smallman12q (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

TFA images

On February 3rd and 7th, I added images to the TFA blurbs. For the Pathways into Darkness blurb, I added an image of that video game's sole programmer. For "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe," the current TFA (the 7th's), I added an image of that episode's sole creators. In both cases, the images were removed with a statement that the images were of insufficient quality and were tangentially related. I disagree on both accounts. An image of the author of a book is directly relevant to a blurb about the book; the same is true of the programmer of a video game and the creators of a television episode. Both images were also quite as visible as the other images that are commonly used in TFA blurbs. Is there concensus to omit images from TFA blurbs that relate to popular culture? Neelix (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not. But it often is difficult to find free images illustrating such subjects, and there is consensus that we shouldn't throw in the closest thing available (for the sake of having an image).

In this discussion (in which the distinction between a book's author and a video game's creator was addressed), I noted two questions that are helpful to ask:

• Will the image's general nature be readily apparent to most readers seeing the blurb (before they read the caption)?
• Would we seriously consider including the image in the article's infobox?

If the answer to both questions is "no," the image probably isn't particularly suitable.

February 3's featured article was about a video game, not its programmer. That photograph is of relatively low quality (poor focus, partial obstruction in the foreground) and does nothing to illustrate the article's subject. A vast majority of readers, likely including those familiar with the game, wouldn't recognize Jason Jones or understand why the photograph was present until reaching "pictured" in the blurb (at which point the image still would fail to illustrate the game).

Today's photograph made more sense than that (given the fact that Parker and Stone are well known as the program's creators), but it nonetheless was tangentially relevant (because the article is about the episode, not about them) and didn't work well at that size. (I'm familiar with Parker and Stone, but I wouldn't be able to recognize them from the thumbnail.)

Incidentally, we italicize the parenthesis enclosing "pictured". —David Levy 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the best solution would be to finally get rid of the diktat that fair use images cannot be used on the Main Page. Then we could use the cover art or a still from the work. Every time this problem occurs this simple solution is ignored. Modest Genius ^talk 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Our pre-Scooby-Doo incident practice of using a non-free image to illustrate TFA only when no available or realistically obtainable free image could serve the purpose (just as we do in articles) was quite sensible. I don't understand why a special main page policy is called for. —David Levy 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the pre-Scooby-Doo policy seemed more sensible and consistant.

However, You have to admit that it would be a very rare main-page blurb that was made difficult to understand by a lack of illustration. ("A great Dane and four teenagers? I don't understand! What are teenagers?") APL (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy just needs to be changed. There is really no good reason why fair use images shouldn't be used on the main page for TFA if no free use image is available. There are already too few images on the main page as it is, and having a TFA without an image only compounds that problem. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What we lose in not putting fair use images on the Main Page is minimal. What we would lose if American fair use law were tightened would be quite substantial. Given the patchy state of commons:Category:Players_of_Watford_FC I'm wary of telling others to take more pictures of things they like, but save for the very specific instance of fictional characters that's what this ultimately boils down to. —WFC— 03:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Syria

Can the blurb be changed to "Syrian opposition leaders claim". They are hardly a credible source and have every reason to exaggerate death tolls. I also asked on ITN/C. I forget which is the correct location to inquire.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A good idea. I've posted this and a related request at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)