Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benesch (talk | contribs) at 04:49, 12 March 2012 (→‎Main Page too cluttered?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Main Page error reports

Shortcuts

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 08:17 on 3 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)[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(August 9)

Monday's FL

(August 5)
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.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts


todays TFA (think of the children) etc etc........

Has an admin come along and wiped all trace of the complaints about todays TFA? After all, if a work of fiction such as an episode of South Park or a silly gross-out horror film can cause such offense, surely the true life story of a murderer feeding her neighbours her victims must have traumatised a few seven year olds and led to a few awkward discussions with parents? Coolug (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would think. — foxj 17:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Coolug (talk · contribs) is spot on, I was about to remark upon the exact same thing. Apparently choice of TFA is only offensive to certain people if it's less than 100 years old, or in a cartoon format, or something like that? :P Many thanks to Coolug (talk · contribs), for pointing this out! ;) — Cirt (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No "anal", no "probe", no problem it would seem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I hate those kinds of complaints about pop culture featured articles, but it's rarely to do with the offensiveness of the topic, it was always just because it was pop culture/in-universe "fancruft", it was the same story when it was Bulbasaur.. as I remember someone even crusaded to make sure no more pokémon articles were featured after that and was (for a time) successful =/ - filelakeshoe 22:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting myself from last month's discussion:
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.
—David Levy 22:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<MrGarrison>Anuses are baaad, mmkay?</MrGarrison> Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a form of systemic bias, maybe someone should write an essay/article about it and teach people how genre trash turned into respectable classics only after the passage of time. One of the best things about WP is its academic-ish documentation of pop culture. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion at Talk:Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe#Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe_vs._Murder_of_Julia_Martha_Thomas. — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment by Green Cardamom (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Archive is wrong, should link to March 2012, not February 2012, someone please fix it? — Cirt (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been fixed by HJ Mitchel: [1]. meshach (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POTD caption

Resolved

I just got a message to help improve the caption. I did but that is not reflected on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied over the updated text. Thanks! —David Levy 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Putin elected for the second time?

Would not it be more accurate to say he was elected for the third time? Or for the third term at least?--141.161.133.224 (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can the picture be changed to that of Mayor Quimby from The Simpsons? Lugnuts (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you note relevance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.71.124 (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a joke? --WaltCip (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else see this?

I noticed that since 2011, there have been some reports of news changes in the main page section. There are also rumors on 4chan saying that Anonymous has been changing wikipedia without anyone noticing. Has this been confirmed and should I be concerned? 4chan is not something to usually take seriously, but I hope I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.62 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"News changes"? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite certain that there is no way to change Wikipedia without anyone noticing, and that you should not take anything on 4chan for fact. Shirudo talk 06:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Anonymous even bother with Wikipedia? - Tenebris 16:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.121 (talk)
If no-one noticed the changes, did they really occur? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal in that Wikipedia talk page may suddenly affect Main Page. Nevertheless, I found a proposal too important for this talk page, as it may inspire renamings of Wikipedia namespaces and future pages of "WP:This week's featured list/<subpage>". Discussion in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Renaming and re-stylizing Today's Featured List?. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean by "too important for this talk page" and "may inspire renamings of Wikipedia namespaces"... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page tabs hard to click in MonoBook

An issue was posted to Wikipedia:Help desk#Oddity on front page. The Main Page tabs can be hard to click in MonoBook with Firefox, Google Chrome and Opera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?useskin=monobook. If the mouse moves to the tabs from above then it works as expected, but not from below. The tabs don't become clickable until the arrow tip reaches around the top of the letters and turns into a hand. I guess the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box is too close to the tabs for MonoBook. It's positioned above the normal page area. I don't have problems in IE. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Pale Moon and have the problem, apart from the fact they are not click able at all. But I regularly use Vector. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this issue yesterday; must have been caused by a software update or some other tweak to the homepage in the last week or so, is my guess. Perhaps filing a Bugzilla request is the best course of action. — foxj 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page too cluttered?

Moved from WT:TFL. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the front page seems to be such a clusterfuck of randomosity that I almost never bother to read any of it, and would like a far more minimalist portal, if feasable. In fact, the only main page content that ever really interests me is the picture, and it's too far down for me to bother scrolling to. I don't come to wikipedia to read the news. If I want to browse erratically I'll use the random article feature or google. The languages list in the sidebar is expanded by default, creating more clutter. I came to "en.wikipedia.org" knowning that "en" stands for something: english. One simple link to alternate language portal is sufficient, especially given the redundant list near the foot of the page. That's what the "wikipedia.org" portal is for. I opt for a far reduced amount of text in general, if you must list any of this nonsense, or offer a separate "main" with a more minimal layout. Reference wikihow, encyclopedia mythica, encyclopedia brittanica, or my favorite example, wordnik, for examples of seemingly less distracting mains. --24.52.143.225 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:MPALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps make your landing page Template:POTD. — foxj 03:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One person's nonsense is another person's treasure. For myself, a random collection of miscellania helps me avoid the mental rut of a too-narrow focus. It gives unexpected tangents and new directions. Sometimes I find myself looking further into things I had never previously thought even to ask about. - Tenebris 16:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.121 (talk)
Agreed. At the very least, things need to spaced out. Primate#101 04:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On this day... (March 8)

It's strange to me not to see the International Women's Day listed in today (March 8) "On this day" section (whereas, for example, "Mother's Day in various countries" is listed though this celebration in this day is less world-wide known). --95.252.24.45 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted it - it was not included as the citations were not in the correct format. — foxj 08:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Women's Day

Nice to see International Women's Day marked with a woman FA and woman-heavy DYK up right now. Just a shame every single woman, both real and fictional, is American. So much for the 'international' bit ... 86.133.209.235 (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where were you a few hours earlier when there were European women on DYK????? --70.31.8.76 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the Australian part where there weren't any Australians, Kiwis, Asians or any articles really about women. --LauraHale (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When is International Men's Day?Ryoung122 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is today, judging by the picture of the Manly ferry :) Teemu08 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The International Men's Day article says November 19th. --PFHLai (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time in Russia, where the International Women's Day tradition was kept alive. The male counterpart in Russia is February 23, Red Army Day when all men are congratulated just for being men. Somehow I always felt a bit odd about that. Our article tells it pretty well
"In Russia
Officially, as the name suggests, the holiday celebrates people who are serving or were serving the Russian Armed Forces (both men and women), but unofficially, nationally it has also more recently come to include the celebration of men as a whole, and to act as a counterpart of International Women's Day on March 8."
Smallbones (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I started putting the Women's Day hook sets together, I had an Australian woman's bio (written by LauraHale!) on prep, slated to appear on MainPage at 0:00 UTC (already day time in Australia) on March 8th. Somehow that hook got moved while I wasn't looking..... sigh.... I regret not reverting the prep to my edits... Too late now... --PFHLai (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was some alternative proposals for TFA but they didn't really have any greater relevance and the eventual TFA was proposed first. You're welcome to get involved in the selection of future TFAs for IWD. I don't recall any of the examples being Australians, Kiwis or Asians, but you're welcome to being an article up to FA standard in time for next years IWD. (Although I'm not sure why you single out Australians and Kiwis, I'm kiwi but it seems to me a lack of Africans would be more significant given their much larger percentage of the population.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of Africans is a systemic bias, I think. And it seems we are getting fewer India-related items these days, at least on DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1910 airplane race

The below sentence is awkward; the comma after "28 April" is not necessary:

Despite Graham-White's best efforts, Paulhan arrived in Manchester on 28 April, and won the prize.

Also, I detest that we have Wikipedia by language, not by nation. "Aeroplane" is not a word in the USA.Ryoung122 16:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating separate BrE and AmE versions of Wikipedia would involve a ridiculous duplication of effort and would split the editor and reader bases for no real reason. Are you really that offended by the presence of such an easily grokkable and perfectly cromulent word? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind the need for CanE and AusE and probably others. Newfoundland English Wikipedia, perhaps? Resolute 00:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's the issue of countries with more than one national language. Under this new "nation-based domain" scheme, what language would editors use for the Swiss Wikipedia? I shudder to even consider the task of unifying an "Indian Wikipedia". GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Vatican City Wikipedia would be quite easy to make.--WaltCip (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I dunno. Latin and Italian are not the same. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, Ryoung122, you've learnt a new word that you'll find useful outside that one country on this big planet. --PFHLai (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an American just let me say I have no problem with the word "aeroplane". However, I have a very large problem with the phrase "the below sentence". --Khajidha (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BAM! Lugnuts (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha what? You want everything to be in US-English? What a troll. This is an international project. --Nutthida (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay pornography

Jeez guys. I left wikipedia a moment ago and my sister arrived and the main page was scrolled down and the words "gay pornography" emblazened on the front page of wikipedia on the screen when we entered the toom and that's the first thing she saw in the DYK section. Its very embarrassing! Must such content really be linked on the main page on weekends? "Not censored" appears to show no respect to parents who desire for their children to learn from wikipedia but ban them because wikipedia advocates such stuff on the front page at peak times and exposed them to it. The argument is that anybody at any time of the week or day in the world may be exposed to it but in my opinion there are certain topics which should not appear on the main page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to ban the "certain topics" that you deem objectionable. As long as Dr. Blofeld isn't embarrassed in front of his sister, who cares what other people and cultures think? —David Levy 18:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. Hundreds of people killed in Brazzaville, dozens in the US, a gay porn video is somehow more objectionable than real life? Wow. No, okay, so we shouldn't link "objectionable" material at "weekends"? What the hell is this place becoming? (and I don't think you should be letting your sister and her kids into your "toom" by the sounds of things...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is this place becoming?
A place where a cartoon episode about an anal probe provokes a firestorm, but a true story of murder and dismemberment is fine and dandy (as you know). —David Levy 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a family picnic. The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information. If you are fearful of being exposed to new information, or of inadvertently exposing others to new information, don't use encyclopedias. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we just have this argument last month?--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have this "argument" every month? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information yes, but certain "information" may be questionable in the same way certain images such as child pornography are inappropriate for the wikicommons for instance which attempts to provide as wide a scope of "encyclopedic" images as possible. Images of child pornography are images same as any other but are clearly inappropriate in the same way that certain topics are inappropriate at least for the front page of wikipedia. OK so child pornography is illegal, but why is this so then? It it because there is some sense of morality behind the decision to make it illegal and that more than one person morally object to it? After all they are merely images, and we should all be open to all images to broaden our "encyclopedic" tastes. Society has values on certain topics and is opinionated on certain issues like gay pornography, there's no no denying that. I endorse the view that we should treat all topics fairly but certain topics push the boundary in which most people would consider acceptable on the front page of an encyclopedia. There is a reason why this conversation appears to have been had many times before is because people have some strong opinions on such topics. I have no objection to coverage of articles on pornographic films or actors on here, even gay or tranny ones, I just think linking to to topics like gay pornography on Saturdays afternoons on the front page of one of the most widely visited sites in the world is inappropriate that's all. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rewind just a second, Doc. Are you actually complaining not about gay pornography in Wikipedia, but the appearance of the phrase "gay pornographic" on the main page? And you're embarrassed that your sister found out you have looked at a webpage containing the words "gay pornographic"? Do you think use of those words is something that we are lacking a proper "sense of morality" about? FormerIP (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my repeated use of the phrase "gay pornographic", btw, but it's quite difficult to discuss without saying it. I'll try tho think of a euphemism before I post again in this thread. --FormerIP (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to articles on gay pornography on wikipedia. I acknowledge there are a sizeable number of readers who might want to search for and read those, I support that. I just think it inappropriate to link to such topics directly on the main page of the encyclopedia at times when there are likely to be a maximum number of ill-suited people seeing it, yes. There seems to be an acceptance here that gay pornography is as suitable reading for anybody on a main page as any other encyclopedic topic and I dispute that. And its not just the "kids might see it, hide their eyes" view. Its just certain people myself included think it is not appropriate material for the main page of an encyclopedia based on what is considered socially/commercially acceptable in society. Would you advertise a gay pornography film on daytime television advertisements? Absolutely not. Why is this? Because there is a moral code in which people decide what or what not is appropriate viewing. Why is there a watershed for television? People have a moral code deciding what or what is appropriate for viewing in the face of the viewing population at the time. I support wikipedia's "not censored" approach but I find the endorsement of linking to such articles as in your face and a "we are free to do whatever we wish" approach with little regards to the norms of how people generally view topics. My opinion is that featuring a gay pornography film on the main page at such a time is like advertising a gay porno during the advert breaks on Saturday morning kids television. Oh how cool is it that we can do this. Aren't we cool for our breaking down of social restraints on wikipedia. True revolutionaries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images of child pornography are illegal and viewing them promotes an industry that is harmful to children. Advertising pornography in the middle of the day is also illegal, irrespective of whether doing so would actually harm anyone. Merely stating the words "gay porn" is not illegal and does not harm anyone at any time. Concerning your notion that "most people would consider" mentioning gay pornography "[un]acceptable on the front page of an encyclopedia", I highly doubt you have any reliable sources to back up that assertion but are instead merely assuming "most people" share your own values--and your own values are insufficient reasons to censor the main page of an encyclopedia. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK if I advertised a gay porno on daytime TV lets say during the break of Loose Women and This Morning and the News. Do you think the viewing public would consider it suitable and appropriate advertising? I don't just think thousands of people would be outraged I know they would get thousands of complaints. I see the linking of such topics on the main page in exactly the same way, its alerting the public to them in the way adverts do on television.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False analogy. 1) Advertising gay pornos on daytime TV is illegal under US obscenity laws (forgive me for assuming you're American if you're not--yet in many other countries, this isn't even illegal at all, further demolishing your point), as I already said. Stating the words "gay porn" is not, and is in fact protected by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment (unlike actual obscenity). 2) Stating the words "gay porn" is utterly incomparable to graphically advertising it. Daytime TV advertisements of pornographic films, which are a) graphical and b) designed to arouse people and sell a product, are distinct from a) textual information that is b) designed to educate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what times would you want such a ban to take effect? Mornings/early afternoons, you say? Assuming you're in the US, that's nighttime in the UK, and early the next day in Australia, when one might presume such topics were "acceptable" in those locations. This is an international project, remember, so there's no way to pick some time period that's going to work everywhere. —howcheng {chat} 20:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its just certain people myself included think it is not appropriate material for the main page of an encyclopedia based on what is considered socially/commercially acceptable in society.
Please define "society".
"Certain people", based on their cultural norms, find the theory of evolution, religious beliefs other than their own, or photographs of unveiled women (or women in general) highly objectionable. Should we ban such content from the main page, or are your moral standards the correct ones? —David Levy 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information yes, but certain "information" may be questionable
And who decides which information is "questionable"? You?
in the same way certain images such as child pornography are inappropriate for the wikicommons for instance which attempts to provide as wide a scope of "encyclopedic" images as possible
You're comparing the words "gay pornography" with child pornography? Really?
Images of child pornography are images same as any other
No, they aren't. To understand why, please consider how they come to exist.
but are clearly inappropriate in the same way that certain topics are inappropriate at least for the front page of wikipedia.
You truly don't recognize the distinction?
And again, how are we to determine which topics are "inappropriate"? Whose moral standards should we apply? Yours?
Society has values on certain topics and is opinionated on certain issues like gay pornography, there's no no denying that.
Please define "society". Are you under the impression that every culture in the world shares your values? —David Levy 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there are some restrictions on what featured articles are permitted to hit the front page based on exactly the same judgement unless I'm mistaken. Not at any time to I consider the linkage of such topics on the main page of an encyclopedic acceptable but to me it appears even more in your face on the weekend. Not a false analogy as the gay pornography link directly links to discussion of a topic which discusses material generally considered obscene otherwise it would be advertised in the mainstream. It needn't contain graphic images to be considered inappropriate, it is the reading material of a topic generally considered obscene which is ill-suited to be directly linked on the main page. Certain topics David are taboo, almost universally so, you can't deny that, whether some gays waving colored flags fully support them or not. Again there is proof that such topics are not considered appropriate in mainstream media by the decisions which are made to not feature them and it comes down to a moral code. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the words "gay pornography" is not obscene. An encyclopedia page on the topic is not obscene, though it may discuss material that IS obscene. The way you get to anything obscene requires at least three steps: clicking on the link on the main page, then clicking on the sources the article provides, and then from there possibly finding a link or reference to obscene material. If you don't want to view obscene material, it's quite simple: don't view it. No one is pushing obscenity in your face. The only thing they're pushing in your face are two words--"gay porn"--and while it's unfortunate you are offended by those two words, they're not legally obscene, they're not factually obscene, and as part of "society" (whatever you define that as), they're not going away. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It links directly on the main page to material discussing a topic generally considered obscene by society which clearly is considered so because otherwise it would be advertised and promoted in daily mainstream culture. Yes, society is a generalisation and there are obviously thousands of people who watch and enjoy gay pornography and very familiar with them. But general taboos do exist, there's no denying that. Should we as an encyclopedia make a judgement morally on individual people and activities which go on in the world? Absolutely not. I don't want wikipedia to be censored. I just think there are certain topics which stand out as ill-suited to appearing on a main page. That's my opinion, in the same way it is the opinion of media executives and govenrments who decide not to advertise pornography on daytime telvision and on billboards in the streets. They make such decisions for a reason. If gay pornography or any other "taboo" topic is generally and not harmful to anybody, why don't they endorse it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that dose of sanity Prototime. This discussion has many bad aspects. Firstly, I'm not American. Every cultural reference here is purely American. (The daytime TV programs and all that.) That highlights a fundamental problem. This is a global encyclopaedia. Every post that put this argument in an American context is of no relevance to me, or 95% of the world's population. Do the Americans posting here actually realise that? Secondly, it was just words. "Gay pornographic". There is absolutely nothing wrong with those words, in any context. They are just words. What they may link to might be questionable. I don't know. I can't be bothered looking. Do you see my point yet? Only someone wanting to look at "Gay pornographic" material would bother looking, and there's nothing wrong with that. As the good doctor above says, Wikipedia is not censored. Thirdly, the rest of the sentence where those two scary words are mentioned is actually quite negative. It's hardly a celebration of or promotion of gay porn at all. So let's be blunt. Gay porn exists. It's legal for consenting adults to access it in much of the world. To ban even mentioning here it would definitely be censorship. And we don't do that. (Well, not much anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I wrong though HiLo48 in thinking there are some restrictions on what featured articles are permitted to hit the front page based on exactly the same judgement?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're wrong. (See my reply below.) —David Levy 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there are some restrictions on what featured articles are permitted to hit the front page based on exactly the same judgement unless I'm mistaken.
You're mistaken. Our featured article director has stated that he decided against making the Jenna Jameson article 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.)
The only other featured article disqualified from TFA contention was Wikipedia, which subsquently lost its FA status.
Certain topics David are taboo, almost universally so, you can't deny that, whether some gays waving colored flags fully support them or not.
Telling words. —David Levy 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I ask David why then people would complain about Jenna Jameson being on the main page in a featured article? After all, they don't have to click the article and can avoid it as pornography exists right? Why do you think so many people would complain and think it inappropriate is the point I'm trying to make.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because some people wish to restrict the main page's content according to their personal standards (though few equate gay rights activism with pornography).
As I've commented previously, such complaints generally seem to stem more from the perception that a subject is trivial or unimportant than from anything else (hence the controversy when a Pokémon-related article appears). A word or concept perceived as "naughty" helps to stir up the sentiment.
And when the TFA blurb refers to real-life murder and dismemberment, no one says a word about protecting children from "inappropriate" content. —David Levy 21:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd agree with you that personal standards can interfere with a lot in the information world and that wikipedia is revolutionary because it attempts to rid of society's prejudices. Maybe its a 21st century norm to make it acceptable to discuss gay pornography as you eat your lunch, at least on the Internet, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would rather not be exposed to it. even if you don't click the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you aren't. Likewise, many people don't wish to be exposed to the theory of evolution, religious beliefs other than their own, persons of mixed race, photographs of unveiled women (or women in general), and countless other things. Fortunately, Wikipedia forces no one to visit its main page. —David Levy 21:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"That's my opinion, in the same way it is the opinion of media executives and govenrments who decide not to advertise pornography on daytime telvision and on billboards in the streets. They make such decisions for a reason. If gay pornography or any other "taboo" topic is generally and not harmful to anybody, why don't they endorse it?"

Your definition of "obscene" is grossly incorrect. Since media executives and government officials--in the United States, mind you, and this is an international encyclopedia--have decided not to endorse tobacco advertisements, does that make a link to tobacco "obscene"? Would you argue with equal zeal against a link to the tobacco article being placed on the main page? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They make decisions based on what they perceive is harmful to people. Tobacco is known to cause lung cancer. Is anal intercourse between two males the same as somebody enhaling some cigarette smoke? Why do you think they make Obscenity laws which makes it illegal to promote such subjects on mainstream daytime TV if it isn't considered a "harmful" topic. And its not just "arousing imagery" which is forbidden from mainstream media distribution such topics as a whole are generally avoided in mainstream daytime TV are they not? If so, why are they avoided? This is the point I'm trying to make, You cannot hide the fact that taboos exist in society which people, generally make decisions together and agree are not suitable. As I say I view an article appearing on the main about a gay pornographic film in the same way I would think about hearing it in a radio advert or TV advert, even without graphic imagery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that attitude strange. Tipping the Velvet was a rather popular TV programme from the BBC, and I don't recall anyone objecting the the BBC's promotion of it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I am utterly shocked that this complaint is coming from someone who's been involved with Wikipedia for six years and made more than 400,000 contributions to the project. This is somewhat worrying, to be honest. That someone who is so involved in the project can be so ignorant of basic policies and guidelines on censorship. This isn't even of the Human Centipede or the South Park episode level -- those were featured in the most prominent spot on the Main Page for twenty-four hours. We are talking about a phrase at the bottom of a section that is below the fold on most people's computers. And, as you see, almost no one has come to your defense. So, how about instead of complaining about how you or your sister are so sheltered in this 21st-century world that you can't even handle two damn words and just get over it. More embarrassing to the project than these two simple words is that we have someone contributing to a global encyclopedia as much as you do with these kinds of views. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What amuses me greater Tariqabjotu is how many people fully support the promotion of gay pornography on the main page of wikipedia with quite some passion and the lengths they will go to defend it. |Not to mention the need they feel to insult me because I feel that such content stands out on the main page. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no promotion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Featuring articles on the main page DYK or featured is promoting it as a topic because it alerts the readers to it and says "look here, here's this article". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Inviting people to read about x" ≠ "promoting x". —David Levy 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The promotion of gay pornography"? By that logic, are we currently "promoting" Ponzi schemes? —David Levy 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've got some confessing to do. Previously, I've been a bit of a floating-voter when it comes to gay pornography. Didn't really know whether I was into it or not. In fact, because it's existence is so rarely mentioned by anyone and it is so difficult to find online, I wasn't even really aware of it. But all that has changed in the last few hours, since Wikipedia began promoting it so aggressively on the main page. In fact, I don't know why I'm even typing this. I have better things to do now.
So, whilst the idea that merely mention of the phrase "gay pornographic" could irreparably corrupt the morals of multiple English-speaking countries may sound absolutely ridiculous, I'm here to shake you all out of your sorry complacency. We may well have finally broken society with our stupidity. Our only saving grace may be that it is Sunday tomorrow, so most people don't have to get up for work anyway. Hopefully it will have worn off by Monday.
DYK has rotated now, by the way. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you would not argue with equal zeal against a link on the main page to the tobacco article. Then clearly, your own values are the ones dictating your opinion, not "society's" values, or else you wouldn't selectively apply the "censorship standard" established by the media and government officials to only topics you personally disagree with being on the main page. I think that's all anyone in this conversation needs to know to reject your reasoning. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told I couldn't really care less about either tobacco or gay pornography! They exist and have reliable sources written about them. Yes, the discussion of gay pornographic films on my web screen whilst eating lunch strikes me as a little alarming, but not exactly going to have be tearing my hair out. I really just wanted to see if anybody was really into that sort of material appearing on the main page and its told me a lot. It seems everybody is perfectly happy to eat their lunch and read about gay porn! Thanks guys!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not me! As far as I'm concerned, you can forget lunch from now on... FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's not the impression I'm getting here. The impression I've got from everybody here is that they find it perfectly normal to read about gay pornography during dinner and its as normal at that hour as drinking a cup of tea and perish the thought I might find it inappropriate reading.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must have missed my post above. I won't be eating lunch from now on, because I will be busy. FormerIP (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How old is this sister that Dr. Blofeld is trying to protect? If she's old enough to be able to read and understand the DYK hook, which read "... that a review for the 2000 gay pornographic video A Young Man's World said its portrayal of fictional middle-aged men was demeaning to actual middle-aged men?", my guess is that she is already well aware of the existence of gay porn. --Orlady (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's 30 and is of the same opinion as me that it stands out as inappropriate viewing at that time of day and as a teacher she remarked that would be very embarrassing for a parent to walk into the room and see their kid looking at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)*[reply]
What should said parent be embarrassed of except their own inadequate parenting skills? If there are certain things they don't want their child to know, for whatever reason, then allowing that child to access an uncensored encyclopedia freely is probably a bad idea. If you're implying this might happen at school - because your sister is a teacher - then that would still be a concern for said parent to raise with their child's teachers. It is not our concern, we are not substitute parents. (e • nn • en!) 01:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask any parent if they are happy with their kids reading about or watching gay pornography. Do you really they would unaminously all go "oh yes, I find my child gay websites and films every day to watch", I'm proud of reading about it, as its so normal in society now. Everybody here seems to think it a suitable domestic topic.

My sister was astounded that wikipedia had an article about gay pornography on the front page of the site. She said "and its an encyclopedia? Weird." her exact words. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And she wasn't upset by the Murder of Julia Martha Thomas article on the main page? Weird! Garion96 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either a child is young enough that they should not be allowed unsupervised use of the internet, or it is old enough that it should be aware that homosexuality exists, and that some adults of any sexuality look at pornography occasionally. There is no such thing as child.wikipedia.org; this is an adult site. Any parent should make sure that a child of adequate age is aware of such a thing as pornography: that is not the same as seeking out examples of it for them. As a teacher, I would never direct a class of younger children to Wikipedia unless it is a page I have checked and cached. Kevin McE (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still reserve the right not to feel nauseous at dinner time, which seeing that article on the main page did.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then do not look at Wikipedia at dinner time. Wikipedia regularly features gross topics on its Main Page, for example fornicating insects or insects feasting on excrement, which I found far more nauseous than anything related to human sexuality. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus here seems to be that, while it is unfortunate that the two words "gay pornographic" offends you, such offense is unreasonable in the context of this encyclopedia. While you may desire not to be disgusted at dinner time, you do not reserve the right to impose an unreasonable standard of what is "disgusting" on the rest of Wikipedia's users. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As everybody here seems to strongly support the appearance of gay pornographic films on here at any hour of the week, I strongly urge you to write a notice at the top of the main page in that "if you have come to complain about the inappropriateness of pornographic related content on the main page there is a wide consensus that such content is supported. Please do not waste your time or anybody elses in requesting that such content be banned from the main page." No doubts somebody else will complain again and again about this sort of content so to avoid going round in circles you need to clarify this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated failure to distinguish between the appearance of gay pornography, and the appearance of reference to gay pornography does not reflect well on you. I'm sure many more would object to explicit instances of the genre on the main page, but this is simply mature acknowledgement that such a thing exists. OTD yesterday referred to a prostitution service as well: that was neither an advertisement nor an encouragement. Kevin McE (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So should we also include everything else that people complain about that shows up on the main page in this disclaimer? GB fan 15:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. You continue to abuse the editors who complain about such issues on the main page then and turn up in force to bully and insult them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are referring to me in that post, but I don't think I have abused, bullied or insulted any editors. I just asked if you think we should include all the other things that people might complain about in the disclaimer. I would really like your opinion on that. GB fan 15:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It came across as sarcastic. I don't know, I don't hang about here much. Why not look into the issues you find yourself frequently having to defend or discuss and make them very clear to anybody complaining again what the policy is on it. There are certainly some issues which keep cropping up again and again and you said so above. So why not make the most frequent ones clear in a disclaimer? It would save a lot of time wasting (and editor disrspect for showing concerns about certain things)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize then, I was not my intention to come across as sarcastic. I don't hang around here much either and don't defend the stuff that is on the main page. I think this is my fourth or fifth edit to this page in the last 3 months and 3 of them are in the last hour. GB fan 16:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you want some more context on Dr. Blofeld's position, see his comment from my talk page. Frankly, I don't see any point in expending further energy on trying to convince him. This DYK item has been off the Main Page for nearly twenty-four hours and the clear consensus, with Dr. Blofeld being the sole objector, is that what was on the Main Page for those few hours was appropriate. Further, as is quite apparent, Dr. Blofeld is not open to being convinced and the root of his distaste toward gay pornography the words "gay pornographic" are deep-seated. So, what can be gained from continuing this discussion? -- tariqabjotu 18:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also surprised at Dr. Blofeld's continuing position (and a little disappointed to read what he left on Tariqabjotu's talk page), but have a small question for clarification. He continually states "at any time of day" or "over dinner", "peak times" etc. I thought this was English Wikipedia so are we to protect our children in the UK while the children in the US are "exposed" to this? Or protect the US kids while the Australian children "suffer"? I don't get it. In any case, it's one thing to object to a link on the main page to something inaccurate, or biased but simply to object on the lines of "one doesn't like it" is counter to what this whole encyclopaedia thing is about... (for what it's worth, I don't like murder or animal cruelty or manufactured boy bands, but am happy for Wikipedia to educate people about these topics, I don't see links on the main page being some attempt to "advocate" the existence of a topic). After his "six years" at the project, I'm slightly confused why Dr. Blofeld would show this website (over a meal) to people who are so easily offended. I can't imagine what would have happened if Cartman or GC lane were on the main page in all their glory (for the full 24 hours, not just a 6-hour slot)... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you disappointed by my comments to Tariq? Because he claims to follow Islamic values yet hypocritically insults me for even questioning the subject of gay pornoography appearing directly linked on the front page of a website as big as wikipedia? Somehow you all seem to agree that such content appearing on the main page is agreeable with everybody, so featuring Jenna Jameson shouldn't be a problem as everybody who matters here supports it on the main page. If you prevent her article from being the featured article of the day then this is surely an injustice to the free encyclopedia concept. The resistance here has clearly shown you are well-equipped to deal with complaints so why won't it hit the main page? If you really want to know the reason why I've continued here is because I'm astounded by the heavy-handed response on this and complete lack of understanding that anybody might be offended by the subject of gay pornography appearing on the main page of the website and denial that a lot of people don't like reading or even hearing about it. The tone of all of your remarks practically scolds me for even having the nerve to question it, so there is little point in having a Talk:main page when editors gang up in this way. If I'd simply got a response, "Yes some people are offended by it but general consensus is that we permit such articles at all hours of the day and there's little we can do about it" it would basically been end of conversation, especially as I don't exactly feel strongly about the subject and only made a comment because my sister did and laughed at wikipedia over it. My continued comments here have basically been utter disgust that you could all deny that it is a controversial topic and nobody has any right to question it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, you have the right to question it, but other editors don't necessarily have an obligation to recognise your complaint.
Is it OK if I make the personal prediction that nothing useful is likely to come from any further comments about this? --FormerIP (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, it appears, is that you're inexplicably interpreting "Many types of material offend some people; we don't suppress content on that basis." to mean "No one but you could possibly find this objectionable.". —David Levy 20:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but I didn't get "Many types of material offend some people; we don't suppress content on that basis." I got: 1] You want us to ban the "certain topics" that you deem objectionable. As long as Dr. Blofeld isn't embarrassed in front of his sister, who cares what other people and cultures think? 2] Yawn. Hundreds of people killed in Brazzaville, dozens in the US, a gay porn video is somehow more objectionable than real life? Wow. No, okay, so we shouldn't link "objectionable" material at "weekends"? What the hell is this place becoming? 3] This is an encyclopedia, not a family picnic. 4] Don't we have this "argument" every month? None of your responses accepted that some people might find it ill suited or an offensive subject but you were rather rude in your response. If you really want to help people out on this page try to be a little more helpful and constructive with your comments instead of sarcastically slating people for raising issues eh? Yes, an article about gay pornography on the front page of wikipedia is hardly worth the fuss, but my sister now regards wikipedia as a joke encyclopedia for hosting such content, which is why I raised it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Dr Blofeld, no idea where anyone said you couldn't question it. I think the general consensus in response to your disgust was that many people are disgusted by many things. Anal probes and Gropecunt Lane have featured (i.e. featured) on the main page for a whole day, sure they were controversial and had debate but their subject matter was dealt with encyclopaedically. Just as this 6-hour one line link deals with the subject matter encyclopaedically. Of course, if you disagree, then you should nominate the article for deletion. Once again, what "hours of the day" (and what day, where in the world?) would you prefer this kind of information to exist? Would you be okay with heterosexual sex solicitation being linked to on the main page? Would you be okay with a murderer appearing on the main page? I'm still confused. I have some level of curiosity that you wouldn't have objected with such vehemence to these subjects, but find this minor link to a minor article so incredibly and indescribably undesirable. If you sister finds this website "a joke" based on a link to an encyclopaedic article about a piece of modern culture that you and her clearly don't agree with then that's a real shame, but I find it odd that someone shows their sister the Wikipedia main page over dinner, expecting it to be squeaky clean despite the Cartman and Gropish lane in recent history. To each their own. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't show her. I left the computer on the main page and hadn't even noticed the article but I got the door to let her in as she came around for dinner and we walked back into the room and the first thing she saw on the screen was something about middle aged men and gay pornography in the DYK section and she laughed and looked at me strangely. I told her its the recently created articles on wikipedia and she found it more of a joke than offensive that wikipedia would host such content on a Saturday afternoon and an embarrassment. She was so degrading about wikipedia that it angered me, that's why I brought it up. And no she is not a nasty a-hole either but will undoubtedly let all of her mates know about what wikipedia accepts. But I think if anybody in my Christian family had seen it they'd have actually been shocked, yes well as many other people I can think of who are not even Christians who'd have thought it ill suited encyclopedic material and have lumped even coverage of it in the same category as us hosting pornographic images themselves. Overeacting, ignorant of reality? Possibly. Of course I've seen the whole range of articles this website attracts in my experience on here and that we accept them, but what she said really made me think wikipedia is unnecessarily sending out a bad message on its main page. And its not as if I'm the only one here who is critical of DYKs and the seemingly strange choices and carelessly written and sourced entries and hooks that frequently appear. OK, you have a point, many people here believe hosting it is not negative at all and radical and cool. Point taken. But I'm certain I'm not the first or last person to complain about such content being exposed on the main page. You have a point I guess that we should be completely neutral about such topics and leave religious beliefs or prejudices out of our way of thinking but all I'm saying is that its not something you see regularly and to me and my sister obviously it stands out big time on the front page of an encyclopedia, even if just for 6 hours even if there was nothing obscene or offensive about the hook. Its just not the first time people look at DYK as a sample of wikipedia and some of the content on it at times seems to show the site at its worst and I really am not referring to the article solely, believe me. I think its a shame as we get some real gems coming in but they're lumped together with ones which you often find you shaking your head over as an utter embarrassment. I try to respect everybody's contributions to the project and frequently reward people with barnstars for their good work but there are just some articles i think which are best not put on the main page. Unfair of me, or an invalid outlook given wikipedia's neutral, free content approach, but its the way I feel and the way I'm sure others on here view certain articles we accept at times. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, you still haven't told me when would have been acceptable since your dinner time wasn't. You didn't answer the following: "Would you be okay with heterosexual sex solicitation being linked to on the main page? Would you be okay with a murderer appearing on the main page?" You also poorly and unjustifiably paraphrase me; I didn't say it was "radical and cool" to host information about all things, including those things you and you sister may find displeasing. The point of an encyclopaedia is to cover all topics with neutrality and excellence. I don't like some of the religious pages here, and find a great deal of them personally offensive, but I also accept that some sections of society believe in them and believe them to be correct and proper. So I'm happy to see those kind of articles up for reasonable debate, and would always encourage an open mind to both editors and readers. I'm not sure why this article is any different. Perhaps your sister should know that in the nearly four million articles here, we're bound to have (and proud to have) some "minority interest" and perhaps you could help her to understand that part of the amazing project we have is that these minorities can be given justifiable prominence should the quality of the articles be sufficient. If you no longer believe this is our goal, perhaps this project is no longer something appropriate for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My goal on wikipedia these days is improving quality. Something I'm sure you all value greatly. William Burges is currently at GAR which I enjoyed working with KJP on. I believe that we can build a high quality content encyclopedia in which we can greatly improve how people perceive us, but a lot of content we host prevents us from doing this. I am not a prude, a strong Christian or unaccepting of either homoexuality or pornography, but yes I happen to believe that certain topics such as us hosting references to any pornographic content at any time of the day on the front page is inappropriate. I think there is a time and place for it and its not something I personally want to see on wikipedia. I understand the problem is that different people will be offended by different things and its impossible to please everybody and that we should try to be as aneutral as possible and that some people are excited by the idea of us hosting articles about pornographic films on the front page for all to see. But some content and I'm not just referring to this a lot of people find embarrassing on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" but yes I happen to believe that certain topics such as us hosting references to any pornographic content at any time of the day on the front page is inappropriate" classic, just as "whether some gays waving colored flags fully support them or not." is too. -> "Yes, gays are welcome, but they have to drink their beer in the basement". Your words are telling, Dr Blofeld, all too telling. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said was it? I was not talking solely about gay pornographic content I was talking about any pornographic content heterosexual, tranny or whatever. And neither was I saying that articles about LGBT people or issues content shouldn't hit the main page. I just think any pornography is ill-suited to the main page of wikipedia full stop. Subjects like murder, crime, rape etc are covered in mainstream media. Articles about pornography I rarely see appearing in the daily mainstream media on TV or on the news websites and this is why it strikes me as unusual that wikipedia does. And please don't come up with some smart alec remark about WP:NOTNEWS or something. You ask me why I consider discussion of pornographic content ill-suited to the mainpage of wikipedia. For the exact same reason why the television or newspapers think it ill-suited. Wikipedia is not a news outlet, no, but the free content thing is used as an excuse to host some very questionable articles and I'm not just talking about pornographic related content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many tabloid newspapers and magazines tend to have subjects such as those regularly complained about here on #their# front pages on a regular basis.

'My impression is' (from the few occasions when I have looked at it) Conservapedia has such topics as homosexuality on the main page as a permanent feature.

See my comments (variously in the archives) about vanilla main page and non-office/library/notional child-safe versions of the main page. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay marriage" is an issue in many countries these days. That means it gains frequent mention in the media. Dr Blofeld, can you cope with that? Similarly, when an arrest is made in the relevant area, news bulletins typically say the words "child pornography". It must horrify you. Don't you get it? Simply saying or writing the words "gay pornography" does not expose anyone to gay porn, any more than a news broadcast saying "child pornography" forces them to see that unsavoury stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horrify. No. Turn my stomach. Yes. Gay marriage appears to be pretty harmless and the thought of it doesn't cause one to feel nauseous. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't cause you to feel nauseous. Others believe that it violates the sanctity of marriage and ultimately will lead to their societies' downfall.
And as strongly as I disagree with that belief, it's one to which those individuals are entitled. Likewise, people are entitled to believe that pornography is sinful, that the theory of evolution is blasphemous, that miscegenation is an atrocity, that eating shellfish is an abomination, that photographing women is disrespectful, or that anyone operating a website during the Sabbath deserves to be stoned to death.
Just don't expect Wikipedia's main page content to be restricted accordingly. If you want to avoid encountering material that you deem "objectionable", please look elsewhere (or create a new website whose content reflects your values). —David Levy 00:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dr B, if I were you, I would be incredibly embarrassed if my sister found out that I was so spooked by the words "gay pornography" that I actually complained about it! APL (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should not discriminate against legitimate Wikipedia articles appearing on the main page merely because of one or more users' personal disgust with a topic. If a topic is sufficiently encyclopedic to be included in Wikipedia, then it's sufficiently encyclopedic to be highlighted on the main page. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The banner

Hi,

I'm begging you, please, please, please in the name of the sun and the moon and the stars, stop using javascript to inject the banner into the DOM after the page renders. I'm so fed up with the page layout changing just as I'm about to click something because jQuery fired a callback and a banner appeared. Thanks. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solved the problem myself with the below adblock plus filter
*.wikipedia.org/*BannerListLoader*

--76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The implementation is pretty frustrating. The same thing happens to me. Just about to click a link then the whole page jumps. APL (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan massacre

Any reason the Afghan massacre isn't included on the "In the news" tableau? 177.17.68.211 (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Alkozai massacre. Jenks24 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=481462506"