Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 11:41 on 2 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that after Liam and Noel Gallagher's band Oasis announced "the most controversial band reunion since the Sex Pistols' 1996 Filthy Lucre Tour", Noel's daughter Anaïs Gallagher criticised some fans for ageism and sexism?

Ugly hook, and where is the quote from? Secretlondon (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: The quote is from the fifth sentence of the third paragraph of "Initial announcement and reactions", while its source is in the sentence. How would you word the hook?--Launchballer 01:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There are three bolded highlights in this hook. What is the article(s) that users are supposed to be focusing on: All three, or just one? Why is this specific quote included at all? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a multi-hook, which I suppose is like casting a wide net to catch all possible fish. All three bolded articles in this one hook are the target articles. Bremps... 03:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Add "Victory Day in the Maldives" near "Culture Day in Japan". MAL MALDIVE (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 8)

Monday's FL

(November 4)

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.

Today's POTD

In the description of the featured picture for Diwali, we should wikilink the mythical city Ayodhya (Ramayana) instead of the actual city Ayodhya. The reason is explained in the second paragraph of the article Ayodhya (Ramayana):

“ The historicity of this legendary city is of concern to the Ayodhya dispute. According to one theory, it is same as the present-day Ayodhya city. According to another theory, it is a fictional city, and the present-day Ayodhya (originally called Saketa) was renamed after it around the 4th or 5th century, during the Gupta period. ”

Also see the section Ayodhya_(Ramayana)#Historicity. --Lekhak93 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

GA Main Page slot proposal

This discussion has been moved here from the DYK Talk page, suggested that this is the appropriate place to post it:  —  Maile66 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't GAs have a slot on the main page? Why should GA be a step child of anything else?  —  Maile66 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• That GAs get their own equal daily slot on the main page, neither subordinate, nor superior to anything else, nor blended in with anything else

• Support But this is really not the right place to be having this proposal, like, at all. Silverseren^C 18:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur; move this to WT:main page then. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with that. After all GA is almost 1 step off FA so it should have it's own part in the main page. It would allow GAs to get main page exposure without compromising DYK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support and agree. Jona^{talk to me} 19:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd support this, but why are we still discussing it here, it won't do anything. Village pump proposals or the talk page for the main page would be a better place. Ryan Vesey 19:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All Comments below this line are after the move from the DYK page

• Support, but where to put it, and how to proceed it? --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The talk page says: "This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content. Please direct your suggestion to one of the forums listed above or your post may be removed or ignored.". --LauraHale (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the appropriate venue for a discussion about Main Page format. "Content" in that note I presume refers to which articles we choose to present on the Main Page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Good Article reviews are less thorough than DYK reviews and there is no discussion linked to which suggests a radical overhaul for GA, no suggestion for how to implement this and no link to a conversation showing WP:GAN actually wants this.--LauraHale (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  That's a strange position to adopt, bordering on the delusional. In what way are GA reviews less thorough than DYK reviews? I'd go so far as to say that it's very evident that the majority of DYK reviewers don't even take the trouble to read the entire article, so they can hardly be producing thorough reviews. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  Care to do a similar analysis for GA reviews? I've seen GA reviews where the comment has basically been "Good work! Keep it up!" If you look at the discussions on how to handle GA review drives where they talk about fixing it to prevent such reviewing problems, you can see the problems with GA. --LauraHale (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  Talk:Euphoria (Usher song)/GA1 is a recent GA review. There is no evidence the reviewer reviewed against the criteria. Neutrality not mentioned. Plagiarism not mentioned. Copyright not mentioned. Thoroughness of topic not mentioned. Stability not mentioned. No evidence criteria considered in the review. GA reviews frequently have this problem. --LauraHale (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  In defence of the GA process, try Talk:Albertus Soegijapranata/GA1, Talk:Lynching of Jesse Washington/GA1, Talk:Early life of David Lynch/GA1 or Talk:Crime and Dissonance/GA1 for ones which do offer a broader and deeper look at the criteria; far beyond what DYK offers. Good Articles on the main page would plug a pretty obvious gap, and I see concerns about quality being a poor critique. Featured Articles can and do drop below the standard required and we're not going to abolish TFA, just vet what actually goes on the main page to ensure it looks good. GRAPPLE X 22:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  I see that you're in denial LauraHale. So pick any set of DYKs you like and I'll tell you why none of them would meet the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  She'll win that by picking a DYKs that is already a GA, like Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines. The GA process occasionally (but only occasionally) runs faster than DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  As LauraHale appears reluctant to put her absurd claim that DYK reviews are more rigorous than GA reviews to the test I've just looked at the crop of DYKs on the main page as I type this. None of them meet the GA criteria and once again it's very evident that the DYK reviewers hadn't even read the article or looked for possible plagiarism/copyright violations, a long-standing complaint about the DYK process. Anyone interested in the details can find them here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  That is not what she is saying. She says GA reviews are "less thorough than DYK reviews" and on past experience (I never look at GA reviews now) she may well be right. But that is meant (I presume) in terms of their own respective criteria. Many GA reviews, no doubt including yours, are very thorough & good, others extremely skimpy. You never know what you are getting with GA. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  Absurd her claims certainly are. "Neutrality not mentioned. Plagiarism not mentioned. Copyright not mentioned." ... well, welcome to the DYK reviewing queue (or should I say reviewing freeway?). Tony (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  DKY reviews are merely more pedantic IME, and less focussed on genuine quality in the article. bridies (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Tony1's claim is completely absurd and ill-informed nonsense. LauraHale is absolutely right. GA reviews are not as thorough as DYK. And they don't need to be; a GA is little more than a B class article. You get one reviewer, and the standard for a GA is quite low. Occasionally I get GA reviewers who want to conduct a FAC review instead, based on the idea that the article is going to FAC. That is a mistaken idea though; an article I write today cannot be an FA until 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  I would somewhat agree with LauraHale on the point that GAs are not really Good Articles. I have seen some comments on article talk pages post-GA or during PR or FAC showing discontent on the GA review that was done. Some key points on the topic are missing or language is poor or some other sorts.
  I have recently also been in DYKNs where they felt as good as FACs with all grilling of critical points.
  But i do not understand LH's opposition for a new slot of GAs on Main Page. In case LH has doubts against the GA review process i would suggest that GARs should also be done by multiple editors. Single editor doing a GA review could sometimes be a reason for missing or overlooking some factors in the article. I have seen multiple editors getting involved in DYKNs but hardly seen that happening on GAs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Of course FAC is going to be critical; it's at the top of the heap in terms of quality standards and policy compliance. On average, GA is likely to be much higher in that heap that DYK. Tony (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support sounds like a good idea to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow Evan (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 October 2012‎ (UTC)
• Oppose a TFA-style slot for GAs. Articles attain FA status at an average rate exceeding one per day, so many never will appear on the main page. Given that fact, it seems illogical for GAs to receive that level of exposure.
  Support expanding DYK's scope to include GAs (perhaps on weekends) in addition to new/expanded articles. —David Levy 22:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Yes to GAs on the main page Would definitely lead to a lot of quality improvements to established articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• In case my comment above is not clear support. I don't really care how we do it, options discussed in the past have been something like TFA, a random GA link, or a link to WP:GA. I think any option that gets GA's placed on or linked from the main page is a good one. Ryan Vesey 22:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "Dear Reader, this is an article of an article that is not too bad, but still somewhat short of what we ask our editors to strive for...": why would we do that? No likelihood of running out of FAs. Kevin McE (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  But what we have now with DYK is "Dear Reader, here are some articles that are basically crap, but maybe you can help us to improve them." Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What has that got to do with my comment? Make a proposal about DYK, and I'll give my response to it: this is my response to a proposal to have a TGA slot. Kevin McE (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• It would be much better all round if it said that. Yomangani^talk 23:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• It would, and a great deal more honest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How many editors do you know have written an FA? How many will never write one because of the sheer difficulty of going through the process? The jump between a DYK and an FA is vast. We encourage the legions new editors by giving them the incentive of main page exposure for their newly created articles. We encourage the very very elite subset of editors who have the patience and the time required to write and pass FAs. But why are we not encouraging the most valuable asset of Wikipedia? It's the experienced editors who arguably do the bulk of article expansion. Contributions that considerably improve the quality of existing articles, and yet are not recognized.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think Kevin hits the nail on the head. What are we promoting? A decent article that hasn't been rigorously reviewed? For that matter, I also support removing DYK, and replacing it with a daily list. Let's just have the best (and current events) on the main page. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, some GAs do receive fairly rigorous reviews, witness Talk:Heinrich Himmler/GA2. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose For the reasons listed by Kevin and Laura. Further, leave DYK as it is. Manxruler (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• oppose I just can't how it will fit. We have best (FA, image, weekly list), newest and two sorts of most relevant (anniversaries, news). GAs are none of these. They are sort not quite best and definitely none of the others. Better to find space for some other featured content: featured portals, media, or extra featured articles. Good articles can of course make it onto the front page if promoted to featured.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, I have recently come to the understanding that it would be better to promote GA's over FA's as FA promote excess conformity, excess rules, endless arguments and put off newbies both in terms of rules, arguments and standards required. All this for 1 article a day while missing the bigger picture of improving the other 99.9% of articles, literally. In answer to 'Dear Reader, this is an article of an article that is not too bad, but still somewhat short of what we'd like...Wikipedia has millions of articles to improve, in fact over 99.9% of them, Join here. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose We already have people saying DYK has too broad a set of aims; this would mix in something very different and genuinely dilute those aims. No prejudice against GAs getting their own Main Page slot; I understand the category came about a couple of years ago? Now that it's well established, those who work in that area of endeavour should see about getting it incorporated into the Main Page if they want. But not mixed in with the very different category of new or newly expanded articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're opposing. This proposal is to prevent DYK being mixed with GA, by giving GA its own slot. You're opposed to that?  —  Maile66 (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, essentially for the same reasons that everyone else has already raised. Prioryman (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal has been made (more than once I think) in the past. The main page already gives prominent focus to FAs reflecting contributions by those who have honed subjects extensively. The DYK section of the main pages serves a different purposes. It draws attention to newly created/expanded content. By doing so, it attracts additional eyes to new content, helping to improve the new content with contributions from others. It also serves as an excellent means to encourage creation of new content and to develop newer editors. For these reasons, and as I have also voted in the past, I still oppose the proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia must resist the temptation to just cram every possible thing onto the already crowded main-page. What is the advantage, to the reader of having a GA of the day? Besides distracting from the featured content it's confusing. (Which is better? Featured or Good? Who knows! Well, we do, but it's not obvious.) Being on the main-page is not a trophy, so we don't need to make a consolation prize category. APL (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Though it is a good thought, I believe we would be having too much stuff stuffed into the main page. Users may also get confused as to what they are looking at (eg: Is this Good, Featured, what?), as noted by APL, and if people would like to see their article get on the main page, then they should work hard to get it up to FA status. Also, making matters worse, GAs are only reviewed by one person, and their review could have been poor, as well, lots of mistake could have been in the articles, and it wasn't even at that quality, due to a poor review, then. Only the best should be on the main page, IMO. Also as per the above. TBrandley 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  I find it difficult to believe that anyone would claim that DYKs are the best of anything. Is that really your position? And how many "reviewers" does the typical DYK have? Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  I was referring to the featured lists, pictures, and articles, sorry, I missed DYK. Actually, after reading above, maybe the DYKs should be removed. I'm leaning to a support for the removal of DYKs. Thanks, TBrandley 02:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  Still doesn't make sense though. What about "In the news" or "On this day"? What are they the best of? Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not against having them there, although it is not fully related to Wikipedia and its articles. TBrandley 02:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  What you very clearly said was "only the best should be on the main page", which makes me wonder if you've ever actually looked at the main page. But whatever. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Honestly, the quality of GAs vary from 'should be an FA' to 'should still be rated C class', and that alone is enough to leave me weary. If you want GAs on the main page, get Featured Topics on the main page. At least those are re-vetted. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  Presumably you mean "wary"... ;) — foxj 15:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal is scant on details and I cant support it as written. Where on the front page would they be placed? I dont think there is much room to spare on the front page. What would be dropped, or would share space with GAs? How would they be selection? I prefer GAs to be integrated into the existing DYK system, and I also like Sven's suggestion to elevate featured topics to the front page, perhaps by replacing ITN on slow news days, ;-) or replacing FL+FP when the featured topic has a good picture to accompany it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—far too much text on the main page already. I'd be looking to reduce it in all sections except for TFP. Please see the alternative proposal on the DYK talk page, which doesn't require more real estate. Tony (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed. The main page already looks too cluttered, and rather dated. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Merge with or replace DYK. I see no reason to dilute TFA, or to increase the amount of content on the Main Page. I would support replacing some or all of the current DYK content (which is rarely of much interest to readers) with GA material (which hopefully is, and is of a higher standard). This may require some additional vetting, along the lines currently done for DYK, but that needn't be onerous if the DYK content is reduced. Modest Genius ^talk 12:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neither fish nor fowl. I would be more interested in eliminating the Good articles process (and the Start, B, C article rankings). Rmhermen (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  More interested in eliminating the Good articles process than what? DYK is nothing more or less than vanity publishing, and not very good vanity publishing at that. It's also riddled with undetected plagiarism/copyright issues, even in the batch I looked at only a few minutes ago. High time the readers were put first, not the habitual stub creators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Rather see it eliminated than elevated to the main page. It was originally intended for articles too short for FA with longer articles being sent to Peer Review but then got mixed up with the 1.0 folks - and what purpose does it really serve? Rmhermen (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    I think he does know what he's talking about. He was on Wikipedia when the GA system was instituted; you weren't. Graham87 05:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

    Then he clearly misunderstood, just as you do. Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The main page should display the very best WP has to offer. I'm sorry, but GA's are not the very best. It would make no sense having a lesser article in terms of quality on the main page. --Cassianto^Talk 20:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  But it doesn't, unless you believe that DYKs, ITNs and On this day articles are anything like the best that anyone could offer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In principal yes Cassianto but at Mal says it isn't the case. I'd be happy to see a mixture of GAs in with DYKs as the quality generally matches or exceeds the best DYKs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've seen some excellent DYKs, which would easily meet the GA criteria, but they're few and far between. But too many have problems like this one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support I always supported GAs on the mainpage. Remove ITN as per WP:NOTNEWS and instead place something educational and encyclopedic. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Good articles are more important than lists, ITN, and DYKs. DYKs are good for encouraging new talent, so perhaps accounts could be allowed 2 DYKS in a smaller DYK section. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Make space by getting rid of DYK and ITN. Follow the lead of Spanish WP by plugging a couple of GAs (after the FA), and of French WP by making the links to the main portals more prominent. Et voilà! A less cluttered, more encyclopedic main page. Awien (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. If it means significantly revising or replacing existing sections, so be it. I supported that other proposal to introduce GAs into DYK, although just replacing DYK is fine by me. – Steel 21:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We already have a "Featured article" section, so adding a selection of "second best" articles seems illogical to me. I appreciate many of the other links on the page are to non-FA articles, but I don’t see a reason to raise their prominence to something equalling the FAs. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but not merged with new articles. Personally I would add new articles as a daily list (like Hurracanehink suggested) and save the DYK concept for Good articles. We are an encyclopaedia with many weird and wonderful articles and disqualifying many of these articles from one of our more promising gimmicks is a waste. In my opinion one chosen good article a day with a decent hook is more likely to draw people in than 24 hooks a day, many with bland hooks and repeating topics from previous days. AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The focus given to FA should be kept, not provided more visual competition. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support. I don't see a reason why not. Good and features articles both represent Wikipedia's best content. Zac (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Good articles are not on the same level as featured articles I'm afraid. Just because an article is awarded GA status, it doesn't mean to say it is a good article. It's quality is dependent on the level of review it receives from the reviewer. Unlike FAC's, the community do not assess a GAC. It's quality is assessed by the review of just one person, and its quality is dependant on that reviewers skills. I sometimes see poorly reviewed GA's that pass the process that still have mistakes in them. These are not "the best of Wikipedia". To base an articles quality on the review of just one editor is not the same as basing it on those of several people at FAC. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I've seen them around as well, but overall, good articles are indeed good. If they were to be included, although it would be some work, I think it could work a bit like DYK. You nominate your GA to be included. Someone else takes a look at it to see if it's really good enough. Zac (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Obviously we should show our visitors our best good articles, which indeed are from a higher quality than the usual dd you know nominations (no offense intended, DYK guys do a good work and I've been there a lot). — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The goals of TFA and DYK are different. One is to showcase our best content, while the other is to showcase our newest interesting content. Clearly GA tends more towards the former. As someone mentioned above regarding the FA promotion rate being greater than one per day, we should not show GAs on the main page before we have exhausted our supply of featured articles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It will be nice giving some attention to the GA's we (the editors) are working on, same as that attention is given to the FA's. I like this suggestion. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now, at least) - on the whole, I prefer the approach of amalgamating GA into DYK rather than adding a new section. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose- We have plenty of FA's to post, this is not the right place for this proposal so I doubt this discussion will be considered anyway, and please don't remove ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I don't believe GA's should have a box as large as FA, rather something similar to the DYK box. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per King of Hearts. Currently, the different sections of the Main Page address different needs or interests: the best content, the newest content (that is at least marginally presentable), and so on. The quality of content that they feature varies, but they each fill their own niche. The same does not apply to Good Articles, since GA is largely just a step on the road toward FA. Featuring GAs on the Main Page would place them in direct competition with FAs, which is is counterproductive. If we start to experience a shortage of FAs, then that's a wholly different situation... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  With regard to the various calls to replace DYK or ITN with GA, I ask this: If either DYK or ITN was removed, would it not be better to feature two FAs instead of one FA and one GA? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends on how you view the main page. If it is for readers then it should not have any Good or new articles featured. If it is to encourage writers then GA serves a similar purpose to FA in that it encourages improving content (as opposed to the new content DYK encourages). A big difference is that GA is more accessable for many editors. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I do not see the need to feature GAs on the main page when we feature FAs, which are superior in quality. Dough4872 00:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: FAs are articles that we should hold in high esteem, but GAs should also be held in high esteem. Are GAs of less "quality" to the point that we don't want to showcase them to viewers? If that is the case, doesn't that warp the whole purpose of being a "Good Article"? We should also showcase GAs in a separate section as an example of what high-quality articles look like. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually came to this page planning to support, but the arguments against (too much main page clutter, and the neither fish-nor-fowl nature of GAs) persuaded me. Khazar2 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support If not the GAs-merged-with-DKYs proposal, then GA should have its own section. It doesn't make sense that we feature god knows how many DKYs per day and nothing from GA. We should be less obsessed with more-more-more content creation and be more willing to encourage, reward and display quality rewriting of existing coverage. There would be quality control issues, sure, as there are at DKY and TFA. bridies (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. When Wikipedia was young it made sense to incentivise the creation of new articles to help build the encyclopedia. Today, most important articles already exist, so our focus needs to shift towards improving existing articles. Putting GAs on the main page helps update our incentives to match Wikipedia's current needs. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Putting GAs on the Main Page primarily for being a superior process to others that feature content doesn't strike me as the right approach. GAs should stand on their own merits, and shouldn't be put in solely because GAN doesn't have some of the issues that have plagued DYK, for example. Personally, I think that too many GAs have difficulty meeting the project's own quality standards, due to the nature of the process. Letting any one reviewer's opinion decide an article's fate is always going to run the risk of a poor decision. Even GAN's advocates will likely admit as much. DYK has many well-known issues, but at least we aren't announcing to the world that they are high-quality articles, which is what we would be doing with GAs. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Main page should showcase Wikipedia's best content...featured articles. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Another contributor to Singapore-related articles shared with me that he prefers writing DYKs to writing GAs because only the former have Main Page exposure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a replacement or alteration of DYK or replacement of the trivial "on this day". After over a decade of growth we have a giant baby encyclopaedia with two thirds of the articles at stub status, and is long overdue to shift focus on article improvement. --ELEKHH^T 05:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. For reasons well-rehearsed by a number of editors above. NB I'd strongly support a proposal to remove DYK. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think that GAs should have their own section and TFL should be a permanent affair. Saying so, I think that it not much worthy to discuss this issue here, village pump is the right place to go for it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I can't believe I'm supporting both proposals, but what the heck. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Personally I think quality is the most important part of what wikipedia needs, so things that encourage quality are a good thing, and working towards FP will help encourage people that are daunted by the FA standards, and might otherwise try and search for new trivia to put in DYK. The issue some have with the GA process seems irrelevant - this is a classic chicken and egg, while GA has no effect on anything, there is no real reason to tighten up the process. If the GA process was regularly reviewed in the process of choosing GAs for the FP, then the process will improve, plus as there are so many more GAs than FAs, only the best GAs will make the cut anyway, so the concern about poorly reviewed GAs seems misplaced to me. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to expand - personal I think the MP has a massive influence on how Wikipedia works dues to its' prominence. The current set up means the type of wikipedia editor that is "rewarded" with MP attention are 1) people with large amounts of time to make the massive commitment to shepherd an article to FA status 2) those that create new short articles on ever more obscure trivia to get into DYK and 3) recentist articles on things in the news to get into ITN. The 1 FA per day limit means editors that concentrate on creating good quality encyclopaedic articles on mainstream and important topics are competing for that 1 slot per day, where less "important" articles dominate everywhere else on the MP, so a way of increasing the balance towards quality rather than quantity would be good in my view, and highlighting GAs seems the only existing structure. The fact some GA reviews are not thorough enough seems an irrelevant point - items suggested for the MP in the GA category will be filtered and checked by the recommendation process, so poor quality "GA"s won't appear anyway. In terms of the actual resulting section, I could see something along the lines of 3-4 articles per day, with 1 or 2 sentences summarizing the article, and you could have it so down the left hand side of the page you had FA, GA, DYK - showing the pyramid of quality/progression of articles within wikipedia. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Netural. To tell the truth, I don't consider thatsome GAs are good enough for exhibiting in Main Page as high-quality contents.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with your points, but similar to TFA and TFL, I think that the articles will be put into discussion before coming on the big stage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: There are people here that the Main Page's purpose is to feature featured content, although obviously, it's not the case with ITN, DYK and OTD. So the question is, should it? Since when? –HTD 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly!! I don't understand why people have this misconception. Even TFP doesn't necessarily link to any better article. Also i am seeing that commenters are confused about the two discussions happening. Should GA get a separate place. Should GA be included as an additional criteria for DYK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support *"' - as a replacement for DYK with all GAs suitable for inclusion. It may promote GAs which is no bad thing but as an retired reviewer it may well increase the waiting lists. GAs must not be part of DYKs what form of combination would that make. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We have plenty of FAs which have not appeared on the front page. Cannot see any value whatsoever in GAs having a spot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support We need people to improve upon GA's. This is a good way to make people want to edit them. ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk 03:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. GA's do need to be improved, but the Featured Article and Featured Picture spots are reserved for showcasing the very best work on the encyclopedia. It wouldn't seem fitting to include work that's deemed second-class (albeit still very good) when many first-class articles haven't been featured. It is also kind of nice to have only one article featured, as it focuses attention on that subject for the day. Furthermore, comparing it to DYK doesn't make much sense as DYK, rather than showing quality, is showing that WP is still actively-producing articles. dci | TALK 20:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Corn cheese (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support the Wikipedia main page should showcase a representative sample of our content. As others have noted, the main page is way too cluttered, and I do not support adding TGA to the current mess. TGA could run in place of TFA, ITN, or DYK. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• I've already !voted, but I'd like to make a few comments down here. First, good articles are not meant to be Wikipedia's finest content. Receiving a GA symbol certifies that, usually thanks to the hard work of a few editors, an article's quality has surpassed that of the majority and is about on par with a print encyclopedia. It's a mark of excellence, yes, but it also leaves some room for improvement. I also think that leaving the Main Page "featured" with one premier article is the most appealing manner of presentation. dci | TALK 23:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support This would be quite sensible. If the GA process currently seems too weak then this would help improve it by drawing the attention of more editors. To find space for this, please reduce the space given to the featured list which currently spans the page rather than being confined to half of it, like most other sections. Warden (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support. DYK promotes the creation of new articles. FA promotes the creation of extremely well-researched articles, but ones which take a very long time to write. GA is the middle ground. While not as arduous as FA, it nevertheless has far more standards than a DYK. All three are the different stages of editor participation. I think we'll all agree that we're past the point of the article creation "race", we're now on the quality not quantity bit. So let's shift the incentive to improving existing articles and take advantage of the success of the DYK motivation. I don't really care where you might squeeze it in though, just as long as it's there.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral'. My !vote has been tempered somewhat by the explanation of the original proposal in DYK. I now more strongly support the original, as it is the least disruptive of the two options of how to include GAs. But whatever the means, I support any way of getting GAs featured on the Main Page.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Although it may seem like a nice idea, I am not seeing what purpose it would serve. I can give very good encyclopedic rationales for the ITN and DYK sections, and promoting featured content obviously serves an encyclopedic purpose, but Good Articles are just content of a higher quality than other articles that have not yet been determined to be the model for encyclopedic content.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The only real purpose would be to encourage editors to work on improving articles. The lure of a main page slot is motivation for many editors. While FA does this, many articles are unlikely to reach FA standards either because the topic is to broad or the editors interested in them lack the skills. AIRcorn (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons of space. But I would support replacing DYK with good articles, or combining them in some way. Perhaps we could select the DYK list from the newest good articles. Lesgles (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Endorse Lesgles's opposition for reasons of space and counter-proposal with combining Good Articles with Did You Know in some way. Do NOT endorse replacing DYN entirely. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least at current. There's not much argument that the main page ... well, features featured material because it is (or at least tries to be) the best we can produce. The question comes down to whether we are well-served by using that space for any other purpose as well. Currently, we have DYK, which are very much not the best we can produce. But they are (or at least intended to be) presentable, newly-created articles. And that's important, too, because it confirms to the public that this is still a work in progress, that there's still plenty to write about, and that we're still interested in growing the content of the project. Now, the problems with copyvios and the like slipping past the DYK queue process ... are problems, but they aren't problems for here. I wouldn't object to the idea that we replace ITN (on recentism grounds) with GAs, and use the GA system to highlight the way that articles are gradually improved: from a good start (at DYK) to a "good" article (at GA) to the best of our efforts (at FA). But the GA process doesn't seem like it was exactly intended for that purpose, and it certainly isn't ready to shoulder that burden at the moment. I think elevating GAs to main page material will recreate the same problems that the DYK queue has, writ larger and in a different forum. Those problems need a solution before we provide a means to repeat them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, for many of the reasons already stated. The main page is already full. The GA process isn't rigorous enough. My response to the DYK section is that while the quality of many that pass to the main page is embarrassing, it does demonstrate the DYK's purpose: new articles are being created all the time, and while they're not the best examples of what articles should be, they show that's there's room for new additions. I also see DYK as a way to recruit possible new editors by encouraging them to work on these new articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - see proposal below fo reasoning. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 17:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Makes more sense than mixing them in with DYK (apples and oranges belong in fruit salad). I suggest put in the Featured List spot and alternate the 2 as appropriate. Royalbroil 02:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Good idea in theory, and I was thinking about supporting at first, but the opposers have raised some really good points. The main page is full as it is. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - we have plenty of FAs, so there's no need to "add" to that collection by placing GAs in stead; nor is there any need to attract new potewntial editors to these highly-improved articles, so there's no need to add a section for it. DYKs serve 2 purposes - attract newe potential editors to these articles, which still need a lot of work; and to reward users who worked hard to create an article or improve a stub - merely getting a GA is reward enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: GAs already get too much coverage. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Where? You basically get a green dot on the article and a link on this page. AIRcorn (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Adrian J. Hunter. Double sharp (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, a most sensible, logical, rational, and prudent proposal. — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support A FA is a "nearly complete" article - it's really good and new editors aren't going to want to mess with it, but it does show them what an article can become. DYKs are extremely simplistic and generally in need of expansion/improvement. A GA is a nice intermediate step - it's a "good" article, but one that a newbie can edit without fear - indeed, one that he can still improve. Towards this end, the GAs for the Main Page should be chosen somewhat-randomly, so we don't just get FA-wannabees, but get GAs at various stages of completion. Also per Sun Creator, above. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What is featured?\A new proposal

Has anyone already covered this? My understanding over the years is that when something gains featured status, it is the best-of-the-best and good enough to promote itself on Wikipedia's Main Page. The DYK is a nice exception and a good way to promote people's interest in new articles but does not promote the articles as they area. It is a stepping stone but I think it deserves to stay. I am thinking of a different idea altogether. How about a noticeboard at the bottom showing all pages that have gained GA or featured status at the bottom (similar to Signpost's Featured content)? Good articles are excellent but not the best.

Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 10:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of "Newly upgraded content" notice-boards, but I think we should try them out someplace a bit less visible first, such as on The Signpost. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

<Cough> At the top of this page: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Support for the original proposal makes up about 45% of explicit support, neutral, or oppose comments or !votes. dci | TALK 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (roughly 32 out of 69 or 70). dci | TALK 01:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured article link

I would like to propose changing the wording of the link at the end of the FA blurb from "more" to the more visible and more explicit "Read the full article here." Awien (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see why - it can be unclear at times what links are meant to send you where. I had been confused when I started to browse wikipedia because I found everything but the search box to be too complicated. 86.138.171.81 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

'full article' might work, but your suggestion is far too long. Besides, any link with 'here' in it is indicative of poor design. I agree 'more' isn't particularly good, especially since it could be confused with 'more featured articles'. Modest Genius ^talk 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right that "here" is superfluous, but I think a sentence is still better than a fragment. How about "Read the article"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awien (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the proposed change to "Read the full article". I also think that the section should be retitled "From today's Featured Article" to reinforce the fact that this is not the whole thing, misapprehension that User:Art LaPella mentioned that his wife had. --Khajidha (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I heartily endorse Khajidha's suggestion of changing the heading to "From today's Featured Article": I suspect that a lot of people are under the misapprehension that what appears on the Main Page is the whole thing. And we have only approval for changing the link to something more explicit than "more", so can we implement at least that? (I assume it needs to be done by an admin?) My preference too would be for "Read the full article", but "Read the article" would be better than nothing. Awien (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the full article is okay, but if that's too long, how about Continue...? It doesn't sound like it's linking to a list of other featured articles. -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment—has anyone notified the active participants over at WT:TFA/R that suggest the articles? I see only four people commenting here with the OP calling for a change not even a day after the original post. Imzadi 1979 → 18:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think this really affects the folks at WT:TFA/R; we're discussing Main Page presentation, not TFA choice. Still, pointing them here couldn't hurt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I very much like both the idea to change it to "From Today's Featured Article" at the top, and the idea to replace "more..." with "continue..." or "Read the full article" or something similar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've been the main editor on a lot of articles that have appeared as TFA. The suggestions for changes as indicated by Floquenbeam, above, seem to me to be unambiguous and absolutely sensible. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Me too; "full article" seems ok too. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Question: is there a set process to allow something to actually happen? A recommended waiting period? A minimum number of people in favour? Awien (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't a formal process, but compare this proposal with the GA one above. I suggest waiting a fortnight (from the start of this thread on 18 Oct) for anyone interested to comment. Modest Genius ^talk 15:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that this seems sensible. It's definitely clearer and doesn't really create any clutter, which would be the only drawback I could imagine. Any combination of the proposed wordings would be an improvement I think, though if I had to pick one I'd go with "From today's Featured Article" at the top and just "Full article" at the bottom. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• A change from "more" to the proposed wording makes sense. dci | TALK 02:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support "From today's featured article" at the top and "Read the full article", "Read the article" or "Full article" at the bottom. I had never thought of it before, but I can see that people new to Wikipedia might get confused and view the blurb as the full entry. Lesgles (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'm fine with a change if it improves clarity. Obviously, the more concise the better. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As I do my gnomish thing on WP, I am very conscious that a huge number of our readers have English as a second language, and try wherever I reasonably can to make the choices that make WP as accessible as possible to them. That includes avoiding excessive use of acronyms, jargon, abbreviations, and so on. For the same reason I also prefer the full-sentence version of wording for the link: Read the full article. Four short words, so still concise and uncluttered, but clear and explicit. So in the absence of opposition, and given the likelihood that this formulation is acceptable in terms of brevity to those for whom that is a concern, I request that an admin change the Featured article link from "more" to "Read the full article". Also, in the absence of opposition, that they change the heading from "Today's featured article" to "From today's featured article". Awien (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

These proposals seem to be unanimously supported so I have made the changes. The Read the full article. link is created manually by the FA director who drafts the blurb, so you may need to inform them about this change. (I have changed the blurbs up to November 5.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't you mean the "primary editor of the FA who drafts the blurb"? The blurbs are created when submitted to TFA/R. Anyway, this proposal makes sense. • Jesse V.^(talk) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

TFAs don't have to be nominated to appear; often they will be selected without being nominated. I will leave a message with Raul654 (talk · contribs) and Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) and at WT:TFAR. Bencherlite^Talk 20:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the same needs to be done now with the "Today's featured list"s for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.206.234 (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done by me before I saw your request. Bencherlite^Talk 20:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that the "..." is completely gone now. Would it not be possible to have "(Read the full article...)" and "(Read the full list...)"? It's kinda more inviting... and it lures you in... and urges you to read further... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.206.234 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that this would be a good change, space permitting... --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way, but have no objection. And thanks, MSGJ! Awien (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nov 6 TFA

I'm not sure if this is being discussed elsewhere, but I noticed that on Nov. 4, 2008 both Barack Obama and John McCain were on the main page. Could we something similar this year for Nov. 6? Maybe not Mitt/Obama but something along those lines. I noticed that both Mitt's dad and Obama's inaugural are FAs but haven't been listed, for example. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very against making a second special exception to the main page for a regional event, one was one too many. A regularly-run TFA with date relevance is fine; something US-presidenty without it being partisan (if something is available that fits the bill). GRAPPLE X 15:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Inauguration be run January 19 if he loses and January 20 (renamed with a "First") if he wins. I understand Mitt Romney is at FAC, perhaps it can be run January 20 if he wins. No opinion on what should be run November 6, although it should not be the "twofer" we ran in 2008.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

just a side note the innaugartion won't be until 1/22 because 1/20 is a Sunday and that Monday is MLK day Hot Stop (Edits) 16:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it will be on January 22; the Office of Personnel Management states that they don't give an extra holiday when the observance of Inauguration Day and the observance of MLK Jr Day coincide. In fact, the President-Elect still has to take the oath of office on January 20, even when it falls on a Sunday and he takes the oath in private. On those occasions, a public repeat has been scheduled for Monday, January 21, with the rest of the public ceremonies and speeches.

That said, I'm not in favor of running Barack Obama a third time as a TFA, nor would it seem appropriate to run an Obama-related article and the main Mitt Romney article as joint TFAs like four years ago. Maybe someday we can repeat the dual TFAs concept when we have two different candidates from the major parties, but not this time. Imzadi 1979 → 17:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I like Wehwalt's idea of running an Obama- or Romney-themed TFA on inauguration day. I had thought it would be a good idea to run Romney on the 7th (if he passes FAC) if he wins... but then I realized that a winner won't be declared until UTC+2 on the 7th at the earliest, so strike that. Maybe we should run Sertraline on election day to help those of us who are panicking about the results of the election to calm down? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be in favor a repeat of four years ago, ie, run Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. In lieu of that, though, I'd recommend something entirely apolitical as the TFA. It probably goes without saying, but featuring just one candidate without the other would be a monumentally bad move. Furthermore, for Jan 20 I'd go for either Obama's first inaugural or Mitt Romney, depending on who wins.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm opposed to all of these proposals as they are too America-centric. And that's coming from an American. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in support of running Obama and Romney (assuming it passes FAC in time) as dual TFAs. If not, then hopefully there is something else suitable. It's one day every four years and, like it or not, the result is a big deal to the whole world. And that's coming from a non-American. Jenks24 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not special enough to make it the only exception though. If we made a habit of re-running FAs for a third time, or having dual FAs, then maybe it'd be okay, but having the US presidential election be the only special TFA, and repeating that stunt, is wrong. If we want to see the US election given a special treatment we need to extend that treatment to other events - off the top of my head, I can see that, with a number of association football teams at FA, potential high-profile matches could be given the same treatment (should, for example, Liverpool FC and Manchester City FC meet in the FA Cup final, etc); but that's a larger discussion to see it implemented. One event given repeated special treatment shouldn't occur. GRAPPLE X 16:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Make other exceptions then and show this as an example of when it worked well. Obviously a FA Cup final is not on the same level as a US Presidential election (I say this as someone who was gutted when Liverpool were robbed last season), but if those two teams did meet in the final this season I'd support running them as dual TFAs. Most importantly, we don't need special rules about this – it makes us look better to have high quality, relevant articles on the main page, therefore IAR applies. Jenks24 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If I can slightly modify a sentence of yours, Jenks: 'high quality, timely, and relevant articles on the main page.' :-) If we have such important articles at FA and a superb date connection, we should run them. We won't have these types of occasions often. So I guess that means I'll be in support of this if Romney makes FA in time. In deference to Grapple's reservations (reservations I agree with), though, I think we should codify what level of 'importance' would allow a second TFA –albeit these should be relatively vague to allow for some interpretation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of duplicating discussion, might I invite attention to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 where William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 has had some support for November 6th? Bencherlite^Talk 23:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a twofer – Obama and Romney if Romney passes in time...Modernist (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I was involved in getting the getting the Obama-McCain twofer as TFA 4 years ago. Among the concerns then was that this would be repeated. I only continued promoting the idea of a twofer then as a one-time IAR and promised that I would oppose any presidential (or prime ministerial) twofers in the future. Thus I'm committed to oppose this. But it goes beyond that. Obama had then been TFA once, now the article has been TFA twice. McCain had been an FA since August, Romney is still not an FA, and there is some opposition to it becoming an FA. I may very well join that opposition - I dislike some of the sharp elbows that have been thrown in related articles and the rush to get this to FA status. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

USS President?

• Run USS President (1800) instead. That way, you get your president and USA link, but on a subject not related to the election. Parrot of Doom 11:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I support this idea, it seems preferable to both the various split-screen ideas and to the idea of running William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896. There are two issues with running the Bryan Campaign article; we run the risk of appearing to have a bias as he was a democrat, and I seem to recall that the Cross of Gold speech was the TFA fairly recently. I will make a similar comment on the TFA/R page, and suggest that anyone voicing opinions here does the same. 99.233.46.60 (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Support Oppose [move to oppose per Bencherlite's post below Truthkeeper (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)] - very good idea PoD! I'm opposed to running anything political on that date because polling is open well into the date in the states that lag much beyond UTC. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Strong support Wow that's clever! :D • Jesse V.^(talk) 01:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose it's already been TFA once; the general rule is that FAs only appear once as TFA; that rule has been ignored only once, for the 2008 US Presidential election; for it to be ignored for the second time for the 2012 US Presidential election gives the election an unfair prominence in main page / FA terms. (And yes I know that one article appeared on two successive days for a total of 24 hours when Wikipedia was blacked out, but that's not the same as appearing twice for 24 hours). Bencherlite^Talk 12:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That'll teach me to only look at the "article milestones" section... Still, there must be plenty of FAs that can be linked to the election via punnage? Parrot of Doom 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's not correct - Transit of Venus also appeared as TFA twice but that was a special case as it wouldn't happen again for 121 years. Richerman (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for reminding me. A rather rarer event than a US Presidential election, anyway! Bencherlite^Talk 14:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How about Carlson's patrol, which is a FA which hasn't run on the main page, is an apolitical American topic, and has undisputable date relevance (70th anniversary)? Mogism (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Carlson's patrol at WP:TFAR. Bencherlite^Talk 12:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

TFA: ...the latest screen incarnation, Skyfall, is due to premiere in London on 23 October 2012.

Advertisement on Wikipedia's Main Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall is not the Featured Article. This happens to be selecting an article to appear that is relevant to today's date. —howcheng {chat} 03:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, the link just sneakily appeared in the TFA paragraph on the Main Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"This exists" is not the same "go purchase this". It's hardly advertisement to mention a timely event, especially as there's absolutely no positive endorsement of it, just a neutral statement that it exists and is to be released. Should we not link to it just because someone might go "oh, this massively hyped film I've never heard of has appeared on the main page of wikipedia in passing. I'll go pay money to see it now based solely on that fact"? Of course not. I certainly wouldn't go see Nixon in China just because it was a TFA, nor would the TFA slot encourage me to buy a copy of "Say Say Say" or Fertilisation of Orchids. GRAPPLE X 03:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Product placement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of us reap any financial rewards for these sorts of edits. —howcheng {chat} 16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement on Wikipedia's Main Page. For free. How generous of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Or you could not take the cynical approach. Is it so hard to imagine that WP editors are Bond fans and they wanted to have an article that was relevant to the date at hand? Regardless, this isn't the first time this has happened and it certainly won't be the last. —howcheng {chat} 16:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it so hard to imagine that some WP editors maybe professionals in marketing and promotion.... I have no problems if this happened on the 50th anniversary of Dr No, but for this to coincide with the release of the new movie, sorry, it looks too much like someone is using Wikipedia's Main Page for free advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.213 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Which of the editors who took part in the making of this decision on this page do you suspect of being covert marketing professionals who, over a period of years, have developed sleeper accounts, accruing several hundred thousand edits to Wikipedia on a plethora of topics, just to lull us into a false sense of security and then hit us with this hideous example of guerrilla marketing? I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but your persistence with this non-complaint is exasperating. Can we drop it now? See WP:FLOG. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Vomiting Egyptian

Does today's vomiting Egyptian photograph not offend public morale? There are also Orientalist concerns. Foreign places like Egypt rarely feature on the Main Page and then when Africans and Arabs and other minorities get a chance they are portrayed in this highfalutin way as some class of freak or circus act. On top of that, there is the disgusting claim, prominently displayed, that "Ali's unusual gastric abilities led to rumors that the Rockefeller Institute had offered a large sum of money to obtain his stomach post-mortem." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

He's not vomiting. Read the article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Ali was not vomiting. Please distinguish correctly between morale and morals. And I'm not sure why you find organ donation disgusting - nor do I very much care. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on making these a regular feature? Not wanting to steal your thunder for tomorrow but look at the lascivious pose George II is adopting in the painting. Yomangani^talk 10:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

These? What regular feature? I should ask same question of Wikipedia (I hope the answer is no). OK, another way to put it. Why does Wikipedia present such an ancient culture in this way? Thousands of years of culture to choose from and instead it is a performer of vaudeville, "a theatrical genre of variety entertainment popular in the North America, England, Australia and New Zealand from the early 1880s until the early 1930s." It is almost worse than ignoring American people then putting a fat guy eating a hamburger on display, ignoring Irish people then putting a leprechaun eating a potato on display, ignoring French people then putting a performer dressed in frog costume and eating snails on display and so on, all for the amusement of others and to emphasise how "exotic" and "different" it all is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bring Culture of Egypt to featured status and we can run it; complaining without any accompanying constructive editing will never change what runs at TFA. Running Ali is not a comment on Egypt or Egyptian culture, but a display of a top-quality article on an interesting man. GRAPPLE X 15:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, bring Le Petomane to FA status! A single novel individual is not representative of an entire nation or culture. We have FAs about people regarded as notable villains, who might by the same logic be regarded as bringing far greater discredit upon their homelands than a vaudeville spitter. But we'd still run those as homepage FAs if there was sufficient support - because we're not passing judgment or even comment on whole cultures by doing so. This is an encyclopedia, not the Eurovision Song Contest. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If Ali provokes this level of reaction, watch this space when Tarrare or Charles Domery hit the main page. – iridescent 19:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The (great) article is about an interesting man, not about Egyptian culture!88.98.32.209 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This article told me things I didn't know, it made me smile and it reminded me of what an extraordinary world we live in.Padres Hana (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it was about time for a Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells article. (I suppose sword swallowing is now off the Front Page menu for a while - unlinkage deliberate). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see absolutely no problem with the article. It doesn't promote racism or bigotry - it's probable that the complexity and reality of Egyptian culture was missed by those who promoted or viewed this act, but the article merely relates his story. Indeed, the interesting aspect of his tale comes not from the fact of his being Egyptian but from his "unusual gastronomic abilities." dci | TALK 03:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Hadji Ali did not run "instead" of other articles about the thousands of years of Egyptian culture. Osiris myth, an article about an aspect of that culture that was important for three thousand of those years, ran in this same slot a month ago. But if the IP finds controlled regurgitation distasteful, he or she should be warned that Osiris myth contains dismemberment, beheading, adultery, necrophilic incest, and coercive homosexual incest. A. Parrot (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow Parrot! On having a quick glance at the Osiris myth article you have written and your comments above you seem to have excelled yourself in your one man campaign to run down this ancient civilization by cherry picking of every salacious detail fron non-religious texts and ignoring the extensive literature from ancient religious sources (and modern scholarship) that undermine the very points you have made above, e.g homosexuality and adultery are proscribed as is shown when the deceased appears before Osiris in the Hall of Judgement as described in the article Maat. I previously pointed at your sarcastic comments last year in edit summaries and bias relating to ancient Egyptian religion but it appears, like all determined pov pushers, you can't let go. Yt95 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

See my comments at your old talk page (User talk:Taam). I don't want to get into it here. A. Parrot (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't read that article before it Featured. It's wonderful. I found absolutely nothing offensive about it, whatsoever. And my morale remains as high as I'd like to think my morals are. But I do like the challenge of trying to get "Africans and Arabs and other minorities" featured on Main Page more often and I'll see what I can do personally to help with this. -Dweller (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't about how badly written the article is. It's about Wikipedia's portrayal of the culture of "Africans and Arabs and other minorities", their lack of coverage and what is then promoted in a prominent position on the few occasions when it features. Wikipedia's Main Page constantly displays white-dominated pop culture - TV episodes, video games, and the like, all of western (mainly American) origin - and October has seen Ian Fleming, Nixon in China, Allegro, Tool, Fertilisation of Orchids and "Say Say Say", to give some examples of these and similar themes. Wikipedia doesn't usually very prominently display many Western freaks of nature at all. But when foreign cultures get their chance it is a performer of vaudeville, "a theatrical genre of variety entertainment popular in the North America, England, Australia and New Zealand from the early 1880s until the early 1930s." How about something that Egyptians can actually relate to, rather than how they are seen in England or in the United States? The United States didn't even exist in the times of Ancient Egypt (well it sort of did but not as it is known now, post-genocide of the native peoples and assimilation of those who survived and all that). It is virtually never anything found here. It is never, for a few random examples, Mathematics in medieval Islam or Music of Egypt or Egyptian cuisine - or, even more specifically, something like Oud or Mulukhiyah. Foreign parts of the world are only ever portrayed as somehow inferior, entirely without their own culture or history, or through the spectrum of being responsible for some "evil" or "terrorist" act against western values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

None of the examples you give are WP:Featured Articles, so they couldn't appear as Today's Featured Article. Nonetheless, you're correct... Wikipedia does have a problem with this and we call it our systemic bias - see, we even have a page about it. WP:WHAAOE. --Dweller (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you (the unsigned commenter) care about it so much then why don't you be bold and help us make your suggested articles featured status? Also, sometimes "western stuff" such as video games make it to FA simply because it's easy to write about. Editing an article on the history of egypt is an entirely different matter (Hell editing and citing the history of my home country of Canada would be a fine way to eat up the day). I'm not saying its fair, im just saying thats the way it is. And by the way, I do believe Ali was a nice man and shouldn't be referred to as a freak of nature as you did. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to apologise to Hadji Ali for any misunderstanding for he is of course a nice man and much admired by such western pop culture figures as Judy Garland and David Blaine so his importance is unquestionable. The term "freak of nature" was not intended in a racist way but more as alluding to the fact that Hadji Ali would have been completely ignored by those of western origin were it not for his unusual abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(Isn't that pretty much true of Judy Garland and David Blaine, as well? - dcljr (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC))

You may be interested in looking at the existing featured articles on Egypt, Ancient Egypt, and Islam (to pick three relevant WikiProjects). Lesgles (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that just portrays things in a worse light than ever. There are barely 20 articles between the three projects - and, at a quick glance, one of them is an extremely average Hollywood movie from the 1990s that can be filed under "how the west sees the rest", while another is the autobiography of an American man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I get your point, but all I can say is what others have said; rather than criticizing this article, try to improve the ones that you would like to see featured. Lesgles (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• "popular culture ... all of Western origin"... so Andjar Asmara was a Westerner? Never saw that coming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Birds 3

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

---

After all this, there came another bird on main page today? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Wording of "Did you know..." section (in general)

All "Did you know..." items are worded as if the words "Did you know..." introduced them. Unfortunately, the words immediately before the list of items is not "Did you know..." but "From Wikipedia's newest content:". This makes it a bit awkward:

From Wikipedia's newest content:

• ... that Rewa Prasad Dwivedi said...?

That doesn't make any sense—unless, of course, you notice that the "Did you know..." is there in the little colored bar above the section. I'm wondering whether we should move the "From Wikipedia's newest content:" line down below the list, to the left of "Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article". Something like:

Did you know...

• ... that Rewa Prasad Dwivedi said...?
• ...
• ... that the ... cheerleaders?

More from Wikipedia's newest content: Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article

Maybe? - dcljr (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Or alternatively move it to just above the last line to retain its current layout.

Did you know...

• ... that Rewa Prasad Dwivedi said...?
• ...
• ... that the ... cheerleaders?

More from Wikipedia's newest content:
Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are "archive", "start a new article", and "nominate an article" considered "more from Wikipedia's newest content? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggested (on the DYK talk page, I believe, but I can't seem to locate the archived discussion) that we switch to such a format (the heading "Did you know?", with the blurbs worded as statements). Editors responded that this made the hooks seem boring. —David Levy 20:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would simply reverse the order of the two phrases. Make the section "From Wikipedia's newest content" and then have the "Did you know..." start off the section. This would parallel my proposal above to rename "Today's featured article" to "From today's featured article" and would tend to clarify the purpose of DYK. --Khajidha (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Support Khajidha's suggestion. Logical and clear, while keeping the teasing/intriguing aspect of phrasing the hook as a question. Visually, starting both sections with "From" balances nicely too. Awien (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, I could go with that. Should this be formally proposed somewhere? - dcljr (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia talk:Did you know would be the logical place to do an RfC about this. (Duh.) Actually, there's a rather contentious RfC going on there already, although about a totally different proposal. Hmm. Not sure I want to wade into that with a proposal to rename the entire feature. (!) Would someone else like to do it? - dcljr (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And to further balance it could we convert the title "In the news" to "From the news" and "On this day" to "From this day" - please include that in any proposal too. There's really no need for two "from"s, an "in" and an "on" when four "from"s does just as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.206.234 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I like "From the news", but I'm not sure "From this day" works. Maybe, "From this day in history". But changing those section headers would have to be done at TFA, ITN and OTD, not at DYK.--Khajidha (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"From this day in history" sounds even better. Yet that would require four separate discussions on something that is so trivial and so minor... exchanging one word for another. Better to invite them all here or to some other central location. But this concerns the Main Page in general and this is "Talk:Main Page" after all... it says at the top this is "for discussing the main page" and this sounds like discussing the Main Page.

Could somebody not just be bold and do it? If changing an "in" to a "from" can actually break Wikipedia then we might as well give up altogether. I'm sure there would be somebody who can fix it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.206.234 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the best course of action is to get "Did you know" renamed to "From Wikipedia's newest content" first (if possible), and only then try to standardize everything else. (I don't actually have a problem mixing "From"s with "On" and "In". Seems fine to me.) Note, however, that further down the page there are "Today's featured list" (which I see someone just renamed "From today's featured list"—probably not a very good idea) and "Today's featured picture". It probably won't be possible/advisable to have everything start with "From". - dcljr (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I like "From today's featured list" and "Read the full list" on the same grounds as for the featured article. Otherwise, I agree with Dcljr: Make "From Wikipedia's newest content" the section heading, and put "Did you know..." directly before the hooks where it logically belongs, but refrain from trying to force everything on the main page into the same mould. The other sections are fine as they are. Awien (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I don't like "From today's featured list" is because the information presented in that section is not so much from the list itself as it is about the list—unlike the information in "Today's featured article", which is information from the article. In any case, this is getting a little off-topic for this particular thread. So nevermind. [g] - dcljr (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Technically, it's from the lead to the list. You could build a solid blurb around the ledes for most FLs — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani batsman day?

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

---

With two mentions on the same day, one in DYK and the other in TFL, today surely must be Pakistani batsman day. Strange that it wasn't mentioned next to "Republic Day in Turkey"...Robvanvee (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Howzat, then...? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm stumped...Robvanvee (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Go tell the person who seemed to complain above that non-whites only appear here "as some class of freak or circus act" that we've got two outstanding Pakistani masters of their art on the page today. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Commendation

May I commend Wikipedia on the marvellous juxtaposing of "Give Peace a Chance" (TFA) with the 1948 Safsaf massacre (OTD). A top drawer balancing act and praise where it is due. --86.40.206.234 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem?

Featured picture (Check back later for today's.)

What's going on? And can somebody please correct it to "Yesterday's featured picture" if that's what it is. --86.40.206.234 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not a problem, because soon, a Admin will replace it. Its only 14 minutes after midnight GMT so don't worry ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk 00:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But this doesn't usually happen, does it? I've never seen anything like it! Has somebody vandalised it? It doesn't look right without the "Yesterday" at all. --86.40.206.234 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's done now. The POTD is often selected last-minute, and the editor who usually handles it may have had more pressing things (like, say, a storm) to worry about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you can stick with that story if you want. The picture is usually selected many hours in advance, but the process of creating the Main Page version of POTD is not done simultaneously (perhaps to allow people to reword the blurb). You may not see the "Check back later" message a lot, but I frequently sign on just before or just after 00:00 (UTC) to check if it has been created and more likely than not it hasn't. -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Erp. What I meant to say (blaming it on me focusing more on my mid-terms) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• That and I meant the protected POTD page, which is often made only a couple hours before 00:00 UTC — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's correct. The POTD stays open for copyediting. If I'm really late writing the POTD, then I'll create the protected version at the same time. —howcheng {chat} 04:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Does that not mean that some pictures get less time on show? This doesn't seem very fair at all. Will the picture changeover time be moved forward by the amount of minutes that were lost last night? Is someone even keeping track of all the minutes that are lost - especially if this has happened before and continues to happen? The windmill is much nicer than yesterday's square. It doesn't deserve this level or lack of attention and care. Will there be a divider down the middle tomorrow showing it as "yesterday's featured picture" alongside the new one? Is there a compensation package of any kind at all for those windmill enthusiasts who are feeling shortchanged by today's events? --86.40.101.235 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• As Tariq said above, it's not usually too long (if it's even noticeable) so no, no make-up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• But in this case it was noticeable. Very noticeable. It went on for about twenty minutes. The windmill deserves an extra twenty minutes exposure as compensation. Or even an hour or three if that's not too much. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Today's picture

Hi, today's picture is very good, but what is it? The caption refers to "oil windmill" and "oil mill", and the linked article also uses those same terms, but there seems no obvious way to find out what an "oil mill" is. I have never heard of such a thing. Of course, I expect I could find out with a bit more digging, but it would be nice if the information was readily available. 81.159.107.205 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There's an entry on Wiktionary oil mill and articles on the German, Swedish and Dutch wikipedias. Edgepedia (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just what I love about Wikipedia. Instead of fixing something, why not take more time explaining why it should not be fixed. 86.160.85.80 (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Per [1], I see someone has fixed this in the article now, though not on the main page. 86.160.85.80 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is this new wording preferable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK / OTD imbalance, redux

Once again, I would like to bring to the attention of whomever cares that we continually have this problem whereby OTD is substantially longer than DYK, thereby necessitating ITN to be shortened. While ITN's length is malleable, this level of imbalance is excessive. OTD blurbs could be shortened instead, but I'd rather post this in a somewhat prominent location [again] so as to encourage either DYK to post more articles per batch or OTD to shorten its often verbose blurbs. -- tariqabjotu 04:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. ITN looks pretty bad with only 3 items, like now. Spencer^T♦C 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But ITN has been very slow recently, so you could say it's fair enough. If the idiocy of the death panel is continued, that automatically removes one paragraph, maybe two, and if nominations dry up as they currently seem to, you can see why it's considered better to reduce the size of ITN? doktorb _words^deeds 10:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

These are the kinds of comments that beg to be ignored. For probably most of our readers, the Recent deaths line and the "Syrian civil war - Wikinews - More current events..." line are both one line. This contrasts to before, where for many people the "Syrian civil war - Wikinews - Recent deaths - More current events..." piece was two lines. So for those readers (which I imagine is a large number), the new Recent deaths line has not changed the size of ITN one bit. For nearly everyone else, it made the entire section just one line longer. Most of the blurbs on ITN are at least two lines for most of our readers.

So this idea that the Recent deaths line is taking the place of one or (ha!) two blurbs is utterly ridiculous and yet another nonsense argument presented by someone who can't accept that he was in the minority on this. -- tariqabjotu 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the two election results can be posted now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Haiti forgotten - not for the first time in its history

Why is the devastation in Haiti being slowly erased from Wikipedia's official history of the world? Your ITN feature previously referred to "more than 65 deaths in the Caribbean" - now it doesn't even mention these, the hurricane has merely been doing some "striking" in the Caribbean - a gust of wind has brushed against one or two hapless Haitians before turning its full rage on the poor, frightened citizens of New York and causing "widespread damage" to the United States. As currently phrased it implies New York City is more important than at least one country. There must be some non-American out there who is capable of correcting this glaringly biased approach to dealing with this disaster. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Haiti has been "forgotten" just as much as New Orleans was forgotten when Hurricane Katrina dropped off ITN more than seven years ago. But for its effect on the United States, Hurricane Sandy would probably have dropped off ITN by now, as all items eventually do. If it had struck the U.S. and Haiti on the same day, then, yes, the blurb should have mentioned both events in equal amounts. But, as it stands, the current story is its effect on the U.S., while its effect on the Caribbean is old(er) news. See also my explanation for the rewording at WP:ITN/C. -- tariqabjotu 17:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is from less than two hours ago. Contrary to perceived opinion Haiti is very much still relevant. Hurricane Katrina probably dropped off because it was replaced by other news relating to different topics. Are you really suggesting that the Hurricane Sandy that hit New York City is not the same bit of news that has killed at least 52 people and devastated Haiti? Double standards in evidence here. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that. We are not expected to provide equal amounts of depth on the Main Page about a story that spans over several days. -- tariqabjotu 18:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? How does this fit in with the neutral point of view policy? --86.40.101.235 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It might be clearer if you think of it in reverse. If the path of the hurricane were reversed and it had struck NY prior to Haiti, the coverage of NYC would drop off while the coverage of Haiti were still on the main page, as the Haiti landfall would be the more current event. Mogism (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But it might also help if you think of it in reverse. If the path of the hurricane were reversed and it had struck NY prior to Haiti, and coverage of Haitians bracing themselves dominated the news, only for it to fall out of the news when the real damage was caused to New York. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata

Wikidata went live today; and so should now feature in the sister projects section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Expired recent deaths

We now have two recent deaths with dates, 22nd and 25th October respectively, that are earlier than the item that just dropped off ITN, Berlusconi's conviction on 26th. What should we do? Remove the recent death ticker until it fills up again? Keep these deaths hanging around until they are pushed off? --Stephen 01:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggested at WT:ITN that the ticker should be hidden when it isn't needed, but nobody else really shared my view that staleness would be a problem. It's still not a problem yet: Russell Means is probably due to be removed, but Jacques Barzun has only been posted a little over three days, so I think that entry is fine for an extra day or two. But we definitely should develop a contingency plan for this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

J. Bernlef is a pretty big writer and he's just died. Add him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.101.235 (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely there are always plenty of people that have died, it is just the notability/article quality can be judged less harshly when no one more notable has died recently. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wax model?

What is that vile wax model thing with blood pouring out of it lurking at the bottom of the page and who built it? I know the company name is probably listed there but I fled before I peed myself so didn't manage to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.189 (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Which page? --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.189 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if that seemed like a daft question. I couldn't (and can't) see any picture that looks like your description. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The featured picture? That's not a wax model, its a person.143.210.174.23 (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It's Enzifer, the guitarist of the Norwegian black metal band Urgehal. Urgehal are known for their extensive use of the traditional corpse paint and for Enzifer's striking on stage appearance, which incorporates facial spikes as well as traditional arm and body spikes. Their musical style and sound resemble that of the Norwegian black metal bands that arose in the early 1990s. :) — foxj 11:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Black metal? Racist. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• I hope that was ironic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it rather biased towards Western/Christian culture to post Halloween-themed content on the front page? I'm surprised there's not more outrage about this.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Does there need to be outrage? I'd love to see other cultures celebrated more - but I see no point in pushing a popular international festival like Hallowe'en off with nothing to replace it. Let's do some good stuff for Hanukkah, Chinese New Year, etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)