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 18:09 on 21 July 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors with "In the news"

The page Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present) has multiple orange tags and so its use by ITN is debatable. Perhaps the timeline link in Ongoing ought to be to Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war which is higher-level and so perhaps less contentious? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not that the orange tags are not an issue, but the more specific article is the target because it is more consistently updated(the requirement of Ongoing). 331dot (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 26)

Monday's FL

(July 22, tomorrow)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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

General discussion

Request for comments on the Main Page

The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. Please leave feedback regarding any aspects of the Main Page you like or dislike, and discuss the Main Page's purposes and aims.

Evad37 (talk) (on behalf of the 2013 main page redesign proposal team) 00:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Featured pix

Is anyone else getting a bit tired of pictures of Asian birds? The photos are fine technically, but enough is enough, at least for a while. Sca (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There are no more bird pictures scheduled until June 8, and those are a pair of Australian ducks (And, by "Asian birds", are you also including the Girls' Generation pic from yesterday :-)? Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Birds or boids? ;). Yeah, there's a good stretch of avian-free time coming ahead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• As a side note, the Korean boids got almost 31k hits yesterday. I think we need more boids, or maybe some cool cats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a mother and a fireman, I like the birds. MORE BIRDS NOW!!!! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a firewoman? Or a firefem? Sca (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• You could solve this problem by uploading more high-quality pictures of non-birds. --Jayron32 18:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I am no expert in photography or even judging it. I also don't know how FPs are seleted. But one fact that i do notice is that Commons doesnt feature birds as much as we do it here. Can't we just pick their FPs and nominate them here and then feature those? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, numerous files on Wikipedia (including some featured) could not be on Commons as they are not PD in their host country. Besides, POTD and WP:FPC are slightly different processes. Some featured pictures, such as those featuring sexualised nudity and extremely disturbing imagery, are not going to be featured on the main page. Others are not selected as their articles are not up to par (defined by the person who selects POTD) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Confusing! If i am not wrong, all POTDs of Commons are FPs at Commons. There might be some technical differences in nomination process at two different projects. But both gauge an image on its quality and i dont think the gauging parameters would be drastically different. I dont understand why we have two different process anyways? Its okay to have two processes for images which cant be hosted at Commons. But majority of images that appear as TFP are also hosted at Commons. I know some editors simply detest Commons for its complicity. Maybe thats a reason to keep these two different processes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• First point: on the English Wikipedia, all POTDs must be featured pictures but not all featured pictures can be POTDs

Second point: Commons =/= Wikipedia (as patently evident from discussions at Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere). The English Wikipedia is large enough to maintain its own FP process, although some smaller Wikipedias which do feature pictures on their main page just use the Commons image. Others, like the Indonesian Wikipedia, have a "picture of the week". That Commons hosts these images does not diminish their value to the English Wikipedia or necessarily mean that there is no need for an English Wikipedia FP process (see point 3).

Third point: A major difference between the English Wikipedia and Commons FP criteria is "encyclopedic value", or basically what an image contributes to an article. Hence why many of the POTY candidates at Commons are not featured (and may not be featureable) on the English Wikipedia. Commons doesn't care how an image is used, but it's one of the criteria here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your comments led me to examine Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused. I must object, in the strongest possible terms, to barring the appearance of images on the basis that their content is objectionable (by your standard, Howcheng's, mine, or anyone else's).
  It appears that Howcheng (and you, in one instance) skipped some images because they were likely to elicit immature jokes/catcalls. While I'm not sure that I agree, I understand the logic.
  Other images, however, have been deemed "too graphic". By whose proclamation? Is the encyclopedia bettered by not making this image (one of those hidden from display even on the aforementioned page) TFP on International Holocaust Remembrance Day?
  If we're setting aside neutrality in the interest of cultural sensitivity, I'll note that I'm offended not by the photograph, but by its suppression from a place of prominence (the main page slot that it would have received as a matter of course, had it not been singled out for exclusion). It's unpleasant to view, but that discomfort pales in comparison to the experiences of the victims depicted, their loved ones, and those who will never meet their murdered relatives (myself included).
  To be clear, I don't believe that this is a valid rationale for displaying the image (and those skipped for similar reasons) on the main page. I believe that the fear of upsetting people is an invalid rationale. Every image is going to upset someone. The aforementioned Girls' Generation photograph is objectionable to cultures in which images of unveiled women (or even women in general) are considered indecent. Our goal is to educate, not to keep everyone happy (an impossibility). —David Levy 14:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I skipped that image (easily likened to tentacle pornography) after consulting with HowCheng; if you want to know how I feel about the image, check who nominated it for FP. If you think Unused should be limited to images which have technical issues, issues with the article, or possible accuracy issues, feel free. You might even find me supporting a less stringent standard of decorum. However, an unwritten code does exist (even if I disagree). TFA has its fucks and porn stars, and POTD has what is on Unused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As for why it shouldn't be on the main page: principle of least astonishment (which has long been invoked against nudity on the mainpage), and principle of least drama (which really should be a consideration at times; if DYK can't get by with a reference to poop on April Fools, how can TFP get away with showing actual guano as it's coming out of a seagull?). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• The TFA exclusions were determined by one person, who believes that his position as featured article director (from which he's currently MIA) includes the authority to unilaterally decide anything and everything related to Wikipedia's featured articles (even when this entails overruling consensus). I can't say that I understand his logic, under which the Gropecunt Lane article is fine and dandy but the Jenna Jameson article is downright scandalous. (For the record, I support running both.)
  To my knowledge, we don't have an official featured picture director, so Howcheng's decisions carry no special authority (no disrespect intended toward Howcheng, whose management of that section and OTD has been admirable).
  As I noted above, I can understand (even if I don't agree with) skipping images (including the Japanese woodcut and the defecating seagull photograph) on the basis that they're likely to elicit immature jokes/catcalls. My main concern relates to those skipped on the basis that they're unpleasant to see. Life can be unpleasant. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of pleasant topics. Would readers really be "astonished" to encounter Holocaust imagery on International Holocaust Remembrance Day?
  I'll note that Wikipedia:Follow the principle of least astonishment, a guideline proposed in response to this WMF resolution (in which an interface design principle was cited in an unusual context, leading some to believe that it relates to censorship), was rejected. —David Levy 16:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the claim the exclusion was decided by one person isn't particularly accurate for the Merkin pic which I believe was one of the first excluded. There was discussion in various places e.g. User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD, Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Michelle Merkin POTD which was advertised in various places e.g. Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 3#Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Michelle Merkin POTD, Talk:Main Page/Archive 112#Michelle Merkin POTD, effectively Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive109#Michelle Merkin POTD. While there doesn't seem to have been consensus to exclude there was a resonable amount of opposition and no clear consensus to include it on the main page so I would say it's a rather complicated case. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the claim the exclusion was decided by one person isn't particularly accurate for the Merkin pic which I believe was one of the first excluded.

I made no such claim. I said that the TFA exclusions were determined by one person (Raul654). —David Levy 16:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you on the potentially disturbing images (Holocaust, mass suicide, etc.), actually, although I think we should at least get Howcheng in on the discussion before we start using them. Would you mind, How, opening a few chances for special occasions at the very least? (This has gone a long way from birds now, hasn't it) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Howard's input certainly is welcome, but we don't need him to "open" slots or provide permission. He simply volunteered to schedule images for a while, exactly as you've done. He doesn't hold (and never held) a special position of authority in this area. —David Levy 00:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, but, as he is the one who first started the "Unused" page and was the only one updating it for years, his input would probably be pretty useful. As a side note, how do you feel about testing one of them on an anniversary? The 51st anniversary of the last natural case of smallpox is in October, and this picture (though not the same patient) is featured. I am not aware of any closer anniversaries relevant to the images deemed disturbing at POTD/Unused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea, though we already know what sort of reactions to expect here (primarily complaints from users outraged by our failure to censor the main page in accordance with their personal preferences). We usually receive some positive feedback too, but non-regulars rarely bother to comment here unless something irritates them. —David Levy 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, assuming there is no major opposition over such a posting before it is posted (including at this discussion) then I shall schedule the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are some images whose promotion was contingent on them NOT appearing as POTD. Most of the death-related ones, I believe. —howcheng {chat} 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• To be checked before scheduling, naturally. No issue with such images reaching the main page, Howard? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The "featured picture" designation reflects images' quality and encyclopedic value. The attachment of such a condition (i.e. refusal to apply the valid criteria unless a censorship demand is met) has no basis in policy and should be disregarded. —David Levy 04:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the consensus to promote to FP status for certain voters was contingent on its omission from POTD. If those !votes went the opposite way, then the FP status might have to be revisited. —howcheng {chat} 06:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is that such opposition would be entirely invalid. An image's featured picture candidacy can't be legitimately voted down on the basis of a concern with absolutely no relevance to the criteria by which the images are judged. "I don't want this on the main page." carries as much weight as "I don't like [image's subject]." does. —David Levy 13:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

David, just because something is a featured picture, doesn't mean that it has to go on the main page. It's worth making careful editorial decisions about what we choose to display- images which may be conceived of as navel gazing (like a picture of Jimbo), potentially deeply shocking and/or offensive without a correspondingly high value payout (say, a barely notable porn star in a sexually provocative pose) or something which could be conceived of as advertising and/or ultra trivial (a free content depiction of a character from a minor video game, perhaps) may be best kept off the main page. If you want to call that censorship, I suppose you can- to me, it's just about judging what is going to show Wikipedia in the best light. We're trying to display our best work, but we have enough featured pictures (and they're promoted quick enough) that we don't have to display every single one. J Milburn (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't assert that every featured picture must appear on the main page or that there can't be a sensible reason to skip one. I'm saying that it's inappropriate for an image's "featured picture" status to be granted on the condition that it not appear on the main page.

An image either meets the featured picture criteria or doesn't. When determining whether it carries the "featured picture" designation, this is the only valid consideration.

If someone believes that a featured picture shouldn't appear on the main page, it's reasonable to discuss the matter. This is very different from withholding an image's "featured picture" status unless such a promise is made. —David Levy 13:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I take your point- I mostly agree. I've made exactly the same argument with users who used to come to FP with "Oppose, there are better things to put on the main page". I suppose the fear may be something like this: Let's say I don't want a particular image on the front page. When it's nominated, I can either support it and later argue that it shouldn't be on the main page, or oppose it. It's going to be easier for me to just oppose it, and it seems a surer was to keep it off the main page. Alternatively, if I can support on the condition it's kept off the main page, at least the image is likely to get promoted- better to have another FA than to see it shot down because of fears about the MP. (Alternatively, as has happened in the past, Howcheng may have already said that the image would go on the MP if promoted. In that case, I think it's pretty reasonable to oppose based on the fact you don't want it on the MP. The case in point was this one, which had a lot of backing and forthing. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the fear may be something like this: Let's say I don't want a particular image on the front page. When it's nominated, I can either support it and later argue that it shouldn't be on the main page, or oppose it. It's going to be easier for me to just oppose it, and it seems a surer was to keep it off the main page.

...except for the fact that an image's featured picture candidacy isn't a simple majority vote. To carry weight, support or opposition must have a legitimate basis in Wikipedia's standards (as outlined in our policies and guidelines). "I don't like the subject." and "I don't want this image to appear on the main page." are invalid rationales (as are "I like the subject." and "I want this image to appear on the main page.").

Alternatively, if I can support on the condition it's kept off the main page, at least the image is likely to get promoted- better to have another FA than to see it shot down because of fears about the MP.

Under no circumstance is it appropriate for an image's featured picture candidacy to be "shot down" on that basis. Such input should be disregarded.

Alternatively, as has happened in the past, Howcheng may have already said that the image would go on the MP if promoted. In that case, I think it's pretty reasonable to oppose based on the fact you don't want it on the MP.

I disagree. Again, whether an image is labeled a "featured picture" is simply an indication of whether it meets the featured picture criteria. If someone disagrees with a plan to display an image on the main page, the appropriate course of action is to discuss the matter and pursue a consensus to the contrary, not to withhold the image's rightful designation until demands are met. —David Levy 15:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In practice "good composition" "illustrates the subject in a compelling way" are subjective enough that you can always find an excuse to oppose. And while "wow factor" isn't per se an criteria you can probably get away with using it an an argument. As a result its best not to give people an active incentive to be less than entirely honest.Geni (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You believe that we should accept invalid rationales to discourage editors from inventing lies about valid ones?

How far should we take this? Should "Keep, but only if the material that I find unpleasant is removed." be deemed a valid position at AfD, lest we encourage its participants to lie about a subject being non-notable so the entire article gets deleted?

We must assume that editors are being sincere, which usually is the case. And if someone at FAC raises a concern about an image appearing on the main page, I'm not saying that it should be dismissed. It's acceptable to acknowledge the objection and agree that the image won't enter the main page queue without further discussion/consensus. Conversely, making the image's "featured picture" status contingent upon it not appearing on the main page actively prevents such discussion from occurring (as demonstrated above).

I'd rather take the chance of dealing with occasional dishonesty than tolerate community decisions directly contradicting Wikipedia's principles and impeding its normal practices (however openly and honestly this occurs). —David Levy 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Err wikipedia's principles don't require any images on the main page and in this case normal practices is not to include such images on the main page.Geni (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to our featured picture criteria and reliance upon consensus. As noted above, making an image's "featured picture" status contingent upon it not appearing on the main page directly contradicts the featured picture criteria and preempts further discussion intended to establish consensus regarding the matter (which, of course, can change). —David Levy 02:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused falls into the category of if it isn't broken don't fix it. We've got enough featured pics that we can afford to be somewhat selective with regards to what turn up on the main page and the selections have so far been pretty accurate. The other thing to remember is that POTD pics are used in a range of places including by some third parties. Apparently people were somewhat upset when they found File:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg as their computer wallpaper. Its best not to unnecessarily create such issues in future.Geni (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused falls into the category of if it isn't broken don't fix it.

I decline to apply that description to the suppression of Holocaust imagery from the main page (even on International Holocaust Remembrance Day) on the basis that it's disturbing. Is this an encyclopedia or an entertainment site?

We've got enough featured pics that we can afford to be somewhat selective with regards to what turn up on the main page and the selections have so far been pretty accurate.

By what metric?

The other thing to remember is that POTD pics are used in a range of places including by some third parties. Apparently people were somewhat upset when they found File:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg as their computer wallpaper. Its best not to unnecessarily create such issues in future.

Agreed. And we can accomplish that by eliminating the misconception that POTD includes nothing but happy, sunshiny, G-rated images. —David Levy 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

1)fallacy of the excluded middle (the main page is a portal) 2)by the lack of complaints since 2007 3)oh look america-centrism on the talk page.Geni (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

1)fallacy of the excluded middle (the main page is a portal)

It's a portal to an encyclopedia. Are you disputing that?

2)by the lack of complaints since 2007

The lack of complaints regarding what? The featured pictures that haven't appeared on the main page, which are documented on an obscure project page that few editors (let alone readers) have ever seen?

3)oh look america-centrism on the talk page.

Because I wrote "G-rated"? On the subject of logical fallacies, that's a trivial objection.

Also note that "G" ratings are used in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and several other countries. I don't believe that it's fair to label my input "America-centric" because I casually used a non-UK term without stopping to consider the fact that you're British.

However, it's interesting that you'd raise the issue, as it plays a role in efforts to censor the main page.

Last year, on the subject of Raul654's Jenna Jameson blacklisting, I asked him about his willingness to schedule Murder of Julia Martha Thomas as TFA, with the blurb conveying that the killer "dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard". Surely, I thought, he didn't consider that less disturbing than a summary about a pornographic film actress would be.

Raul responded with an explanation that "society has different standards for how it treats violence and sexual content. Sexual content is treated far more puritanically than violence."

To me, this seemed to reflect an American bias. (My understanding is that many cultures, including yours, are more tolerant of sexual content in media and less tolerant of violence.) I noted this, but Raul offered no further response.

So if you're under the impression that I wish to base the main page's content on American standards, you're mistaken. I apologize if my use of an unfamiliar term inconvenienced you. —David Levy 02:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I said that the TFA exclusions were determined by one person (Raul654).

The discussion above is too long and indented for me to be able to indent this properly but you're right about that specific point. So sorry for the incorrect claim. However the general tone of your others posts strongly implied this was solely the decision of Howcheng and Crisco and the others involved in scheduling the pictures for POTD. E.g.

I must object, in the strongest possible terms, to barring the appearance of images on the basis that their content is objectionable (by your standard, Howcheng's, mine, or anyone else's).
It appears that Howcheng (and you, in one instance) skipped some images because they were likely to elicit immature jokes/catcalls. While I'm not sure that I agree, I understand the logic.
Other images, however, have been deemed "too graphic". By whose proclamation?

and

To my knowledge, we don't have an official featured picture director, so Howcheng's decisions carry no special authority (no disrespect intended toward Howcheng, whose management of that section and OTD has been admirable)

so I stand by the thrust of my comment since this implication was inaccurate in at least that case (one of the first ones). In fact as we now know not only in that case but it has happened in nominations for FP as well that people have objected to an image appearing on the main page (regardless of the validity of the concept). It seems clear while this policy has perhaps not been widely or properly discussed in an RFC, it was implemented at least partially as a result of some members of the community, including some I'm assuming actively involved in the selecting of FP images. Oh and I forgot to mention above but I know the 'Unused' has been linked in the POTD guidelines for a while, checking now it's since June 2009 [1]. I would also note that the Merkin picture in particular from a search is in 11 different archives (excluding this discussion) and it looks like possibly 8 of those are referring to it not appearing.

To be clear, I'm not commenting on the validity of the policy, nor am I saying that the policy was necessarily developed in the proper way (although I think the issue of what is the 'proper' way is rather variable on wikipedia) simply that it's genesis was more than simply Howcheng's personal decisions which was followed by Crisco and others scheduling POTDs.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC))

Howcheng created and maintained the list, ultimately determining what images were included and wouldn't be scheduled (a task that he almost always handled at the time). I'm not implying that he did so without any community input. (He did make many of these decisions on his own, but that's tangential.) I referred to "[Crisco 1492's] standard, Howcheng's, mine, or anyone else's" specifically to convey that my concern relates to no one's in particular; I'm objecting the concept of suppressing images from the main page on this basis, irrespective of who's behind it.

My point is that Howcheng isn't the "featured picture director", so his determinations (whether arrived at unilaterally or based upon others' feedback) are subject to normal review. (I believe that this is true of Raul654's actions as well, but that's a separate matter.) To be clear, this isn't a criticism of Howcheng, who doesn't claim to possess special authority. —David Levy 14:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

POTD has pretty much been a one-person show since its inception, whether it's been Solipsist, myself, or Crisco 1492. Mostly the problem with making it more of a consensus-based project is simply apathy. I'm sure you recall The Rambling Man's idea from last year to institute more standards in the selection of associated articles, but nobody has really been willing to charter that initiative. You can rail about it all you want, but if there aren't enough people getting involved, your proposal isn't really going anywhere. —howcheng {chat} 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that apathy is an issue, but general satisfaction is another significant factor. Had any of you done a poor job, this would have been a good reason for the community to intervene. That didn't occur (and isn't occurring now), so there's no catalyst for major change (which is a good thing). —David Levy 05:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And my point is whatever you were trying to say, the implication to me is that this was primarily something done at the direction of Howcheng and the others involved. Note that after the first mistaken post, I did not question what you were tring to say as it's an unimportant point. The fact remain until me and others pointed it out, no one and definitely you did not mention the involvement of the community in these decisions. The implication I got from the early posts primarily coming from you, again whether or not it was your intention, was that these were primarily decided by those involved in the scheduling whereas in reality in one of the first instances community review was attempted. In other instances, parts of the community have been pushed it, perhaps even mostly before it happened (I don't know). Therefore, in case it still isn't clear, I find the implication misleading, and frankly offensive. Again, it may not have been your intention, but the fact remains besides the 'anyone else' you concentrated on those involved in the scheduling. The fact that those involved in the scheduling may have made the ultimate decisions, and may have sometimes extended the communities suggestions, or made decisions, perhaps without seeking review of the specific issues at hand, probaly not helped by the general apathy when they tried to review and the recognition that apathy is likely to increase if they continually seek review doesn't change this. Note that whether or not those involved in the scheduling felt the same way is not particularly important since my concern is for those unfamiliar. I don't think there was ever any suggestion these decisons were not subject to community review, that seems frankly a little odd considering that at least one decision, one of the earlier ones did attempt to seek community review and what it got was some degree of apathy combined with probably more opposition to including then excluding and also the fact that some of the exclusions were partially pushed by others. And as I've made clear, it's not like this list or the concept is some super secret, it's been discussed here somewhere you've been active several times and has been linked from the relevant project page for a while. There's of course nothing wrong with being unaware, nor does it stop you disagreeing with the practice. Of course community review would need to find a way to get around the apathy wider advertising may help but it would also need someone to develop the neutral RFC and to some degree guide it and this includes working out what to do if those who currently deal with the scheduling don't want to continue to deal with it depending on the outcome of that review, not because they're in a huff because they disagree but simply because they do not want to have to deal with the outcome they may expect. Since Crisco has agreed to schedule one of these, I don't know what degree of review is needed anyway. And speaking of apathy, I feel I've adequately addressed my primary concern (I felt it last time hence the last reply, but decided after reading that I should give it one more shot). I don't really give a damn about the primary issue, i have questioned why so e people made a big deal over certain images or ITN items or other stuff before considering we have had people visibility dead and dying from horrific conditions on POTD before, images which I wasn't objecting to per se, which should tell you were my sensibilities lie. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And my point is whatever you were trying to say, the implication to me is that this was primarily something done at the direction of Howcheng and the others involved.

And I've explained that no such implication was intended.

Therefore, in case it still isn't clear, I find the implication misleading, and frankly offensive.

The nonexistent implication?

You've repeatedly qualified your statements with an acknowledgement that it "may not have been [my] intention", but that's how it came across to you. I'm aware of your inference, to which I've responded by telling you that it wasn't my intention. Why are you focusing on (and expressing offense stemming from) a misunderstanding that's been resolved?

I don't think there was ever any suggestion these decisons were not subject to community review,

On multiple occasions, I've encountered comments reflecting a belief that Howcheng is our "featured picture director" or similar, possessing special authority to which the rest of us must defer. As I explained above, I was addressing this misconception (which, I'll reiterate, Howcheng has never sought to promote). That's why I noted that Howcheng's determinations aren't set in stone. I was not implying that he made them without regard for others' opinions. —David Levy 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK copyvio onto the main page without basic checking

How did Idiom dictionary get onto the main page via DYK with a whopping great copyvio? Who's checking such obvious plagiarism? Do the promoting admin and the nominator go on doing this without let? Tony (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Later: it appears, strangely, that their own site copied old WP text, which was then retrieved to <cough> satisfy the "times five" eligibility for DYK. There were still significant faults with the article when it was exposed on the main page. Tony (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the inherent failures of much of the DYK nomination process it seems, unfortunately, unsurprising. Personally, I'd call for a exhaustive RfC regarding DYK as an initiative. 86.134.206.185 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So why don't you? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the process and was unaware that unregistered users were able to start an RfC; furthermore, I'd be surprised if many users took one started by an IP seriously. 86.134.206.185 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So why don't you register? --69.158.116.5 (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Because I don't want to. 86.182.35.55 (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, unregistered users can't start RFCs, not because of any policy, but because unregistered users can only create talk pages. (This, in my opinion, is dumb, and should be fixed.) Regardless, there's currently Wikipedia:2013 main page redesign proposal/RFC, so you should feel free to add your comments there. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not every RFC is on a separate page. It's not so difficult to start an RFC on Wikipedia talk:Dyk. See here for instructions. Garion96 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(reset) 'It used to be the case' that unregistered users could create articles - but there were 'a number of incidents notable at the time' which caused a change. Jackiespeel (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

... and also as 'a number of users' may be going via the same IP address confusion might arise. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Winningest" and other words to watch

Interesting BBC News article on WP:ENGVAR problems in sport. Some of them turn up in discussions about the main page occasionally. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Good read. And he didn't even touch on the issue of Australian English. We constantly have soccer fans insisting that their game must be only called football. That's in a country where there are four different games played professionally and called football by their fans (plus at least three other footballing codes not played at professional level). And it's sometimes quite difficult having a rational discussion with a sports nut. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of them even get upset when we refer to the sport as "association football" instead of simply "football", which I find difficult to understand. Even Americans, who tend to be ignorant of other countries' sports and terminologies, don't seem to take offense when "American football" (a term rarely used in the U.S.) is specified. If egocentric Americans can accept the fact that other football codes exist, those for whom "football" refers to soccer should have no problem. —David Levy 00:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Well yes. Take a look at any article about the sport, its teams or its players. In 9 cases out of 10, there is no direct mention that it is association football. We are usually left with a wikilink as an equivalent gloss. 'Soccer' sounds weird to some, but you can't argue that it's ambiguous. You can disambiguate to a degree using capital letters, as in 'football' (generic) vs 'Football' (proper noun), but although it's arguably the most popular sport in the world, the term is not universal enough for that sport, or there are just too many national football codes, for it to be a primary topic. Strangely enough though, 'football' or its directly or literally translated equivalent is unambiguous in many foreign languages. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing to remember is that, while we should always strive to use language which will be understandable to people in all parts of the English-speaking world, there will be some terms which are intractably tied to a a specific national variety of English and don't have an internationally recognized term (see discussion above regarding motor vs. auto racing). In those cases, while we should not favor one variety of English over another, that also means that we do need to sometimes pick a word, and if the word chosen doesn't have an internationally-recognized equivalent, there's also no reason to change it. The fact that one of only two alternatives was chosen does not mean we're snubbing the other alternative. Because if we had picked the other alternative, the same exact criticism could be leveled. --Jayron32 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Or even levelled: ENGVAR spellings could lead to colo(u)rful debate. Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We could argue for aeons/eons whether you've spelt/spelled that post correctly. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I take it there is no safe harbo(u)r from debate at the main page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

'The distinction to be made' is between those 'multiple near synonyms' and 'multiple usages' (ie where the reader is likely to know that more than one meaning has to be considered) and those terms where extra detail has to be added for an international audience. 'Robin the birds' and 'WP articles on April 1' might be examples of the former.

As an amusement - describe sports and games in one sentence - 'Tennis - keep the ball in the air longer than your opponents'; '(UK) Football - score more goals than the other side, do not annoy the referee and the offside rule is a matter of perspective and discussion.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Labourers of Herakles

While I don't mind the article, the author or anything in general about this topic, was it really necessary to use vulgar language (even if it IS a quotation) to have 'shock value' on the Main Page? Yes, it may be a correct quotation, but entirely unnecessary. It's like selecting the most vulgar snippet out of an entire speech just to get people to read it. Seems very juvenile and amateurish. And, considering how much I esteem Wikipedia, it is also disappointing. 19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me?

It seems to me that Bach's cantatas show up more regularly than any other subject in the "Did You Know" section. (OK, this is perhaps a slight exaggeration.) Is it just me, or does somebody in power have an absolute passion for them? :-) All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's probably more that someone with a lot of time and energy has such a passion and channels it into developing these articles. :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right. Let us hope that this someone has a few deadlines coming. A break from the cantatas would be welcome. Not that I don't respect Bach, but he does replace something else every time one of his works is included. Just for the fun of it: In my youth, a television programme started with a movement from one of the Brandenburg Concertos. (I can't remember which - I've avoided the concertos ever since.) This was Sunday evenings, and the boy, who I was at the time, was dreading the beginning of school next day. I've never been able to listen to that movement since without a flashback. :-) All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"he does replace something else every time one of his works is included" - I'm not sure this is entirely true.

Or at least, if you write one hundred new DYK-qualified articles per month on a wide variety of topics that are not Bach, then the Bach topics will appear considerably less often because they'll have to wait their turn. Thus, nothing is being denied a place in DYK, but rather, DYK has to use the material that's supplied. If three per cent of the material that's supplied is about Bach, then roughly that proportion of DYK will be about Bach.

To take a totally different view, maybe you're just imagining all these appearances of Bach-related material on the main page. A "reliable source" repeatedly insists that "topics rarely appear more than once" on DYK. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, they haven't noticed Indonesia then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• The answer is 1) Everything that's meets the requirements and gets nominated ends up getting posted at DYK, and 2) the sources of articles for DYK are constrained by who writes the articles and who nominates them. This is a fairly limited pool of editors, and as noted, if people are very interested in niche topics, we get a LOT of similar nominations from those same topics, not because people are deliberately ignoring other topics, but because that's all we have to work with. This is the exact same reason why we end up with so many bird pictures on the main page: There's a prolific bird photographer who's very good at what he does that contributes a lot of pictures to Wikipedia. There's a limited supply of other topics, because no one has created really good pics in other fields, so we get a lot of bird pictures. We could demand that people stop making Wikipedia better and more complete with their good articles about Bach or their really good pictures of birds, but really, the better solution is to provide your own articles about other topics, or your own non-bird pictures, because I'm not really comfortable asking dedicated editors to stop making Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 18:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I had noticed the birds as well - Australian more often than not. :-) 85.220.22.139 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm quite a fan of Bach (and I know German), I can see where the frequent blurbs on Bach cantata texts as DYK items may seem repetitive and tedious to general English-language readers. It would be great to see DYK notes about a broad spectrum of composers, related to historical context. Many of them had such interesting lives! Sca (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a general English-language reader. English was my third language, German my fourth and I'm equally fluent (or not) in both of them. I'd welcome a treatment of other German composers - Germany has produced a lot of them. How about Beethoven - the greatest of them all according to some? Or how about other peoples, Donizetti, Tschaikowski etc. You're right, the Bach entries get repetitive and dull. All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Chopin. Sca (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured picture

The loose letters spilling from the placed "bananagrams" receptacle contain the letters "DO ME" in a identifiable sequence, which may be misconstrued as obscene -- is there any certainty that this is not obscene content? Is there a procedure by which such a high-publicity photo may be peer-reviewed for 'latent obscene'ness? -Anaceus.

Wikipedia is not censored. The website does not screen content for obscenity. 72.28.82.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Or is it "dome"? I also see "red" and "road" and "dot". Anyway, it really is more "domre" since the "r" is in there. I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Chris857 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's somebody who looks for evil and debauchery and finds it. Somebody please think of the children! Also, it is clearly 'Domre,' if it is anything.72.28.82.250 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)