Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

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

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Please 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 16:25 on 5 December 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
  • Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

  • 7th hook "children after U.S president Benjamin Harrison?" needs period after "S" pls. JennyOz (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Civil Partnership Act 2004

I couldn't see the actual date of 5 December cited in the article. Additionally the article states "grants civil partnerships in the United Kingdom with rights and responsibilities very similar to civil marriage", not "identical" - Dumelow (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've minus Removed this hook, as it also has quite a number of other citations missing from the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
René Cresté

Birth date not cited - Dumelow (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] [jump to p. 22, bottom right corner], despite being cited on frwiki for the DOB, seems to say 7 December? L'an mil huit cent quatre vingt un, le sept Décembre 'The year 1881, the 7th of December'. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
minus Pulled for now, absent anyone disagreeing with my reading of the source. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tomorrow's OTD

Guillaume-Chrétien de Lamoignon de Malesherbes

Birth date not cited - Dumelow (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweaked an existing ref and added to dob in ibox rather than rewrite sentence. JennyOz (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Venezuela's parliamentary election
The date of the election is not actually cited in the article, also the fact that the party lost control for the first time since 1999 - Dumelow (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Date of election now cited, and found "pushed the ruling party into the minority in the national assembly for the first time since 1999" in Independent and added. JennyOz (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Jack Fingleton

The source cited confirms he made his fourth successive century but not that he was the first to do so - Dumelow (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found it in the following bit that talks of the record being equalled by Melville so I've copied its Wisden ref to the relevant sentence.JennyOz (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nicholas Hoult

Birth date not in source cited - Dumelow (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found in Buddytv ref and copied. (Not sure if Buddytv is an RS but it wasn't questioned at FAC.) JennyOz (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(December 9)

Monday's FL

(December 5, today)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

"Breeding in sub-Saharan Africa" is stated only in the lead and uncited - Dumelow (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General discussion

Request for comments: Do we need a second box for hooks on the Main Page?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to reject the idea of a new Main Page section. Storye book (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The issue to !vote on: Should we retain the existing DYK box as it stands on the Main Page, with its quirky hooks "interesting to a broad audience", but add a second box containing factual hooks for specialist articles?

Note: this issue to vote on is solely about whether we want a second box or not, and the discussion is about why we may or may not want a second box for WP's improvement. At this stage, it is not about logistics such as whether we have enough reviewers, or where the templates should be listed for review and prep, or Main Page overall design.

History: This issue was triggered by difficulties on Template:Did you know nominations/Talia Or (and previously many other similar difficulties on previous nomination templates). In the hope of resolving the difficulties which were stalling the progress of certain DYK nominations, a discussion and Rfc was opened at: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Request for comment: The need to update Wikipedia:DYK#gen3. The difficulty was that some reviewers felt that DYK hooks should all have quirky or intriguing elements aimed at a "general audience" (however one defines that). But some nominators and reviewers felt that sometimes a factual hook was the only type suitable for a particular article, even if that article contained potential quirky-hook material. It has been impossible to reach a compromise, and that is why the idea of an extra hook box arose, and why the Rfc has been opened here. Please see the "Possible reasons for adding another hook box" section below, for more information. Storye book (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

!voting

(Please !vote Yes or No, for or against an extra hook box, or for Other if you have a more complex view. Please keep comments brief so that the voting can be seen clearly. There is a discussion section for your longer comments, below.)

  • No - A longer explanation will be written below in the Discussion section. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, let's not make the Main Page even more convoluted. Also see discussion. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of people to mix different types of hook. Bazza (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - this sounds like putting very mundane information onto the main page. The idea of DYK is to get people to click the suitable article. We achieve no clicks on non-hooky items. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - A second box would serve unclear purpose (especially if it were effectively just replicating the DYK process/format) and needlessly dichotomize content as either "serious" or "fun(ny)"/"hooky". —⁠Collint c 15:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - I'm actually unbothered by "boring" or less quirky hooks mixed in with silly ones. If there's nothing funny to say about something, then it's quite okay to just state something important or interesting. --Jayron32 17:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. If DYK wants to modify the types of blurbs it runs, that's fine with me and something to be discussed within the project. FWIW I don't like quirky blurbs, because they're often misleading or confusing. I would prefer all blurbs to be factual statements, expressed in terms understandable by non-expert readers. Whatever DYK blurbs are run, I don't see any benefit to separating them into two sections on the Main Page. That's an unnecessary complication which would only confuse readers and make more work for admins & DYK queue prep, for no discernable benefit. Modest Genius talk 17:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - blurbs should never be so bland they need to be shoveled into a separate section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes - you nailed it. Therapyisgood (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - per Sarek of Vulcan's reasoning. It isn't that hard to find something interesting to say about an article. And if there really isn't anything better than the "singer sang song" level of comment, then don't bother taking it to DYK. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - I agree with above "no" comments. I also believe that adding an extra box would just make the main page more confusing to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia policy. I agree with Modest Genius that if the type of blurbs being run are an issue this is a discussion that should discussed within the DYK process. Also, what is "hooky" or interesting varies from reader-to-reader, and I have seen other editors like Modest Genius who dislike the quirky blurbs. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No There's a wealth of good reasoning below, but at the end of the day I'm most sympathetic to it being not needed. The main page is the introduction point. Simplicity as a design choice is well attested in the web design world and it makes it easier to navigate the main page. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible reasons for adding another hook box

(Note: this is not about criticising the policy and contents of the existing hook box. It is about whether we should add another box for articles which are peer-reviewed in exactly the same manner, but with a different type of hook)

  • Some specialist articles deserve factual hooks in specialist terminology which represent their contents or a main point of the article, such as "Scientist John Doe discovered Foo", or "This botanical species has been discovered to be related to that botanical species".
  • Hook-examples like the above, in specialist terminology, are important features of specialist journals, and in the right place they can elicit great excitement from the readers of such journals. But those people read WP too; sometimes looking for a first-stop glance at a subject peripheral to their own, to see if widening their view can shed more light on their work. Serious newspapers and magazine journalists constantly check online (including WP) for developments in academic and other specialist fields. We do have another audience, besides whatever concept we may have of a "general audience".
  • Our Main Page represents what we want the public face of WP to be. The current fun and quirky hook box represents our user-friendly side. But we do also have a serious academic side, and our articles do also serve specialist groups of readers such as those interested in baseball or railway systems.
  • The existing featured-article box is fine for featured articles, but it does not serve the need for the public airing of our newest specialist articles, which we can be proud of, too, however obscure their terminology.
  • "Specialist" can include any article whose special-interest hook is not designed to capture the casual browser. For example, Jargonese articles/hooks on baseball and computer games can be included, where only that terminology puts the point across precisely.
  • Even if a new Our newest specialist articles (or however-named) box were to be added, specialist article nominations and their hooks could of course still be featured in the existing DYK box. This request for a second box is only for those articles for which a quirky hook is deemed inappropriate by the nominator.
  • The additional hook box would not need to compromise space or cause slower uploading. It could be, for example, a scroll box. (The scroll box idea is just to suggest that an extra box could be done; how it is actually done is not at issue at this point). Storye book (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

  • I just do not see the point of having two separate article sections on the Main Page, one for "quirky" hooks and another for specialist information. Any desire to promote specialist articles on Wikipedia already have their own avenues, mainly DYK, but theoretically even other Main Page sections such as TFA/ITN/OTD and so on. Such a section would feel very redundant to DYK, which was always intended to promote topics that may not necessarily be familiar to our general readership. In addition, the comments above imply that specialist topics such as baseball, railways, computer stuff, and so on can never be interesting to a broad audience. If there is a desire to promote specialist topics on Wikipedia, what's preventing an editor for simply writing a hook about that specialist topic that still appeals to a broad audience? A specialist topic doesn't need to limit its audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You say, "the comments above imply that specialist topics such as baseball, railways, computer stuff, and so on can never be interesting to a broad audience". That is not the case, my friend. What I actually said was, "specialist article nominations and their hooks could of course still be featured in the existing DYK box. This request for a second box is only for those articles for which a quirky hook is deemed inappropriate by the nominator". Storye book (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a nominator does not want a hook that is interesting to a broad audience, and one is impossible, the nomination should be closed. A hook doesn't necessarily have to be quirky, but the rules currently state that a hook must be interesting to a broad audience. Barring a change relaxing or dropping that rule (and based on currents trends in the WT:DYK discussion, I frankly don't see a consensus for that happening anytime soon), a nomination can be rejected if no suitable hook is possible. If the nominator rejects all hook options, that's also a reason for closure since no consensus on a hook can be reached. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That puts nominators of specialist articles with informational (non-quirky) hooks in a situation where they have nowhere to go. They have no compromise/re-write of guidelines to permit their hook, and they have no other place for their hook to be aired. So they have to close their nomination, or it gets closed anyway. That is why we are here, asking for another box. No-one wants the hassle of another Main Page box, including me. But there is nowhere else to go. Storye book (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The solution is very simple: write a broadly interesting hook about a specialist topic. Editors have been able to do that for years no problem, so I don't see how it's impossible. I can understand if writing broadly interesting hooks about a field are impossible, but that's rarely the case. In most cases, a broadly appealing fact about a subject can be found if you know where to look. Even if one particular subject doesn't have a broadly appealing hook possible, that doesn't disqualify others in that field from having such hooks if it's possible. I don't see why there's an insistence on an "informational (non-quirky)" hook even when a broadly appealing hook is possible. For example, take the article Mami Kawada. Anime music is a very specialist topic and one that is niche. Yet the article was able to run on DYK with a non-specialist hook: ... that Mami Kawada's music career began after she was discovered by her music teacher? It didn't have a hook that went ... that Mami Kawada performed the opening themes to the anime Shakugan no Shana? because, despite being a specialist topic, a broad interest hook was still possible. Instead of insisting on a specialist hook, why not just simply follow existing guidelines and write a hook that is broadly appealing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree with your general point, you picked a horrible example of a non-specialist hook. That hook should have been tossed in the trash. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Back in the day we had subject-specific portals that could have subject-specific and specialist DYKs. Specialist content should be targeted at specialists, not given to all random strangers. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Kusma:. You say "Specialist content should be targeted at specialists". How do you suggest that we do that, if not with hooks on the Main Page? Storye book (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Put them on a page where more of the readers are specialists. You may not get many readers, but those you get actually care. —Kusma (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Bazza 7: You say, "I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of people to mix different types of hook". Do you mean that we could have two types of hook - quirky and factual - in he existing DYK box? Or do you mean that a single hook can contain quirkiness and factual information at the same time? Whichever is your meaning, I agree with your comment, and that is the type of compromise that we were looking for. We have been told that it's not going to happen. That is why we are here. Storye book (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Storye book I originally meant the former, but am happy to adopt your other interpetation of what I wrote as well! Thanks. Bazza (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Jayron32: You say, "I'm actually unbothered by "boring" or less quirky hooks mixed in with silly ones. If there's nothing funny to say about something, then it's quite okay to just state something important or interesting". You are, of course, right. However we have been told that such a compromise is out of the question. That is why we are here. Storye book (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not terribly sure what person told you that, but sometimes people are wrong. --Jayron32 17:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      There have been several statements to the effect that a compromise is not going to happen, or about what would happen if there were a no-change decision. One, by Theleekycauldron, on the Talia Or nom template, said " It seems that a compromise on a hook that satisfies both the nominator and the consensus of current guidelines is not obtainable at the moment". (The context was that the nominator wanted a factual hook, and the guidelines were perceived to demand a hook "interesting to a broad audience" which was in turn perceived to mean a quirky or intriguing hook). There have been a few statements by other people in the same vein, some saying that if a hook cannot be made "interesting to a broad audience" as described above, then the nomination should be closed. There have been suggestions that in exceptional circumstances a nomination with a factual hook should be referred to IAR, but I don't know what that is. There is a page WP:IAR which is called "ignore all rules", but it contains no formal process. On a DYK nom page it would have no sway. Storye book (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Look, I don't know what to say. When I'm named Emperor of Wikipedia, I'll make sure all of the hooks, boring or quirky, get posted to DYK. Until that point comes, however, I'm not sure what I can do for you. --Jayron32 19:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thank you, Jayron32. And thank you, everyone here, for voting as you have, so far, and for saying what you have said. This discussion - so far - has clarified for me what has happened with DYK and why we are here in this discussion today.
      Until this year, of course there had always been problems and brief spats on DYK templates, but on the whole it worked. Quirky and intriguing hooks aimed at the broad audience were passed, gave pleasure on the Main Page, and brought attention to new articles - all fine by all. And besides that, informational hooks were passed without tears or hostility, and achieved the same thing on the Main Page. It was like a sort of Paradise lost. Then a small group of reviewers took the guidelines literally and in narrow sense of "only quirky hooks will be passed, and nothing else", then they took issue with a small subset of nominators who wanted non-quirky, informational hooks for readers who may not be broad-audience-classified. Such nominations were the subject of a great deal of pressure to give in to the quirkiness requirement, and when nominators resisted, rejection was intimated. This caused a great deal of unhappiness on both sides. A formal discussion was raised, but all that did was to clarify to all that no compromise was going to happen, and that rejection from the DYK process was what our informational-hook nominators could expect.
      Before, the system worked. Now it is broken. Running away to create another Main Page Box is not going to work, because some comments by voters on this page suggest going back to the old pre Paradise-lost days, when we were permitted both sorts of hooks - but those days are gone.
      I am not permitted to close down any discussions, myself, as far as I am aware. But what I can do, is to stand up and say to those whose refusal to compromise is going to block the informational-hook nominators from the DYK process - please compromise. You no doubt have been doing your best for WP, but what you have actually done is to stall and antagonise many DYK templates this year, your actions have resulted in two Rfc discussions which have got nowhere, and while you sit triumphing in your castle of quirky-hookness, there are nominators out there who will be permanently left out of the chance to air their articles for the public. Who cares how many clicks an informational hook gets? What matters for some articles and some nominators, and ultimately WP in that case, is quality clicks, not only random browsing clicks by general-audience people who, faced with an article that they did not expect, may immediately close their browser window. I'm clearly not going to see a good result here, and neither are nominators of articles which certain reviewers have deemed good enough for WP but not good enough for hooks.
      In summary, there used to be inclusivity regarding both points of view in the DYK nom process. Now there is none, and one point of view is to be rejected from the system. I have tried and failed to regain that inclusivity by creating two Rfc's. For goodness' sake. All that is needed is to correct "interesting to a broad audience" to "interesting" in the DYK guidelines, and be a little more inclusive on DYK templates, and the problem is solved without any harm to WP. Storye book (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      This is not a great summary of the situation. The broadness criteria has been asked for and implemented for much longer than this year. Quirkiness is not a requirement, and is only sought out for one of the eight hooks; even then sets are sometimes run without a quirky hook. DYK continues to work and function up to this very day, with the main issue being constant delays in prep building and in queue transferring, which points to an issue of there being too many hooks per current manpower rather than too few. CMD (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I was using "quirky" according to its dictionary definition; a quick google gives us "having or characterized by peculiar or unexpected traits or aspects", i.e. not necessarily silly. I take that definition to mean the aspect used in the "broad audience" hooks to grab a casual browser's attention. Yes the broadness criteria did work for a long time, as I have said above. Pity that didn't last. DYK is functioning well in general, but no longer working as to certain aspects of inclusivity, as I have explained. And arguments on DYK templates about inclusivity have often, at least temporarily, taken valuable promoters and prep builders away from their primary work. Storye book (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I don't see how or why a hook can't be factual and broadly interesting to an audience at the same time. I mean, if a hook wasn't factual, it wouldn't have been allowed to run in the first place (hooks regularly get pulled for being inaccurate, for example). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Yes, of course the quirky/intriguing hooks have to be true. By factual, I meant as opposed to quirky. So long as they are true, it should be possible to make them either quirky/intriguing, or simply informational. If we could have a formal compromise, written into the guidelines, then we wouldn't need to be here, asking for a separate box. Storye book (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Modest Genius: You say, "If DYK wants to modify the types of blurbs it runs, that's fine with me and something to be discussed within the project". You are, of course, right. However it has been discussed innumerable times on the DYK templates, and formally in the discussion linked above (see the History paragraph). And it has become clear that no compromise is going to happen. If you are a DYK nominator wanting a factual hook for your specialist article, then without such a compromise regarding the guidelines, you are going to have to withdraw your DYK nomination. That is the current situation. I don't want the hassle of an extra box any more than all the "no" voters above. I want a compromise so that we can have both wholly factual and wholly quirky/intriguing hooks in the same Main Page DYK box, as we have had for years. But it was made clear that it was not going to happen, which is why we are here. Storye book (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why have you proposed something if you don't think it's a good idea? That seems like a WP:POINTy waste of time. Also, those linked discussions are very TLDR and lack a closing rationale, so I can't work out who (if anyone) has decided that hooks cannot be factual. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why did I start this Rfc? Please read the list of reasons above, headed "Possible reasons for adding another hook box". It's one of those things that you do because you have to, not because you want to. That's why. And I did say that I was considering doing this, in the other Rfc discussion, because I was worried that it might not be permissible. But I was given to understand that it was OK to do this. As for who, I'm uncomfortable naming names because everyone has a right to their opinion, but I suggest that you read through the other Rfc discussion, linked in the History paragraph, above. Storye book (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I know Story book means well, but I can't help thinking that what's being proposed is that we supplement the current "Did You Know?" section with a new "Why on Earth Would Anybody Care?" section. EEng 00:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's a little confusing to me that we're using "quirky" to mean interesting. @Storye book and Jayron32: quirky has a narrowly and specifically defined meaning in DYK terminology: it refers to the silly hook, of which there is exactly one in every set, at the bottom. The bottom hook should be quirky; the first seven simply currently need to be broadly interesting. Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Riner is interesting, but not quirky. The first hook proposed at Template:Did you know nominations/Pronunciation of GIF is quirky. They're not the same term. Could we please note that down? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you. I have explained my meaning above. Storye book (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion ended?

Thank you, everyone, for taking part. I believe that this discussion has now ended, and that the consensus is clear. I would like to get this discussion closed now, by removing the Rfc template above, by bringing in a closer to close it for us, or both (or of course anyone is welcome to close it down for me). I am writing my intention here so that if you have objections to the closure, you have the chance to say so. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

The Roaring Lion

Amakuru, what we all overlooked in our Errors discussion about this POTD candidate was that it had gone through three previous deletion discussions on Commons. Long story short, the conclusion for The Roaring Lion was that PD-US also applies because it had been on the cover of Life magazine in 1945, with copyright not having been renewed by the publisher. Hence, we can safely run it. Adam Cuerden, this POTD got pulled and if you've got an opening somewhere, please help yourself to this one. Schwede66 09:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schwede66: OK, I guess so then. I've looked at those discussions and I have to say I can't really see what the justification is for keeping them. The "keep" !votes look like emotive "please don't delete this, it's very useful and unlikely anyone will challenge it" rather than actually grounded in the letter of Commons or Wikipedia policy on copyrights. But then again I'm no expert either, so perhaps those guys are right. At the very least, before any putative main-page run, it ought to have a licence note for the US put on the page, so it's clear under what interpretation they're saying it's valid. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm literally not seeing any sign of any of this. Which day was it? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 13:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because any trace of it had been nuked! Sorry, I did not realise that, Adam Cuerden. I've restored it to Template:POTD/2023-11-30. Schwede66 18:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Schwede66 and Amakuru: Did it actually run at all before being swapped out, and, if so, for how long? I feel that 24 hours on the main page is the minimum for a FP, so if it got swapped out partway through I'd like to rerun what it was swapped with. Presuming we're agreed it's fine, and it hasn't just run, I'll probably slot it in to the 9 December gap. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 21:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: yes, it ran for almost half the day actually. I did the swap at 11:44, with what's now Template:POTD/2022-12-01, the red-bellied piranha, filling the remaining 12:16 of that day. The thing is, issues had been raised with the image the previous day and it was swapped over between the 30th and the 1st, but then nobody followed up, which I assume had been the intention, given the consensus at the time that the Churchill image wasn't satisfying PD-US. So if you want to give them both equal airtime on the second run day, then you can just flip those 11:44 and 12:16 values around. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Little awkward, but should be doable. Not actually an admin, though, so might just put both in for February or so Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 23:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, here's what I suggest we do:
  • Adam, move The Roaring Lion template to when you want it to appear.
  • Once done, we'll move this discussion to the template's talk page.
  • We'll then move the Pygocentrus nattereri over the top of The Roaring Lion.
  • Once it's run for half a day on the chosen day, an admin reverts to The Roaring Lion.
  • We'll then copy The Roaring Lion to the unprotected version, too.
  • We can appoint an admin who will be online at the correct point in time (that won't be me; it'll be just after midnight when the revert needs to occur).
That way, both items will have had two half-days on the Main Page. In the archive, Pygocentrus nattereri appears as having run on 1 December 2022, and The Roaring Lion will show on the chosen day. We should probably leave notes on the talk pages of the archive versions that points to this discussion so that nobody is confused should they choose to look at the templates' histories. How does that sound? Schwede66 00:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty good. Probably wise not to do it too soon, though, as it's not that odd to think someone might have viewed it before noon that day, after noon the one we choose. I guess there's another option, but I'm not sure it's a good one: We do have the tech to randomly show one of X images on the main page, randomly choosing one to show. But having such disparate images might just make it confusing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 21:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, for the record, if this happens again, it's better to use an image that has already run, as I do feel more than a day is much better than less than a day. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 22:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Probably wise not to do it too soon" – so would 30 November 2023 be fine, Adam Cuerden? Could also run this exactly one month later as that's the anniversary of the 1941 photo shoot. Schwede66 02:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 16:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]