Talk:Main Page/Archive 194

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 190

←

Archive 192

→

Radarsat Constellation Launch

Maybe add a page for the F9 launch on the 12th of June :) JayJay Aviation (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The article RADARSAT Constellation already exists. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the Main Page. Modest Genius ^talk 12:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps JayJay Aviation actually meant an entry in In the news. --184.248.65.126 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we be indefinitely semi-protecting this page?

Day in and day out, this page experiences plenty of random edits about completely unrelated topics, by users with about one contribution apiece. As it's fairly unlikely that an unconfirmed user would be suggesting a legitimate improvement to the Main Page, is it time that we begin indefinitely protecting this talkpage? Note that this would not affect ERRORS, as it's a separate page that's transcluded onto here. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Protecting this page would just drive such editors to another talk page, it wouldn't stop them. It's just the way it is. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This page has certainly been temporarily protected before. Do you know where they've gone when that has happened? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the theory has been that this is the very first talk page many potential new users ever see, and if they can't edit it at all, they'll wander off without trying another more appropriate page. And that there are enough people watching so that the silly stuff stays up for about 1 minute.

I'm not 100% sure I buy into that, since such a large percentage of new people who post here are posting something like "Fendlethorpe is AWESOME", and I'm not sure Fendlethorpe is the kind of new editor we're trying to attract. But that's been the theory. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if people would read the screen? Eman 235/talk 14:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but they won't, especially the vandals. You'd think we'd either protect it or unprotect it once and for all, rather than the weekly drama of temporary protection because next week will be different. Art LaPella (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Better for this page to be vandalized than any other. I don't think any protection longer than a few hours is appropriate on this page since this is the front page. We have to keep the door open to accept criticism from the masses. I suspect that most of the recent vandalism traces to a small block of IP addresses. Perhaps a checkuser of some recent vandal user names will yield some info. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The majority of vandalism on this page appears to originate from India. A checkuser on these "contributions" might show if they are actually the same person(s). Otherwise, a much longer protection of this page will be necessary. David J Johnson (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are right, a indefinite block might work but majority of Indians use a shared IP connection (either it's from mobile data or broadband) and therefore their IP changes from time to time. Also I think we can reduce by a range block but that will affect other editors as well. I think the best way to keep this page safe is to indefinitely semi-protect it.Masum Reza ^📞 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It is very sad to see Wikipedians losing confidence in the open-access model of the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". This talk page gets between 1,000 and 2,000 page views every day, but it is only edited a handful of time a day, and reverting occasional random vandalism is easy enough at the click of a button. Just go ahead and lock down the entire thing if you are so concerned about keeping it "safe". 213.205.240.239 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:PAGEPROTECT. This page isn't even in article space, so protecting it would hardly do much in preventing people contributing to the encyclopedia as a whole. Besides, I don't think the vandalism prevalent on this page can really be described as "occasional". Semi-protection is also a fairly low bar (four days and ten edits) that wouldn't affect the vast majority of users seeking to post legitimate topics here. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You do realize you're replying to an IP who posted here legitimately? :D --valereee (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well... yeah, but I suppose it's for situations like these that Wikipedia advises editors to create an account. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would support protecting this page but just to tell you India is the second biggest country in the world so banning people from India editing may not be a good idea as Wikipedia I think had once banned the entire country of Qatar from editing in 2007 I believe and it ended up being a disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting we ban the entire country of India from editing all of Wikipedia. Eman 235/talk 13:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The vandalism here is reverted so fast that I've literally never gotten here in time to revert. Once I thought I got here in time, but by the time I clicked restore version the edit was already gone. --valereee (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to say I support this as there is spam and vandalism from people or at least add a strong filter to block vandalism and spam on this page 71.173.78.82 (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You realize that would mean you could not make this comment post semi-protection. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What if we added this to the very top of this page:

Press this button to create a new Wikipedia article:

It should handle most of the randomness. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, hahaha I like it! --valereee (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It already says "To submit an article or redirect, please use the article wizard." People seldom read all that stuff, but each line we add makes it less likely that the rest will be read. If one line is judged more important than the others, we should at least remove duplicate instructions. Art LaPella (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not obvious enough. Here is the evidence that is not working. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that's less of an article request than an obvious attempt at self-promotion modelled loosely on a Wikipedia article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, upon closer inspection, it seems to be a partial copy of an existing Wikipedia article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is a great candidate for WP:TNT. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, my point was that none of the instructions are working. It may be worthwhile to emphasize one of them more strongly; just recognize that it pushes everything else further down into TLDR territory. Art LaPella (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, they probably work, just not 100% of the time. It's not like the Teahouse takes a poll at the door asking where one found that page. Eman 235/talk 21:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia. A few of the edits are vandalism, a few more are tests, and even more are legitimate. There are enough editors keeping an eye out that edits from the three categories are easily discerned, and corrected when needed. A brand new, potentially valuable contributor may try their first edit here. Why would we discourage that? WP:Protection policy Orville1974^talk 22:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In all fairness, considering that edits from the first two categories are almost immediately reverted (being unrelated to the Main Page), I'm not sure it's all that encouraging for a new user to make one test edit here and then receive a notification about its reversal just seconds later. My hope is that page protection would at least make some users who would otherwise make some irrelevant edit here read the box at the top and be directed to a more suitable place. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a White Male Supremacist Publication?

Whatever contentious material may have been on the main page, it's long gone. If you have questions about individual WikiProjects, you should ask on their talk page. As for revision history, see WP:FA and WP:ITN. Isa (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

How about we make a conscious decision not to have nothing but white guys (not to mention nothing but white guys pictured) on the front page? Mr. Assassinated Ethiopian does not adequately balance out the Implicit Associations triggered. It's 2019 guys, we need to do better than that.Fb2ts (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The main page content is created by separate sections of the community. No one person oversees the overall balance. Sometimes we might end up with four images of women. It's just chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, it's 2019. If we can't get a human or two to watch the front page, then how do we overhaul the system to curate the evolution? We'd have to tag for ethnicity and gender, right? Male, Female, African, American (not European American), Asian, Australian (not European Australian) and European. It's more than a paragraph in the Manual, I'm sure. But impossible? So impossible that we can't even think about it? Fb2ts (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like what is posted to the Main Page for whatever reason, you should participate in the processes that determine what goes on it. No need for an overhaul or affirmative action program. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Even apart from that the OP is completely wrong that we have "nothing but white guys... on the front page", as the featured items include Panggilan Darah, Wei Shoukun, Eunice Eloisae Gibbs Allyn, Tadao Takashima, Etika and Bahia Bakari. Hut 8.5 10:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. Thank you. I feel better now. Fb2ts (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The main page is mostly just reflective of the material available to it at that time. If you want a change, Fb2ts, go create some brilliant featured pictures of non-white subjects, write some new articles for inclusion in Did You Know, a featured article, or some well-written date-specific topics, for inclusion in "on this day". Don't complain, just get busy! — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That's the way to approach the problem, for sure. Thank you. Fb2ts (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Also, why do Ambachew Mekonnen and Se'are Mekonnen not count? Seems like a bit of a White Male Supremacist opinion there... Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. White. Not Male. True that. Fb2ts (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What do we need to do to replace that picture of Se'are Mekonnen with one of Carola Rackete? Is it a question of getting an image marked for reuse/modification? Fb2ts (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fb2ts, I think what you're asking is why is the Carola Rackete story not included in the news? You can suggested ITN stories at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates ETA: But it doesn't look like we have a photo of Rackete; someone needs to upload one they own themselves at Wikimedia Commons for it to be used on the main page. valereee (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Fb2ts, that would be a first step. Then you have to nominate a blurb about a current news event at WP:ITNC to go with it.

Or you can wait 14 hours for the white guys to be replaced by the British flag, a plate of poutine, a walkman, Edgar Allan Poe and an Eastern grey squirrel. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I must read the ITN page. That much is clear. :-)

There's no picture of Se'are Mekonnen on their page - and Google doesn't have one. I suppose it will show up tomorrow. Is it too noobie to ask how I look to see where that picture came from? How does your average joe editor get their hands on an image like that? Fb2ts (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Flickr. They got it from Flickr. Interesting . . . So much to learn . . . Fb2ts (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have left a message on your talk page. If you have more questions feel free to ask there. You can get my attention by typing {{Ping|Coffeeandcrumbs}}~~~~ but I will be watching your talk page for a while if you need assistance. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been deleting those cookies for years. :-) I hope it's not too rude. It's been years (and several avatars) since someone thought I needed a plate of 'em. I appreciate your support. Fb2ts (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fb2ts, thanks for raising this issue, which is part of a class of such perennial problems. I agree that this is a problem and I would be open to novel solutions. However, ultimately, it comes down to what articles qualify and that is affected by what editors are interested in. This is why, in my view, it is important that we actively promote a diversity of editors and encourage improvement of underrepresented topics. If you have any specific policy proposals or need any help getting specific articles to the main page, I'd be happy to help. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I AM thinking about this and am very happy to see that I am not alone. The current See Also list of pages to read (not just for me, but for anyone interested in evolving ITN bias mapping) looks like this:

I have also added my name to the Countering Systemic Bias members page posing the question : How can we systemically model and evolve the gender/ethnicity/economic bias of Wikipedia's Front Page?

UNFORTUNATELY, people have not been systematic about date stamping. Is there a reason that it might not be okay for me to add a line at the top of the page asking people to date stamp their registration? Assuming that everyone who's still active is watching the page, what do you think, would that get currently actively interested parties to do that?

They don't all specify exactly what they're interested in either. That would also be helpful.

Is there a page where we can see a History of ITN headlines and watch/study patterns? Fb2ts (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

and and AND - I've added a Countering Systemic Bias userbox to my profile page. Is there a userbox for people interested in evolving ITN metrics specifically? Fb2ts (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2019 (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.

Discussion on POTD

Hi all

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Further discussion, regarding the content, scheduling and other aspects of the POTD section of the main page. Please could anyone with an interest in main page content go to that discussion and offer their thoughts and perspectives? Many thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Danish wiki now has more than 250.000 articles

Was completed a couple of hours once the ER was made. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

Hi there, I just wanted to point out that the Danish Wikipedia now has more than 250.000 articles but it is still listed here on the main page under Wikipedia languages as "only" having more than 50.000. With kind regards Johanhilge (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Changes to that language list should be requested at Template talk:Wikipedialang. Modest Genius ^talk 11:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ftr I've just put in a formal edit request there since the issue has been outstanding for 6 weeks or so now. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:18, 19 July 2019 (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.

no mention of moon landing on wikipedia

Nothing more to do here. Original topic has been dealt with, as has the new, unrelated discussion. SkyWarrior 20:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

Moon landing happened on July 21 1969 50 years ago but no mention on the page why is there no mention on the front page of wikipedia when google shows it and the TV news as well— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliveinqldaustralia (talk • contribs)

@Iliveinqldaustralia: The featured picture is related to Apollo 11. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, is that it? Not even a mention in On this day for 1969?? All we get is the Viking 1 lander on Mars? Shocking. 86.187.172.132 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It's still 20 July Wikipedia time (UTC). Wait until tomorrow? Bazza (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup, see Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow - there is so much moon you won't know what to do :D — xaosflux ^Talk 11:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Now don't be so catty. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

But can your space cat catch Moon mice? But per topic, I agree, there should have been an Apollo feature today and the Moon landing should be listed 'On this day'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

There's an Apollo-related DYK (reminding us of the true cost of the whole thing), and a related picture too. Bazza (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, how delightful! " One of the mice died during the trip, and the four others were killed and dissected for their intended biological information upon their successful return from the Moon." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "Most of the last Earthlings to orbit the Moon were then murdered upon their return." How's that for a "Did Your Know" entry. Could have should have, they would have been a favorite sight at America's National Zoo for a year or so afterwards. The mice should have a statue and memorial somewhere, plush toys named after them, and then there's the possible cartoon feature (although the ending would be a bit PG-13). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, WP is full of errors. The first moon landing was not in 1969. Heads must roll! Nice work on having all three Apollo astronauts on the main page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 04:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow! And there was I thinking this was the first visit. If I recall correctly, they held their breath for the translunar vacuum, did a big jump, and were able to breathe again and admire and chat to the lunar flora and fauna once they reached their destination. — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahem... 27 years earlier? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a trip reported on by someone who should know. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The whole Main Page is FAKE NEWS!!! Sad! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

... and tell those darned Frogs to get back where they came from. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. You've made me smile. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We were about due 'why wasn't (well known event) mentioned somewhere on the MP' discussion (and there hasn't been a 'why was X included on the MP, we are all doomed, doomed I tell you!' category topic for some while)

And why isn't the blonde on the MP yet? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi 82..., that is being discussed right now at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Boris_Johnson_to_become_prime_minister - feel free to comment there. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Playing 'ITN etc absence of story' bingo. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not censored, presumably this this will be the blurb used. (Warning: NSFW language) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2019 (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.

Graphic but educational image of intersex person on main page?

Hi all

I just wanted to query the POTD currently scheduled at Template:POTD/2019-10-28. As far as I'm aware, the convention has been that even though WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles, we don't include very graphic images of genitalia on the main page. Thus images such as this, this, and even this are listed at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused as images which, despite being featured pictures, are not suitable for POTD. I personally think that's a sensible policy, and I've added the hermaphrodite picture to the unused list, but would welcome second/third opinions here please. Pinging Adam Cuerden, who created the template in question. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Please change the section heading to the more neutral "Image depicting an intersex person on the main page?".--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It sure does have an educational function, though... Drmies (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, its disgusting and not to mention kids use Wikipedia and if that's the first thing they see on the Main page then well! Stuff like that should not be on the Main page in my view. ImpWarfare (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not disgusting at all unless you find the natural variations of the human body to be disgusting. Torture, murder, starvation and warfare are disgusting, not human bodies. So I disagree with you on that count, ImpWarfare, and agree instead with Drmies that the image is educational, useful, and should be displayed in the appropriate articles. Where I do agree with you is that it is not a good idea to display explicit photos of human genitalia on the main page, so I oppose that particular usage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Disgusting is the wrong word. Far too subjective. Disturbing, for sure, to many people (but not all). And I agree, the Main Page is probably not the best place to display it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This is my thought too and the reason I raised this. I don't find this disgusting at all, it's just body parts, and certainly educational... I wish we could live in a world where such things are generally accepted for educational purposes. But we don't, yet, and it's not Wikipedia's place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Like it or not, if parents/teachers/people with sensitive dispositions find genital pics on our front page, it damages our standing as a reputable resource in their eyes and they may stop visiting Wikipedia. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

ImpWarfare, stuff that starts with "disgusting" and continues with "but the children!" rarely flies here. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think that most readers would find this a fascinating image, both on account of the medical aspects and from the historical perspective. It is just a pity that the blurb does not provide more information about the circumstances in which this photograph was taken. Some readers will certainly be offended, but I suspect in reality rather a small proportion (maybe that is my British/European bias). Children will not be horrified but intrigued. I don't think that anyone will stop viewing the main page on subsequent days because such an image occurs once in a blue moon. It is a trade-off between disturbing a few and interesting and educating many. I would vote for presenting it, but there would need to be a consensus otherwise someone will pull it on the day. Jmchutchinson (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I sincerely believe this photo should be shown on the Main Page. It is not disturbing, and certainly not disgusting. Many people come to Wikipedia for exactly this. I think we are underestimating our audience. The page views show that our articles on human organs are hugely popular; I would venture to guess in a significant part due to innocent adolescent curiosity. The other images Amakuru linked have a different reason for not being posted on the Main Page. They are salacious according to WP:POTD/G. There is nothing salacious about this photo. It represents one of the best things about Wikipedia: the availability of free knowledge without bias or censorship – just there in front of you with neither fear nor shame. The only thing we have to fear is fear of knowledge. Will people snicker? Will they spew some hate at us? Yes, sure. But so what? We get tons of hate mail and vandalism every hour, every minute. This is nothing new. Just like the existence of intersex people is nothing new. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
That section calls out examples of "if a picture probably wouldn't make the front page of a major newspaper like The New York Times, then it shouldn't be on the front page of Wikipedia either." - would you expect this image to appear in another such publication's front page? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
AND · THE TIMES · THEY · ARE · A-CHANGIN. Also, this photograph of a naked four-year-old girl appeared on the front cover of Aperture, which according to our article on the magazine is an award-winning international magazine, about photography. This section of the Main Page has a similar interest to Aperture and is not even visible on mobile phones. It is also below the fold for most laptops. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
If this is going to be the "vote" place for this, I'd say no. No issue with the topic being on the MP (e.g. if it was in DYK, TFA, etc), but placing a picture of genitals on the MP is certainly going to be off-putting for many of our readers. I'd like to quote from Jimbo: In all parts of the world, there are images that people under the principle of least astonishment don't expect to pop up on their screen at an encyclopedia without clicking something first...^{(regarding NSFW content,2013)}. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I chose carefully: That day is Intersex Awareness Day; Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, it's an important image in its own right, and displaying it serves an educational function about a subject. Unlike some of the other images in that group, there's no-one else in the frame (the photos of the genitalia being prodded I could understand being skipped), it's simple genitalia, with no sexual content, and we have had genitalia on the main page before (Template:POTD/2009-10-20 for instance) - I can't see how a simple medical photograph is so disturbing that we need to protect people from learning about the subject. Also, while I expected some discussion, I wasn't expecting to have to have the discussion now, and, inevitably, again in three months' time, when it's due to run. The main page doesn't show FPs on mobile, so it's not like people are going to be getting surprises on their phones, only on proper desktops. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 05:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Just some of the many examples of paintings with nudity we have featured can be found here and here. We even had one called The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus. And this one which in my POV objectifies women. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
No comment yet on this either way, but in nearly all cases of art as POTD that includes nudity, the nudity/genitalia are de minimus to the overall composition. Here, the image is clear focus on those parts as well as being in realistic detail. It's not an equal comparison. --Masem (t) 13:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Masem, that is certainly not the case here and here where nudity is the main point. Why does art get a pass? Why are genitalia censored but not other body parts. This line of argumentation is fraught with POV. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not that its nudity, it it detailed focus on the genitalia. Add that there's a general recognizition that classical art of that period will likely included nudity, and I think there's a common perception that that is generally not offensive to anyone. And in these cases, this is artistic drawings, not highly detailed photographs. I fully recognize that this photo was done for medical purposes, and certainly no intent to be provocative, but I'm sure there will be people that take it that way, due to the positioning and focus. Basically it is not really a fair comparison to put this photo against artwork that has been featured on the main page. I still offer no opinion whether it should be included or the like. --Masem (t) 16:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: regarding Intersex Awareness Day, if the article can resolve the cleanup concerns, you may want to look in to having it put on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 26 if the discussion below is not in support of the image placement. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If I might be allowed a moment to vent about how poorly this whole thing is being handled: NO-ONE EVEN BOTHERED TO SEND ME A TALK PAGE MESSAGE? The discussion didn't successfully ping me, you know. Nothing in my alerts about it. It looks like you tried. It didn't work, though, unless I'm missing something.

But, seriously, Amakuru? You started this discussion in an untimely manner, basically guaranteeing a revisit nearer the time if the discussion is successful for the image, you didn't talk to me first, and failed to notify me or anyone else to allow the for-sidecan be put forwards before the voting starts? I'm sure this was accidental, but still, you should know better than this. Was October 28th feeling so near that you couldn't wait and ask for the reasons I thought it was appropriate before you started a survey that practically begs for people to deny its main page place through its subject line, framing, and lack of contextualization? Calling a simple, non-sexualised nude, by a notable artist "graphic" seems excessive. And it's not like we haven't put up plenty of graphic images before. Do you know how many close-ups of dead bodies have been on the main page? Because I found three on a quick check, and remember at least two others, including that somewhat infamous video of people being killed in a targeted shooting - I think from a helicopter or drone - in Iraq, I think? You presented the subject completely devoid of its historical importance, educational value, notability of itself and the photographer, and instead encouraged a framing that ignored all positive aspects, and that's going to really skew the discussion.

This isn't the kind of thing I'm going to hold a grudge over, and certainly doesn't call for any backlash against Amakuru. But I do need to point out how badly this was fucked up, so it (hopefully) doesn't happen again.

Also, the things removed from the main page for salaciousness? None of them are after 2006, by my count. Are we going to bring back literal decade-old censoriousness that has't been used since then? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 05:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose This image should be on Wikipedia, it is an important and informative image with a significant story to tell. The topic should be on the MP. But a photo of genitalia is not what people expect to see when coming to the front page of Wikipedia, and that will harm Wikipedia's reputation and use. Prior examples of nudity listed above are artistic representations, not photos of actual people: one may feel that distinction doesn't matter, but it is one that society makes. Bondegezou (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment - thanks to everyone for the comments so far. Given the wide variety of views already expressed on this topic, (I had hoped for a straight yes or no to whether it's OK), it's going to be hard for anyone to make a definitive decision on what to do. I'm therefore converting this to a full RFC and the final decision on whether to post or not-post the image on the main page can be decided by an uninvolved admin based on the opinions expressed. Hopefully, whichever way this goes, a decision made by RFC will also remove any need for possible subsequent discussions that might take place nearer the time or on the day. And @Coffeeandcrumbs I'm not removing "graphic" from the title, since that's the purpose of the discussion; we aren't just discussing this because the person is intersex. I had added "educational image of intersex person" to the title though, to provide a bit more context and because nobody disputes that. — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I have added notices at WT:NPOV, WT:MED, WT:SEX, and WT:WikiProject Gender Studies. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Coffeeandcrumbs: @Masem: @Bondegezou: @Adam Cuerden: @Xaosflux: @Drmies: @Jmchutchinson: @HiLo48: @Cullen328: @Isanae: @ImpWarfare: @Amakuru-Mobile: who have already participated in this discussion, to notify that I have started a formal RFC. Hopefully the ping works this time. — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I share the concerns expressed (primarily in the survey below) that featuring a photo focusing on a person's genitals is a questionable way to bring focus to intersex people, whether on Intersex Awareness Day or any other. Intersex people are already quite misunderstood as it is; the majority are not "true hermaphrodites" as depicted (and of course the word "hermaphrodite" itself should no longer be used for such people), and don't necessarily have visibly obvious variations in genitalia as shown in the photo. I hope some (more) actually intersex people weigh in on this discussion, as I fear featuring this photo on the main page could cause serious distress to members of that community, which is of course the opposite of the intended purpose. Funcrunch (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Question I wonder if, for that day, if the image can be right justified (And if necessary, left-justify any DYK). There's just something when the image is left-justified that your eyes go right to it, while if it were on the right, it seems less -- apparent? I don't know how POTD works to know if that's an option or not. Alternative, a slight reduction in size (50%?) also may help without ruling out the use of the image. --Masem (t) 21:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment I wrote an essay a while back, User:Ritchie333/NOTCENSORED isn't just about boobies. Every time somebody uses NOTCENSORED to justify putting shocking images in the encyclopedia, it runs the risk of devaluating the less talked about times where that policy makes a real positive difference. (random example) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: It's a powerful image. Thanks for your work, Adam, in restoring it. I would unequivocally support its addition to the Intersex article. I'm still considering whether it's a good fit for the main page. If there is interest in looking for a non-nude photo that could be used for Intersex Awareness Day, I submit a picture of an intersex pride boat for consideration. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Whoops, didn't know when I suggested this that the picture of the day has to rated as a Featured Picture. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Compromise suggestions: I voted support below, but acknowledge that the consensus is against this. However, many of the opposers recognised the historical interest of the pictures as well as their educational and interest value; they were concerned that readers might not want to see a close-up of genitalia. I can think of 2 compromises that might satisfy most in both camps, based on the other images in the series displayed at Hermaphrodite (Nadar). One is to run another image from the same series that is not a close-up of genitalia: e.g. this or even this. Another possibility might be to make up a 3 x 3 montage of all images, so that each is reduced to a thumbnail; each component image would be small enough not to offend but large enough for readers to recognise what they would see if they clicked to enlarge. Jmchutchinson (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jmchutchinson: The problem with this is that those files aren't featured pictures on the English Wikipedia; we can't simply select any image for POTD. If we were to run those, the photos would have to be restored and undergo the featured picture process first. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

True, but, if someone has the skills and the will, would there not be time to do this before the end of October? Or for another date. Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So, procedural question. Do any words written here (main page talk) have any actual effect on the actual procedure which results in the actual publishing of the picture of the day?

My understanding is that there's a written-down procedure which results in the actual publishing of the picture of the day, and I assume that no part of that procedure includes instructions to the effect of "Also, check what main page talk says" or "first check the results of any external surveys".

I note this beause a similar situation came up a few years ago regarding another controversial pending main page entry, in the "did you know?" section. Those folks were pretty pointed about "we have our own discussions, which are based purely on whether the proposed entry meets the technical requirements, and we aren't required to pay the slightest attention to any opinions made outside or after our own discussions and decisions have concluded, particularly any opinions which do not speak solely to our listed technical requirements. And we won't." And they didn't.

I'm just wondering if this is play here, or what. I mean, the survey below is running 56-10 against including the image, is this going to be translated into any actual effect, or is it just a moot court? The person/people who are resposnible for the actual actions to pubish the picture-of-the-day images could reassure here. Herostratus (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I can reassure on both counts really. (1) featured images for which there is no consensus to allow at POTD are listed at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, and precedent says that community discussions can dictate what is listed there. (See the reason why the top entry is not appearing - it was [based on this discussion). And (2), I'm currently the POTD coordinator anyway, so it's not like I'm going to go against the community on this one when I also don't support it being on the MP. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, then! Thanks for responding. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, I would like to point out this discussion does not mean that this photograph goes into the Unused page. You asked in the RfC: "Should the Picture of the Day entry currently at Template:POTD/2019-10-28 be used on the main page on that day?" (Emphasis mine.) This RfC does not preclude moving this POTD to a different day. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, come off it, Coffeeandcrumbs, you can't WikiLawyer it that way. Although some Oppose !votes here are related specifically to the Intersex Awareness Day, there is nonetheless a clear consensus that the image is not suitable for the MP at all. We don't need to repeat this exercise all over again just to ascertain that it can't be posted on another day. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Dismissing NOTCENSORED is not something I am willing to pass without significant objection from myself. This RfC was framed around Intersex Awareness Day. I believe people would be less willing to ignore the obvious censorship if it was about a different day. My point of view may seem ridiculous to you but I am very determined in its merits. Barring nudity from the Main Page is exactly the opposite of what five pillars stand for. Every time we do this, we choose to stand on side of the POV that says genitals are something to be ashamed of and hidden. This is a photograph of genitalia. Period. It is a very notable photograph of genitalia and is therefore featured. There is nothing more to say. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: This is not a "photograph of genitalia". This is a photo of a human being. And I as I hope my prior comments in this discussion made clear, I would be opposed to featuring it on the main page on any day. This is not about censorship, it's about dignity and respect for intersex people. Funcrunch (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Funcrunch, I stand corrected. This is a photograph of human genitalia. Perhaps you do not understand that I would support this photograph of a penis being featured just as adamantly because it has educational value. The photograph of an intersex person from 1860 is not disrespectful, especially in 2019. The person is long dead. I will admit that doing this on Intersex Awareness Day is ill-advised. But barring all nudity of intersex people or any people altogether is most certainly censorship. It is no different that saying "there are no gay people in Russia" or... "it is fine as long as you do it in the privacy of your own home" or... "why do gay people need marriage? aren't civil unions enough?" or... "colored people have their own swimming pools". It is a tired old line. It is the intentional withholding of information and the segregation of a people, from either way you look at it. We are treating our readers like 2-year-olds that cannot understand nuance and must be protected from knowledge.

This is a slippery slope. Tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of the Chicago race riot but I can't put this photograph on the Main Page. We continue to adhere to the same old ideas of "decency" and forget our primary purpose: the sum of all human knowledge. We are not here to collect and feature non-offensive knowledge but to collect and feature all human knowledge, and the most notable of which we feature, briefly, on our Main Page. Yesterday, we featured the baptism of Jesus Christ. I honestly find the veneration and deification of any human or even any god as offensive, and the cause of most human problems but I did not complain. Why are the things that offend me any less important? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: The photo of a penis that you linked to above is indeed a "photograph of human genitalia". There is no identifiable person visible in the photo, only the penis itself. As such I would have no objection to it being featured on the main page of Wikipedia. The photo in question is not comparable, and while you might not find it disrespectful to intersex people, others, including actually intersex people, have said that it is. Speaking as a queer black person, I do not find your comparisons to heterosexism and racism at all compelling. And speaking as an atheist, I don't think your opinion or my opinion on deities has anything to do with this topic. Funcrunch (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Funcrunch, I have no objection to cropping the image to show only the genital area. But we all know that the majority of the people here are not actually opposed to the face. BTW, I am also a queer black person and the correlations are abundantly clear, to me at least. But my POV is besides the point; that is exactly my point. What is important is NPOV. We should avoid clouding our actions and reasoning with our preconceptions and assumptions. We let the reader decide what to make of it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

How about another of Nadar's photos? The subject is in a much more active position in this one File:Hermaphrodite_by_Nadar_4.jpg. It sounds like these images did a lot to advocate for the history of sexual health, or at least according to the journal of medicine, i'm glad it will be highlighted on the main space. I'm also opposed to cropping artwork as it changes the integrity of the composition.Fred (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey (intersex person image)

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.

With 78% opposed (43:12), ~~I think it is clear what the community's opinion is.~~ See the bottom of this section. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC), edited 16:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Should the Picture of the Day entry currently at Template:POTD/2019-10-28 be used on the main page on that day?

No. Per Xaosflux comments above, and the quote from Jimbo I'm going to kick this off by saying that without doubt the image is educational, and is of course not "disgusting". But just as a national newspaper would not put it on their front page, my current opinion is that neither should we. — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Support - WP:NOTCENSORED. Image is relevant to topic and to the day in question. Let the prudes complain; they'll be back. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 14:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Support per my earlier explanations ~~and the particular relevance to the day in question adds to the argument for inclusion~~. Exclusion is POV pushing. By censoring it, we would be advocating for a particular POV. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- In light of the below comments about the day in question... I support posting on a different day but oppose censoring this photo. Barring any featured content from the Main Page, all together, just because it may offend some people, is the antithesis of WP:NOTCENSORED. Constantly relegating some good knowledge to only appear on a less visible page is a form of censorship. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Readers who are actively looking for that type of information can search for it. Those readers who have no interest/idea of that type of information should not be forced feed on the Main Page of Wikipedia. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per my notes above, concerns about maintaining project reputation with world wide readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as culturally insensitive on a global scale. Notwithstanding WP:NOTCENSORED, per WP:READER, I doubt there's a culture in the world to which that would be a welcome addition to their breakfast-table reading. ——SerialNumber54129 15:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as per my earlier comments. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – per Jimbo: "In all parts of the world, there are images that people under the principle of least astonishment don't expect to pop up on their screen at an encyclopedia without clicking something first...", quoted by xaosflux above. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. NOTCENSORED does not mean editorial judgment cannot be used when related to things others cannot avoid seeing on the MP. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per 331dot and others. Calidum 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose it doesn't bother me one iota, but what would be bothersome would be the complete and utter timesink that would accompany this image's main page publication from anyone who feels obliged to "think of the children". Also, I fail to see why this could possibly be considered a "fuck up" by Amakuru, what tripe. The sooner these kind of things are discussed, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per most of the above. MB 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with celebrating Intersex Awareness Day by showing a faceless picture of intersex person's pelvic region. I don't think that we'd celebrate Transgender Awareness Week by showing a similar picture of a trans person, so why would we do this for IAD? We have pictures for some intersex people (e.g., Alex Jürgen, Julius Kaggwa, Small Luk, Pidgeon Pagonis, Dan Christian Ghattas, Cheryl Chase (activist)). I don't know if any existing photos meet the POTD criteria, but I'd rather celebrate intersex people as people who have names and faces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Support, because this is both educational and fascinating, exactly the sort of information that Wikipedia should be promoting. Some comments are saying, "I'm sure some other people will be offended". Are you personally offended? No: so are you really so certain that many other people will be offended? Most people have been sexually active and are familiar with human genitalia of both sexes (that includes your parents and grandparents!). Those who have not are likely to be more interested than shocked.
A relevant comparison is that on 21st March 2010 German Wikipedia's front page featured an article on the vulva complete with a "graphic image". There was a lot of discussion beforehand and on the day itself. If Germans were brave enough, can't we be? Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Jmchutchinson WHAT MY GRANDPARENTS HAD GENITALIA??? Thanks--I support too, and thanks for the German link. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Support, but I don't think this survey is valid. It's framed as if censoring our main page is normal. We haven't censored a featured picture for sexual content alone since 2006. You can't massively, massively misrepresent Wikipedia procedure, misrepresent and misframe the image, then expect a fair survey. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 16:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how what you state makes this survey "invalid", as if the opinions of the users here and consensus does not matter. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not neutrally framed. There was no chance to discuss the historic importance of the photo. Amakuru is rushing forwards on this in a bizaare manner. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 17:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The question is about as neutrally framed as is humanly possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - A photo clearly focusing on genitalia should not be on the main page. I agree that a photo of an intersex activist may be a better photo for the day, in addition to adding it to OTD. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The purpose of Intersex Awareness Day is to highlight human rights issues faced by intersex people. I don’t think this picture hits the right tone for that, or in general as lead-in to the topic.--Trystan (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: though I believe it technically passes NOTCENSORED, I agree with WhatamIdoing that it is a pretty offensive, dehumanized, unwholesome way to commemorate Intersex Awareness Day. Liken it to a Pride Month illustration showing naked homosexual men under a similar form of examination. $ɱ$ (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: Partially per WhatamIdoing. Intersex Awareness Day would be better explained with a picture of an intersex activist, although this image would be perfectly suitable for a related article. If the goal of Intersex Awareness Day is to highlight human rights issues faced by intersex people, I'm not sure this image helps to explain that to the reader. Maybe one of Intersex activists at a rally, or protesting forced medical practices? ^LetUs_NotLose^Hear^T 19:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per principle of least astonishment. Someone going to the article on Intersex would expect and appreciate such a picture. Someone going to the front page of the Wikipedia, likely not so much. --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Support. And because supporters are severely outnumbered (I know Cullen328 opposes it too--don't know if he's been pinged) I'll say support again. I thought about this, and yes, xaosflux and others give a valid reading of jurisprudence and best practice here, but I think this is so educational that it outweighs the cons. Let me put it this way: I see this whole "OH NO THAT DOESN'T EXIST" in all its varieties so often that it think it's high time that the world gets a kick in the rear. Yes, it does exist, yes, humans are born this way. Yes, it is important enough. Yes, I know it's genitalia but get over it. Yes, I know you think the children will be shocked, but I think you're not giving children enough credit--there not yet as set in your ways as you might be. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: As a practical example, the Holocaust Exhibition at the Imperial War Museum London is restricted to children over 14 because it contains upsetting material. That doesn't stop me from me recommending it as absolutely essential viewing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333, I get your point, but I don't think it's necessarily the same concerns. My children, by the way, have seen the image that is now in Death of Alan Kurdi. I still can't look at that without tearing up; they handle it more easily than I do. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Drimes, I noted above, that if the intersex awareness day article can be made ready, that listing it on OTD for the main page could be an option for education as well - it certainly isn't as in-your-face as that image, but it could garnish main page attention nonetheless. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the principle of least astonishment should apply here. Explicit pictures usually appear in articles where that is not surprising. Hut 8.5 21:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
No not so much as I get squeamish at looking at genitalia in the same way other people get squeamish over blood or spiders (it's who I am, deal with it), but because the image does not appear to be particularly good quality and the topic could be illustrated by a more sympathetic and neutral line drawing. If I wanted to put a suitable lead image on our article on masturbation, I wouldn't drop my trousers and knock one out while positioning my phone at ... anyway, I think you get the message. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- With all due respect, this isn't WP:FPC. The principle of double jeopardy should apply here with regard to your image quality comments. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ support: WP:NOTCENSORED means not censored. In 2014, we notoriously set precedent that you can arrive at Wikipedia and have the first word you see being "fuck". And now we're saying that you can't have an image of a human being at the bottom of the main page. Readers don't reach the featured picture section of the page unless they're choosing to read the front page. The image is unoffensive, clinical and not particularly graphic—grow up, we've all got genitals—and as Adam Cuerden says, we've set precedent in the area of featuring naked humans in the FP slot as well. Intersex Awareness Day is designed to raise awareness of the existence of intersex people as well as the marginalisation they face, and this image is appropriate for the former purpose. It's frankly quite disgusting to see people using it as a reason to oppose. The more we normalise images like this, the more we normalise intersex people. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You might want to read the essay I quoted above. I am getting fed up of NOTCENSORED being used like a "get out of jail free card" and NEVER about documenting torture, human rights abuse, political imprisonment or anything else that is, well, CENSORED in this world. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, NOTCENSORED is about boobs too! No line drawing or painting will teach you what an areola looks like. Or what the frenulum of prepuce of penis looks like. A picture speaks a thousand words. There is no substitute for a good honest photograph. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I've read the essay and if you want to get Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations to FA status and then nominate it for TFA then I will strongly support its appearance—no doubt to the opposition of a huge chorus of "NOTCENSORED is not a get out of jail free card". If you want to accuse me of being hypocritical in regards to torture, humans rights abuse or political imprisonment then I'll need some diffs. But at the present moment we're talking about a photograph of huge educational importance being featured on a day in which the history of a group of people of which the photo subject is one is being celebrated. And the reason people are opposing is because they want to censor a clinical photo of natural human anatomy. In my book WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 06:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "using it as a reason to oppose" - if the "it" you refer to is that the poser in the file is intersex, that isn't what my opposition or many others (in my opinion) is about; I'd have the same response for File:Penis with Labels.jpg for example. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yah, it's a bit of a straw man argument that. Nobody here is prejudiced against intersex people, or trying to deny the need to raise awareness around them. Just that we don't picture closeups of genitals on the MP, regardless of which sex they represent. To me it's a bit strange that this is deemed the best way to promote intersex awareness anwyay. Would we celebrate International Women's Day with a closeup of spread legs and a hairy vulva? Or Black History Month with a detailed photo of an African person's dick? Seems unlikely. — Amakuru (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I thought it was fairly clear that the "it" refers to "Intersex Awareness Day". As in, "It's frankly quite disgusting to see people using Intersex Awareness Day as a reason to oppose showing an intersex person on the Main Page." @Amakuru: never mind a bit of a straw man, it's an entire strawman to apply reductio ad absurdum an argument I didn't make. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 06:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, that certainly isn't my viewpoint. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think what's telling here is that the main page publication of the image is being positioned as "good for Intersex Awareness Day" but as we can see, even those intersex editors who have contributed here think it's a bad idea. We need to listen, rather than just die on a hill because we feel pissed off that someone made a perfectly valid point a few months in advance of an inevitably "more heat than light" debate. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've just read Trankuility's oppose and I'll strike the "strong" from my support in response. But I can't see any other comments from users who have self-disclosed that they are intersex and we shouldn't treat every member of a minority as a spokesperson for that group. I still find the vast majority of opposes wholly unconvincing. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure you do. But then common sense isn't a requirement. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, this whole discussion has made me aware that there is an Intersex Awareness Day. So good job there. I think any educational value this picture may have seems to be outweighed by the potential controversy, and conversely, the discussion of this very topic has in and of itself educated me much more than posting a picture to the main page could perhaps accomplish. So I oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Not bothered about NOTCENSORED or "Think of the children!!" - I just don't really think it's appropriate for the main page. –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Support I understand the argument of those that say this image is unsuitable for Intersex Awareness Day and were it a bland modern medical image I would agree. However, reading the background at Hermaphrodite (Nadar), it seems that this set of images is historically important to medical and cultural attitudes and understanding. I suspect that any attempt to pick an good image to mark Intersex Awareness Day will be rather ham-fisted, ill-informed affair, but I think this image in question has merit. However, it is certainly wrong to try to mark it with a "unastonishing", safe, culturally "acceptable" image; those are words I have heard before to excuse attempts to preserve prejudice and to hide people that some would rather not see.

I remember in the eighties seeing two men kiss and hearing people sayIt's fine hidden in private, but you don't expect it in public! After all, We weren't prejudiced against them, but who else might see them? There were children that might see."

And I remember when the most popular evening soap in the UK had a very prominent HIV-positive character. We don't want it shoved down our throats on tea-time TV. Again, We (liberal, educated) know it's important, but all kinds of people watch this."

And I remember hearing that being trans was fine... in the privacy of your own home. And Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And we don't talk about mental illness. And the Down syndrome girl that we'd rather not see. And Section 28. And this, from yesterday.

And today, we want Intersex Awareness Day, but we only if we hide their bodies. Bullshit. It's not about WP:ASTONISH; it's about old-fashioned (well-meaning) liberal hand-wringing that only serves to maintain the status quo of ignorance and prejudice. Put the image on the main page. CIreland (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Have no problem with the type of image....but ...it's a horrible visual aid - as in very hard to see due to blurriness - focus of the image. I understand it's historical in nature...but a clear image should be used for educational purposes rather then a historical image. We must have a modern image that is clear? --Moxy 🍁 02:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Let me begin by saying that the image is educational and of historical significance, and I support its inclusion in all relevant articles. I stated my opposition to its use on the Main Page in the section above, but I will expand a bit. I think that the "principle of least astonishment" applies, plus the WP:SOAPBOX section of What Wikipedia is not. There is a big difference, in my view, between using the front page to display 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing content on the 50th anniversary, and actively advocating for sociosexual change (even if I personally embrace and support that change). The only thing that Wikipedia should advocate is free knowledge. We are all individually free to advocate for our preferred causes off-Wikipedia, but not here. Accordingly, I disagree with my friend Drmies when he writes, "it's high time that the world gets a kick in the rear", at least with regards to Wikipedia. Our job is free knowledge, not advocacy and not kicking anyone. Please consider that Sexual intercourse, surely a very important article for young people to read, has no photographs and is illustrated instead by quaint 19th century erotic art. But now we propose to display a photo of intersex genitalia on the main page? Let's try editorial judgment instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Doesn't the picture offer "free knowledge"? Isn't the notion that this image needs to be hidden away an argument for making knowledge less free? WanderingWanda (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  - Including the photo in several relevant articles is not "hiding it away", WanderingWanda. We have something like 54 million media files offering "free knowledge" on Commons. There is no way that more than a tiny percentage of them can ever appear on the Main Page. We are not "hiding away" 53 million plus files. They are freely available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: it's not advocating sociosexual change to follow standard procedure for Featured Pictures and list them as POTD. The value-laden action is to oppose normal procedure from being followed based on the content of the image. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  - Bilorv, I have no idea why you feel motivated to make so many comments attempting to refute the legitimate concerns of editors who oppose, but it does not look good in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    - I was under the impression that RfCs are about discussion, not voting. I don't see how you could write that mean-spirited holier-than-thou comment and feel that anyone would benefit from reading it. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Speaking as an intersex editor, this image is not appropriate for the context (Intersex Awareness Day). For me it is not even a question about nudity, it is that the subject’s face is obscured for privacy reasons, at the same time that genitals are exposed. To share this shortly after Intersex Awareness Day is not only promoting awareness, it is also promoting shame. It is not neutral and should not be used. Thanks Funcrunch for the ping, and thanks WhatamIdoing for making helpful points. Trankuility (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Trankuility: I think we do the history of activism a disservice by ignoring the past. For example, it's not uncommon for media set in the Victorian period to just handwave away the difficulties of being gay, or black, or female then - which ignores all the people who fought hard to make the actual Victorian treatment of such people obsolete. There are, however, pictures in this series showing their face. Also, honestly? I think that for many people, just knowing intersex people exist is a big start to awareness. Many people are unaware. This is a key part of the history of intersex people coming out of the closet, and being identified. Is it modern? No, but it's part of the road that got us here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 06:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Trankuility: Thank you for your input. Can I ask if you would feel differently if the image was set to be displayed on a random day, or would you still object? WanderingWanda (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your question WanderingWanda. Medical display and medical fascination with different kinds of bodies has had a powerful impact on the intersex rights movement/patient rights movement and this is covered briefly on the Intersex page. Thank you to Sluzzelin for your comments on this. Relevant papers include:

Dreger, Alice Domurat. 2000. ‘Jarring Bodies: Thoughts on the Display of Unusual Anatomies’. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 43 (2): 161–72. doi:10.1353/pbm.2000.0002.

Creighton, Sarah, J Alderson, S Brown, and Catherine Minto. 2002. ‘Medical Photography: Ethics, Consent and the Intersex Patient’. BJU International 89: 67–72.

Discussions around these issues have had some impact on medical photography and display in the last decade, but this image predates those discussions. The posture of the person and the positioning of their hand reinforce longstanding concerns about consent and autonomy. Shame, secrecy and silencing are all also issues that have harmful effects on many individuals subjected to intersex medical interventions, and the positioning of the subject's hand reinforce concerns there, too. These are issues that are widespread and so I think that image (and others in the set) will rarely be seen as appropriate by people with intersex conditions, nor by family members. Some people will find the image to be harmful because of the ways that intersex people are treated as subjects without autonomy, and as people with shameful bodies. However, a history of silencing means that a main page image about intersex is a wonderful idea, particularly to mark Intersex Awareness Day. I hope that a different image can be chosen. Trankuility (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd hate to be an intersex person on the day this is featured on the main page. How many editors that are pushing for its inclusion are intersex? Rob van vee 06:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I was ambivalent on this at first, but I find WhatamIdoing's point convincing and I do not believe a depersonalised image of genitalia is an appropriate way to introduce Intersex Awareness Day. I don't think CIreland's comparison to "keep it in private" moral panics is compelling, particularly when we have an intersex editor above stating their own discomfort with the picture. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 12:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Suggest not including (invited by the bot) "Not censored" means that you can find it in Wikipedia if you look, even if it (e.g. a photo of a person and their penis) violates social norms (e.g. for young readers) or laws in some areas. To take something that is the latter and make millions of people / all enwiki visitors involuntarily and not-by-choice see it is a whole different thing. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: the Featured Picture section is at the bottom of the Main Page and on essentially any browser or mobile view, the user has to voluntarily scroll down to see it. No-one will be seeing it "involuntarily" and neither all enwiki visitors nor millions will. (The true number of people who read the main page rather than viewing it is a number I don't believe we have access to but I know that, for instance, most DYK hooks get only a few thousand clicks.) — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment The closer is going to have to read the comments and ignore the "support/oppose" word because such has been read two different ways by a lot of participants and has become completely confused. . Variously "Support" exclusion, "Support" inclusion, "Oppose" inclusion, and "Oppose" exclusion. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: As far as I can tell everyone commenting "support" supports inclusion, and everyone commenting "oppose" opposes it. Did you see any comments where this isn't true? —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, no real ambiguity here at all. Perhaps be specific if you really believe what you're saying to be true, which editors have mixed it up? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You are right, if you look at the wording, so far I think we just need to realize that everyone consistently got it in reverse from taking it literally. The wording was "are not suitable for POTD. I personally think that's a sensible policy, and I've added the hermaphrodite picture to the unused list,". Literally "Oppose" could mean opposed that thinking and action. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We're all voting on Should the Picture of the Day entry currently at Template:POTD/2019-10-28 be used on the main page on that day?. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What I wrote is what is in the normal place by the RFC template. I missed the new question ~100 lines down under just the "survey" heading Looks like 'nuff said. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose using this image. In my opinion, recognizing Intersex Awareness Day by displaying intersex genitals is inappropriate. Trankuility's comments should be taken very seriously. The concerns that any decision to not show them is censorship is either disingenuous or misses the point (and "Let the prudes complain" is a shallow, small-minded comment). Deli nk (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia is not censored. This picture might be disturbing for some people. But if we view this picture with an educational eye, it's just a picture. This type of picture doesn't make one a pervert or a person with dirty mind, rather it arises a pervert's imagination. Also in the end, even childrens are going to learn what that is when they grow up if they study biology or have sexual intercourse. Masum Reza^📞 13:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose images of genitalia on the main page. It's not a good representation of intersex people (quite demeaning in my view, like they're a lab specimen), and it will offend a lot of readers. NOTCENSORED might apply if we were talking about deleting the image, but it's a red herring when talking about what to put on the main page. – Levivich 14:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose this image on the Main Page for Intersex Awareness Day. I'm not offended by the picture, and while I am I suppose 'offended' by the misuse of NOTCENSORED -- NOTCENSORED as Arbcom has said is not a reason 'to do' anything, the Main Page is subject to editorial discretion, and WIKIPEDIA is NOTFREESPEECH - but I would not be opposing just because of the poor NOTCENSORED arguments, rather I am persuaded by the editorial arguments above, opposing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The POTD is usually just the next FP which has not yet been featured. The "doing anything" here is removing the picture from the queue, whereas the default position is to feature the picture as happens with almost every other picture of the same quality. The reason for removal is editorial discretion, yes, and another way of saying that is "censorship". Editors in opposition are attempting to censor the image based (generally) on the fact that they believe it is too graphic. Censorship isn't necessarily bad and NOTCENSORED isn't an absolute, but it's certainly relevant here. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No. The issue is should Wikipedia editors put this image up for Intersex Awareness Day on the Main Page, which is the stated reason why it is proposed for the Main Page, I and other editors say in the exercise of editorial judgement, we would not. It is our collective judgement, it does not do a good editorial job with the matter (one editor apparently decided it does, other editors are free individually and as a group to disagree, that's a free exercise of editorial judgement). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Weakest possible oppose inclusion of this image on main page. I agree with those in support that this is a medical and educationally-relevant image, not meant to be titillating or sexual or the like, but at the same time, I'll quote MIB: "A person is smart: people are dumb" - I can see a lot of reactionary complaints if this were to be on the main page given that we have avoided photographic or photo-realistic images of human genitalia before, and we'll be called out as being perverted or the like. Principle of least surprise needs to work on main page as well as other articles. The work is still reeling back from the situation with the conflict with the WMF board on bans and internal fallout from this, we don't need another issue that would rile up readers. I also agree that if we're doing this for celebrating Intersex Awareness Day, there are other images (though not Featured) that do that job without causing a stir, like people at rallies, etc. --Masem (t) 14:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Photorealism is one concern but do you really believe that this image is more perverse than The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus, which we featured in 2018? — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - I was hesitant to !vote on this, having already made a comment in the section above that what I'm most interested in are the reactions of actually intersex people, like Trankuility (thank you for weighing in). But I feel this image, however important historically, is dehumanizing and inappropriate if used as a representation of intersex people on the main page of Wikipedia. As a trans person, I would not want to see a photo focusing on the genitals of the person who had the first successful gender confirmation surgery, for example, to be used on the main page to highlight Transgender Visibility Day. It's not about being squeamish or prudish about nudity, it's about respect. Funcrunch (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Wikipedia should not be dramatizing "Intersex Awareness Day" and should not be displaying explicit photographs. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Therefore, the intersex topic should be treated in a thoughtful, factual manner in an encyclopedia page (which users can decide to visit) rather than in everyone's face on the main page. Hlevy2 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The classic "I'm fine with it but don't shove it in my face." We are here to build an encyclopedia, and the Featured Picture process—which this image has passed through—is a part of that goal, and listing FPs as POTD is a part of that process. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I am not persuaded by argument that we shouldn't have a nude picture on the front page: there is nothing bad or shameful about the human body, and Wikipedia should avoid censorship. I am persuaded by the argument that this picture is not a good representation of Intersex Awareness Day. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per User:Trankuility and especially per User:Funcrunch who wrote pretty much what I was going to say. On a completely separate point, I'm pretty sure (and I see this is the case above) that I'm not the only person that believes that editors waving the NOTCENSORED flag every time they disagree with something is getting somewhat old. NOTCENSORED is why Commons is a repository of terrible amateur naked selfies and borderline child porn. This project is better than that. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Was on the fence. The "principle of least surprise" argument, the way it applies here, is certainly one with which I can empathise, though one that wouldn't convince me not to have a picture posted on the main page, and I prefer we be bold, normally. What I care about most, is how intersex individuals and intersex organisations think about this. We have one intersex editor's well-explained view. I spent some time browsing ISNA's website, also some medical publications. I couldn't find anything directly comparable, but it's very clear that there is a lack of sensitivity among non-intersex people regarding the focus on genitalia of intersex people, even among professionals who should know better. Still really interested in learning more from intersex editors or finding out more from their advocacy groups and organisations. If I misinterpreted and mis-empathised, I will gladly strike my vote. For now, I oppose. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sluzzelin: When intersex professor and advocate Cary Gabriel Costello saw the photo in question in a museum, he wrote "I see exploitation, nonconsent, shame and exposure". Funcrunch (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Funcrunch and Trankuility, for providing more reading material. It reinforces my view that we shouldn't post this on the main page on Intersex Awareness Day. Another quote from Costello's Intersex Roadshow Reports: "I fail to understand why the Metropolitan would include such a shockingly disrespectful image in their collection of nudes–at least, not without discussing how clinical nude photography has been used to marginalize and other and exploit patients with marked bodily differences." The featured picture's caption currently doesn't explain this context either. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose this image appearing on the Main Page. Wikipedia already has ample opportunities to prove that it is WP:NOTCENSORED, and this is not one of them. I would like to see Wikipedia editors acting in a more mature way. Using this image on the main page is likely to be negative for the aims of the project. MPS1992 (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Though I admit I do not speak for this community, I do think we should be more respectful than to show an image like this that may be.. rather hurtful to some. From what I have read, medical photography has been rather traumatic subject to some folks for various reasons that I best not get into. ...I do appreciate that we are at least having a discussion focusing on intersex visibility even if under these.. unique circumstances. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I do rather like the idea of getting our article on Intersex Awareness Day to be of high enough quality to regularly feature it in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 26 Maybe we can even use File:Utrechtpride-intersexboat.jpg to do it! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Though the image is not likely to reach featured status, I think linking to the Phall-O-Meter might be another way to raise awareness on Intersex Awareness Day. Funcrunch (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this image is ok. There are arguments that such images represent obsolete medical practices, but there is growing evidence that medical practices remain as invasive today. But my personal preference would be for an image showing people's faces. A couple of examples are included on the Intersex page, including an image from a 2013 event in Malta, and the Dutch boat image mentioned above by WanderingWanda. Trankuility (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Mild oppose It does not seem an intersex friendly image for Intersex Awareness Day. I guess it depends on what one sees as the purpose of raising awareness. For me this is missing the point. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. A very borderline decision. It is educational, natural, not disgusting, topical. I am swung to oppose by the poor quality, which I expect to be a redeeming feature for any challenging image. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED and most Wikipedia users do not see the Main Page and usually it is spammers who post on the talk page on the Main Page or vandals who vandalize the articles linked or people who accidentally click on the Main Page Abote2 (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Main page attracts over 10 million hits a day. See the Daily article pageviews at the top of this page. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Support for Intersex Awareness Day as this image is going to be effective to raise awareness, possibly through controversy, which will raise even more awareness. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a duty to inform, and this image is effective for this purpose and will be even more so if featured on the front page. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 12:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC) I retract my vote for this specific image and I am neutral, we need an image that shows intersex in a respectful way. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a duty to inform; it does not have a duty to astonish.--WaltCip (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Since image serve also as souce of infortion passing and causing awarenes in the mind,i support that it should be use properly on the main page but not such an genetia one, for i sorely disagree thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MZEEBETE (talk • contribs)

Oppose - I get WP:NOTCENSORED but this is voyeuristic, and entirely inappropriate for Intersex Awareness Day. It just relegates intersex to a matter of genitalia, which is largely incorrect anyway, and it's objectifying - Alison ^❤ 23:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose- I greatly appreciate that Wikipedia is uncensored and I think that it is an important image, but I am concerned about having it featured on Intersex Awareness Day as it could be interpreted as focusing entirely on genitalia (similar to WhatamIdoing's comments). Again, I do not have any issue with the image itself, but it is just the larger context that gives me some concern. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I get the NOTCENSORED thing and I understand the arguments in favour. But Alison says it best, just a couple of comments above this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Support - This is no more graphic than pictures and images in school textbooks and university textbooks. It does not try and sexualize or fetishize the person, it only presents their genitalia in an unbiased textbook way, there is no artistic sexualization or demonization.--AnotherToast (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to the argument that this image may come off as voyueristic and as reducing intersex persons to their genetalia, especially in the context of featuring the image on Intersex Awareness Day. I get a bit of a feeling of "look at this curiosity" from the image myself (I'm not intersex). I would highly recommend seeking input from intersex people. (At the risk of stating the obvious, they don't have to be regular Wikipedia editors. Contact some advocacy or representation groups.) I think the moral thing to do in a case like this is to give priority to their feelings. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose having it on the main page, but a link to it from the page might be acceptable. Jonathunder (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose having it on the main page. Wikipedia is not censored but we also don't include images merely because they are offensive in order to be "woke" or something. That being said, I have no issue with a depiction of intersex genitalia on the page. But I don't think this particular image is appropriate. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I mean at this point you'd have to shut it down; you wouldn't want something this controversial as the featured image regardless of any other merits. I mean, what I'm saying, is if you've got scores of people objecting to an image, that alone is sufficient reason to not show the image (unless the objectors are trolls, mentally defective, madmen, or such). The number of objections above is sufficient for me to oppose the image, even if I thought it was otherwise fine. (FWIW there are 10 votes for, 46 against, at this time, which is about 80% oppose... it's quite rare to get 80% agreement on anything here, with >50 participants.)

But anyway, I don't think the image is fine. I also a bad idea on the merits. I could go into detail, but it looks like it's been discussed a lot above already. Herostratus (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment The image by itself is poor quality and, displayed prominently without the backing of a good article, is prurient. It does not help to explain the cause in who's aid it is associated. It should be in the article and a neutral image used to highlight the suggested topic Leaky caldron (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The image is of very good quality for the period which is why it was voted as a featured photo. The article is also a GA. I have no idea what you are talking about. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Nothing is being censored, this is an issue of design/branding not censorship. Do we want Wikipedia to be known as a website where genitalia might pop up if you open up the home page? I vote no. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose its use on October 26 – I think Trankuility, Funcrunch, and Alison have compelling arguments that the use of the image on Intersex Awareness Day would be continuing the treatment of intersex people as targets of voyeurism, and thus not be encyclopaedic in that context; on the other hand, I would support it being in the rotation; the discussion about the usage of the word "fuck" on the front page indicates that NOTCENSORED actually does apply to the main page. I don't feel comfortable with blocking any featured content from the main page as long as said content can be used on the main page in an encyclopaedic way. Sceptre (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2019 (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.

Following questions on my talk page, I will clarify that I only find the community opposed to using this image as proposed here. My reason is, there were two primary rationales for opposition: 20 people opposed because they believed the image is too graphic for the Main Page per the principle of least astonishment, and 21 opposed because they found the image disrespects its subject (and intersex people more broadly) and would therefore be an inappropriate image to represent Intersex Awareness Day. (This includes four people who opposed on both rationales.) Consequently, either problem alone would have been sufficient to defeat this proposal. Nevertheless, I am unwilling to say that there are any further conclusions regarding consensus to be drawn from this. Quite simply, I am unwilling to say: "There is a consensus that photographs of human genitalia are too graphic for the Main Page" without an RfC dedicated specifically to that question, given how controversial such a finding would be. Meanwhile, the opposition on the grounds that the image objectifies and humilitiates its subject was inextricably linked to the context (a day promoting respect for intersex people), with 15 of 21 people who cited this objection explicitly claiming that the photograph was inappropriate for Intersex Awareness Day. I am not confident that this opposition would exist for other uses of the photograph, and therefore I will not say that there is consensus against ever using this photograph on the Main Page. (A somewhat longer version of this explanation may be viewed here.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Histmerge

Is there any reason the hsitory on HomePage pre-2002 hasn't been merged with the history of the main page, which starts at 2002? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.89.181 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links: without redirect and the history. Eman 235/talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the capability did not exist at the time? There are now so many edits (>5000, so already in bigdelete territory) that is probably isn't worth doing. Prodego ^talk 23:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There's some relevant information at Wikipedia:Main_Page_history#Edit_history. Modest Genius ^talk 10:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Question on today's article

Who created the Horncastle boar's Head Ademols (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The article says "The Horncastle boar's head is an early seventh-century Anglo-Saxon ornament ..." The early seventh-century Anglo-Saxon's name is presumably unknown. Art LaPella (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) You'd probably be better off asking at Talk:Horncastle boar's head. The article states it is of "Anglo-Saxon origin, and dates from the first half of the seventh century AD" - which is probably as close as the research can or has come to explaining who created it. Spokoyni (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Little Boy

Aug. 6, 1945 – During World War II, the U.S. Boeing B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb code-named "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, Japan, resulting in an estimated 140,000 deaths. (– From AP's Today in History.)

Due to its lethal consequences and epoch-making importance, this event never should be omitted from OTD.
– Sca (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's something you'd need to bring up at WP:Selected anniversaries where OTD items are selected. Enola Gay and "Little Boy" have each been featured at least three times in the past eight years, but there's no such category as "always in OTD as long as it's up to minimum quality standards" (analogous to ITNR), but if you'd like to propose one, I don't see why you shouldn't. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A general discussion here would better gauge user opinion than a project-specific discussion among OTD regulars. – Sca (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but what appears in OTD is governed by the Selected Anniversaries department, not the generic main page. In my opinion, we should vary what we feature as much as possible, to avoid systemic bias, so we should absolutely never seek to "nail on" an OTD to appear every year no matter what. The absolute best way to make your proposal would be via an RFC of course. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TRM. There needs to be flexibility in picking OTD entries, so we don't end up with the same events every year and entrenching a biased view of history. I don't have any strong views on today's picks, though the WWW probably had just as big an influence on history as the Hiroshima bombing. Declaring some items 'never should be omitted' is going too far. Modest Genius ^talk 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't bother with an RFC as I'd think it would have zero chance of success. There are hundreds of events with a better claim to "so important it should always be included"—just taking 6 August alone, we have the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, the creation of the world wide web and the Voting Rights Act in the US. Even genuinely world-changing events like VE-Day, the Fall of Constantinople, the Protestant Reformation or the Russian Revolution don't get guaranteed slots. ‑ Iridescent 18:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What Iridescent said. A list of "things that should always be included" will be either a very long list, or a very narrow, unglobalized list, or it will take forever to produce. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well of course, but the only way to substantially change OTD is by RFC. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I wanted to save it for next year. It was not skipped for no reason. We have a rule that we don't feature both bombs in the same year. I was hoping if I skipped both this year. We can IAR and feature both next year which is the 75th Anniversary. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I give.
I guess reading it in an AP newsletter I subscribe to made me feel guilty on behalf of the U.S.
Or to quote Oppenheimer (quoting the Bhagavad Gita), "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
– Sca (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the plan for the 75th anniversary next year. Good idea. Thank you, Coffeeandcrumbs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Main Page balance

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors § Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 13, 2019

– --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This TFA blurb was just edited with an edit summary that implies the TFA blurb text was too short. It was 933 characters with an image; we've been keeping them between 925 and 1025 (with an image) for a long time now. I don't think it would be feasible to try to keep all blurbs between, say, 975 and 1025 ... that wouldn't give us enough flexibility to meet constraints. What would work best for everyone here? - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware of scope of the issue and all the significant changes that are relevant:

ITN has increased the number of recent deaths to 6 people which bleeds into a second line for most screen sizes
~~DYK has gotten a lot better at writing shorter blurbs and even considered going to 9 hooks because of consistent Main Page imbalance.~~
OTD has been often forced to reduce to 4 blurbs (perhaps limiting OTD to only 4 maybe the solution)

Looking through the Wikipedia:Main Page history, Main Page imbalance is a constant problem, often solved by adding an old DYK hook to restore balance day of. We are currently on a 55%/45% split between the left and right sides. Perhaps a solution is to go to 53%/47% split. Today is not a good example but you can see a demo of 53%/47% split at User:Coffeeandcrumbs/sandbox/Main Page 53/47. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should move this discussion to Talk:Main Page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No objection. Thanks for bringing this up. Quick bottom line: we've been running blurb reviews for newly promoted FAs since the beginning of the year. The resulting blurbs aren't set in stone, of course, but it's better to respect consensus than not to. ~~It is sometimes hard to find 950 characters that meet various constraints of precedence and relevance.~~ I'll abide by any consensus, of course, but if a 53%/47% split will get the job done, I'd much prefer that to changing the 925-1025 range. - Dank (push to talk) 04:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we see how the Main Page 53%/47% demo I created looks in comparison over the next week before making the change. OTD for August 12 is only 4 items, so that should give us another different data point to consider. The Main Page for August 9 had 9 DYK hooks, so that gives us another option to consider. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK just went to 2 sets per day because of a backlog at WP:DYKNA. I think we should instead give going to 9 or 10 DYK hooks per set another consideration. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that it should be up to DYK to strike the balance. I also disagree that , "DYK has gotten a lot better at writing shorter blurbs ..." The length of the DYK hooks are a random coincidence, subject to change on every nomination. The DYK rules state, "The hook should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the ... or any (pictured). While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." The promoters put them in prep for a variety of topics and geographic interest. Sometimes it just works out that we have short sets, and sometimes it works out the other direction. This discussion of making sets with 9 or 10 hooks has made the DYK roundtables repeatedly, and nobody really agrees on anything about this. Mostly, they would like to keep it at 8 hooks. Why should it be on DYK shoulders? There are 3 other sections that affect the Main Page balance. Put this on shoulders other than DYK. It is not our place to bring up the rear and resolve the issue for everybody else. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not a coincidence. My rough guess is that the now average DYK hook is in the 100-130 characters lengths, sometimes below 100 characters in some instances. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There has been no plan in place, nor organized effort, to shorten the hooks. DYK goes through ebbs and flows of anything. Sometimes everything is one direction, and sometimes another direction. But they are not "getting better" at writing shorter hooks, because they're written by the nominators, some of whom have never written a hook before. And then everybody else gets in the act of suggesting alt hooks. But nobody is suggesting the alt hooks because of length. Hooks are based on "hookiness", not how short they can be. — Maile (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

My statistics agree with Maile. The July Did You Know archive has a total length of 54,146 bytes. Only May 2019 is longer, among comparable recent months (31 days, always one set per day). There were occasionally 9 hooks instead of 8, but that isn't enough to explain it. Art LaPella (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I confirmed it another way, just to make sure I'm not overlooking something like image size. July 2019 has 71 hooks that go beyond one line of text, and July 2018 has 59. That statistic depends on my screen and font size, but anyway it isn't obviously shorter. Art LaPella (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Below is a table showing July 1 – 14. It included (pictured) and "?" but excludes the "..." and the bullet.

Extended content

Position	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	Pictured	Average
July 1	101	165	139	134	150	123	158	210	147.5
July 2	109	127	109	139	142	168	144	155	136.6
July 3	130	94	117	172	138	114	131	112	126.0
July 4	57	121	144	181	147	161	159	130	137.5
July 5	44	132	129	174	208	152	80	175	136.8
July 6	167	73	144	94	138	138	111	172	129.6
July 7	90	187	55	100	129	127	86	133	113.4
July 8	109	163	110	137	179	99	176	162	141.9
July 9	98	156	131	127	132	56	98	168	120.8
July 10	89	101	165	112	183	136	130	105	127.6
July 11	67	147	123	148	149	156	114	173	134.6
July 12	143	122	176	177	89	150	165	101	140.4
July 13	73	114	86	92	139	119	171	116	113.8
July 14	108	153	147	181	109	124	137	152	138.9
Average	98.9	132.5	126.8	140.6	145.1	130.2	132.9	147.4	131.8

I was not far off on my estimate. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

But in any case, you are correct that it does not seem to be a significant change compared to July 2018 or July 2017. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm a latecomer to this conversation, having only just seen it. I don't really have any good statistics to offer, but I'm not convinced we need a massive change at this point. Yes, anecdotally I would say the right is more often longer than the left, and we tend to solve that by adding in an extra DYK hook, but occasionally it's the other way around. And the issue is usually at the DYK/OTD end, I find that TFA and ITN are more often in sync with each other. If someone wants to mock up what the 53%-47% page might look like so we can examine it, I don't mind. But even with an adjustment there will still be days when it doesn't match, so we either have to decide it doesn't matter, or just patch it up whenever it occurs as we do at present. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, already mocked up at User:Coffeeandcrumbs/sandbox/Main Page 53/47 but today is not a good day to preview because OTD has 4 items (because of predicted imbalance). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not simply go to a single column and not have to worry about it? Seems rather silly to argue over how to "fix" a "problem" that only exists because we insist on making it exist. --Khajidha (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Two Cents Worth opinion: The concern over the Main Page balance has been going on for who knows how long. It seems to be an internal concern, as opposed to complaints from the general public, and even internally seems to be limited in how many people are bothered by it. Regardless of all that, the imbalance issue is fluid, subject to daily changes by all sections involved. It will never be perfect. The only resolution is for it to be redesigned with another format. That would take a coordinated effort from TFA, ITN, DYK, OTT, TFL, TFP and every listing below that. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I think today proves your point quite well. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is that most readers don't know how to raise an issue at Wikipedia. How many errors raised at WP:ERRORS come from either IPs or brand new editors? Practically zero... BECAUSE: Almost all of our readers are not editors. What we should be doing as an encyclopedia is striving for excellence all round. That means working hard to avoid six, seven or even eight lines of whitespace (or pinkspace as we had a few days ago). It's unprofessional looking and can easily be avoided with a few tweaks every day. What seems obvious is that TFA and DYK can't easily be adjusted without upsetting people, while ITN and OTD are easily adjusted, dropping/adding old news stories or removing/adding OTDs. The effort to do this once (or twice when DYK up the rate) a day is practically trivial. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

TFA: Taylor Swift

I played a Taylor Swift song for my daughter this morning because it was in the "new" section of youtube music. Later Amazon Music notified me that her new album is here. Now I see she is today's featured article. Is Wikipedia now part of the PR industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.173.54 (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Although the main page content is deliberately chosen on occasion (i.e. April Fools Day, historical anniversaries, special events, etc.) I think this was a coincidence. In The News content aside, most of the main page content is planned weeks or months in advance. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This was a result of this discussion. The nominator had originally wanted to do it in conjuction with her birthday in December, but it was decided that it would get more interest if it coincided with the release of her new album. AFAICT there was no involvement from her publicity team, although I have no doubt this pleases them; we have done this with a lot of other pop-culture–related FAs. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Error in the number of articles that English Wikipedia has

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Its says 5194651 but when you click on the link it says 5194666 articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.247.249 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this number tends to change rather quickly ;) --Tone 13:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi IP user - I'd suggest that it's likely both of these things are true. When you loaded the main page, there was the correct amount, but when you clicked the link, there were 15 articles created in that time. It's also possible the mainpage needed a purge, as it doesn't auto refresh. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you allow people to edit Wikipedia pages?

(non-admin closure) This discussion is not directly related to the Main Page. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the better venue for this discussion. See also: WP:5P3 and WP:EDIT. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

Since you allow people to edit Wikipedia pages, most pages are probably not true. Aquafinabettafish (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Aquafinabettafish This is not really the proper forum for this, but the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. We rely on editors to keep articles accurate, and require reliable sources so readers can determine what is true for themselves. We are interested in verifiability, not truth. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of any articles with inaccurate information, you are free to point it out on the article talk page, along with sources to support your claims. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Awkwafina isn't a terrible article, and seems well-verified. Betta fish is decent, but had to be locked, sure, for ongoing vandalism--so not everyone can edit that. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia did not allow anyone to edit their articles Wikipedia would end in the same fate as the Encyclopedia Britannica did and no longer exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.14.162 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Brittanica still exists. It's online only, but Britannica is an active paid online encyclopedia. --occono (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

As a curious note, the OP states "allow people to edit Wikipedia pages" ... as though every single non self-published work, including both school textbooks and the Encyclopaedia Britannica to this day (despite the 2010 edition being the last one actually printed), were not edited by people. (I leave open the question of the amount or type of editing done on any given self-published print work or Internet source.) I do wonder whether it was assumed that some (non self-published) sources of information are somehow independent of editing (the facts literally standing by themselves, committed to paper or pixel independently of even a single person's or programmed machine's efforts), or whether the statement was really intended to be "allow just anyone to edit". If the first, then I should point out that the moment any one of us sets words to paper, we have chosen which words to use and which words not to use. The words did not choose themselves. Facts may possibly be independent of people, but the communication of facts is not. If the second, it would be relevant to know what the OP thinks the criteria should be for acceptable editors, as well as the criteria for those who would choose those editors. However, it is relevant to keep in mind that the OP did not actually challenge WP's pillars. They simply made a comment about the possible veracity of pages "edited by people". To reply by citing one particular part of "the whole point of Wikipedia" does not clarify the original comment. It may be that the concept of Wikipedia is fundamentally not compatible with the OP's ideals. It may also be that any given person's understanding of "fact", "truth", and "verifiability" is not universal. Irresolvable differences of opinion can co-exist in the Internet world. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2019 (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.

The Breeders 2014 tour as featured article?

Why? There doesn’t seem to be anything significant about this band or tour. Am I missing why this tour is so special? Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be significant or special, only that someone cared enough to write a great article about it, and take it through the featured process. Step hen 06:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

See this FAQ entry, particularly the first bullet point. Modest Genius ^talk 10:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles

How to download an article Bongumsa (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bongumsa This page is for discussing the contents of the Main Page; you may want to try the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Dawsonfieldcamels.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Hurricanipedia!

Not 1, but 2 featured hurricane articles today. Sigh. 74.109.253.152 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

They were secretly featured by hurricanes. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.72.238 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with what appears on the Main Page, you are welcome to participate in the processes that decide that. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the Hurricaninati are behind all this ! Time to store Area WMF like Naruto! --Masem (t) 22:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces in dates

There are two separate complaints currently in MPE re the lack of non-breaking spaces in dates.

My personal opinion is that non-breaking spaces should be used in all blurbs on the Main Page. However, others may disagree. Please can we discuss whether or not the following instruction should be introduced? Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The use of non-breaking spaces is mandated in blurbs on the main page when used in dates and measurements. [Note: "etc." removed. - Dank (push to talk)]

Support Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Support. As far as I'm concerned they should be mandated on all public-facing parts of Wikipedia, but life's too short to argue with the handful of zealots who act as the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. On the Main Page, where the relatively narrow columns makes it more likely that any given piece of text will be at the end of a line, it should be a no-brainer. ‑ Iridescent 15:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I support this too. It just makes sense to keep dates all on the same line, rather than splitting them in twain. — 🦊 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support for consistency and better style, although I have encountered some opposition in the past from User:Dank regarding this issue in the context of TFA blurbs. I note also that all of the OTD templates would need to be lightly reformatted to nowrap the date at the very top, but this isn't really a major problem as it's highly unlikely to be wrapped anyway. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Question: Is there any objection to leaving TFA blurbs alone (at blurb reviews, WP:TFAR and WP:TFAA) for a week before they're subjected to any non-MOS-compliant edits, so that FAC writers and reviewers will be dealing with text that's familiar to them while they're editing and reviewing the blurbs? If that's acceptable, then I don't need to take a position. (Note: I removed "etc." from the end of what we're voting on ... none of the voters so far seem to be endorsing a blank check on nbsp rules.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as "proposed". I understand why this may be more of a problem on the main page where column width is narrower and thus breaking spaces mid-date etc is more likely to occur, but why isn't this still a problem in every other article across Wikipedia? Surely this should really be discussed as a MOS adjustment which would then naturally flow to main page blurbs, hooks, etc? Are we going to add a specific formatting rule in each of TFA, TFL, TFP, DYK and OTD to mandate this? Where does that instruction live in each case? I don't have a major beef with this but it seems to be the cart leading the horse. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Support – Per discussion below, this is already MOS. I support rigorous application of MOS:NBSP on the Main Page, even if it is not widely used or very important on articles. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

@Dank: Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't understand what you're asking for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- You're never being dense, Floq. I'm asking that any non-MOS-compliant edits be deferred until writers and reviewers have a chance to discuss the blurbs. I'm not going to lead any charges here ... I'm not a pro- or anti-anything warrior. I'm almost always happy with the way Main Page discussions turn out. But no one is disputing the facts: neither MOS, nor the usual practices among Good Article and Featured Article writers, support what's being proposed here. I don't want to get dragged into other people's fights. If you guys will just leave us alone for a week while we do blurb reviews before you add nbsps or other cosmetic changes, I don't think this is an issue that my writers are going to care much about one way or the other. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: - if the date is highly unlikely to be split in a header, then it can be left alone. @The Rambling Man: - let's walk before we can run. Yes, this is something that could be mandated at MOS, but this proposal is put forward to address a specific problem in a specific place. @Dank: Early indications are that there will be support. How does an implementation date of 1 October sound to you? Does that give enough time for people to get used to the idea? Mjroots (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Well no, it's the other way round as far as I'm concerned. Blurbs should follow MOS, not make up their own rules. Are there other rules unique to blurbs which aren't covered by MOS? If so, where are they described? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left a pointer and a note at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be much interest from the FAC regulars. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I asked a couple of fundamental questions about the logistics of such a mandate, I'm still wondering how this works in practice. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: It's been a while since this discussion has been active, but the way I see it is that this proposal for greater use of non-breaking spaces in Main Page content is more or less already in line with the Manual of Style's guideline on their use (at MOS:NBSP), just that most editors don't seem to bother with using them when writing articles. What's being proposed here, in my opinion, is just to mandate a more rigorous application of the above guideline so as to maintain better style on our welcome mat. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Michael Edwardes

When this Main Page lists "Recent deaths" in the "In the News" section, it could include Michael Edwardes. Vorbee (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC for nominating candidates for the ITN section. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose archiving Main Page history twice a day when DYK is on 12-hour schedule

I have been discussing the idea of saving the Main Page twice a day when User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates is 43200 and go back to once a day when it is 86400. I discussed the matter with Amalthea over here and proceeded to work with Danski454 to create some templates to use on Template:Main Page history. You can find them at:

Template:Main Page history generic calendar – this will be used to create the templates each year like the one for 2019 below
Template:2019 Main Page history – this template can be created using the template above using the following:

{{subst:Main Page history generic calendar|venue=Main Page history|year=2019}}
<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
[[Category:Main Page]]
</noinclude>

To work properly, the individual year templates like 2019 Main Page history have to be edited manually when we switch back and forth (which I will handle myself for the foreseeable future). A demo of how they look can be seen at Template:2019 Main Page history/sandbox, which over the next few days will start growing redlinks labeled 16a, 16b, 17a, 17b.... These redlinks would be blue when Amalthea (bot) starts archiving twice a day after consesus is formed here.

I will write template documentations and ensure implementation of this plan moving forward. But before I do, I wanted the community's blessing and comments. Please feel free to ask questions and point out any issues we have not foreseen.

TL;DR: I would like to archive the Main Page twice a day when there are two DYKs a day. Just need your blessing or criticism.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. It's clearly sensible to have both morning and afternoon versions of the MP archived, when they differ. Thanks for looking into this. — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Good idea, and since it's a manual edit and you're willing to take care of it, I think it would be useful --valereee (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Two shapshots sounds fine but I think the first on a day should still be called Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 September 17, so such page names always exist. A second snapshot could then be called Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 September 17b. I suggest the bot starts adding a non-expanded template call at the top and bottom of snapshots so we can provide information, navigation and categories if we want. For example {{Main page history top|2019|9|17|time|number}} and {{Main page history bottom|2019|9|17|time|number}}, where "time" is the time of day the snapshot was made, and "number" is 1 for the first snapshot of that day, and so on. Some of the parameters could be deduced from the page name but it's good to have them directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, I tested your first proposal at Template:2019 Main Page history/sandbox and see no problem with implementation. As for your second suggestion, can we discuss further elsewhere, perhaps my user talk page or Amalthea (bot)'s talk page before proposing a formal change here. I want to make sure it is done carefully and thought-out thoroughly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
This sounds like a viable idea, but I also note that snapshots are currently taken by Amalthea (bot) at 11:20 UTC. This might not capture the "best" version of the day's Main Page, as errors are routinely posted at WP:ERRORS throughout the day; hence, I propose that such snapshots are taken as late as possible (say 11:59 or 23:59), to ensure that any resolved errors in hooks/blurbs are reflected in the corresponding Main Page history. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Amalthea, do you see any issues with this suggestion? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have edited Wikipedia:Main Page history to use the new templates in preparation for implementation of this plan and, since there appears to be no opposition to this proposal, I have asked Amalthea to begin archiving twice a day. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 1

The Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 1 is adding about 700 pages to Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, the problem is this edit by David Levy which added |width=200 when there was already a |width=x120. To correct the problem, remove one of the two width parameters. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Done (I mean, I think it's done, let me know if I didn't fix what I thought I fixed) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Add Portal:Law to the list of portals displayed on the homepage

Law is a broad and universal topic that can easily be put in the same class as those now listed on this page. It is as old as humankind, and reaches into every aspect of our lives, covering everything from codified customary practices to complex international treaties. The rule of law is understood to be fundamental to the concept of liberty itself. I would put it alongside History and the Arts in importance to humanity any day. bd2412 T 11:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you're a lawyer. I don't think many others would rate it there. Portal:Law got 9340 page views in the last 90 days. There are 52 portals with more views.[1] The Wikipedia:Featured portals process ended in 2017. Portal:Law isn't featured and without a current process we can clearly not require new main page portals to be featured but I oppose Law on importance and interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your ability to provide that opinion on this platform is a product of a wide range of legal systems. Don't underestimate the importance of the law. Without it, we fall into quite a bad situation. bd2412 T 22:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Law is part of society and Portal:Law is listed at Portal:Society#Related portals. I just don't think it's of enough general interest to get its own listing. A biologist, chemist or physicist could argue life wouldn't even exist without their field but they don't get their own listing either. They are listed at top of Portal:Science. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

So is Portal:Arts. I don't think that such a relationship is the determinative factor. I would certainly put law up against the arts in terms of importance. bd2412 T 17:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How would you put law up against the 52 categories mentioned above? Pageviews implies that readers rank law #52. Then again, my job has a lot of statistics, and when you're a hammer, everything's a nail. Art LaPella (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Another statistic is popular pages in WikiProjects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Popular pages has 7 articles above 300,000 views in August. Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Popular pages has 74, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Popular pages 68, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Popular pages 92, Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Popular pages 202. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The top eleven portals are, of course, the ones already on the main page, which is why they are the top eleven. Any portal added to that list would be near the top. Six of the portals above Portal:Law are about specific countries, all of which exist as countries by operation of law. Three portals refer to specific religions, which exist both under the protection of laws and as sources of law. There are some curiosities that appeal to popular but very specific interests, such as Portal:Erotica and pornography and Portal:Nudity (that one's a surprise), Portal:Video games, Portal:Free and open-source software, Portal:Spaceflight, and Portal:San Francisco Bay Area. I didn't know we had a separate Portal:Books and Portal:Literature. It might be equally worth noting that although there are ~42 portals more viewed than Portal:Law, there are over 575 that receive fewer views. I would also note that a proposal is currently underway to merge Portal:English law into Portal:Law, and that Portal:Crime and Portal:Freedom of speech could both quite plausibly be merged into Portal:Law. However, I would question whether pageviews equate to human importance. I suspect that if, for example, Portal:Mathematics was not on the main page, its viewership would drop fairly drastically. bd2412 T 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Law belongs squarely within Portal:Society. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- It does, but you could say the same about arts and biography, perhaps history as well. bd2412 T 03:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  - Merging Portal Arts, History and Technology into Portal Society may have merit, but that I can immediately see counter-arguments and it should be taken slowly. You might say the same about Portal:Biography, but already 50% of content pages belong under that one portal. There are currently eight Main page linked subject area portals. Eight is not a magic number, but I think the number should not be largely than what can be taken in in one glance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree that "It is as old as humankind". It is only as old as society. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

That is probably more accurate, yes. As old as society is still a pretty significant measure. bd2412 T 04:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are you parrying that response. How about: The transition from prehistoric man to humankind is marked by the development of society and law? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It has been estimated from archaeological data that the human capacity for cumulative culture emerged somewhere between 500,000–170,000 years ago.^[1]

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Lind, J.; Lindenfors, P.; Ghirlanda, S.; Lidén, K.; Enquist, M. (May 7, 2013). "Dating human cultural capacity using phylogenetic principles". Scientific Reports. 3 (1): 1785. Bibcode:2013NatSR...3E1785L. doi:10.1038/srep01785. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 3646280. PMID 23648831.

There is a long developmental period during which primitive social groups had norms that functioned like laws, but had no mechanism for consistent application. At some point, thousands of years ago, the innovations of writing laws down and making them (theoretically) equally applicable to everyone of a certain standing wrought the change we still see today. The existence of laws governing ownership of property and enforcement of agreements make economics possible. Patent laws promote technological innovation and copyright laws spur artistic creation. The criminal law is largely what makes society operate under a principle different from "might makes right". Civil rights law is what gives us the ability to speak freely, assemble, and vote. When people disagree with a distasteful practice, they don't say "there ought to be an art" or "there ought to be a social practice". bd2412 T 04:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You have a pro-Law bias. However, I don't disagree with anything you write here, and I agree Law deserves prominence in an encyclopedia, laws being written, and the nature of an encyclopedia being a written historiographical document.

I note as previously, of the main page linked portals, Portal:Society was the weakest. How about you consider merging Portal:Society and Portal:Law into Portal:Law and society and putting that on the main page? How much of Law does not pertain to society? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I see that Portal:Law already has Portal:Contents/Portals#Society and social sciences contained within. I think a general restructure of portals is required to make portal trees less pervasive than are category trees. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Law is too narrow a subset of Portal:Society. There are plenty of other sub-topics of Society which deserve at least as high a billing as law, e.g. politics, education, war, sport. If we start including all these VA-level-2 topics the mainpage will be swamped.

I'm more inclined to ask why any of the current 8 topic portals are linked from the mainpage. They are mostly as badly-designed as other portals, and while they are bigger and better-maintained than other portals, they are a very long way below the sort quality needed for such a prominent, permanent mainpage link.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Portals that should be linked from the Main page

The top eleven portals are, of course, the ones already on the main page, which is why they are the top eleven.

This is exactly right. There is currently a great deal happening with portals. So far it has concerned the bottom ranked hundreds of them being deleted. The question: What is the purpose of portals? has been asked and there is not a documented answer. I think all portals need review and re-development according to that question and how they attempt to serve that purpose. Deletion of the bottom end portals is not really a productive development. Development should involve the portals at the top.

Questions: Why are these few portals linked from the main page? Why them, and why only them? Should anything change? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Support - I believe that at this time of questioning about portals it is also appropriate to ask why these portals have this privileged position on the main page. They do not follow any layout pattern, either with the main page, each other, or with the other portals linked on the main page (Portal:Contents, Portal:Featured content and Portal:Current events).Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse) (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope this question is approached from the perspective of removing things that are no longer relevant to streamline and reduce clutter, and not adding things nobody asked for out of some sense of fairness. ApLundell (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 California Blackout

I haven't made a page in years. Please redirect or delete or whatever if needed. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher How does this pertain to the Main Page? 331dot (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Peregrine Fisher wants an In The News event. See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, where among other things, you will learn your article isn't long enough yet. Art LaPella (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Good for Portal:Current events for the time being... --PFHLai (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the OP was intending to nominate it for anything but it has indeed been redirected, to 2019 California power shutoff.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

why isnt sprint merger on news

the sprint t mobile merger was complete why is it not on the news page of wikipedia when it is a major company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.203.50 (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for in the news candidates can be made at WP:ITNC. Spokoyni (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What has just happened is that the FCC has voted to approve the merger, but there is still outstanding legal action by various states, so it is not complete anyway.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible hostile welcome?

The giant red banner at the top of this talk page has two purposes as I see it: the first and main purpose it has is to warn users not to use this talk page for materials unrelated to the main page. The second one is similar, being to help potentially new users figure out their way around Wikipedia properly. This is evidenced in the words "Welcome!" and the later help below the red box. The current state of it, with the red box and bold red warnings, serves the first purpose well. However, it is potentially unfriendly towards new users. Rather than changing the color, which may cause people to overlook it and skip to the next thing, I think something like the word "Welcome!" being linked to Wikipedia:Introduction or something similar that guides new users to a friendly place to learn about wikipedia. I would like input before doing it, however, to see any opposing opinions or other solutions that could be made. _{Integral Python}^{click here to argue with me} 21:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to read it, the point may be moot. freshacconci (✉) 12:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No rewording will make everyone post where insiders want them to, but at least we know the OP read it, and it wouldn't hurt to fix it. I'll fix it as requested in a couple days if there are no objections. Art LaPella (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

← Art, I suggest the banner be flanked by these helpful symbols. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC) →

Yesterday

Yesterday's Today's featured article and list are stil on the Main Page. --Ghinga7 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Our records say this was yesterday's Main Page, so I can't confirm that. Remember Wikipedia uses UTC (London time zone), so our yesterday might not match yours. Art LaPella (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Art LaPella (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

London is currently one hour ahead of UTC. Modest Genius ^talk 12:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2019, the featured article for yesterday was Ursula K. Leguin. The featured article for today is supposed to be Megabat. The current article is Megabat. I believe the OP is mistooken. --Jayron32 17:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Possibly. Or there was some kind of caching issue, which wouldn't be unheard of. And I think you meant "mistaked". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Don't use my yesterday's Main Page link any more. It links to /Yesterday, which now means today's yesterday (Le Guin), not yesterday's yesterday (the hurricane). Art LaPella (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  - Yes, but today is yesterday's tomorrow and tomorrow's yesterday, so we really should be looking at the last next Tuesday, right? --Jayron 32 13:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK section heading

I may be missing something, but my understanding of MOS:ELLIPSIS is that there is to be a non-breaking space between the word that precedes an ellipsis and the ellipsis itself. However, there is no space between "know" and the ellipsis in the "Did you know..." header on the main page. Should that be changed? Armadillopteryx^talk 16:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It would appear so. --Jayron 32 16:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussion Art LaPella (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that either of those discussions ended in a discernible consensus. Has an effort been made to establish one? Armadillopteryx^talk 19:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect people decided it was the 1,462th most important outstanding issue on WP and dropped it. I can pretty much guarantee that further discussion will result in "no consensus" either way, and the status quo will be maintained. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I can appreciate that this is hardly a priority as far as encyclopedia-wide issues go, but if it's not even worthy of further discussion, why not default to the version that's supported by the MOS instead of a status quo that's neither in compliance with the MOS nor established by consensus? I would think that a policy-compliant version should be default over a policy-noncompliant one, barring actual consensus to establish an exception. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Without going too far down the rabbit hole myself, those previous discussions seem to me to show that there isn't a clear policy-compliant vs policy-noncompliant distinction. I think the MOS is silent on this specific type of use - which is different than mid-sentence ellipses - and those discussions show there is no consensus on what is policy-compliant and what isn't. We'd end up with people arguing which "looked" better. When there isn't a clear consensus in interpreting a policy - and those discussions show that there isn't - we generally default to the status quo, because we can't by definition, default to the policy-complaint version. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Besides, the MOS is more what you call guidelines, than actual rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The entire point of the ellipsis there is that the "did you know" plus each of the listed items makes a sentence, so that it is a mid-sentence ellipsis. --Khajidha (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The formation of a complete sentence in conjunction with the section header is the reason the hooks take the form they do—including a space between the ellipsis and "that". Armadillopteryx^talk 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made the change to allow us to focus on those 1,461 more important things that need fixing. Happy to be reverted if someone would prefer to continue this discussion, or close it without consensus so that we can have it again in a few months. Step hen 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That looks horrible!!! I strenuously object!!11! (kidding!) Just goes to show you, Armadillopteryx, that Wikipedia is a random place. In the 100 closest parallel universe Wikipedias, this would have happened in maybe 5 of them (in 10 of them, someone would have somehow ended up blocked). While I'm sad to be shown to be wrong in public, I'm glad that this change will make you marginally more happy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, an intervention by the deus ex machina itself! And here I was, already bracing for at least six years of sleepless nights. Hopefully our analogs in the parallel universe Wikipedias survive their discussions almost as well as we have. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

At risk of being the no-fun brigade, throw in a vote for the old status quo, that is, restoring no space before the ellipsis - new version looks wrong to me. Spaces are fine for a mathematical series ( 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 ... ) but not an English "prompt" like "Did you know..." is. (That said, as pointed out to Armadillo before, I realize that this is not exactly a high priority issue.) SnowFire (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps you want to get the guideline at MOS:ELLIPSIS changed? SD0001 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Why aren't today's featured articles given automatic semi-protection?

It seems odd to me that todays featured articles aren't given semi-protection for the day of their featuring, given that they are normally under near-constant vandalism by Ip users. While often helpful edits are made to improve the grammar and such, these are near-universally done by user editors who would be able to edit if the article is semi protected, Pretty much all edits made by Ip users on today featured article entries are not constructive. This seems like something that probably has come up before and I'd like to know the reasoning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: it has come up before, look over Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Protecting_Today's_Featured_Article_on_the_main_page and the links from there to get a background on the topic. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, perhaps these should be linked to from the "Why aren't pages linked from the Main Page protected to stop vandalism?" section of Wikipedia:FAQ/Main_Page, which also doesn't actually link to the 2011 RfC Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Where can I get a basic tutorial for Wikicodes?

Particularly I want to learn about tables, templates, hatnotes, main article, breaking columns etc. Detailed tutorial on first page is highly appreciated.

FatCatOnMat 10:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@FatCatOnMat: You really should have posted this at WP:Help desk. This page is for issues about the main page.

I've written a guide that covers a variety of issues that may help. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

FatCatOnMat: You can look at Help:Cheatsheet. Which covers everything about tables, templates, hatnotes, main article, breaking columns. CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You may also be interested in the Wikia equivalent here Jackiespeel (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Today's featured picture is pornographic

This is not on the main page anymore. Discussions of the image in question should be directed to the talk page of the image. --Jayron 32 16:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

It doesn't matter how old it is, it was clearly made to be pornographic. Why is that on the main page where children will see it? Dream Focus 15:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The painting is a Renoir in an art museum open to the general public and only shows women's breasts, and the caption statesa purpose other than "the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal"(our definition of pornography). The intent of Renoir was "Renoir's intention was to reconcile the modern forms of painting with the painting traditions of the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly those of Ingres and Raphael", not sexual arousal. Museums around the world are full of paintings like this. The picture for that box is decided in advance. I'm not going to tell you whether it should or should not offend you, but it's not pornography. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Why should we give a damn about whether or not children see art on the main page?--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's laudable to have art on the main page where everyone, including children, can see it. If this also helps enlighten people, including children, about the artistic genius of Pierre-Auguste Renoir, then so much the better. I hear that 19th-century paintings of female nudes may also offend other groups. But that's a risk we'll just have to take, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

See, I was pretty certain that such historical artworks are generally not considered pornography even if they should, because It's Not Porn It's Art When It's So Old. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it's also useful if it sparks discussion. But I guess I'm going to be inherently biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC) p.s. they don't look much over 30 to me

If you think a normal depiction of human bodies is pornographic or somehow damaging to children, it is you how has the problem, not us. Fgf10 (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we can all now agree that the partially clothed image of Ermina Zaenah is not damaging to children. Even if she has got a fan? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

For convenience: here's the image. Geolodus (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2019

This page is for discussing the main page. The article in question has not been on the main page for 4 days. Please discuss changes to the article at the article's talk page. If there are other issues to discuss related to the main page, start a new discussion so it is clear you have something relevant. --Jayron 32 12:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

I looked at the summary again and one thing should be clarified. At the moment, it reads like Hinault battled with both Fignon and LeMond in 1985 and 1986, but this only applies to LeMond. I'd recommend changing it to "the latter of whom he battled". Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Lemond was a teammate, not an ex-teammate, in those years. That sentence needs reviewing at the moment, because the subject of the first verb (his rivals) is not that of the final clause (Hinault, in relation to his retirement), but no indicator of new subject except in a parenthetical clause. There is nothing sourced in the article describing these men explicitly as his rivals, except in their competing specific races with him. Given that Lemond supported him in '85, and the favour was, at least expressed as, returned in '86, I don't believe that "battled", or even "rivals", really describes the situation. Kevin McE (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am open to finding a better term here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In terms of sourcing, I think it would be better to drop that whole rivalries sentence, and maybe use the available characters for the 'patron' info from the end of the lead para. Kevin McE (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The "World Road Race title" should not be in a list of races that he won: the title is not a race, use "World Championship road race" instead (lower case rs). Kevin McE (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The two titles are interchangable, but I don't mind if it is changed here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Essential errors of fact appearing on the MP:

The world road race title should not be capitalised, and is not a race (in is among a list of races);
Fignon did not compete in the 1985 Tour de France, and was not competitive for overall victory when he pulled out of the 1986 race;
Lemond was a teammate, not a former teammate or a rival, of Hinault in those years;

and we have an unsignalled change of verb subject in that sentence (His principal rivals did not retire at the end of 1986)

Hinault retired at the World Championships on 6 September, not at the end of the year (or even of the season).

As to the first, I would suggest replacing "World Road Race title"(sic) with "World Championship road race" (as in the article lead).

If we are to retain the part about rivals, I would suggest "His principal rivals included Joop Zoetemelk and those who defeated him in the 1984 and 1986 Tours de France, Laurent Fignon and Greg LeMond. Hinault retired in 1986, and remains the most recent French winner of the Tour de France." However, this selection of rivals is a synthesis (WP:OR) of what is in the article: it is not sourced, it is not explicit in the article. And it could be challenged: Lemond was a teammate, a great help in Hinault's 85 Tour win, and in many other races over 5 years that they were on the same team, and Lemond's win in the 86 Tour was the team plan, not the vanquishing of a rival, although Hinault did not conform to the team directions on some stages. My suggestion: drop the rivalries sentence altogether, and import the final sentence of the article's lead para, about him being a 'patron'. Kevin McE (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Also no good reason to link common words like "badger". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm dealing with some stuff here and won't be able to help, do whatever you guys (non-sexist "guys") think is best. - Dank (push to talk) 10:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, we can't? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"you guys" meaning everyone. I'm sorry, I really can't help right now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So that's it? If Dank is not available, no other Admin is willing to make corrections? Kevin McE (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I've unlinked badger, which was pretty straightforward, but I'm a little confused about what all is being replaced by what all with the rest, though. I kind of hate to futz with FA when I have zero idea how that works. --valereee (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I've just seen this, and obviously there's no point spending time messing with it now when it's going to be off the MP in less than half an hour. It is quite ridiculous though that this has remained untouched for, what, 17 hours (and that's not counting the stuff that was posted yesterday)? Kevin/TRM, can I suggest if this sort of thing happens again that you drop a quick note onto AN or ANI, which far more admins are watching? Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we really be posting every admin request that should be dealt with at Project X at AN/ANI? That just clutters up AN, and doesn't necessarily get the attention of someone who is familiar enough with FA to handle this. In this case I would need someone to say "Delete markup X and replace it with markup Y," as I don't know the article and don't know FA and the number of issues mentioned here plus all the suggested -- and sometimes conflicting? -- solutions looked like a complete rewrite. I doubt it's that there was no admin who saw this. I think it's more likely there was no admin who saw it and thought, "Here's a problem I know how to solve." I saw it, changed the badger thing, and then for the rest of it thought, "I have no clear idea what I'm being asked to do." valereee (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That describes my situation too. I know nothing about cycling, and wasn't going to touch it without clear directions and consensus. Should also look at the prep and review process on how there was so much disputed content that made it.—Bagumba (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not have a chance to read this, busy today IRL, but I prefer request to be in the form of Is, Should Be, Because, example:

Is: Fourth hook copy/paset of hook
Should be: copy/paste of hook
Because: Obvious typo

It makes life a lot easier if the admin does not have to figure out the solution. I know I can fix some things quickly during a work break or something, but it is less likely when I have to find the hook and figure out what change actually needs made. Some of the suggestions above are clear and others require me to sit down for a few minutes and figure it out, when the proposer likely has something in mind. Kees08 (Talk) 05:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee:, @Bagumba:, @Kees08:: I made what I would consider very clear suggestions ("As to the first, I would suggest..."; "If we are to retain the part about rivals, I would suggest..."; "My suggestion: drop the rivalries sentence altogether, and import..."). I did see the blurb some time ago, but ironically because it is a subject I am particularly interested in, I was less focussed on the grammar, semantics and referencing than usual and went on a link-hopping read instead. Kevin McE (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I honestly read part of it on a break, got a few sentences in and it looked really involved, so I stopped and went back to work. If the clear suggestions were at the top I personally would have been more likely to act on them. To make it even easier, instead of As to the first, I would suggest replacing "World Road Race title"(sic) with "World Championship road race" (as in the article lead). you could say ...and the World Road Race title in 1980.... should be ...and the World Road Race ~~title~~ in 1980..., per the target article's lead. That makes it easier for me because I do not have to read the blurb several time (or ctrl+F it I guess) to make sure I did not miss another instance of 'title' in the blurb. For the rivals, I would suggest leading with the suggestion and then have the reasoning after it. Also, saying specifically what you recommend to delete (quoted exactly) and copy/paste what you wanted in from the article's lead here. I never want to go on a hunt for all the information that someone wants to fix in a time-sensitive WP:ERRORS fix, especially if it is something I could fix during a break in my work day. Honestly, I just read your suggestions several times and I am still not clear what all the suggested changes are. There are the two I just talked about, but there are four bullet points, I think three of them pertain to the rivals paragraph? Maybe other admins prefer a different format, but I am quicker to act when it is clear what change needs to be made. I saw it and did not act because of that, sorry. I cannot guarantee I will respond to every ERRORS request, but I will do the best I can with the time I have available. Kees08 (Talk) 08:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do remember looking at the request to change "World Road Race title" to "World Championship road race", saw that it was piped to 1980 UCI Road World Championships – Men's road race which had a link to 1980 UCI Road World Championships, and thinking the "right name" wasn't obvious to me, so I left it for an admin knowledgeable on cycling or for others to comment and affirm. This probably doesn't happen often, and may not have made a difference anyways, but separating each request to separate bullet points or line items can help see all the issues easier.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I made exactly the same attempt, because at first it looked like another straightforward fix, and had exactly the same confusion once I saw the pipe. --valereee (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Kevin McE, that complete paragraph was If we are to retain the part about rivals, I would suggest "His principal rivals included Joop Zoetemelk and those who defeated him in the 1984 and 1986 Tours de France, Laurent Fignon and Greg LeMond. Hinault retired in 1986, and remains the most recent French winner of the Tour de France." However, this selection of rivals is a synthesis (WP:OR) of what is in the article: it is not sourced, it is not explicit in the article. And it could be challenged: Lemond was a teammate, a great help in Hinault's 85 Tour win, and in many other races over 5 years that they were on the same team, and Lemond's win in the 86 Tour was the team plan, not the vanquishing of a rival, although Hinault did not conform to the team directions on some stages. My suggestion: drop the rivalries sentence altogether, and import the final sentence of the article's lead para, about him being a 'patron'. You're suggesting a change, questioning whether that change represents OR and would be challenged, and suggesting an alternate change all in the same paragraph. And that's just one paragraph of a change request that is five times as long as the blurb. This did not feel to me like "very clear suggestions". --valereee (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2019 (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.

[1] Lind, J.; Lindenfors, P.; Ghirlanda, S.; Lidén, K.; Enquist, M. (May 7, 2013). "Dating human cultural capacity using phylogenetic principles". Scientific Reports. 3 (1): 1785. Bibcode:2013NatSR...3E1785L. doi:10.1038/srep01785. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 3646280. PMID 23648831.

[1]