Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 169

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165←Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171→Archive 175

What's a movie theater?

Is it like a theatre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.176 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mostly, but stickier. GRAPPLE X 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Movie theater. –HTD 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR is probably a better link, with Comparison of American and British English and American and British English spelling differences#-re, -er being close second and third. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is this information not on the home page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.176 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Were you seriously confused? I realize that the term "movie theater" isn't widely used outside North America, but my impression is that its meaning is widely understood (due to knowledge that "movie" is an alternative name for "film" and the similarity between "theater" and "theatre"). —David Levy 21:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No, David, of course, he's not. This is obvious trolling. -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone's changed it to "cinema" now. Shouldn't we change it back to movie theater? This is an American news story, and no one ever says "cinema" here. 108.41.95.180 (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed it, per MOS:COMMONALITY.
I find your claim perplexing, as the term "cinema" is used interchangeably with "movie theater" in the U.S. (and currently appears four times in the 2012 Aurora shooting article).
We use the title Movie theater because "cinema" also commonly refers to films and filmmaking, but no such ambiguity exists when referring to "a cinema". In that context, it clearly means "movie theater". —David Levy 22:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where in the U.S. you're from, but I've never heard anyone ask "Where's the cinema?" or say "Which cinema are we going to?". "Movie theater" is far more common than "cinema" in American English, and we shouldn't be bowing to such nonsense ("What is a movie theater?" -- you know darn well what a movie theater is), especially when the change introduces a primarily BrEng term to a U.S.-related item. If "movie theater" is so revolting, we could with "at a movie showing" or "film screening" or whatever.
Also, I'm really surprised no one has taken issue with "open fire". That's a (potentially colloquial) idiom of U.S. origin. -- tariqabjotu 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't change the wording because of the above post. I did so because we favor terms used across as many English varieties as possible (provided that the one relevant to the event's location is included).
I strongly disagree that "cinema" (in this context) is "a primarily BrEng term". One of the largest movie theater chains (actually, I'm more inclined to say "cinema chains") in the United States is called "Regal Cinemas". Another major chain (later absorbed by AMC) was called "General Cinema". Many other U.S. chains and independent operators use the term "cinema" as well.
"Movie theater" is the most common name in American English, but "cinema" isn't uncommon.
I'm from New Jersey, incidentally. —David Levy 00:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You'll also observe that the theater chain where the shooting occurred is called Cinemark Theatres. But that doesn't change "theatre" (as opposed to "theater") from being a primarily BrEng term or make that acceptable for articles written in American English. Those are just attempts to sound classy, and don't reflect common spelling or usage, particularly in common nouns. -- tariqabjotu 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what leads you to believe that it's unusual in American English to refer to a movie theater as a "cinema". Less common, yes, but perfectly acceptable.
Reuters reported that the suspect was taken into custody "in a parking lot behind the cinema".
Bloomberg Businessweek ran the headline "Cinema Security Tightened After ‘Dark Knight’ Shootings", describing Cinemark as "the third-largest cinema operator in the U.S." and reporting that "New York City deployed police officers to cinemas showing the Batman film after a gunman killed at least 12 people at a Colorado theater".
The Miami Herald ran the headline "No new security measures planned at most movie cinemas in South Florida" and the subheadline "Most area cinema owners report they will maintain — at least for now — current security measures.", reporting that "the PG-13 film played in 3,825 theaters domestically in the midnight screenings, expanding to 4,404 cinemas nationwide Friday".
The Los Angeles Times ("theater" in headline) reported that "theater owners nationwide were stunned by Friday's shooting at a Colorado cinema" and "patrons at some theaters, including a Regal theater in downtown Washington, D.C., did have their bags checked by cinema employees as a precaution".
The Boston Herald ("move theaters" in headline) reported that "local cinema operators are reviewing their security measures" and "[Paris] workmen were clearing away barriers that had been set up in preparation for the premiere at a cinema on the capital’s Champs Elysees avenue".
Of course, all of these articles contain "theater" and "movie theater" (not quoted above, excepting headlines and sentences in which "cinema" also appears). It's likely that the writers wanted to minimize repetition, and they regarded "cinema" as another suitable term. —David Levy 05:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I've decided to act on the suggestions I made since The Rambling Man commented on "opens fire" (albeit for a different reason). -- tariqabjotu 23:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I like the rewording. —David Levy 00:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, technically, the "theater" is the specific room in a cinema where a film is shown. Like they often say when they rip your ticket, "You are in theater 2, sir." But people say "I'm going to the movies", "Going to check out a flick", "There's a new talkie at the movie house!" (maybe not so much on that last one anymore). But people rarely say, "I'm going to the theatre", unless they mean a play/show/live performance. -- Avanu (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

But people could and would say "I'm going to the movie theater", which is what I would almost always hear in this context. "Cinema"? Never. -- tariqabjotu 05:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Cinema would sound too 'fancy', like saying "I'll take my water from a drinking glass, please." Just sounds stilted and formal. -- Avanu (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I usually hear "going to the movies". —David Levy 06:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Both "theater" and "cinema" are used inconsistently, referring to either the entire building or one of the individual screening rooms (which I've seen labeled "theaters", "cinemas", "screens" and "auditoriums").
I fondly recall my childhood visits to a three-screen operation at which the labels "Cinema I", "Cinema II" and "Cinema III" were used. —David Levy 06:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm bemused that this discussion is taking place. The shooting occurred in the USA, where "movie theater" is more common than "cinema", as explained above. I'm British, and would never use "movie theatre", which sounds as off/wrong to me as "cinema" does in the post above by Avanu. Most readers would accept the American term being used for an American story...wouldn't they? doktorb wordsdeeds 11:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I'm Brit, and it's perfectly obvious what a "movie theater" is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
And if they do struggle to understand im sure there was an encyclopedia around here somewhere which might explain what it is.... BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Many people seem to only ever consider the first part of ENGVAR, which deals with the vocabulary selection when it is appropriate to reflect local use, but overlook the strong recommendation that follows it to avoid the need for such choice by using phraseology that is common to all English speakers. Kevin McE (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I understand why the original post and ones like it provoke defensive responses, but it's perfectly acceptable in American English to refer to a movie theater as a "cinema". The latter term is less common here, but not uncommon. —David Levy 17:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
According to one obscure on-line encyclopaedia I sometimes use, cinema has 16 possible meanings, while movie theatre has only one, and I learn that the cinema "a building in which films are shown" is, in fact, called a movie theatre! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
As noted above, "cinema" has three primary meanings (and a bunch of secondary ones), but "a cinema" unambiguously refers to a movie theater. —David Levy 17:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't believe that "movie theater" is likely to confuse many readers. And while it's the most common name in American English, "cinema" is a perfectly acceptable (and not uncommon) alternative. I quoted major American publications that used both terms in their coverage of the shooting.
Of course, Tariqabjotu's wording (which refers to "a midnight film screening") sidesteps the issue. —David Levy 17:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


Languages are not in English..

Who's bright idea was it to have all the languages in the side column of this and any other wiki-page written in their own language rather than English? If the whole Côte d'Ivoire vs. Ivory Coast thing has taught us anything, its that in an English Wikipedia, we must spell everything how an English-speaker would spell them. It's very confusing for me (and I'm assuming many others as well) to find a certain language in the list of languages... if I don't actually speak the language. I say we make them all English.. or at least make them English and them have the other titles in brackets.--Coin945 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously they're not in English, that would defeat the point. The idea is that if you are a speaker of some other language and want to read Wikipedia in that language then you can click on the link. If the link titles were to be written in English then non-English speakers wouldn't necessarily be able to find their language. The links to not exist for the convenience of English speakers and therefore should not be written in English. Hut 8.5 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. In the French Wikipedia, the links should all be in French. In the German Wikipedia, in German. Etc. How is it of any use to us having a whole column of what is essentially gibberish to many people. I stand by my view that... at the very least we should have the languages in English, and then in their own language in brackets.--Coin945 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately that is not how it is done, and so I can find interwikilinks to languages I understand even in wikis written in scripts I don't read. Also, it helps quite a lot to have this work the same on every wiki. —Kusma (t·c) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"if you are a speaker of some other language and want to read Wikipedia in that language", then why would you be scrolling through a language column on the English Wikipedia? If the answer is that the languages appear the same in every version of Wikipedia, then I think we have a problem...--Coin945 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Suppose I do a Google search for something, and click on a link to the French Wikipedia. I want to read an article on that topic in English, so I look at the links to other languages at the side. If the links were written in French then I would not be able to find the appropriate one unless I happen to know that the French for "English" is "Anglais". Hence if your proposal were to be enacted then my ability to find English-language content depends on my ability to speak French, which just doesn't make sense. Putting the foreign language term in brackets wouldn't help much, since they would presumably be sorted alphabetically according to the French term (so English would be under "A" rather than "E"). Hut 8.5 16:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, as an English-speaker, I sometimes find myself wanting to look something up in the Wikipedia version of an article in another language, and I then have to go and look up what that language is called in that language before I can click on the right inter-wiki link... Can you instantly identify all the languages down the side of an article, or do you have to go and look up which one is the Russian one and which one is the Bulgarian one (not everyone knows the two-letter codes off by heart, and certainly not random readers)? If I look down the list of interwiki links on most pages, I can only usually identify about half of them. There should be at least a helpful link to the list of all languages in both their own languages and in English (I think this list lives on meta). For example, is Eesti Estonian? It might be, but I'm only really guessing. And I have no clue what Galego is. The list on meta is at meta:List of Wikipedias - that would be a very useful addition to what-ever generates the inter-wiki links. I know this link is already at the bottom of the Main Page in the 'Wikipedia languages' section, but where it is really needed is in the inter-wiki links bit that appears on every page, along the lines of "For an English-language key explaining which languages are which in the list below, see...". Though ideally that would link to an alphabetical list so people can easily see what the languages are. Alternatively, set things up so if you hover your cursor over the interwiki link, a mouse-up will tell you what language it is (e.g. Estonian for Eesti; Galician for Galego, and so on). Carcharoth (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Why would you be looking something up in a language you don't understand? And why is this being discussed on the Main Page talk page? --Yair rand (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is probably the wrong location, but I'm only joining a conversation that has already started... And to answer your first question, I sometimes find that the information I'm looking for (e.g. on an obscure historical French person) is only a stub in the English Wikipedia, but the French Wikipedia article is a lot longer, so I stick that into Google Translate, and that gets me closer to what I want to find out. I sometimes do that for obscure Russian historical people as well, and sometimes other languages. Does that answer your question? (Me, I would never question someone trying to research in another language, I would welcome it and try and help them!). Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I can answer your second question (obviously... as the starter of the discussion and all... :D). TBH, I put the discussion here for 2 reaosns. Firstly, I genuinely thoguht the discussion was only relevant to the main page, and then halfway through my post, I was like "hey, wait a minute", but I just thought "screw it" and finished it off here anyways. Secondly, I know this is a bit of a cheat, but since this page has received a lot of attention due to the 4 million articles thingy, and my post on Jimbo's talk page about Wikipedia's ugliness which has sparked a whole reform on this page, I figured that any query I would post here would get replies and intelligent discussion rather quickly. Of course, we can always notify the correct forum for this discussion with a simple link back to here. Does that answer the question sufficiently for you? :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Plus, for the record, I think that Carcharoth's "mouse-up" idea is inspired and rather a brilliant solution. I say we go with that.--Coin945 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not that inspired. If you look at the 'Wikipedia languages' section, the languages mentioned there already have mouse-ups. And on the side-bar, most of the options have mouse-ups. I just got to wondering why the interwiki links on the sidebar don't have mouse-ups. The real prize should go to whoever can find where the changes need to be made (presumably somewhere in the MediaWiki namespace) and how to do this in the most efficient way. I found MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order, but that doesn't look like the right page... Maybe ask at the technical village pump? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
My feeling on this matter is that the pages on the bottom should be in English, and the ones on the side should be in their native language. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
What nonsense. If the Ivory Coast incident has taught us anything, a clique of young Americans are trying to force their ignorance across the project for kicks. The whole point of inter-language links is to assist non-English language speakers to a corresponding page in their language. How arrogant of you to assume they're in native languages for some kind of frivolous joke. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay first of all, granted, that Ivory Coast was a bit of a silly and misguided analysis of that discussion, that I just shoved in my post at the last minute. Point taken. Secondly, I am in no way trying to insinuate in any way that English is more important that any other language. My point is simply that in an Enlgish Wikipedia, it would be nice to be able to immediately see what languages a page has been translated into. Btw it's not in a response to your post specifically, but I might as well respond in one hit: on having a 'reason' to see an article in a language that I don't even speak, as well as Carcaroth's translating reason, I simply have a fascination with checking our the "other languages" section of articles, and seeing what languages other languages the article is in. Sometimes its very interesting, and can take one on all kinds of socio-eco-geo-political-historic journeys. Just a little bit of academia I like to indulge myself in. One of many many reasons why such a thing might be desired on an English Wikipedia. MOst of the time it's not even about "doing" anything at all, but just to see what langauges it's in in one hit. In response to saying Carcaroth's idea was "inspired", sorry for giving you such a huge compliment (:D). I was reading this off my phone, and didn't have a chance to investigate further, and by the sound of it, it sounded quite a creative solution. Little did I know it was already half done. Upon further pondering, I have come to the conclusion that the languages in english would still be a heck-of-a-lot easier.--Coin945 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I fully understand your point - I like to see how specific languages have dealt with phrases or idioms in English (or, indeed, television episode titles). But I can't understand the substantive complaint. An inter-wink like says "Cymraeg" because the destination is Welsh-language text. Why would it - or do you want it - to say "Welsh"? doktorb wordsdeeds 18:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Turn the question around. Is there any reason not to have a mouseup that says "Welsh" when a reader hovers over it? That way, you've educated the reader who didn't know what Cymraeg meant! Win-win situation, surely? Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be as far a compromise I'd be willing to go. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
If you're unable to find the language's name for itself in its native tongue, then I can't imagine you having any use for the articles contained on that Wikipedia. If you're willing to use a translator for the article...then do the obvious thing and look up the name for that language? This is quite possibly one of the most absurd complaints I've ever seen on the main page. Yes, let's defeat the purpose of the alternate language column to save you 10 seconds of looking up the language's proper name. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
In order to know which language to translate from, you need to know what the language is (isn't that obvious?). And not everyone knows where to go and look up the name of the languages. The person who set up the mouse-ups in {{Sec link auto}} didn't think that was a waste of time. Can we please not be confrontational over this. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely it occurred to you to just look up the language's article on this very wiki? I just ran a quick test looking up a dozen languages from around the world, and sure enough every single one of them contained a notation at the very top of the article with that language's name in its own language and writing system. Doing this took me less than a minute. Assuming you're willing to run the whole article through an e-translator and struggle through that imperfect translation, how is it even possible that you could be unwilling to put in another 10 seconds to open a new tab, type in that language's name in English, and find its name in its own language? Even if you want to do the process in total reverse and click a random language without knowing what it actually is, as it turns out that copy/pasting the language's name in its own writing to the search box redirects to its English page, even for languages with non-latin writing. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, you can do it that way, but not everyone will think of or be willing to do that. Go to the main page, scroll down to the 'Wikipedia languages' section, and then hover over the various language names there. It is much more convenient to do this and go "hey, that's Ukrainian, that's Vietnamese, that's Malay", rather than look them all up laboriously. The same applies when you are at an article and for whatever reason you want to know which other languages have articles on this topic (and please don't question people wanting to look up articles in a non-native language, that sort of thing needs to be encouraged not discouraged, otherwise you are just encouraging parochialism). If you accept that both non-native speakers and native speakers will be interested in knowing what the language behind that link is, then it is much easier to hover the mouse over the links and you find out what you want to know (e.g. this article on an obscure 18th-century French general has articles on the Malay, French, Japanese, German and Dutch Wikipedias, but not any others). Now do you understand where I'm coming from in this discussion? I can accept that you might not understand why people might want to know that, but please accept that some people do want these links in other languages to be more accessible so they can get a feel for how widespread the topic currently is across different languages, and maybe even compare articles between different languages, but to be able to do so easily (by browsing) rather than laboriously by this individual look-up method you propose, which discourages browsing. I can bet, if these mouse-ups were implemented, the interwiki traffic would increase as some people who previously ignored the links started following them. Most wouldn't go very far, but some might get a better feel for what these links mean, and that ultimately would be a good thing. Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Rather than argue over this, can anyone help with a question? I looked into where the mouse-ups were coming from for {{Wikipedia languages}}, and I looked in {{Wikipedia languages/core}} and found the mouse-up coding in {{Sec link auto}}. Is there anyway to use that so that whenever someone hovers over the interwiki link on the sidebar for an article, you get a mouse-up in English? That would help English readers know what that link was for, while presumably native language speakers wouldn't need the mouse-up (though it might confuse them, but if you have two people trying to work out what a link means, one knowing the language, the other not, you will always confuse one of them). Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A bit more, from Template:Wikipedia languages/core/doc:

The interwiki links of this template are within the emplate {{Sec link auto}}, which will make the link go to the secure server if the user is there and otherwise returns a usual interwiki link. The third text parameter of this template shows a mouseover, which is the English language name of the language and its IS0 639 code within brackets. To determine the English name, it calls {{Language}}. Furthermore, there are "lang" and "xml:lang" within the text so that browsers recognize it's a non-English text and treat it properly. The text of the link then uses the parser function {{#language:}}, which displays the language's native name as it's used by MediaWiki, e.g. within the interwiki links. This is done to ensure consistency with the interwiki links in the sidebar.

Is there a way to get that kind of mouse-up functionality enabled on the sidebar interwikilinks for all articles? Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we perhaps have something like "Français (French)" and possibly sortable by either the native or the English name? That would seem to answer all the points raised here.--Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Relevant: mw:Universal Language Selector. --Yair rand (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    Thank-you for that link. It is an interesting project. On the subject of interwiki links and their relative inaccessibility to English-language speakers (I know they are not primarily intended for English-language speakers, but it would still be nice not to exclude English-language readers from understanding that part of a page that we provide them with), I've just found out that the mouseup/tool tip bit is only broken on the Main Page interwiki links. They actually work fine on other pages, though they show the title as written within the interwiki link (i.e. the title on the wikipedia being linked to). What I think I'm looking for is a way for logged-in users to be able to set a preference so that the interwiki links display the language name in English. That way English-language users can understand what the links are for, without having to go and look up the language code or name (there are too many for anyone to be reasonably expected to remember them). That way I can read an article and understand everything on the page, rather than glancing at the list of interwiki links, recognising a few, failing to recognise the others, and then giving up on it. It would actually be far more educational to our readers if we left the original language in place and told them in the language of the wiki they were reading what this language was. That way they would have learnt something, such as learning that Galego is Galician for Galician, or that Cymraeg is Welsh for Welsh. What I would propose for article interwiki links is that the mouseup for (say) the interwiki links on the human page would say things like: "German: Mensch" or "Mensch (German)" when you hover over "Deutsch". The point I'm trying to make is that it is possible to make the non-English language bits accessible to those who only read English (ie. make the interwiki links bilingual). It is the only bit on a Wikipedia page that a native English reader will struggle to understand. So if it can be made a bit more readable, and less like a black box that should be avoided (the slightly patronising implication being: 'don't bother trying to understand this interwiki list, go back to reading the bit in English that you will understand'), that should be a good thing. Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively - 'Click here (link) for parallel lists of language names in given language/your language' - using the second, third and fourth columns of [1] - a full table would be too large. 93.97.45.17 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The more sophisticated version would be the analogue of Napier's Bones - 1st column 'the language in that language' and 2nd headed by 'two letter language code' (so one can, for example see what 'Norwegian' looks like in 'Welsh' and vice versa (and even forgotten languages such as Hurrian and Sogdian if someone is bored enough to set the conversions up). 93.97.45.17 (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Gadgets and scripts

Over at ptwiki we have a gadget that translates interwikis to Portuguese. If there is interest I could translate it to English. Chico Venancio (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't know if this is still relevant, but technically JavaScript is required to change the interwiki language text. To me, it sounds like a doable thing, though this script here (haven't looked at it) might do the trick. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing out that script, I hadn't seen that before! I will point Equazcion and Chicocvenancio here and ask them to comment (I've split this off into a subsection). Are either of the gadget and script approaches documented anywhere where people can be aware of them and use them, and where would be the best place to continue this discussion? Where is the 'talk page' for the sidebar? Is it some mediawiki namespace talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


Norwegian Bokmål and Nynorsk

How could we change the naming convention used for Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian Nynorsk? As of now, it reads ‘Norsk’ and ‘Norsk nynorsk’, which is stupid, as if they both aren’t Norwegian; it should instead read ‘Norsk bokmål’ and ‘Norsk nynorsk’ (or, perhaps, with a comma after ‘Norsk’), which would make far more sense. I’ve tried searching for solutions for this, but it apparently is a couple of steps above my level of expertise. Comments would be most welcome. CannedMan (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


Current events, shootings and the picture

It is kind of weird but because of the shootings are in the current events section, the photo is of the filmmaker, well i just glanced and thought it was a photo of the shootings event and, this is the fact that his identity could be besmirched and people who do not want to look at a face of a largely unknown person might make some ridiculous assumption especially if they glance real fast without reading the rest of the current events.--99.55.104.165 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion about placement of the 'pictured' blurb and the picture comes up periodically. It is particularly unfortunate when we have pictures of people up there. Hopefully the picture will get rotated off soon for some other picture related to one of the other hooks, or another item goes up on ITN to avoid the misleading conjunction. Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If the pictured item was always at the top it wouldn't be a problem. Richerman (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We've been down that road many times, and consensus has always been for the status quo. Now, it's best we not detract from the very important BLP point of the OP here by arguing about picture placement. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd hardly call this a BLP point. The effort required to figure out which item that's related to is not significant. It's not as if that's illustrating a blurb at the bottom of ITN. It's the second blurb, which is probably still next to the picture for most people. While it'd be better to have a picture related to the top item, I really don't understand the problem. -- tariqabjotu 16:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure the image of Aurora town centre, currently included in the article, would be an improvement on this Main Page. Even the one of Obama. Really not sure why it should take ten fourteen hours to swap one image. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that it's a pain in the butt to switch images. I'm not sure if you're aware, but it generally involves the following steps:
  1. Download the image.
  2. Open the image.
  3. Crop the image.
  4. Upload the cropped image.
  5. Copy the license information from Wikimedia Commons.
  6. Swap the image on Template:In the news.
It's obviously not the most time-consuming thing in the world, but you can imagine why some people might be unwilling to do it if they have something else to do. It's not a ten-second thing like most changes to the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't need "consensus" to swap an image. Just do it. -- tariqabjotu 00:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, I don't consider this a particularly urgent thing. As I suggested above, I'd understand if we were illustrating something far down the template, but it's the second item, which is also next to the image. Obviously, I'm familiar with the section, so one could argue I know what to expect, but I don't think looking at another item adjacent to the picture is too much to ask. -- tariqabjotu 00:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You uploaded a 215x130px thumbnail instead of the original 1,567x807px file. I've protected the full-resolution version at Commons and deleted the local copy.
However, I don't care for this change. The image is squint-inducing even at the 220px size used in the article. At 100px, it's barely recognizable as a building, let alone anything illustrative of the event's location. And the angle doesn't lend itself to a particularly useful crop.
I agree with Tariqabjotu that the other image, illustrating the (also adjacent) second item, was fine. —David Levy 00:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there a policy/guideline stating that temporary uploads must be the full resolution ones? As after it's off the main page it will be deleted, I didn't think it would be an issue (bits on Commons would be much more useful, but I'm wary of that place). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
If using the original image (as opposed to a cropped version), the correct procedure is to locally upload the exact image stored at Commons. Keep in mind that anyone at the English Wikipedia visiting the description page (either via the main page or the article) sees it, so it's harmful to replace the full-resolution version with a thumbnail (especially when the subject is difficult to discern, which is when readers are most likely to click through for a larger version).
Is there a particular reason why you uploaded such a small version? —David Levy 01:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Speed and bandwidth considerations. Downloading the full size image on my connection took 2 minutes (yes, terrible connection). That's why I stopped hanging around FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You didn't crop it; I did. It should be cropped, perhaps with a vertical orientation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You cropped it and uploaded it under the original filename? I had no idea.
You should have appended "cropped" (or similar) to the filename and tagged it {{M-cropped}} instead of {{Uploaded from Commons}}. Otherwise, all transclusions throughout the site are affected. —David Levy 01:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's essentially a sign. It's much easier to make out, but it has little illustrative value. —David Levy 01:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but not better than the previous image.
Incidentally, I cropped the Town Center at Aurora image at Commons (to improve general usage). It now looks much better in the article and slightly less bad (but still not good) on the main page. —David Levy 01:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The current image is not ideal, but it does a good job. When it's opened the image looks fine. And I think it's perfectly appropriate for a dispassionate treatment of the story. So many thanks for making the change. I hadn't realised that it was so complicated and so fraught with pitfalls. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That looks good and impartial since it's not a face.--99.55.104.165 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-American bias

What's this "π" on the main page? Instead of using weird symbols that are just Greek to most readers of this American encyclopedia, we should rename the article "Pie (American)" instead, to honor the tasty American treat that's the sole reason anyone still remembers the musty old number of the same name. There is systemic Grecian bias evident in the mathematics-related articles featured on the Main Page, and it's a high time to do something about it. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about anti-American bias? There are three Edwards in TFA alone! It's outright discrimination against all other names. Wikipedia should be ashamed. 86.185.178.114 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Scottish-Canadian explorer"

In the "on this day section" Alexander Mackenzie is stated as being Scottish-Canadian, which is incorrect. He was Scottish, plain and simple. He lived in the area that is now Canada for a person, and largely during the time when that area was not yet considered 'Canada,' but then returned to Scotland. Could somebody please correct this. 172.218.93.102 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion you're about right. The problem is, "he was one of the founders of Fort Chipewyan". So, what do you think ? - Askedonty (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It still wouldn't effect his nationality, and Fort Chipewyan was not even within Canada at the time of founding. 172.218.93.102 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I think "Scottish explorer and scientist Alexander Mackenzie" would be enough to explain the combination of the context together with his political position. --Askedonty (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. 172.218.93.102 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Passed the request. Unfortunately the page is protected, and this all has been a path completely new for me, took time. Hope that old Alexander will not feel too disturbed with his new reputation. --Askedonty (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It's fixed for the next time he makes Main Page appearance. —howcheng {chat} 01:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

'Scottish explorer of British Northern America...'? Another version of the 'Was Mother Teresa Albanian' question. (She was born in the area before the state came into existence.) 93.97.45.17 (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I may have got this wrong, but this looks like a case of USism to me. Surely the blurb should be clarified with "A total of 121 Puerto Rican soldiers were among the 8,200 people from the US armed forces listed as missing in action during the Korean War." There were other combatant countries in the war and they would all have had MIAs as well. Again, as so many people have said before, the US is not the default here. 86.134.91.112 (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarified, thanks. BencherliteTalk 10:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

On this day . . . 23 Jul 2012

". . . killing 6,500 Jews that had been transported . . ."

Shouldn't "that" be "who"? Kind of adds grammatical insult to egregious injury. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. WP:ERRORS is better for this sort of comment, though, as that's what it's there for. BencherliteTalk 13:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good articles

I feel like the Main Page should make a greater reference to GA's. Something along the line of Wikipedia has 40,569 Good articles. You can view them all here. Any thoughts on this or something similar? Even if we didn't do something like this, I feel that the main page should link to our good article somewhere. Maybe we can put a link in the side bar under featured content. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be a move in the right direction. And we could concomitantly get rid of some of the duplicate links such as: Community portal, List of Wikipedias, Statistics... --ELEKHHT 15:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I actually proposed this about 9 months ago I think formally and to rotate GAs with DYKs or add a GA section and there was a "no consensus" I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd really like to feature some good articles on the main page but decided not to propose that for the time being because I've seen concerns that the process wasn't stringent enough. I'd hope that putting that notice up would be a good first step. Our good articles are good reads, and it's a shame that there isn't a more prominent way for readers to see them. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's another thought of something we could use. We could use {{Random page in category}} to create something like Read a random Good article Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Oohh, yes please! Personally, I'd like to see that 'random article' link on the sidebar - which links to some of the most embarrassing dross on wikipedia - replaced with a 'random good article' link. Richerman (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What a great idea! Why on earth would anyone want to link to Mladje when they could link to The Stakeout (Parks and Recreation)? The only thing the random article button is good for is playing Wiki ladders. Even if we didn't get rid of the old random article link, I think the new one should be added. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Most readers, unfamiliar with the "good article" designation, would interpret this to mean that the rest of Wikipedia's articles are bad. Obviously, we'd link to Wikipedia:Good articles, but many people would simply take the statement at face value.
We should consider renaming the process. —David Levy 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Great articles"? -- tariqabjotu 19:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I considered that; however, it would go against this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, "Satisfactory articles" it is. -- tariqabjotu 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
...except, of course, the same objection exists with regard to "Satisfactory articles" as to "Good articles" – are all the rest of Wikipedia's articles "unsatisfactory"? If you seriously think that the "Good" label should be changed, you need to suggest a non-judgemental alternative, such as "Accredited articles". I doubt you'll find a consensus, though. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of an arbitrary designation — something with an obvious Wikipedia-specific connotation (so it wouldn't be interpreted as its dictionary meaning and nothing more).
"Gold articles" would change only one letter (and retain the "GA" abbreviation), but it doesn't jibe with the bronze star used to denote featured articles. —David Levy 20:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid this discussion about renaming the whole GA process risks to derail the very good proposal above (as far I can see GA's have been called as such since 2005, unlikely to be changed now quickly). Why cannot simply stay "Good article", and if we ever get any feedback that misinterpretation along the lines you suggest happens at all, than we can talk about changing the name. A simple wikilink to WP:GA should actually avoid any such misunderstanding, but alternatively, as a pre-emptive measure one could be more explicit and say something like "promoted good article" or "distinguished good article" or "accredited good article", or "marked" or maybe something else. There should be an easier way to avoid misunderstandings other than renaming something in place since seven years. --ELEKHHT 00:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid this discussion about renaming the whole GA process risks to derail the very good proposal above
I seek to prevent the proposal's derailment (again).
(as far I can see GA's have been called as such since 2005, unlikely to be changed now quickly).
And ideas like Ryan's have arisen multiple times, with this issue cited by others as an argument against them. I don't know whether a name change is likely, but overcoming the objection seems less likely.
Why cannot simply stay "Good article", and if we ever get any feedback that misinterpretation along the lines you suggest happens at all, than we can talk about changing the name.
Why would you expect readers misinterpreting the terminology to inform us of this? They won't realize that it's occurring.
We're very careful about introducing new main page content, which is extremely difficult to remove. So we're not going to add something that seems likely to be problematic on the basis that "we can talk about" resolving the issue (and possibly accomplish nothing) afterward.
Announcing to the public that we have "40,569 good articles" is undesirable. I'm trying to pursue a viable alternative.
A simple wikilink to WP:GA should actually avoid any such misunderstanding,
Because everyone would follow the link and read the documentation?
We link to Wikipedia:Featured articles, but that doesn't prevent the common misunderstanding that "today's featured article" is simply an article that we've decided to feature today (leading to "Why isn't [insert non-featured article] today's featured article?!" questions/complaints).
but alternatively, as a pre-emptive measure one could be more explicit and say something like "promoted good article" or "distinguished good article" or "accredited good article", or "marked" or maybe something else.
Such wording is cumbersome and wouldn't even make sense to most readers. —David Levy 02:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not convinced by the above. What I see is the mummification of the main page, justified with fear from the risks of an change. --ELEKHHT 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I support the good article count's addition to the main page, for which I even created a mock-up when advocating it in the past. You're the one resisting a suggested change (renaming the GA process) on the basis that things have been a certain way for a long time. —David Levy 00:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh sorry must have been unclear, that was my assessment of the situation, I don't care much what is it called, neither do I have any issue with the current name. I also support the addition of a link to what is presently called GA. --ELEKHHT 01:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand that. And I seek to address an issue that's interfered with past attempts to make such an addition. You don't see a problem with the current name, but others do. —David Levy 01:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So, it seems like there's a decent number of people who are supportive of the proposal. Maybe we should go into more specifics. First, should we focus on making a change to get good articles onto the main page or onto the sidebar? I feel it would be better to focus on one change at a time. In either case, should we link to a random GA or to Wikipedia:Good articles? If we put it on the main page, where would people put them? Near the top, or under the featured picture, or somewhere else? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

When this was discussed in the past, the format that seemed the most viable was one in which the featured article count and good article count appeared alongside the total article count at the top of the page.
I strongly supported the idea (which would promote featured/good articles and eliminate the implication that we value quantity over quality), but as I recall, we never made it past the naming issue discussed above. —David Levy 02:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That particular discussion (there have been others) is archived here. A mock-up of the suggested layout can be found here. —David Levy 02:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It is remarkable how impossible it seems to be to achieve even minor improvements of the most banal and obvious kind. Somehow other Wikipedia's don't have this problem. The German Wiki and French Wiki display a link to their equivalent of GAs just below the FA section, "lesenswerte Artikel" (in English: articles worthwhile reading - and what a WikiJargon and massive understatement that term is!!!), respectively ."Bons contenus" (good content). The Italian, Spanish and Polish Wikis have a whole section for "Voci di qualità" (Quality articles), "Artículo bueno" (Good article), "Dobre Artykuły" (Good articles). Meanwhile we are in deadlock because presumably the word "good" can be misunderstood. --ELEKHHT 00:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
@ Ryan Vesey, I would not support. I've seen too many problems with GAs passing that shouldn't be passed and a lot of GAs get passed with out much oversight. DYKs, while at times problematic, still have multiple eyes on them and a process that encourages multiple eyes on them. GA, not so much. Beyond that, it would require an extensive overhaul to the GA process to get them there. DYK that GAs allow raw URLs in the articles? DYK that DYKs did not? Some of the DYK criteria are actual more strict than GA. I'd also hazard a guess GA is more ripe for potential copyvio abuse than DYK, because I almost NEVER see a single person really indicate they've looked at a GA for that. --LauraHale (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
As somebody who has been involved in both processes, I find it very hard to believe the presumptions and guesses that DYKs are generally better than GAs. I think you would need some real proof to convince anyone. What you say about URLs cannot be true, unless I misunderstand something. The MOS, including external link guidelines, applies to GAs, indeed very much so. Lastly, scrutiny is obviously linked to material being on the main page. If GAs are placed on the main page, than will receive more attention, more scrutiny, and thus will become better, a process now reserved to new articles about ever more minor subjects. --ELEKHHT 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link, nice pick. But that does not validate the presumption that DYKs are generally better than GAs. One could easily link to hundreds of DYKs which would not pass GA criteria. --ELEKHHT 01:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • GA criteria says "(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;" DYK basically requires EVERYTHING to be cited. Beyond that, when was the last time you saw a copyright check done on a GAN? How many times have you seen GAs failed for copyvio problems? I've had some of my GAs pass with less work than my DYKs took. If some one seriously wants to get GAs to the main page, they need to start developing a system to improve it now. DYK has become at times HARDER than GAN because the front page has required it become that. Beyond that, GAN is largely inaccessible to new contributors, which is a good thing for encouraging new contributors. --LauraHale (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
To answer the above question, GA only requires ccomplaince with 5 (of ~50) MOS pages. Reference formatting is not one of them, so yes bare URLs are technically allowed in GAs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. What does then criteria 1a mean stating that GA needs to be clear and concise, and therefore links to the whole MOS which further reads "The MoS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors produce articles with consistent, clear, and precise...". Anyway that might be a discussion for a different forum. My observation was that de facto most of the MoS is enforced during GA reviews, including external link guidelines. --ELEKHHT 23:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that this discussion is summarised and continued at Wikipedia talk:2012 main page redesign proposal? Those (like David) who can remember or are willing to search out previous discussion might also want to add them to that talk page as well, to help shape discussion there as things move forward. Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

On this day

I was wondering if British-Irish boy band One Direction could be included in that section as 23 July 2010 is the day of their formation. In April 2012, they made U.S. chart history becoming the first UK group to debut at number one on the Billboard 200 album chart with their first album. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The 50th anniversary of The Rolling Stones was recently shot down for ITN; the 2nd anniversary of a much less successful group is hardly worth inclusion here. GRAPPLE X 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough but the Rolling Stones should have made the cut that is 50 years and they have a legacy and sold zillion records. However I would like to point out that adding something like One Direction to the main page would be a nice change from what is mostly placed here, appealing to a different audience who aren't interested in the Sri Lankan war which ended on 23 July 1819, for example. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
If that got put on OTD, I guarantee the number of complaints on this page would skyrocket. —howcheng {chat} 16:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That's partially because 90% of users on WP are grownup males have you not seen the neglect of current boy band articles on WP such as The Wanted, Big Time Rush (band), JLS, Hot Chelle Rae and their sub-articles are all stubs. The Wikipedia community does not reflect its readers as teenagers use Wikipedia the most as the main article of One Direction has received 10 million views in the last 5 months. Articles of Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift are all immensely popular also. But I completely understand that having the formation of a boy band on the main page could upset or irritate users. I will not press on the issue anymore. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Under no circumstances, at all, whatsoever, should One Direction be featured on the front page of Wikipedia in positive terms doktorb wordsdeeds 04:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Featured article

Once more Wikipedia shamelessly panders to the human population by foisting a TV cartoon show upon the front page.--WaltCip (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that the featured article in question no longer meets our featured article criteria, you're welcome to list it at featured article review (FAR) in order to get it stripped of its status and thus no longer be a candidate to appear on the main page. Conversely, if you believe an article meets featured article criteria, feel free to list it at featured article candidates. --slakr\ talk / 18:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Judging by the sentiment of the comment, (a complaint about pandering to homo sapiens,) I think it may have been made in jest. 72.28.82.250 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
...and when there are complaints that WP is exclusively organic-sentient orientated we will know that computers and robots/androids/gynoids/zooids have passed the Turing test. 93.97.45.17 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That should probably be mentioned in the article. Modest Genius talk 13:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What would the plant, mushroom and single-celled organism equivalents be? (Anyone for 'Invasion of the Zombie Cyborgs'?) 93.97.45.17 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of talk content regarding main page media attention

On 02:14, 25 July 2012‎ MiszaBot removed the first general discussion section containing all the chatter about the main page and it's design/redesign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.61.228 (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been archived, and can be found here. GRAPPLE X 10:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking images

Could we consider linking images on the main page to their subject? We can take care of the attribution using a tooltip of sorts. See my example. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC) example image

Note that the text doesn't display if you are using popups; however, I checked this as an IP and it did display. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I imagine there are some legal issues with this, especially since some licences require a full hyperlink. But I'm no expert. Modest Genius talk 15:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you hover over the image? Attribution, the name of the file, and the license it is released under is given. Perhaps we should have the WMF legal team look at this? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did. That's not a hyperlink. Nor would it be workable for images with e.g. long credit lines, multiple licences or other odd copyright statuses. Modest Genius talk 16:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This has been proposed previously. Legal issues aside, I recall that the community rejected the idea on the basis that it would be confusing for image click behavior to differ on the main page (which is intended to serve as an introduction to the site). —David Levy 15:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
When I click on an image on the main page, it's because I want to see a larger version so I can see more detail. The main page pictures are tiny! Rreagan007 (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I always used to click on them hoping to go to the article, but I suppose that's just a me thing. No worries, it seems like there is/has been consensus against this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It's too bad that the "File Usage" section of an image's page becomes essentially useless when it goes on the main page. It'd be neat if there was a way to finagle that so that article-space uses of the file were much more prominent. APL (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
For images on the main page, a link to Special:WhatLinksHere for the image is given right above the file usage list. For example: "More than 100 pages link to this file. The following list shows the first 100 page links to this file only. A full list is available." (emphasis mine) Once there, you can choose your namespace of interest. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a good trick to know, thank you.
However it's far from obvious. When presented with an overflowing list of things to look through, a link offering the "Full List" is not something that seems tempting. APL (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
True; in theory, someone could replace the "full list" with "full list of uses in article space", and bold it for emphasis, but in practice that might be too much instruction creep. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
'Advanced search' maybe? Modest Genius talk 22:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest not putting anything too important in the hover for the simple reason that more and more people are browsing on devices that don't support hovering. APL (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lord's Pavilion DYK: our PR/display standards have really crashed

How did such a poorly written article get to appear on the main page? I mean ...

"It was designed by Thomas Verity.[1] It was built between 1889-90 and is also a Grade II Listed building.[2] It is owned by Marylebone Cricket Club but is also ..."

I'm giddy: It was ... It was ... It is. Also ... also (neither is needed, and the second, with "but" is illogical).

Then "were not permitted to ... were not permitted to" in the same sentence.

I won't go on. Tony (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you improve the article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not just the prose, the facts are wrong on at least two counts. The Queen was not the only woman allowed in the pavilion before 1999, unless you consider female catering and secretarial persons were not real people. Also, "Men are required to wear suits or military dress..." is not the case, and does not even conform with what the source says. Men are required to wear jackets and ties, but I can assure you that sports jackets and blazers, not just suits, are fully acceptable, together with any trousers of the non-jeans variety. I have been going there for years and know the code well; I was once turned away because I was wearing a zipper jacket. A friend of mine who was tieless tried to get into the pavilion by turning his shirt collar back to front and pretending to be a clergyman. He was not successful. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This kind of report belongs at WP:ERRORS, where your statement could easily have provoked a response before now. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually I don't think it does. The complaints are about problems in the article, I'm not even sure if they occured on the main page. (Even if any problems did make it to main page, it's necessary to fix them in the article first.) Complaints about articles belong in the article talk page regardless of whether the article is linked from the main page, as I'm sure Tony knows. Complaining about DYK standards here isn't doing much either, from what I can tell few of those involved in DYK check it out. And other people who do, whatever they may think of DYK standards, are fairly bored of the complaints and aren't likely to do anything about it. Edit: I found the hook [2] which did feature the misleading claim about the queen [3] but nothing else. As it stands long after the DYK hook is a distant memory the queen thing seems to have been fixed [4] but the suit thing hasn't so anyone reading the article will still be mislead. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the article to quote the source (quoting the MCC) to avoid the problem, anyone is welcome to reword if they feel they can do so without potentially being misleading, I'm probably not the best at describing clothes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of these are good points, and I've done some tidying and expanding too. Before I got there, the article had been made clearer about women: women were not allowed in as members until relatively recently, including catering staff, but the article now implies the Queen is an MCC member and I'm not sure about that. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

At least 44 killed in ethnic violence in Assam, India

At least 44 killed in ethnic violence between Bodos and immigrant Muslims in Assam, India during 2012 Assam violence. - BBC -Ekabhishektalk 10:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please post it here: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks... found an going discussion. -Ekabhishektalk 10:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Of our four above-the-fold items, two have relatively static content: TFA is chosen well ahead of time, and OTD only covers events of previous years. Meanwhile, DYK has a link directly to the proposals page, but ITN has no link to WP:ITN/C. Why don't we add one? Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's difficult to find where to make a proposal for ITN. I only found it by doing a search for "in the news", which isn't really very user friendly. Richerman (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You mean apart from the link in the whopping great yellow tag on the top of this page and in the box above the edit window for this page? — foxj 13:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose. There is a long-standing consensus that the Main Page is aimed at readers, not editors. Anyone who wants to nominate an item can find the link at the top of this page, and in the edit notice for this page, and in the toolbox above. Note that we don't have links to the equivalents for other days e.g. WP:TFAR and TT:DYK. Modest Genius talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Err, yes we do: see the footer of the DYK slot. "Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article" (linked to WP:Recent additions, WP:Your first article and TT:DYK respectively. BencherliteTalk 15:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that's news to me. My mistake. Modest Genius talk 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I never would think to come to the Main Page's talk page to look for links to the ITN candidates page, and even after the whopping great non-yellow tag was mentioned, it took me a while to find the links to ITN/C. Despite my familiarity with DYK (or perhaps because of it), my first proposal at ITN/C required me to search essentially every non-archive page associated with the ITN process before I found the candidates page. The other sections aren't comparable, because their nomination processes work very differently from those of ITN and DYK. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine why it would have taken you so long to find ITN/C. Like DYK, every page has a template linking to the key pages in the process. -- tariqabjotu 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
While it's not discussing this page, a portion of WP:RFD#KEEP is relevant here: "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful [, but] this is...because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." If we need to provide a link for nominating newly created articles for DYK, why would it be bad to provide a link for nominating newly updated articles? I understand David Levy's comment (although I disagree with his belief that it will cause substantial problems), but unless you say that you agree with him or you provide another rationale, I won't be able to understand your opposition. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Where did I say I opposed your suggestion? I simply questioned the fact that you found it so difficult to find ITN/C, even though it's linked from so many pages. We can lead a horse to water, but we can't force it to drink. You, involved in a similar process on the Main Page and apparently familiar with Wikipedia as a whole, were incapable of finding WP:ITN/C despite it being linked at the top of numerous relevant pages in a box — e.g. Talk:Main Page, Portal:Current events, Portal talk:Current events, Template:In the news, Wikipedia:In the news. If all those links were insufficient to get an experienced editor to this page, I don't know why or how you believe one more will make the difference. And, frankly, if someone can't find this page, despite being linked through all these pages, I don't see why we desperately need to get him or her to that page. ITN/C already receives a large number of nominations that ultimately aren't accepted for ITN. Why on Earth should we be encouraging people, who can't follow a simple link found on many relevant pages, to just waltz in and make a nomination? The criteria for DYK are a lot more straightforward. Contributing to ITN at least requires that people understand its purpose and its international scope. At the same time, there are far fewer blurbs that could possibly make their way into ITN (i.e. it's impossible to keep track of all the new and updated articles for DYK, but one just needs to glance at certain news sites to get an idea of what may be put onto ITN). Putting a link that says "Click here to nominate" right on the Main Page will cause many people to bypass reading about the section and result in an even greater number of nominations being rejected. Honestly, it's linked in enough places already. Squeezing another link in ITN to appease people who need to "search essentially every non-archive page associated with the ITN process" before a page that was probably linked on all of them is downright unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 22:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I see this is basically what David Levy said below. -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Umm, when you tell me that I'm an idiot for being unable to find the page and don't deserve to make a nomination because I can't find it, why am I supposed to take that as meaning that you agree with the suggestion? Even more, when you say "what I said is basically what another opposer said", why am I supposed to understand that as support? I suggest that you read this page and adjust your comments accordingly — stop thinking that people who don't navigate the way you do are less capable. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Saying that you feel there's already plenty of links to somewhere doesn't necessarily mean you oppose a suggestion for another link. Note that Tariqabjotu remark was clearly addressed at their earlier comments where they said nothing about not 'deserve to make a nomination' only commented that they didn't understand why it took you so long to find ITNC. Note also that you can be neither in support or opposed to a suggestion. In fact it's perfectly resonably neutral about a suggestion when you don't understand the reason it's felt necessary. (Note as well even if someone doesn't feel something is necessary it doesn't mean they're opposed to a suggestion but that wasn't even what TA said. In fact plenty of times I've said I'm not opposed to a suggestion but don't don't see it as necessary.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It's much easier for newcomers to understand why an article should be nominated for DYK. ITN is commonly mistaken for a news ticker, even among some of the editors arriving at WP:ITN/C now. A direct link from ITN probably would cause the nomination page to be flooded with requests that [insert news story not covered in the encyclopedia] be added. —David Levy 17:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No Olympics?

Excellent decision on choosing an American baseball player instead of the precious Olympics

No Olympics even in In The News? Considering that both Olympic Games and Cotswold Olimpick Games are Featured Articles, it seems wilfully perverse to have Today's Featured Article be on one of the few sports that isn't featured in the Olympics, on the day that most sports fans would agree is the most important day in the sporting calendar. 78.149.153.211 (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In The News usually waits until the opening ceremony occurs to post the Games began, which seems to be the consensus again this year.Boznia 08:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are good suggestions to post at WP:TFA/R for the day of the closing ceremony. Go make the suggestion! --Dweller (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been cancelled. See you in Rio. Lugnuts (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Watch out, Boris will get you. The geiger counter of Olympomania went zoink. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this was suggested at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Olympic games as early as 2 July, but no one seemed to notice. Having Olympic Games as TFA on the closing day would be better than not at all, but still it's a shame that today's opportunity was missed. Not enough people seem to know about WP:TFAR. --202.28.181.200 (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a shame, but the comment on the talk page wasn't as helpful as it could have been. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Watch out - I doubt the Wikimedia Foundation is an official sponsor of the games, might get sued. - filelakeshoe 09:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
If Olympic Games went to the main page as WP:TFA, it would almost certainly end up before WP:FAR because it isn't. Olympics will be more than adequately covered to a degree by Did You Know to the point where people will hate on it. --LauraHale (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It isn't what? --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't selected for Today's featured article. --LauraHale (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Weren't you saying it wasn't up to FA calibre (i.e. isn't a FA)? That's what it sounded like to me. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It isn't worthy of being referred to as 'featured'. It's in poor shape. Full of the poor referencing mechanism using {{rp}}, for example. That thing should be deleted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
We have a procedure. Until it's delisted, it's eligible for TFA. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked in to the article but is it really that bad? I thought may be it was promoted a long time ago but in fact it was promoted in 2009 (it was promoted and delisted earlier). I'm not that familiar with the citation wars but my impression is there's no requirement to use any particular style in an article, as with many areas of wikipedia the only requirement is for intra article consistency and not changing without good reason. Definitely if rp is depriciated both the template and Wikipedia:Citing sources surely should say this. Yet I seem to remember someone seeking consensus for change to rp in an article a few weeks ago. (Editors are of course entilted to their own personal preferences, but they should make it clear these are their personal preferences which won't generally actually affect things like whether or not an article is an FA.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. I do agree give the DYK and likelihood of a sticky ITN, an Olympics FA isn't that important. We do try to avoid an item beig in too many areas anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of hijacking this thread, what's wrong with {{rp}}? I use it all the time. —howcheng {chat} 17:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing. If you object to it, nominate it for deletion and prepare for the discomfort of those of us who rely on it heavily. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a very poor decision for today's featured article. Rather than some baseball player we could have post the Olympic Games, but no, the nitpickers must always butt in. The article is totally OK and no citation corrections should be made...--GoPTCN 12:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    It might have been an active consideration given the huge surge of Olympics DYKs prepared for the coming days and weeks; plus ITN is likely to post the opening ceremonies. It's nice to have some corner of the main page not be about whatever current event is going on. GRAPPLE X 12:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
What's the rush? Articles only ever get featured once. There will be other Olympiads. Wikipedia will still be around. APL (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Google has an Olympic theme every day. Would have been nice to do the same here rather than random pages every day. What's the rush to feature Giraffe or Aries? There's always next month. 2.28.96.100 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We do have an Olypmic theme every day; scroll down to DYK or look to ITN and there's a constant Olympic presence. GRAPPLE X 16:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the main page is too stuffy and too cluttered. Most users aren't going to see them that much. Even if for just two weeks the front page was given a makeover for an event like this. 2.28.96.100 (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

its symbol is [image] (Unicode ♈)

Why do we need the image and the reference to unicode? Wouldn't "its symbol is ♈" do just as well? Formerip (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And really ... a phallic symbol on the Main Page! What do we think we are, the German Wikipedia? Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
We'll have those "Chinese twin inspectors" after us! and sorry to see the Marshall Islands not linked. In fact where, exactly, do these Chinese twin inspectors come from? Can't actually find any other reference anywhere in Wikipedia. Bond (Chinese constellation) gives us "the Train of a garment" and "the Left Watch", but no mention of Chinese twin inspectors. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The image overshoots the ascenders and descenders of the text and is as clear smaller: can it be reduced in size to align with the text? 86.185.178.114 (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Raul654 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A change from sports- or country- centric complaints about the main page. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems too bothered someone who knows about the Chinese Zodiac, has now pointed out that they were, in fact, "an inspector of ponds and marshes" and a "an official in charge of pasture distribution", not in fact "twin inspectors" at all. All explained by Julius D. W. Staal (1988), well mostly anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sports events on the main page

I have started a request for comment here about what sporting events should be automatically posted to In The News. Formerip (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest 'emphasis on obscure sports' - eg Trobriand cricket - thus fulfilling the Main Page's remit to alert people to topics they didn't know existed (but find interesting). 93.97.45.17 (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Appeal re ITN candidate

I'm sorry but although I've been editing on Wiki for years, the ITN candidate process is too confusing for non-techie old analog me. I wanted to nominate Rūta Meilutytė's gold medal in the 100m breaststroke on Aug. 31, making her the first Lithuanian swimmer since Lithuania's Declaration of Independence from the Soviet Union in 1990 to earn an Olympic medal in swimming. At age 15, she is also the youngest Lithuanian athlete to win an Olympic gold medal. (Ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18906960) (Pic: Meilutyte.jpg) Perhaps one of you cyberwonks could take this on? Sca (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C would be the place, but it stands not the remotest chance. Kevin McE (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, then! Sca (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If you could expand it then it could make DYK. 2.26.72.221 (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Tips and Hints idea

  • Just came up with a creative new idea: why not have a "tip/hint of the day" somewhere on the main page (probably at the top), to let editors and casual readers get those nuggets of vital info that will help them on their way? (if any of you are aware of tge loading screens in Civilization IV, that's kinda the road I'm heading down here). They could simply be the "in a nutshell" sections of the wikipolicies, so no work has to be done in writing loads of entries, and by stacking all the entries into some sort of randomizing database, we don't have to worry about civatabtly changing it every day.
I think it's important to have them in easy to understand, conversational language if possible though (so sone may need tweaking). For example; " remember to always be as neutral as you can be when writing articles", or " Remember to not have a point if view when writing articles" - with a link to wp:pov
I am personally loving this idea more and more, the more I keep thinking about it. What do you guys think??--Coin945 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The following is great for editors but does NOT belong on the main page.
Permission requests

Many editors often wonder how to request permission to use an image they found somewhere, or a section of text from another source. Try using one of the permission request templates created specifically for this purpose so that you do not have to fuss with all the details.

Read more:
Become a Wikipedia tipster
To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Editing tip of the day
Permission requests

Many editors often wonder how to request permission to use an image they found somewhere, or a section of text from another source. Try using one of the permission request templates created specifically for this purpose so that you do not have to fuss with all the details.

Read more:
  • Ryan, I'd have to disagree with you on that. The main page most certainly IS for editors, and here's why:
I don't think of Wikipedia as a finished product. I think of it very much on terms of a work in progress. I think it is very wrong and misleading to put our very best work on a slick main page, giving the facade that we are a perfect work of art with no mistakes, when in fact we are soooo not. Maybe the reason people get so annoyed when they see our errors is because our main page offers so much that it is only natural that their actual wikipedia experience ends up being lower than their expectation. I think that we should make the home page more open in helping editors/skim readers/newbies/whatever to make Wikipedia better, and I see a page that if full of interesting tasks, and fun drives, and useful tips...... I think this is road we should be heading down. Noove ever promised we'd have a good encyclopedia. All we promised is that it would be free. We have *got* to stop treating the main page as the main page of a finished product, and instead use it as the core navigation guide - to the various odd jobs that we can do to assist Wikipedia - that it has the potential of being. I truly think that this is a step in the right direction, and that Wikipedia will be all the better for it.--Coin945 (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree. This entire encyclopedia is about the readers, not about us. We develop a misconception that we are creating it for ourselves. A vast majority of readers will never edit, under any circumstances. There are a large amount that wouldn't even edit if we paid them. They come to the encyclopedia not to assist in its creation, but to learn from what has been created. They outnumber us 1000 to 1 (not a real fact) and they are just as important to the project as the editors. Without the readers, our work would be useless. You've been around for much longer than many editors, so you may not have as strong of a recollection of Wikipedia as a reader. I was in reader only mode less than two years ago, and I can honestly tell you that if Wikipedia had presented itself in a manner that wasn't like a serious encyclopedia I wouldn't have read it. In addition, I wouldn't have edited it. There are many wikis I could choose from; however, I edit this one because it is a quality product. Ryan Vesey 04:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you are wrong when you say "A vast majority of readers will never edit, under any circumstances". Wikipedia as it is is uninviting to anyone who wants to edit. Plus is fails completely at turning those who would have never thought to edit into keen editors. I wholeheartedly believe that editors and the readers are one in the same. Any reader has the potential to edit, and to make Wikipedia better. Why have we not harnessed this awesome power? Why are we instead happy to make Wikipedia 'something to be read' (not 'something to be edited'), and therefore make it very hard for people to make that jump? This reader -> editor jump is a lot harder than many poeple give it credit for, and when faced with cruel, harsh comments from people at the highest rungs of the Wiki-caste system early in their Wiki-experience, the result is a further deterance and alienation in "switching sides". But then we have to ask if there actually are 2 sides. Perhaps they are one in the same. I, Coin945, an not an editor. I am an edi-reader (or readiter.. whatever you want to call it... i'm on the same vein as spect-actor here). Sometimes I want to edit and create, and other times I merely browse - just like any other reader - to discover and to learn. By making the home page a wonderful meld of the two 'types of wikipedia-people', we can end this seeming dichotimy by exposing the truth. You: yes you.. the person who stumbled upon this page today in the hopes of finding some info on your latest school assignment, you have the power to make a difference, and here are a few tools to help you on a wondrous journey, a journey that you can partake with many others just like you. ...Okay, granted that is a very airy-fairy way to look at it, but my point is that we have got to find ways to make the reader-editor transition smoother and easier.... with the ultimate goal of making it dead obvious that they are one in the same. This was Jimbo's original plan: to have a encyclopedia where you could be reaing somehting casually, and then suddenly see something tat could be improved, and realise that you have the power to improve it yourself. But somewhere along the way we got this core part of wikipedia horribly wrong, and have now landed in a harsh beaurocratic environment. Fine.. keep the featured article.. because it's encouraging to know your hard work will see your article on the main page. Keep some of the other stuff too. But I'm saying that we should include those little things that will catch some casual reader's attention one day, and make them say: "wow... i *can* make a difference...".--Coin945 (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
A few points:
HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, last time we had a discussion about a redesign I advocated having a section aimed at new editors and potential editors. The section would (i) highlight work that needs doing (randomised examples) (ii) provide basic guidance on what the work involves (eg wikifying) with links to more detailed help. The Main Page can and should be a tool for getting more readers engaged with editing; but in addition, I think it's valuable to give readers more of a sense of how editing works. Rd232 talk 09:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Transpose the last three sections

The last three sections - "Wikipedia languages", "Wikipedia's sister projects", and "Other areas of Wikipedia" - should be be reversed in order going down the page. I am guessing that it may be a better order in terms of reader interest. Do we have data that could establish the level of reader interest? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree regarding Other areas of Wikipedia. Like the sections above it, it's about this site, so it wouldn't make sense for it to follow two sections pertaining primarily to other sites.
We originally displayed Wikipedia's sister projects and Wikipedia languages in the opposite order. They were swapped to enable the inclusion of additional languages without pushing down any other content. (No matter how many we add, it only makes the page longer.) —David Levy 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of articles

This figure is incorrect because it includes at least 365,562 disambiguation pages. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

disambiguation pages aren't articles??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.118.187 (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
A disambiguation is not an article according to Wikipedia:What is an article? and Article (publishing). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
We must also remember to minus 1, since the Main Page is in the article namespace. AdamSommerton (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, what about lists? If Featured Lists are separate from Featured Articles, then surely Lists aren't considered Articles either? AdamSommerton (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
See Special:Allpages. It breaks it up into alphabetical breakdowns (which are broken down further) there are 3 sections of lists in there, one of which is complete and two are partial. I think we could assume that there are roughly two full list sections. There are 71 total of those large sections. That means each section is composed of roughly 56,000 pages. That would mean we have over 100,000 articles beginning with list of. In any case, I see no reason to exclude lists because they are content pages. I don't see any way to exclude disambiguation pages in our count since it draws from statistical information based on mainspace, I believe. Ryan Vesey 00:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Lists are still articles according to Article_(publishing)#Listicles. Redirects are excluded but they are in mainspace. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Suddenly I feel like eating a popsicle. 86.128.224.90 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfree image used for today's FA

This image cannot be used on the main page, nor can it be on Commons. A costume replicating one worn in a copyrighted video game is a derivative work of the game and a picture of someone wearing that costume at a convention cannot thus be licensed under CC unless the actual game itself is.

Or am I missing something here? Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe you might be right. The blurb went up without an image, but as is unfortunately usually the case, someone went and added one after the fact. It should be stripped out of the TFA blurb for the time being at the very least. GRAPPLE X 02:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Image pulled. —David Levy 02:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I just took care of it. Yes. This image wasn't even in the article to begin with. Now to nominate it for deletion from Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I assume that your edit submission nearly coincided with mine.  :)
I've also notified Neelix, the editor behind most TFA image additions (including this one and an earlier attempt). —David Levy 03:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I replaced it with a free one of Steve Downes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that we were better off with no image, to be honest. This one simply doesn't illustrate the article's subject. Downes (whose likeness isn't widely recognizable, even among fans of the game) isn't mentioned in the article (and wasn't mentioned in the blurb until the image was added). We shouldn't insert a tangentially relevant image for the sake of having an image. —David Levy 03:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not really in favour of TFA requiring an image—it's all well and good if something free, recognisable and relevant exists but given that DYK, ITN, OTD and TFP are all illustrated, as is TFL when it occurs, then we don't need to force something in for the sake of having an image. GRAPPLE X 03:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well ... this decision, IMO, should have been made before the blurb was on the Main Page. I agree with the tangential relevance of the image, but we've done this with tons of other articles about copyrighted works we've run on the Main Page. Unless we make some sort of official policy out of this, we can't suddenly decide to stop now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well ... this decision, IMO, should have been made before the blurb was on the Main Page.
To what decision are you referring? The featured article director prepared today's section without an image. —David Levy 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, which just shows how screwy this process is. Perhaps there should be some note, if no image is used, as to why. I do remember the old days before the free-images rule, when every main page FA had an image, and I think that the images break up the text and make people more likely to read it and click through. Plus they make a point about our commitment to promoting free content. Daniel Case (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be some note, if no image is used, as to why.
It's self-explanatory; Raul (or Dabomb) didn't find a suitable free image when preparing the copy.
This, of course, doesn't always mean that no suitable free image exists. But when we resort to inserting a picture of a car used to advertise the [non-automotive] subject or a person not mentioned in the article, it's a distinct possibility.
I do remember the old days before the free-images rule, when every main page FA had an image,
I miss those days. Upon their conclusion is exactly when the problem began. I'll never forget the fact that this happened.
and I think that the images break up the text and make people more likely to read it and click through.
This is offset by the "What's that thing?"/"Who's that guy?" factor.
Plus they make a point about our commitment to promoting free content.
We promote free content by using it appropriately. Displaying an irrelevant (or barely relevant) image makes free content look bad. —David Levy 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the tangential relevance of the image, but we've done this with tons of other articles about copyrighted works we've run on the Main Page.
It depends on the context. For example, if the featured article is about a book, a photograph of its author has a reasonable amount of illustrative value. Conversely, if the featured article is about a video game, a photograph of an unrecognizable voice actor (who isn't even mentioned in the article) simply doesn't illustrate the subject. It serves no purpose other than filling space. —David Levy 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you mean "wasn't mentioned in the blurb". Daniel Case (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
No. Steve Downes isn't mentioned in Halo 2, today's featured article. —David Levy 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless we make some sort of official policy out of this, we can't suddenly decide to stop now.
Stop what? Our longstanding convention is to include an image if a free one illustrating the featured article's subject is available (and not include one otherwise). —David Levy 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What I mean is that we have stretched this one mightily in the past. I don't see why a voice actor of a major game character would be any more tangential than a writer for a TV show. I think people are accustomed to us running pictures of some creative type at a convention with many of our articles on games/TV shows/movies etc. Daniel Case (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why a voice actor of a major game character would be any more tangential than a writer for a TV show.
A TV show's writer is strongly associated with the production and might even be widely recognizable (depending on his/her level of fame). He/she probably is directly or indirectly quoted in the article. At the very least, he/she is credited with the work's authorship.
This is hardly comparable to an individual not even mentioned in the article.
I think people are accustomed to us running pictures of some creative type at a convention with many of our articles on games/TV shows/movies etc.
They also are accustomed to us running no picture in many such instances. —David Levy 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
By unfortunate coincidence, we seem to have four white males on the Main Page right now. Not that it's relevant to the discussion or anything, just thought I'd point it out. I think the usual practice when TFA is about a non-free work is to either not have an image, or to use one of the primary creator of the work. A voice actor in this case is probably not the best one to use. I am of the opinion that omitting the image is better than having a tangential one. —howcheng {chat} 05:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, I've removed the image. —David Levy 06:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"By unfortunate coincidence"?! Sorry but that whole statement comes across as a rather racist remark to me. I'm sure that it wasn't meant as such but it certainly can be read that way. violet/riga [talk] 11:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite certain that Howard was referring to the lack of variety, not to anything undesirable about images of white males in particular. —David Levy 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. —howcheng {chat} 16:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I do declare! ANOTHER video game as today's featured article? How bourgeois!--WaltCip (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

For once FA has been outclassed by both FL and ITN. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why can't any of the images in the article of Halo 2 be used? 2.102.185.41 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All third-party content appearing on our main page is free. None of the images from the Halo 2 article fulfill this requirement. —David Levy 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is non-free content allowed in articles but not on the main page? 2.102.185.41 (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The Main Page is supposed to show our best work. We are trying to be a free encyclopedia, and so non-free content is embarrassing and we don't show it in such a prominent place. —Kusma (t·c) 08:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This has never really been properly discussed, just imposed by diktat. The issue comes up surprisingly often, and I for one think it's a stupid thing to do (and isn't mandated by any of our policies). But this probably isn't the best time to argue about it. Modest Genius talk 11:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The main stupid thing we do is allow non-free images in an otherwise free encyclopedia. Once we fix that problem, the Main Page is not an issue anymore anyway. —Kusma (t·c) 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If you call several thousand images which often provide crucial encyclopedic information (a picture is often worth a 1000 words) which are irreplaceable and often subject to petty copyright laws stupid then I don't think you are qualified to comment about encyclopedic comment. Yes, some people abuse fair use and misunderstand it but I think you're missing that thousands of images we have are certainly not replacable with free imagery and greatly improve quality/benefit us. It would be encyclopedically damaging to not merit any fair use imagery and it concerns me greatly that you can't see that. The problem is inconsistency and double standards in applying laws on here and the wiki image police who always take the worst possible scenario in assessing any image.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I certainly see that use of non-free content helps create a better encyclopedia. The presence of non-free content creates a much worse free encyclopedia, though. Non-free content that is easily available on the web does not need to be included here. I see a point in having otherwise inaccessible non-free content here, but that does not mean I have to like it. (Yes, I support WP:VEGAN). —Kusma (t·c) 18:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Vegans often make exceptions. Some health-improving/life-saving medical treatments are non-vegan and have no viable vegan substitutes.
The question is whether our limited use of non-free content is analogous to the inclusion of non-vegan food (as suggested in the essay to which you linked) or non-vegan medicine. Obviously, that's a matter of opinion, and it certainly is possible to take a nuanced position (as you've done above). —David Levy 19:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see. Yes I agree, it is stupid to call it a "free encyclopedia" and have several hundred thousand unfree images which are not really distributable for commerical purposes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:VEGAN is a silly metaphor. There's no such thing as a "Comprehensive Potluck" that allows diners to sample every food item ever invented, but an encyclopedia is defined by its comprehensiveness.
That completely breaks the metaphor. By recasting Wikipedia in metaphor as something where comprehensiveness would be undesirable, it completely ignores primary cause of the problem. It's a false parallel that seems disingenuous at best. 71.235.141.252 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The idea is to create the best encyclopaedia we can, not the best repository of freely-licensed images (that's what Commons is for). Modest Genius talk 15:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The rule began with a vague comment by Jimbo (inspired by his mistaken belief that a suitable free image was available and had been rejected in favor of a non-free one), but I seem to recall someone pointing out that the WMF subsequently adopted a formal policy against fair-use images on projects' main pages. (I might be mistaken.)
Wikipedia certainly has a policy prohibiting the use of non-free images outside the article namespace (apart from administrative exemptions), and Main Page's presence in that space is a vestigial technicality. (I do, however, believe that limited use of non-free images on the main page should be permitted.) —David Levy 16:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

There's plagiarism in the main page article. "The club hoped to create an intimate environment as well as a supply-and-demand factor that would reward season ticket holders and encourage early purchase of seats." is a rip off of "The club then further reduced seating to about 27,700 seats for the remainder of the 14 regular-season MLS home games, hoping to create an intimate environment as well as a supply-and-demand factor that would reward season ticket holders and encourage early purchase of seats." in this source. And so on. --KMalaysia (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As the accusation relates not to the main page, but the content of the article, I think the issue may be investigated and resolved a lot quicker if your concern is on the article's talk page. Furthermore, the offending editors are more likely to be reprimanded. 86.128.224.90 (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I would not call it plagiarism, at worst it is too close paraphrasing, which is something that can't be considered in isolation, but only by comparing more broadly. If you are walking in the same direction, sometimes you will take the same path for a bit, and sometimes it is the only way. Note that it is properly cited. This is the diff with which it was added.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Kazakh WP

The Kazakh Wikipedia now has over 150,000 articles and should be so included under Wikipedia languages. --Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at random articles there, most are stubs or near-stubs, so it probably won't be added. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Kazakh? Is that a new linux distribution like ubuntu? 190.51.167.210 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kürbis. In any event, the place for this is Template_talk:Main_Page_interwikis. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 13:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion @ Template_talk:Main_Page_interwikis#Kazakh WP Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 12:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Image on blurb...

Can someone kindly remove the completely NOT contemporary image of Gregory the Great from today's featured article? It's really not a good idea to say "pictured" and imply that's what Gregory looked like - that image was painted a thousand years after Gregory's death. I'm not sure why it was felt that an image was necessary, but if it was, there were plenty of free images in the article that were at least closer in time frame - inserting an image not even used in the article is something we don't do usually, and I'm unsure why it was needed now. Especially without consultation with the editors of the page. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Gregory I images used in the featured article are unsuitable for display as thumbnails. As discussed at User talk:Wehwalt#Main page blurb..., I've modified the text to explicitly indicate that the portrait was painted in the 1620s. —David Levy 03:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Still, the map used in the article's lead, or no image at all, would be more suitable. Something being recognisable or identifiable to a layman doesn't mean it's appropriate. GRAPPLE X 14:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Still, the map used in the article's lead,
Detailed maps are the worst possible images to display as 100px thumbnails.
or no image at all, would be more suitable. Something being recognisable or identifiable to a layman doesn't mean it's appropriate.
You're preaching to the choir. I've frequently criticized the use of tangential images and opined that we needn't include an image at all. (One such discussion, in which you participated, appears above).
But the painting of Pope Gregory I far exceeds the level of relevance expected by the community. (Note, however, that it's been replaced with a different non-contemporary image. Please see User talk:Wehwalt#Main page blurb....) —David Levy 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

David Rudisha

You should put David Rudisha's incredible achievement on the front page. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.79 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You should try WP:ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You should also read the instructions at the top of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.118.187 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Good luck on nominating anything Olympics-related on ITN. Even Phelps' medal haul was a hard sell there, with Phelps' achievement was even described as "not notable, not impressive, and an accident". Now if you're talking about the much-watched southern hemisphere rugby final... –HTD 14:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of the Olympics noms on ITN are opposed for singling out something that doesn't need singled out in the face of the already-overwhelming Olympics coverage on the main page (several ITN items, a sticky, and at least 9 DYK hooks each and every day, a TFL, plus at least one TFA with the possibility of another pending). Good luck getting anything thrown on top of that giant pile, regardless of viewership or popularity. GRAPPLE X 14:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Are there any other Olympics-related ITNs save for Phelps' medal record and the opening ceremony? I may have missed something. –HTD 14:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There's been a constant sticky, and I highly doubt the closing ceremony will be missed. Two items so far, plus a constant link to the main article, is still more than sufficient; and that's only one section of the main page. GRAPPLE X 15:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
And when's the next time we'd have the Summer Olympics again? The sticky link is at the bottom, if I haven't remembered it I would have not noticed it at the ITN section. So, ITN misses its only opportunity to mention Bolt in the ITN for four years, while we'd get our annual fix of the AFL Grand Finals. If the Phelps medal record wasn't posted, we'd only have the opening and closing ceremonies, both of which are sidelights to the games per se. That's two Summer Olympics related blurbs, none of which are even related to why there is even an Olympics, every four years, plus the sticky link I forgot about. If that's "more than sufficient", I dunno what is. –HTD 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me repeat: at least 9 DYKS a day, one TFA with the possibility of another to come, and a TFL earlier this week. That's in addition to ITN, and I haven't even checked if OTD or TFP covered anything relevant. Items are routinely shuffled off the main page if they're going to be mentioned in a different section of the main page, with OTD or TFA being rejiggered if one particular item might be given repeated mention. But for some reason the Olympics, a recurring event we'll be seeing again in a few years, should be an exception to this? GRAPPLE X 15:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand, but it's DYK: it's below the fold. The prime Main Page real estate is TFA and ITN as they're above the fold. I don't think WP will crash with some Olympics blurbs, aside from the opening and closing ceremonies, on ITN. Other sections can do what they want.
Then again, as you've said, we'd be seeing this again. In a few years. Four years. We'd only be doing this for two weeks out of 208 weeks (0.96%).
If we're scared of oversaturation of coverage for the Olympics, then's the pretty well below my concerns in Wikipedia. Those DYKs should've help improved some articles, right? Ergo, Wikipedia benefited from it. If it weren't for the Olympics, we would have crappy articles on Colombian BMX cyclists... assuming we even have one. –HTD 15:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, wikipedia has benefited from the DYK articles being expanded. The level of improvement an ITN article needs compared to a DYK article is a different matter though; and loading ITN with all of the Olympic items that have been proposed would have made a negligible net improvement. Don't get me wrong, I've been watching the events themselves pretty much daily (times like these are when I love dual nationality); but I do think we need to draw the line at some point when it comes to loading a bit too much onto the main page. If every match in the next FIFA World Cup finals were mentioned, I think we'd be in agreement with it being overkill, but it's just as frequently recurring; same goes for any quadrennial event. GRAPPLE X 15:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It's all well and good, but on your World Cup analogy: at the current rate, without the Phelps hard sell, if the Summer Olympics was the World Cup, the only articles that would be added to the ITN are the stories about the WAGs, and probably Kim Jong-il's torture of the DPRK squad after they got home, and nothing about Spain winning the title. –HTD 15:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1. Bizarre as it seems to me, the biggest Olympic TV audiences are for the opening & closing ceremonies. So if you are going to pick just two events you might want to go with the two most popular ones.
2. Phelps record rightly had a hard time being approved as he is a swimmer. It is much easier to win medals in swimming than in any other area because they four versions of most races and someone can participate in multiple versions. Hence people (including other athletes) suggest that for comparison purposes a swimmer's medal count should be divided by 2 or 3 or 4.
3. Your comparison with the FIFA World Cup is stretching the analogy too far. The World Cup builds towards a single final, the Olympics does not. FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I do plan to nominate Avery Brundage for TFA for September 6, the 40th anniversary of his Munich speech, or alternatively for his 125th birthday on September 28.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, although you can do away with the ceremonies and still have an Olympics; you can't say the same for the reverse.
Phelps has 22 medals. The next swimmer has 12. The athletes following Phelps are all gymnasts. If we'd divide swimming, gymanstics, fencing, and similar sports with the about the same number of medals to three and athletics, and similar sports with the about the same number of medals to two, Phelps should still win.
You can argue that the Olympics' marquee event is the men's 100-meter race; the winner is the "world's fastest man" for the next 4 years. Not as clear cut as a final of tournament but it's arguable. Another is the marathon as it is the absolute last event, or the weightlifting-men's heavyweight (the "world's strongest man") but they usually don't have the same profile as the men's 100 meter race; some event usually crops up, and may even surpass the interest of the 100-meter race but for every Olympics, but the men's the 100-meter race has to be the marquee event year in and year out (or should I say Olympiad in and Olympiad out). Of course this can never be proved empirically, but the men's 100-meter race has to trump the likes of trampolining or racewalking or BMX or even Olympic football. –HTD 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, most of the so-called "Olympic" coverage at DYK are mostly blurbs about Olympic competitors and not about the Olympics per se. The articles about the games per se, such as Taekwondo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 67 kg, are entirely proseless, save for the copyright violation in the competition format. I don't think you'd classify Michigan football DYKs as Big Ten DYKs. This means there has been a dearth of Olympic coverage in the Main Page. –HTD 04:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic Games TFA image

On a related note why isn't the Olympic rings on the FA image rather then one that is only relevant to 2012. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. The Olympic rings would be a much more appropriate image for the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
While I think the Olympic rings may be entitled to special copyright protection under US law (for which they would otherwise be ineligible), I do question the propriety of having this image on the main page when it has been up for deletion at Commons for practically the entire Olympics. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Commons moves as slow as molasses, but I'd feel much better if in this case Mike Godwin (or whoever our legal counsel is) can give some legal guidance. Copyright law always gives me a headache, but this looks much more complicated than usual. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is inappropriate to have the image on the Main Page while it is up for deletion and have replaced it with the Olympic rings. —howcheng {chat} 11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see the section directly above this one. —David Levy 13:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a local image, so cascading protection took care of it. —howcheng {chat} 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Olympic Rings.svg has a local copy. You used File:Olympic rings.svg (a slightly different version), which doesn't. It was unprotected until the Commons bot cascade-protected it 25 minutes later.
This was an understandable oversight, and one that illustrates why it's a bad idea to rely upon an arbitrary, one-letter capitalization difference to distinguish between two similar images. —David Levy 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
What the--? Why do we have two versions of Olympic rings?? That's just silly. —howcheng {chat} 02:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
OK I see the difference now. I agree it's not a good idea for the filenames to be so similar. The one I used should be called "Olympic Rings with white rims.svg". —howcheng {chat} 02:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
As an added bonus, renaming it almost certainly would place it outside an "/ad" subdirectory. (Its current storage in one causes some ad-blocking software to suppress its display. The MediaWiki developers are aware of this problem and declined to correct it.)
I'll go ahead and perform the move. —David Levy 02:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like poorly designed software. Queendtril (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing that's why the devs refused to 'fix' the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I assume so. And that's unfortunate. Many users have no control over the software installed on the computers that they use, so they're stuck with the poorly designed ad blockers. Others won't recognize the problem's cause and might not even realize that certain images are failing to load. (A good example is today's TFA image, to which the accompanying blurb includes no reference.)
Earlier today, we had two "/ad" subdirectory images on the main page simultaneously (in TFA and ITN). And the ITN image was present since yesterday, so we've had at least one per day for the past three days.
Incidentally, I'm aware of this because I'm using the following CSS code, which places a red border around such images:
img[src*="/ad/"] { border: solid red 10px !important; }
—David Levy 20:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That's an ingenious solution. I fixed the issue by whitelisting WMF sites. —howcheng {chat} 23:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the heavy-handed approach that the IOC and British authorities have taken toward unauthorized use of the rings, I'm surprised to find these on the Main Page, especially in light of the ongoing "no non-free images" policing (not that I support this). Also, the Olympics have pretty much devolved into a commercial venture. Do we want to give them free advertising? Nricardo (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The symbol itself has no copyright anymore, so it is fair game. It is only when used for unauthorized commercial purposes that the IOC will intervene, because trademark still applies. Trademark, however, is not a consideration on Common or Wikipedia; we don't sell anything. — Edokter (talk) — 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Main page image protection?

Are the instructions detailed at Category:Protected main page images still relevant? User:David Levy said so in a recently archived thread about it, but looking at today's Main Page, none of the images seem to have been locally uploaded nor protected on Commons. (Commons:File:Official 2011 MH .jpg was, but has already been unprotected.) Has there been a change in policy, or is perhaps the risk of such vandalism so low such protection isn't worth doing any more? --101.109.216.95 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: I just noticed that the protection on Commons is via cascading protection from Commons:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en. I was mistaken in saying they aren't currently protected on Commons. --125.25.142.74 (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC) (dynamic IP)

Images appearing on the main page most definitely are supposed to be protected (either at Wikipedia or at Commons). And they usually are, one way or another.
Images transcluded at Main Page are cascade-protected (automatically if hosted locally, or by a bot if hosted at Commons). The same is true of Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, which includes tomorrow's featured article, OTD section, featured picture and featured list (if applicable), along with the next DYK queue.
Therefore, if all goes according to plan, images appearing in sections other than ITN are cascade-protected well before they appear on the main page. As a result, many administrators have stopped bothering to manually protect them. (As far as I know, this has never been discussed or shown to reflect consensus.)
Problems arise when things don't go according to plan. Having gotten out of the habit of routinely protecting images, some admins add them to live TFA blurbs and to ITN without a second thought. Local images usually are cascade-protected immediately (though this mechanism can and does fail on occasion), but most are hosted at Commons. The bot can take upwards of thirty minutes to cascade-protect an image (during which it's subject to replacement by a vandal), and that's when it's operating properly. (It has had outages.)
There are other potential exploits, which I won't mention.
Cascading protection and the Commons bot (especially the latter) are intended to serve as fallbacks, but editors are treating them as first-line solutions. This is likely to continue until one or more failures result in Goatse photographs appearing on the main page again, or until the community demands that the shortcuts cease. —David Levy 04:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
DYK does rely on the cascading protection on commons, because the DYK update bot "physically" checks protection 2 hours before the update and alerts if problems; it will not put an unprotected image on the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Apart from an issue that I won't mention here, that seems like a fairly reliable method (as I don't recall the cascading protection failing after taking effect).
To be on the safe side, why not have the bot locally upload and protect Commons images? —David Levy 12:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Temporal local uploads are a waste of resources; they are often impractical for large images, and confusing - many copied templates have different meanings on Commons and en.wiki. Whenever possible, images should be protected on Commons. In any case, bot uploads might be impractical, because an admin should verify the image content and license. Materialscientist (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Temporal local uploads are a waste of resources;
What significant impact on our resources would three instances per day have? —David Levy 16:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC
Uploads (and often deletions) are done by a handful of hardworking admins. Their time is valuable and is spared by protection on Commons. Further, several (3 is an absolute minimum) futile MP uploads/deletions every single day accumulate into a significant number. Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Uploads (and often deletions) are done by a handful of hardworking admins.
I'm certainly not belittling the admins' contributions. But I think that you're greatly overstating the inconvenience of locally uploading an image that one is evaluating anyway. (I say this as an admin who frequently performs such uploads.)
Further, several (3 is an absolute minimum) futile MP uploads/deletions every single day accumulate into a significant number.
Anything quantifiable and recurring accumulates into a significant number over time. It's still three images per day, which isn't a tremendous burden. I don't recall anyone complaining about it in the past.
Further, I disagree that it would be "futile" to stop treating a fallback as a first-line measure. —David Levy 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
they are often impractical for large images,
Please elaborate. —David Levy 16:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC
Due to frequent server problems, a local upload of a high-resolution images may take many minutes. DYK hooks often require high-res images (say, artworks). Providing a low-res copy and linking to a high-res original is possible, but confusing. And that high-res original needs protection too. Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Providing a low-res copy and linking to a high-res original is possible, but confusing.
How so? At ITN, we frequently link images to different (e.g. larger) versions.
And that high-res original needs protection too.
Why? We don't normally protect material that's merely linked from (not transcluded on) the main page.
Until recently, images linked in this manner were misreported as transclusions and cascade-protected by the Commons bot. Said bot could be configured to resume protecting such files (though again, I don't see why this is desirable). —David Levy 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
and confusing - many copied templates have different meanings on Commons and en.wiki.
Please cite examples. I know that some Commons templates don't exist here (easily remediable), but I've never encountered an image tag with the same name and a different meaning. —David Levy 16:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC
Sorry, no time for diffs. Many image templates from Commons do not exist here. Easy examples that come to mind are 100% of "creator" templates (this hides the author) and generic templates like [6] [7] (this hides license; every such template can easily cover thousands of images). Many license templates are also not parallel on Commons and en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Many image templates from Commons do not exist here.
I just said that. Again, this is easy to fix. I've copied over some templates myself.
Many license templates are also not parallel on Commons and en.wiki.
In the absence of specific examples, I'm unable to address this claim. —David Levy 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Whenever possible, images should be protected on Commons.
That's what I do when transcluding a Commons image (as opposed to a specially cropped version) on our main page. With a bit of cross-project cooperation, the DYK update bot could do it too (instead of relying upon another bot's cascade). Either way, it should be checking something that I won't mention here (but would gladly discuss in private). —David Levy 16:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC
DYK update bot does not operate on Commons, which is required for this protection mode. Also see next point. Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
DYK update bot does not operate on Commons, which is required for this protection mode.
That's why I noted that it would require "a bit of cross-project cooperation". (In particular, the bot would need sysop permissions at Commons to accommodate its reprogramming.)
Alternatively, the current Commons bot could be switched to direct protection. —David Levy 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
In any case, bot uploads might be impractical, because an admin should verify the image content and license.
Isn't that occurring already? And wasn't it originally customary for the same admin to upload and protect a local copy? —David Levy 16:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It is occurring, but it is technically impractical to combine admin checks with bot protection (waste of bot programming resources - a script or manual protection will do). Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Manual protection is precisely what I advocate. Failing that, I don't see why it would be inherently problematic for a bot to locally upload and protect an admin-checked image instead of merely confirming that it's protected at Commons. (However, I believe that non-cascading Commons protection would be preferable.) —David Levy 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
We are getting too much into philosophy. The reality is that bot programming manpower is very limited, especially on Commons (also consider that for Commons people en.wiki is just one project). Manual DYK uploads are a nuisance (they are more frequent that ITN), which is obvious by that DYK admins do not upload locally and rely on the last-minute warnings. I am truly glad to hear that someone is trying to copy Commons templates on en.wiki. This work is very helpful, but certainly very incomplete. Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
We are getting too much into philosophy.
I see this as a straightforward assessment of facts.
Is it easier to not bother locally uploading and protecting an image? Yes, that's factually true. Is it riskier? Yes, that's true too (due, in part, to the issue that I won't mention here).
The Commons bot's cascading protection was set up as fallback for when English Wikipedia admins forgot to follow the correct procedure. It's now being utilized as a first-line protection method, which I regard as a bad idea. The availability of seat belts and airbags shouldn't be treated as an invitation to drive recklessly.
The reality is that bot programming manpower is very limited, especially on Commons.
Of course. For any new bot task, a programmer must kindly volunteer his/her time. I don't take this for granted. I'm merely laying out possible options for consideration.
(also consider that for Commons people en.wiki is just one project).
Indeed. But this particular type of task has potential applicability to any number of Wikimedia wikis. (Note that the bot-managed cascading protection of main page images has been expanded to others.)
Manual DYK uploads are a nuisance
So are Goatse images on the Wikipedia main page.
(they are more frequent that ITN),
They're also easier to come by and less likely to require cropping (because DYK queues can be managed to ensure that at least one hook is based on an article with a suitable image).
which is obvious by that DYK admins do not upload locally and rely on the last-minute warnings.
The relevant difference between ITN and the other main page sections is that it has no queues (i.e. no built-in means of triggering image protection in advance). An image is simply selected and taken live.
That's why it's so unfortunate that some administrators have gotten out of the habit of locally uploading and protecting them; they're showing up at ITN and placing unprotected images directly on the main page. And they're doing the same thing to live TFA blurbs. This used to be an occasional slip-up, but the Commons bot's cascading protection — intended to mitigate the damage in these rare instances — has instead conditioned admins to behave carelessly.
I am truly glad to hear that someone is trying to copy Commons templates on en.wiki. This work is very helpful, but certainly very incomplete.
Speaking of bots, this seems like an ideal task for one. —David Levy 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
David, I've just realized that we are talking about two different things: you probably mean that Commons cascade protection is just a fallback, and it fails because of cascade delays. I argue that Commons protection is preferred to local uploads (unless a temporal tweaked image is created for single MP use). I never said Commons cascade protection, and I actually meant manual protection on Commons. Many local editors are Commons admins; they are experienced image reviewers and it takes one second for them to manually protect an image on Commons, we just need to get them involved. DYK does involve them now (besides the image-checking bot). Crops are a different matter. As a simple backup measure, it would be great to have a bot checking protection status of MP images. Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
David, I've just realized that we are talking about two different things: you probably mean that Commons cascade protection is just a fallback,
I explicitly stated this in my first message:

"Cascading protection and the Commons bot (especially the latter) are intended to serve as fallbacks, but editors are treating them as first-line solutions."

and it fails because of cascade delays.
And also because the Commons bot doesn't have 100% uptime. I have another concern, but explaining it publicly would serve as a how-to for vandals.
I argue that Commons protection is preferred to local uploads (unless a temporal tweaked image is created for single MP use).
And I agree.
I never said Commons cascade protection,
You wrote the following:

"DYK does rely on the cascading protection on commons, because the DYK update bot 'physically' checks protection 2 hours before the update and alerts if problems; it will not put an unprotected image on the main page."

That's what I've been addressing.
and I actually meant manual protection on Commons. Many local editors are Commons admins;
Yes, I'm one of them. I noted above that I protect uncropped images at Commons instead of uploading and protecting them locally, so I'm certainly not criticising the practice.
they are experienced image reviewers and it takes one second for them to manually protect an image on Commons, we just need to get them involved.
Anyone preparing a queue is welcome to leave an image protection request on my talk page.
As a simple backup measure, it would be great to have a bot checking protection status of MP images.
Agreed. I've noted this in the past. —David Levy 06:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Polish" Duchy of Prussia

DYK item states that the first Protestant translation of the New Testament into Polish was published by Jan Seklucjan in Königsberg, in the Polish fief Duchy of Prussia, between 1551 and 1553. The way this is phrased is misleading. I realize it says "Polish fief," but modern English-speaking readers not schooled in regional history would tend to assume that the Duchy of Prussia was "Polish" in the modern sense, i.e., inhabited by Poles. Ethnically, it was primarily German.

True, the duchy was formally enfoeffed to the Polish Crown following its creation in 1525, which was a consequence of the Protestant Reformation and secularization of the Teutonic Order, but it was not an integral part of Poland and its population was primarily German. Political control passed to Brandenburg in the early 17th century, eventually making the territory of the former Duchy of Prussia part of the Kingdom of Prussia and, after 1871, part of Germany — until 1945. Sca (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno what's the purpose of this (or what should have been done), but it has become moot since the item is now off the Main Page. If you've wanted a faster response, go to WP:ERRORS. (Or you probably knew that.) –HTD 16:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Image for a forthcoming TFA - opinions requested

Messenger (1897) by the Russian artist Nicholas Roerich
Trizna after Oleg (1899) by Viktor Vasnetsov. People mourn the death of Oleg of Novgorod.

When Raul654 added this article as the TFA for 19th August, he did so without an image. Neelix (talk · contribs) added the left-hand image with the caption "A painting depicting life during the Rus' Khaganate. I undid the addition, saying "image is so tangential to the blurb that it's best to run it without an image". Neelix has now added the right-hand image, with the caption "A painting depicting the funeral of a Rus' khagan", saying "Surely an image of the funeral of a Rus' Khagan is sufficiently illustrative of this subject". I disagree, so am bringing the matter here for wider discussion. Both images are in the article, but I think that the blurb should run without an image for three main reasons: (1) They are too small at blurb size to be visually interesting or informative, nor can they usefully be cropped to improve matters; (2) in neither case is the image important enough to the article's subject to be given prominence on the main page: even if viewed full-size by clicking through from the main page, the reader will see some 19th-century imaginary depictions of what life over 1,000 years earlier might have looked like; (3) It cannot be said of either of them that their subject-matter or relevance is so obvious that the word (pictured) is not required, but the images cannot be mentioned in the blurb without heavily rewriting part of it, which would not be the best use of words. What do others think? (Notifying Neelix, Raul654 and the TFA main author Briangotts (talk · contribs), although he has only edited once in 2012.) BencherliteTalk 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

With no flag or coat of arms, this is not an easy one. My best suggestion would be to make a better map than File:Early Rus.png. Perhaps a modern map of Russia with the rough boundaries of the khaganate superimposed? —howcheng {chat} 16:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Would you be willing to create such an image? Neelix (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Maps aren't great images to use on the Main Page because at 100 pixels, they turn into an illegible blur of colors and shapes. I'd rather we skip an image than try to force something less accurate or less useful into the space. Imzadi 1979 → 21:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm unavailable to do it anyway. I don't have the right software (or the free time) at work. —howcheng {chat} 21:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
While the above images are far from the worst that Neelix has inserted, I agree that it's preferable to display no image. —David Levy 22:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No image is better than the two shown above, but what about a crop of the runestone File:Ög 8, Västra Steninge.jpg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This is why the pictures on the main page really need to be bigger. I also do not think a main page article should be run without a picture if there is one available. The runestone image should do. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree; the image of the runestone is a good fit. Neelix (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As one of the main contributors to this article, I think the runestone is the best option. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I choose the Roerich picture only. A stone is rather meaningless. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Roller Coater Day

We really should note that it is National Roller Coaster Day, I think it is quite important. 95.145.206.202 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no National Roller Coaster Day article. Perhaps you would like to write one? —howcheng {chat} 07:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Non free image on front page

I was rather distressed yesterday to see File:MaryPonyRide.jpg on the front page and then click it to see no evidence it has been shared under a free license by the copyright holder. (I only had a few free minutes on line at the time so I could not address the problem in detail myself.) See my comments at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mary Roach. Can people PLEASE do a basic double check of license before putting an image on the front page? Wikipedia can do better, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I left notes for the person who reviewed the DYK nom as well as the person who promoted it to the queue. —howcheng {chat} 19:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering to review DYK articles. We have a lot that need to be done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Howcheng. Happy to help, Hawkey7, let me know. The basics of checking that an image is shared under a free license are very simple; if anyone working on DYK images isn't clear on how to do this necessary and basic task, ask. If an image hasn't been checked, it should never go on the front page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Howard politely brings to your attention a serious problem, and your response (both here and on your talk page) is to sarcastically complain that he isn't performing the reviews himself? That's uncalled-for, particularly given the amount of work that Howard puts into the main page (maintaining two sections with little help from others). —David Levy 21:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Tense in "golden toad" photo

The caption for the featured photo says

The golden toad (Bufo periglenes) is an extinct species of true toad that was once....

That's just incorrect English. If the toad is extinct, it needs to be described in the past tense. The article itself correctly uses the past tense, so I'm not sure why someone wanted to use incorrect English for the main page itself. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the present tense is used to indicate the continued extinction. Were the past tense to be used ('The golden toad was an extinct species...') it would imply that the extinction had ceased, something not possible. Otherwise the toad is described in the past tense ('...was once...'). Thanks! EDIT: Your complaint would be correct if the word 'extinct' were omitted. 81.157.1.104 (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You're correct that the golden toad was an extinct species would also be wrong. In fact the golden toad is not a species, and never was — it was a toad, not a species.
That doesn't obviate my complaint in any way. The article itself has perfectly acceptable English: [t]he golden toad (Bufo periglenes) was a small, shiny, bright true toad that was once.... The caption for the photo on the main page is not acceptable English. --Trovatore (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no problem with the language used, it may not be common colloquial English but it is the correct technical phrasing. Bufo periglenes is still a valid taxon, so it is an extinct species. Your contention that the golden toad was not a species makes no sense to me. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, there really is a problem. It's just not good English. I can accept the phrasing Bufo periglenes was a species but not the golden toad was a species. A toad is not a species. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, there really isn't a problem. Your examples say the same thing. Bufo periglenes is the scientific name while golden toad is the colloquial name... both are just differant (and correct) labels for the same species of animal, and that species of animal is extinct. The tense is correct, as is the usage of both acceptable names. 63.192.83.15 (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, you're quite wrong. It just doesn't work in English. Exactly why is difficult to reason out, but it's clear that the language as given is unacceptable. --Trovatore (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but it is correct as it stands. The sentence may look strange because it uses two tenses and could be rewritten, but it does work. violet/riga [talk] 00:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not. --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Ooooh yes it does... violet/riga [talk] 00:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
How is "the golden toad" not a species? You seem to be saying that, for example, Homo sapiens would be a species but "human beings" wouldn't. They are exactly the same thing, just like "golden toad" and Bufo periglenes are the same thing. Both are names for a particular species of organism, it's just that one is the taxonomic name and one is the common name. --Khajidha (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The parallel sentence is the human being is a species. Would you say that? I seriously doubt it. If you did I'd laugh at you (maybe just internally). --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about "human being" (probably a countable/mass noun issue), but we seem to have no problem with "The American White Ibis is a species", "The Andalusian is a horse breed", "The Andean Condor is a species", "The Appaloosa is a horse breed", "The Australian Cattle Dog is a breed of herding dog" "The Australian Green Tree Frog is a species" "The Aylesbury duck is a breed of domesticated duck" ... and that's just the common name 'A's from the Animal section of the list of Featured Articles. If that construct is not good English, it looks like it's news to the editors who review Featured articles. Or is this just a matter of capitalization? "The golden toad is a species" is wrong, but "The Golden Toad is a species" would be acceptable? -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem, or at least one problem, with the locution, is that it conflates the individual with the class. Capitalization would reduce my objection somewhat, but I would still want past tense, perhaps the Golden Toad was a species of toad, now extinct.... or something of the sort. Of course, the capitalization gets into the whole conflict between WP:BIRDS and the regulars at the MoS. --Trovatore (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
But... why? It is, today, extinct, and so present tense is the correct way to address it. The same way, you would say, "Steve Redgrave is a former Olympian" but also "Steve Redgrave was an Olympian" (although when you do it with humans it reads as though they're dead, the analogy is the same). We don't capitalise species' names because it doesn't make sense to do so, the same way we don't capitalise job titles and so on. You certainly wouldn't write, "we went to the zoo and saw dozens of Zebras", would you? foxj in the wild 09:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Foxj, that's exactly it: We say Steve Redgrave is a former Olympian because he's still alive. If he were dead, we would say he was a former Olympian, and to say he is one would be quite incorrect. Because the golden toad is extinct, it must be described in the past tense. --Trovatore (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a moot point now that it's not on the main page anymore, but I can't just let this one go. It may sound wrong to your ear (or your reading eyes), Trovatore, but the tense is quite correct, I assure you. 'Extinct' is an adjective describing a state of being, and so its use is equivalent to the word 'dead'... If Steve Redgrave died, we would say "Steve Redgrave is dead" not "Steve Redgrave was dead". Now we could say "Steve Redgrave has died", which would be equivalent to "the golden toad has become extinct", but there is no reason to use a wordier equivalent when the current wording is correct, accurate, and succint. 63.192.83.15 (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You can say Steve Redgrave is dead. You cannot and must not say Steve Redgrave is a dead Olympian. Well, in some contexts, mostly jocular ones, you can, but not introducing him in an encyclopedic context. It's just utterly inferior writing, completely substandard. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC) By the way, as far as I know, Steve Redgrave is very much alive; I wasn't thinking about that aspect when I responded. --Trovatore (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Your example is a False analogy, in that you are equating the term "Olympian" to "species". A closer (but still imperfect) analogy to "The golden toad is an extinct species" would be to say "Steve Redgrave is a dead human". Sure, that is awkward sounding because, as persons ourselves, most readers would already assume that 'Steve Redgrave' is a person and that to do so explicately is redundant... but not incorrect grammatically. The blurb as it appeared was factually and grammatically correct and was not in violation of the manual of style, it seemed to have the support (or at least the passive acceptance) of the community, and most of articles on extinct species that I looked at seemed to show a consensus for similar phrasing. So I wonder how you can declare it "just utterly inferior writing, completely substandard" without being able to tell us exactly what your objection is beyond that it just doesn't sound right to you. 63.192.83.15 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
To Trovatore: the only problem with saying "the human being is a species" is the inherrent silliness of writing about one's own species from an outside perspective. The grey wolf is a species, it doesn't lose that distinction just because I didn't use Canis lupus. Similarly, the blue whale is a species whether I use that term or Balaenoptera musculus. The sugar maple is just as much a species as Acer saccharum. So how are you making a distinction between "the golden toad" and Bufo periglenes? What do you mean by saying that it "conflates the individual with the class"? Both terms refer to the same population of organisms, a formerly interbreeding collective that is no longer extant. Thus you can say equally well that "the golden toad is an extinct species" or that"Bufo periglenes is an extinct species. --Khajidha (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
When you say the golden toad, you're using a sort of "generic individual" figure of speech; to my ear it doesn't work well to say that the generic individual is the entire class. Seems less bad with the capitals. But I don't want to focus on this; the main problem with the caption is the utterly atrocious problem with tense. --Trovatore (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"It doesn't sound right to me" is not always the best way to determine what is or is not proper English usage. It is not at all uncommon to see a generic individual used to refer to an entire species/class/etc... even if such usage doesn't sound right to your ear, I'm sure there are many examples of such usage right here in Wikipedia. For example, if I were to say, "The great white shark is found in warm tropical waters," it is clear that I mean the whole species, not just an individual of the species. 63.192.83.15 (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
No, you mean a generic individual of the species. The species itself is an abstract object, so really it isn't "found" anywhere, except in the Platonic heaven. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm using the singular to indicate the collective through Notional agreement. And a species is not an abstract, it is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring... the actual real organisms themselves (whther they have all died or not), not just the abstract idea of them. 63.192.83.15 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Or indeed a Lazarus taxon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.214.244 (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It reads perfectly fine to me as to all aspects complained of. By the way, there's nothing wrong with the preceding sentence ending in a preposition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You cannot be serious! There's a line to be drawn, and this is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put. Trying desperately not to replace 'will' with 'shall'... 81.157.1.104 (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm late to the proceedings, but I want to express my agreement that the blurb's wording was factually and grammatically correct.
On a related note, I Love Lucy is a television series. —David Levy 17:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it seemed fine, what I am more concerned about is that people are trying to kill the great Steve Redgrave over a grammatical dispute... --81.149.74.231 (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Pussy Riot

I think we can safely say that Britannica would never have "Pussy Riot" on its cover page. :-) The relevant discussion about the ITN entry is here, for the curious: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=507837910#.5BPosted.5D_Pussy_Riot>. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Becuase the final print run was in 2010? Lugnuts And the horse 14:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Final paper copy was 2011, but it's still updated online and runs different front pages like Wikipedia, see Online Britannica. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
No, 2010 - "Its final print edition was in 2010, a 32-volume set." From here. Lugnuts And the horse 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Including a "Did you know?" section, heh. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Because it was out of touch? Thankfully Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORyED. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm impressed we have a redirect for that typo of NOTCENSORED. I wouldn't have imagined that it was common enough to require a redirecet. —howcheng {chat} 19:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, it was created this afternoon by Sun Creator, whose typo pointed there. :P GRAPPLE X 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
And he/she created it as a double redirect. Instead of simply correcting a two-minute-old typo.
I've pipe-bypassed the redirect and deleted it under CSD R3. —David Levy 20:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
My bad, sorry. The effect of editing on an iPhone, plus didn't realize it would be a double redirect. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 20:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
When posting the above reply, you accidentally removed part of mine. (I've restored it.)
I suggest that you use the "Show changes" button when editing via your phone. Thanks! —David Levy 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What on earth do people want? "Pussy" to be blanked out like a curse word in a 50s novel? No need for the name of a band to be censored - I hope that nobody has censored Fuck Buttons' name in the London 2012 Opening Ceremony article for the same reasons. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for the page about Mrs Slocombe. 91.125.136.29 (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What really bothers me is that there's a picture of only one of the 3 members, and she just happens to the most attractive one. Sexist treachery. Cosprings (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You may have some sort of point. You could try contacting the admin who posted the picture, although they might respond best to not being accused of sexist treachery. Formerip (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not a sexist treachery at all because when I pick one among multiple males, I pick the hottest hunk out of them too :D (For example, Usain Bolt -- yes, he is reasonably hot in my standard). There's nothing wrong with picking more pleasant-looking pics when we have to stare at them for quite a while. Oh, and I consider myself a feminist, which is one of the reasons why I insisted to include the word feminist in the blurb. Free Pussy Riot! --BorgQueen (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Beauty contest? Lugo wins
Yes, he might. Why not?
Your standards have changed. 109.150.65.81 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
What about him? I just checked its history and found that I'm not the one who uploaded the picture. What are you trying to say? (Sorry if you are actually replying to someone else) --BorgQueen (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the OP, I am truly offended by seeing such a group name on the main page of what is supposed to be an encyclopedia that also serves as a news provider.189.215.203.123 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are some languages capitalized and some are not?

This is probably a stupid question, but at the bottom of the main page where other languages are listed, why are some languages capitalized and some are not? For example, "Deutsch" and "Nederlands" are capitalized but "español", "français", and "italiano" are not. Also, on the languages listed on the left side of the main page, all languages appear to be capitalized except for "‪norsk (bokmål)" and "‪norsk (nynorsk)‬". Rreagan007 (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I raised this at WP:VPT a while ago and got some piss-poor answer at the time. Lugnuts And the horse 06:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Link. --202.28.181.200 (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the source this seems to be something handled "under-the-hood" as it were; doesn't seem to be a way to fix it by simply editing the source code. — foxj 07:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be related to how Mediawiki deals with the #language magic word. --202.28.181.200 (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Does it have anything to do with how those words are written in their native languages? This is a guess as much as anything else, it certainly does look rather inconsistent. Foxj might be right - it's something which can't be easily resolved even if a problem is identified. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
From my knowledge of the languages, as a substantive, 'français' is not capitalised in French; 'Deutsch' is in German. After a look at the mainpages, it seems that that is the reason; for the native translations of '[there are] n articles in the [lannguage] Wikipedia', the capitalisation on the English Wikpedia is accurate to foreign rules. 109.150.65.81 (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's to do with how those words are written in their native languages (and they are written in their native languages, since "Deutsch" and "slovenčina" are not English words). Not all languages treat names of languages as proper nouns. - filelakeshoe 09:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It's very rare that my guesses end up accurate! doktorb wordsdeeds 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
This still does not explain why the 2 "norsk" languages are not capitalized in the left-hand side list while all the other languages are. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it explains why some are - is "norsk" the Norwegian word for the Norwegian language? doktorb wordsdeeds 18:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup, and looking at the two Wikipedia entries for the two forms of Norwegian bokmal here and nynorsk here both confirm that in Norwegian, the names of languages are not normally capitalized. --Jayron32 20:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No, Rreagan007 is right: "norsk (bokmål)" and "norsk (nynorsk)" in the left-hand sidebar are the only two entries uncapitalised; the rest are, even thought some aren't in their respective languages. 109.150.65.81 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The reason is discussed here [8] which I came across by following the VPT discussion (despite the claim the answers were piss-poor). Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What should be on Main Page?

I noticed there's a proposal for redesigning the Main Page. It seems to be working on the premise of keeping what we have, which seems to me to be a bit of a wasted opportunity. I'd seriously suggest we ditch ITN, as it is so confusing. It gives the impression that we're a news source, which we're not. Worse, it gives the impression that we're a rubbish news source. Any views? --Dweller (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering the high page views ITN gets, I really don't think readers would like it if we ditched ITN. I sometimes like to think of the readers as the silent members of the community, this is written for them you know. I would be opposed to a change that clearly upsets readers. On another note, I'd still like to get some type of GA link onto the main page. Ryan Vesey 22:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Page views aren't a good measure of the effectiveness of ITN, since it's natural that people will want to find encyclopaedic coverage of current events regardless of whether they get there through the main page or the search function. Click-through would be more useful as a metric but I don't believe Wikipedia tracks that level of information. A useful measurement would be one that accounts specifically for the role the main page had in driving traffic to a given article, which is something that could easily be tracked through the referrer header field on any other website. Is there any way to look at that data on Wikipedia? (as an aside, I also question the value of the ITN section on the main page) – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I sometimes wish we'd create "Main page redirects" so that you could get an accurate count of views that came from the main page. Ryan Vesey 23:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think a radical change would be interesting. I know it's not ideal, but would it be feasible to put, similar to what we have in most articles now, a small feedback box on the mainpage asking if the change is better or worse (scale 1-5?) and what is better or worse about it. Maybe it could be, for a predetermined amount of time, fixed as a banner, not dissimilar to the donation banner, in the same place as the donation banner? If the feedback is overwhelmingly negative (determined statistically, no just pure percentages), then it should be reverted. Just my two cents. 81.157.1.104 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I would not accept a drastical change of the mainpage, but I am in favour to replace the ITN box with GA of the day. I am not a fan of updates, etc. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that if we need to remove content from the Main Page, ITN should be first to go. While Wikinews is not as good a news source as Wikipedia is, it is supposed to be one, and a link to our sister project should (in an ideal world) be all we need to cover the news. —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(reset) ITN is useful for 'ongoing stories' (and discussions thereon), and contributing to the MP's general purpose of bringing to people's attention things they might not otherwise be aware of/look at. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think ITN is quite powerful in that it highlights that wikipedia is much more up to date compared to other encyclopaedia's, and also as a stepping off point for topical items - so if someone is interested in the political situation in Syria because it is in the news a lot at the moment, often in that situation there will be an ITN to feed them into the right area with an article that should be wikilinked to a lot of the appropriate related broader topics that have built up over time, so it basically works as a short term stored search for various topics that are temporarily going to be quite popular for visitors. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This exact question was addressed in a RfC last year. Outside of this, I think any content changes should be pursued separately to the visual refresh proposal; consensus will become even more difficult if the two are combined. — Pretzels Hii! 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If anything, what needs to be jettisoned is the old phrase that Wikipedia is not news. That's been blatantly false for years, and Wikipedia gets a lot of readers and editors from ongoing world events. Our mission to bring knowledge to people does not and should not stop at some arbitrary distance from the "now" - making knowledge available can and should include providing the best information on important events that are happening right now. Nathan T 17:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ITN is highly subjective and controversial, it should not be there. Conversely DYK is more objective. I think OTD should replace ITN and then either put a GA or promote hte POTD to OTD's place. (we can leave certain permanent sickes on the top like recent deaths, national electoral calendar, international sports calendar, and a link to the list of news templates)Lihaas (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of moving this message; it was originally posted into an unrelated section. Graham87 03:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This probably occurred because two sections were archived in the preceding edit (see the diff), and Lihaas clicked the section edit link before the edit by the archiving bot. Graham87 03:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ITN is vital to the front page, and I'm concerned by any mood music towards its removal. What I hope isn't happening is a move to delete/downgrade ITN by editors who feel that their nominations haven't made it to the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 05:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think ITN is the most useful thing on the front page. I always find myself clicking on links in that section a lot more than the other sections. I'd hate to see it go. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it I could see an extra section - so you had on the left column FA at the top, "recently promoted GA" in the middle, and DYK at the bottom, so that is the quality/volume related areas. On the right you have ITN, OTD and then Feature Picture (half the width it is now), which are the topical sections. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm strongly opposed to taking ITN off the Main Page; I've learned a lot about current events because of it. Furthermore, I think it's one of the more-used features on the MP, and, as mentioned above, it highlights the evolving nature of Wikipedia which separates it from so many other encyclopedias. If ITN is actually controversial, it's only so amongst those who frequent the WP:ITN/Candidates page, not amongst the readers. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_169&oldid=1154982091"