Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 21:17 on 26 May 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed, determined not to be an error, or the item has rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors with "In the news"

In the "Ongoing" section of In the news, the part where it says "War in Sudan (timeline)" should be changed to "Sudanese civil war (timeline)" in accordance with the page moves from 18 May and 26 May. Or at least change the links so that they don't need to redirect. Alisperic (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The redirect had already been fixed. I’ve updated it to display the page name, however an argument that "War in Sudan" is more concise can easily be made. Comments welcome. Schwede66 17:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

There is a discussion at WT:DYK#Queue 5 on if Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud should run on the Main Page. I encourage editors to join the discussion. Z1720 (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The "trial from hell" DYK states that "Matthew Charles Johnson and his co-accused hurled abuse at the judge and threw human excrement at a member of the jury". The Johnson article cites two sources for the trial, neither of which states that Johnson threw anything. Instead, the second source explicitly names another of the accused, Jason Paisley, as being responsible for the excrement throwing (neither source says it was human excrement for that matter, though that is a minor point). Can anyone explain to me how what appears to be a clear violation of WP:V and WP:BLP got onto the main page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @GMH Melbourne, PCN02WPS, and PrimalMustelid:.--Launchballer 11:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I found this which says that the human excrement was thrown by someone else. I'm not sure how this made it through. SL93 (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

So, is anyone going to do anything about this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the hook to more precisely reflect the article content. —Kusma (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe should have gone with "Johnson passed wind into a microphone, and Paisley and Wenitong bared their buttocks in the dock"? DYK can be a mucky place. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

One of Ewiki's most cromulent, if not crapulent, main page features, though clearly it needs to be ausgemistert prior to posting. -- Sca (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1967 – Australians voted overwhelmingly for the number of Indigenous Australians to be included in population counts for constitutional purposes and for the federal government to make laws for their benefit.

Two suggestions for this hook:

1. "for the number of Indigenous Australians to be included in population counts" feels clunky to me, I would suggest "to include Indigenous Australians in population counts"

2. I would also change "and for the federal government to make laws for their benefit" to "and to allow the federal government to make special laws affecting them in states" (much closer to the article's wording). As this section points out, although the intention of the change may have been exclusively to benefit them, that was not part of the wording of the law and not always how it's been applied. And as it also mentions, the government already had this power in territories. And thirdly, the referendum simply gave the government the power to enact such laws rather than directly forcing the creation of any like the current wording implies.

-Elmer Clark (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 31)

Monday's FL

(May 27, tomorrow)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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

Tomorrow's POTD

• "Van Gogh saw plowing, sowing and harvesting symbolic to man's efforts ...". I think there needs to be an "as" before "symbolic". JMCHutchinson (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Did you know ... that the f-word did not begin as an acronym

Previous discussions:

• Talk:Main Page/Archive 154#F-bomb on the Main Page

Original DYK discussion

A current DYK hook: "Did you know ... that the f-word did not begin as an acronym, as is commonly claimed, but is of much older Proto-Germanic origin?".

When I read that, I thought it meant to tell me that the actual euphemism "f-word" is commonly claimed to be an acronym, and was confused. Only when I checked to see where that link went did I realize that it meant to say that the word "fuck" is often claimed to be an acronym.

It was briefly discussed at the DYK discussion to actually say 'the word "fuck"' instead of "f-word", but discarded pretty unanimously. I understand their reasoning, but still think using the euphemism is worse.

Am only I feeling that way? I'm not a native speaker so I'm certain that I'm not as sensitive to the word "fuck" as most of you are, and it may be natural for you to read "f-word" and think "fuck". But I, for one, would prefer displaying the actual word instead of an WP:EGG link.
Opinions? Not necessarily for this particular hook, but in general? Are we avoiding the seven dirty words on the main page where possible? This probably has been discussed before anyway? Amalthea 13:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Having just read the linked discussion (and recalling the controversy surrounding the "Glee" hook), I'm extremely disappointed in its outcome.

In this context, referring to "fuck" as "the f-word" is censorship on our part. Marrante's argument (which seemed to set things in motion) was as follows:

Wikipedia may not be censored, but using curse words on the main page falls under "just because you can doesn't mean you should".

It depends on the context. In the previous instance, the word "fuck" was used to refer to a song title that already had been changed from "Fuck You" to "Forget You" in the relevant context. Therefore, it seemed as though we'd gone out of our way to include the word "fuck," arguably "because we could."

Conversely, the current blurb is about the word "fuck." There's nothing gratuitous about saying so (instead of replacing it with a euphemism that's less informative and causes confusion).

I could stomach the argument that we have plenty of DYK items and needn't use one about the word "fuck." But if we do decide to use one, censoring it is inappropriate.

We jump through hoops making sure things are not too political, not too POV, and we are especially careful about a BLP, but then it's no holds barred when it comes to using one of the most objectionable curse words in English on the main page? Please.

There's a world of difference between striving for topical fairness/balance and censoring a key word of undisputed relevance because it offends people. To quote WP:CENSOR:

"Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

Not everything that receives an "article" appears on the main page. But if it does, the same principle applies.

Because I've responded directly to Marrante's comments, I've left a pointer to this thread on his/her talk page. —David Levy 14:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll also address Bennydigital's argument (and leave a pointer for him):

I agree with 'F word'. Wikipedia's for everyone, and as much as I fucking love the word fuck (almost as much as the c one...), I would say it's a bit strong for the front page everyone uses. It's not censorship, it's just fairer for everyone if you can choose to view the lovely word, rather than have it foisted upon your eyes.

1. How is replacing 'fuck' with 'f-word' "not censorship"?

2. By the above logic, we also should avoid displaying photographs of women on the front page everyone uses. Some cultures object to the publication of photographs of unveiled women or women in general, so it's just fairer for everyone if they can choose to view these images instead of having them foisted upon their eyes. —David Levy 14:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point there Mr Levy. It is probably, to a small degree. However, I feel that in this instance, it would be more politeness, rather than censorship. While we liberal types couldn't really give a word in question about it's usage, but Wikipedia is for everyone, and I would say that it a sense of community would cause us to engage in doing this, out of decency to others.

However, I quite agree that there are limits to how accomodating you can be to people's views, and therefore agree that in the case of point 2, by reductio ad absurdum, we would eventually be able to display nothing. I beleive that Lily Allen is repellent and must be stopped at all costs, but as a rational being, I can understand that there may well be coverage on here. Therefore when I see it on the front page, I choose not to click on it and be offended (see also Creationism, Stormfront and Jazz...) Essentially, I think allowing people to choose whether they wish to be offended is better than making the decision for them. In my ill focused roundabout way.

Finally, thank you for getting me involved in such an interesting discussion sir! Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 15:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The main page frequently contains content that's likely to offend people. We've received complaints about links to articles whose subjects some readers disliked and about images that some readers didn't wish to see. To deem a word too "offensive" to display is to make a value judgement. It means that we're favoring and validating a particular set of personal beliefs (while dismissing the remainder). This is inherently non-neutral, and I would argue that it actually is insensitive to readers (because it implies that we care about some views and not others).

For the record, I rarely use profanities in my day-to-day life. In general, I don't feel comfortable speaking that way (and my friends and relatives regard me as somewhat prudish). My personal standards are irrelevant to Wikipedia's mission. —David Levy 16:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I've posted thread pointers for everyone who commented on the issue. This obviously invites disagreement with my position, but I felt that it was appropriate to provide notification of continued discussion. —David Levy 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that the Foundation's elaborate exercise in analysing the issue, via the official report to the Board last year, still provides no guidance on such a matter. Tony (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was the first to comment on the DYK hook and when I read it, the first thing that came to mind was that "the 'f-word'" was used only to censor the word, rather than because it fit well in the hook. I am a native English speaker so I know what is meant by "the 'f-word'", but as David Levy pointed out above, that is not obvious to a non-native English speaker. Even if one were to click on the the piped link, they would be taken to the fuck article and probably be even more confused, especially since "the 'f-word'" is not mentioned in the lead section, nevertheless the first sentence. The article F word is actually a disambiguation page that lists four other words that can be considered the "f-word" such as faggot and feminism (and I'm sure there's more than what's listed on the page). So with WP:CENSOR aside, I don't think "the 'f-word'" is appropriate simply for contextual reasons. Now the second discussion taking place concurrently here is whether "fuck" or "the 'f-word'" should be used on the Main Page. If the article in the DYK hook was fuck or something of that nature, I think it would be completely appropriate (not doing so would violate WP:CENSOR). It would also be appropriate if the hook's article was directly related to the word "fuck". But seeing as how the hook's article is List of common false etymologies and a hook of the word "fuck" was chose out of many possible hooks from that article, I don't think it's appropriate because a less "offensive" hook could be used, going back to "just because you can doesn't mean you should". –Dream out loud (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it would have been entirely reasonable to select a different example from the article. I only object to the concept of censoring the word "fuck" in an item about the word "fuck." —David Levy 16:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me address a few things here. First, Amalthea, I read something years ago when trying to improve my French, which was that it was a very bad idea for non-natives to curse in French because 1) they didn't really know the strength of the word they were using and 2) nothing sounds quite so bad to the native speaker as hearing a non-native cursing in your language. At the time I read this, these were new arguments to me, but I had to agree on both points. I'm not arguing for censorship, for articles to be deleted. If you want an article devoted to every nasty word and whatever else you can think of, fine. Sad, but your right. However in talking about the main page, I think a higher standard is warranted. There are decisions made every day about what will go on it and what won't. Those decisions involve taste, discernment, judgment. I'm saying that putting a curse word on the main page shows poor taste. poor judgment and a lack of discernment. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Marrante (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1. You are arguing for censorship. Substituting "f-word" for "fuck" in an item about the word "fuck" is censorship. The fact that you don't advocate deletion of articles (i.e. greater censorship) doesn't change that.

2. You say that the main page should be held to "a higher standard." Whose standard should we apply? As I noted above, some cultures object to the publication of photographs of unveiled women or women in general. Should we accommodate these people (and defend our actions by pointing out that we aren't deleting articles about women), or should we only concern ourselves with what offends you?

3. Again, no one is arguing that we're required to post blurbs about profanities or anything else. We're discussing what wording to use when we do post a blurb about the word "fuck." —David Levy 16:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it also be considered censorship to have written "... that a common curse word did not begin as an acronym" instead of what seems to be only two other alternatives? Would it be inaccurate? - Tenebris 03:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.14 (talk)

Yes, deliberate vagueness — introduced for no reason other than to omit an "objectionable" word — is censorship.

No, it wouldn't be inaccurate. Likewise, it wouldn't be inaccurate to replace the current "King George VI" link with "a British king". —David Levy 04:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. This was in DYN. Deliberate vagueness is used in more than half the entries simply for effect. As current examples, I give you -

"that the competition to build the fastest production motorcycle raged for over a century, and then ended in a truce?"

"that a proud Massachusetts father commissioned award-winning composer Peter Child to compose a string quartet in honor of his son's birth?"

"that the wasp Dinocampus coccinellae can turn a ladybird into a "zombie bodyguard"?"

No one questions that these examples of deliberate vagueness have nothing to do with censorship, and I never see complaints on the talk page that *these* are offensive because of deliberate vagueness introduced for no particular reason. Why are different criteria being applied to the word fuck? - Tenebris 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.16 (talk • contribs)

To what vagueness are you referring? All of those blurbs identify their subjects, and none of them (as they appear on the main page) contain Easter egg links. —David Levy 21:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. You think those are absolutely specific, and identify their subjects exactly? - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.250 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that none of the included information has been obfuscated. You seem to be equating the concepts of omission and disguise. —David Levy 01:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be omission or disguise in this one? "that a pauper received a state burial in Namibia two days ago?" (see today's DYK) - Tenebris 12:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with David Levy. Where's the consideration for those of us who find the euphemism (i.e. censorship) more offensive than the word itself? If fuck is too objectionable for the Main page, so is the f-word. JIMp _talk·cont 04:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Contrary to what some of you may think, the WMF Board of Trustees has been quite clear in supporting what is known as the Principle of least astonishment. Please read the WMF Board's Resolution on Controversial Content: We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain. The word "fuck" does not belong on the main page. Myself, I'd question why that particular example was selected out of the List of common false etymologies article; there are many other excellent examples, and the "fuck" one appears to have been chosen purely for its titillation value. In other words, it seems that it made it to the Main Page in direct violation of WMF policy. Can we not do this anymore please? Risker (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand this; we've had cunt on the main page before now, why not fuck? Malleus Fatuorum 06:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot cock. Malleus Fatuorum 06:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And last week I expressed my nervousness about "wet vagina" in a DYK hook, which fortunately ran aground for other reasons. Risker has reminded me on my talk page of one of the key principles expounded in Robert Harris's report to the Board last year; what I didn't know was that the Board was so clear in supporting the Principle of least astonishment—a brief story in The Signpost a few weeks ago seemed to suggest there has been indecision concerning how to respond to the Harris report, although that story wasn't specific. Unlike David, I'm not at all regarded as a prude in real life; but ironically I think I take a more pragmatic view of how WP:NOTCENSORED should be applied. The main page is hugely exposed, and children see it every day in great numbers in its role as the gateway to WP. Children are vulnerable, even if they use the f word in the playground. The f word is fine in many article contexts where the user has consciously sought out a topic, but the principle of least astonishment Robert Harris so ably presented plays sharply on the main page, where accidental exposure happens every second of the day. Censorship is not black and white: it needs to be managed with skill and subtlety by the foundation and project editors. And for the record, I was most concerned about the c word when it appeared on the main page, Malleus. Tony (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the issue isn't black and white, but I believe that we settled on an inappropriate compromise in this instance.

As Risker notes above, the word "fuck" appears to have been singled out due to its titillation value. This is the issue that should have been raised in the nomination thread (leading to the selection of a different example from the article). Instead, "fuck" was allowed through as an Easter egg, which violates the aforementioned principle of least astonishment. Anyone reading "the f-word" either understood what was meant (and therefore was shielded from nothing) or didn't understand what was meant (in which case the text failed to adequately inform). Either way, readers (including vulnerable children) were invited to click directly to the Fuck article, so what did we accomplish?

I'm not here to argue that we need to run items about the word "fuck." We don't (and probably shouldn't have). But if we do run an item about the word "fuck," censoring it (as though our goal is to sneak through something naughty) is the worst of both worlds. —David Levy 09:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with David's latest comments. Explaining my point would merely be restating his position and labouring the point. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Talking about the word "fuck" without mentioning it looks fairly silly. Bad DYK hook. David Levy is absolutely right. Did you know that Wikipedia did not collapse when the German Wikipedia had Vulva as main page FA, with a photograph of a vulva? Not being censored means encyclopedically covering any topic, and linking to them on the main page. —Kusma (t·c) 10:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Either the blurb was trying to be deliberately un-misleading (misleading when it really isn't), or it was censorship. Either way it did a poor job on both accounts; although using the word per se such as "...that fuck did not begin as an acronym" is rather boring, but censoring it did not make it not boring. There are quite a few "f-words", too. –HTD 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

How delightful. A dirty word discussion! I don't have a strong opinion on using the word or not. Have sort of the same agnostic tiredness that I do with militant atheists and their counterparts. It doesn't chap my ass to see it used, nor do I feel like Daddy is holding me back if we don't. What bugs me worse is the CONTENT of the hook. Who set up the idea that most people think the work originated from an acronym? I have always heard that it was of Germanic origin and anyone who's heard both languages would likely think the same. Lastly if we are going to edit it, we should do some more manly version like "f---" as in the newspaper. "F-word" just sounds so PC.TCO (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• You cannot compare the German Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia unless you want to compare cultures and everything else. If the German Wikipedia is being held up as the example, then all those articles that are ported over here from there need to be stripped of their "unreferenced" and "refimprove" templates because articles there regularly don't have inline citations, the often extensive bibliography at the end is sufficient. Nudity, particularly female, in mass media is not uncommon in Germany and the Stern regularly (about once a month) has a photo of a naked woman on its cover. When Time and Newsweek do the same and you can watch naked men scamper in a field in a commercial on non-cable tv in America, then you can start talking about how the German Wikipedia had this or that article on the main page and didn't collapse. Marrante (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Why not simply write "Did you know ... that the word "fuck" did not begin as an acronym?" How is it "astonishing" in any way to simply look at the etymology of a word? Examining the etymology of those four letters, placed in succession--and used without any anger, titillation, or even humor--while actually spelling out the word, causes no more (or less) astonishment than doing so while using the tired euphemism "the F-word." LHM 16:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think what's on display here is a profound misunderstanding of the principle of least astonishment. Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

    This may well be the case. To quote from the WP article on the subject that was linked above, "The POLA states that, when two elements of an interface conflict, or are ambiguous, the behaviour should be that which will least surprise the user..." It would seem clear (at least on its face) that a bigger "astonishment" would be a user unfamiliar with the euphemistic "F-word" (which many who don't speak English as a first language might be) would click on that link and think, "Oh, whoops!" Personally, I prefer to shave with Occam's razor in this case. In other words I think we should go with, "the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects." LHM 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion that can have no end within the current English-language societal structure. Those who worship the "free speech" part of the First Amendment will find any attempt to say less than everything to be censorship at best, tyranny at worst, even if the omission or circumlocation is intended to spare another's feelings. Those who worship moral values and see use of certain words as the thin edge of the wedge will see any attempt to bring them into common written conversation as an unnecessary forcing at best, the beginnings of the Apocalypse at worst, even if those words are used only for precision. Virtually by definition, each will see the other's actions in pursuit of their ideals as offensive. I suspect most of us fall somewhere in between, for however much that is worth. I could suggest limiting front-page use of articles which require certain words to a ratio reflecting their frequency of everyday use -- but even where that level falls would not be a point of agreement. In any case, it won't help bring together two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Even if we fall back on the pillars of Wikipedia, there is a very wide gray area in their interpretation -- and each side will be absolutely convinced that it is right. - Tenebris 01:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.250 (talk)

A distinction should be made between 'words, images, and links' which are likely to cause alarm and displeasure (gratutiously/deliberately offenesive words, scenes of violence, some medical/veterinary scenes, and 'things likely to induce squeamishness/'yuk' reaction), use of sexual and related terms (as with 'G...c..t Street' a while back), and strawman terms used in such discussions (often a reference to 'women').

Why won't use of the Oxford comma produce as much reaction as 'appearances of matters sexual' on the main page always does? 94.195.193.37 (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Every time I see this section heading I get confused with The F Word (which is a TV programme). That's reason enough not to use a euphemism on its own. Modest Genius ^talk 10:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just referring "fuck" as a word should not be inappropriate especially for the main page. If it was being used in a vulgar context, that would be different, such as

DYK ... that Joe Shmoe once told Jane Doe that he wanted to "fuck her in the ass"?

That would not be appropriate. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No shit ;) Modest Genius ^talk 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article looks like an advert

I know it isn't an advert. But having Transformers as your daily feature on its sequel's opening weekend looks that way. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Mea culpa - I should have looked up the featured articles ahead of time, and commented then. But truthfully, I don't pay that much attention to upcoming film releases either, so I probably would have missed the connection then. - Tenebris 11:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.121 (talk)

Appropriateness != advert. If the blurb had mentioned that the sequel opened this weekend, it would have looked more like an advert, but even then, not much of one. In fact, in the UK, one of the major terrestrial channels broadcast the original Transformers film at the weekend without anyone in the press complaining "advert!", as far as I am aware. --Bencherlite^Talk 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

US centrism

Okay, it's 4 July but can we expect this level of saturation - US Featured Article, US Featured List, US Featured Image - for any other country's national day? I very much doubt it. 86.152.240.132 (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You forget to mention the leading Did You Know item. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh grow up. Canada got the FA, FP and DYK too. They didn't get a list because it's only a Monday thing. Hot Stop (c) 07:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You realise the US makes up 45% of the audience? And that the #2 country in terms of audience, Britain, who only make up 10.4% of the audience don't have a national day. Canada comes in at #3 with 5.9% of the audience followed by India at #4 with 3.7% of the Audience, which is 10x less readers than from the US. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the UK has four national days: 1 March, 17 March, 23 April and 30 November. 5 November can also be considered a celebration day.—Optimist on the run (the admin formerly known as Tivedshambo) (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would note the UK got FA, DYK, and ITN on the day of the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. Also, the days Optimist on the run noted are celebration days, but are not public holidays in the United Kingdom. Canada Day is a public holiday in Canada, and Independence Day is a public holiday in the United States. OCNative (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sts. Patrick and Andrew's days are Bank Holidays in NI and Scotland respectively.—Optimist on the run (the admin formerly known as Tivedshambo) (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I (and I'm an Englishman before anybody starts) think it's perfectly acceptable to saturate the Main Page with American content on the American Independence Day, just as we saturate with (supposedly) amusing content on April Fool's Day and other relevant content on relevant days. If we have quality content with date relevance, we should show it off on that day, because that's the day it's likely to get the most views. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, although a Brit, I was happy to agree to our US-centric featured list of the day. Vive la revolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In 10 days time there will there be more complaints about too many or too few France-related articles? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we ought to ensure that we get complaints about too many, actually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

July 5 centrism

OTD and FA dedicated to July 5. Will other dates get the same treatment, or is this just another example of July 5 editors running amok. Hot Stop (c) 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what's OTD is for so let's discount that part. We have an FA dedicated to something that happened on this date. Whilst I wouldn't like to see our making a habit of this, here's a question. What better day for this particular FA to get onto the Main page? JIMp _talk·cont 01:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My birthday's coming up. Expect to see appropriate saturation attention here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Osan was specifically requested at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to appear on July 5. Let's look at the previous and following weeks:

• June 27: Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford - 140th anniversary of foundation
• June 29: Theoren Fleury - 29th birthday
• July 1: John Brownlee as Attorney-General of Alberta - Canada Day
• July 2: The Sun Also Rises - 50th anniversary of author's death
• July 3: Transformers (film) - 4th anniversary of U.S. release
• July 5: Battle of Osan - 61st anniversary
• July 8: Doomsday (Doctor Who) - 5th anniversary of first broadcast
• July 9: Shelton Benjamin - 36th birthday

As you can see, more articles have a date connection on the Main Page than do not, these days. Which isn't that surprising, considering how many such connections there are. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying it's fine if you start with the FA and then choose a good date for it to appear but let's not get into starting with a date and choosing a good FA to put on ... of course it might not be that easy to disentangle these. JIMp _talk·cont 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering this was posted below an absurd rant about posting American stuff on 7/4, I'd assume this post was satirical in nature. Hot Stop (c) 05:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Shelton Benjamin FTW –HTD 06:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hate the date-dwelling. It is crufty crap from the a--. Most of the topics are very non-notable to start with, and then even so date connections (founding of a uni) are not really what is important about them (as opposed to say Pearl Harbor...which almost equates with December 7th...a "day that will live in infamy".) It just seems like we prioritize dating much higher than we should. And don't spend enough time thinking about diversity of subjects shown as well as notability (mostly criticizing TFA here). And I know we are all volunteers and not trying to make the TFAers feel sad. Just to get people thinking...TCO (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In the news update

There is now a separate article on the death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg (Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg).

Can someone update ITN? Mocctur (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested text:

'''[[Otto von Habsburg]]''' (pictured), former Crown Prince of [[Austria-Hungary]], [[Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg|dies at the age of 98]].

Done. —David Levy 03:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Image alts

I've been noticing lately that the image alts for TFA, ITN, OTD, and TFP have consistently been short, caption-like statements while the image alts for DYK and TFL have been lengthy descriptions of the visual elements of each image for the purpose of users who are unable to view images. Is there a reason for this inconsistency? Neelix (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: No, no reason at all. Longer answer: Different people work on different sections and we don't coordinate. howcheng {chat} 16:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Some information on volunteering. Art LaPella (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK and TFL doing something better than TFA! Ha! Stick in the eye...TCO (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite the reverse in fact, and this has been discussed at length elsewhere. The fashion at DYK, for instance, for lengthy florid alt texts is the antithesis of their purpose, which is to act as an alternative for the image, not a description of it. The distinction is one that many seem to find difficult to grasp, but it's an important one nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You were wrong about the lag impact of cite templates and SV was right.TCO (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

SV most certainly was not right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking as one of the people using "lengthy florid alt texts", I found the polite collegial message of Neelix at WT:DYK very helpful. I had learned, in some long-ago alternate universe, that alt text describes the image for those who can't see it. Now I've read WP:ALT and plan to change. Sharktopus ^talk 22:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• "As a screen reader user, I think alt text should be encouraged, but not required on every image. If there's no alt text in math equations, screen readers will read out the raw LaTeX, which is never easy to parse. Long alt text is hard to read for me; a screen reader says "link graphic" before each line. Therefore alt text should be succinct; Eubulides' alt text for At Eternity's Gate is a good length. However, a picture paints a thousand words, and there are some images which probably can't be described succinctly, like maps or photos. Sometimes I find that all I want is a tactile diagram of an image, so I can properly understand it." -Graham87 from hereTCO (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Parsing this, there are sort of two sides of the coin he presents (the thing about the linkgraphic was interesting). But note that he says for a photo (our most common type of image) that a thousand words may help. Also, in another part of the discussion, he says "I don't know what I'm missing". So I think the general "describe it to a blind person" advice is more right than not. More right than our policy guidance with a purely nominal statement like "painting of Napolean Bonaparte". Something saying he has his hand in his jacket might be useful.TCO (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. The correct general advice is to make sure that the image is not necessary to understand the article, and to make the alt text short and sweet. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Do screen readers (HAL/Supernova, Thunder etc. - not just Windows/Mac's built in ones) read the alt + the caption, or just the alt? Chaosdruid (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)PS I just tried the Microsoft one that comes with Vista - it thinks all Wikipages are empty, in both Firefox and IE. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds...like...eh...doctrine, Mall. Did it come down from the mountain on a tablet? ;-) I find the old convo with Graham much more revealing than the Wiki page o' guidance. To your points, certainly writing body text to be self-supporting is a nice ideal, but at the same time images certainly can be more revealing than decorative. Can even be a functional method of communication. Walls of text with pretty pictures is not the only method of communication or always the ideal one. And body text could be significantly weighed down if some aspects of visual description, that are easily seen by the eye, were incorporated.

For instance, do we really want a discussion of the "swirls" of color on the plastron of the western painted turtle's shell, when the almost paisly, totem-pole-like pattern is easily seen as an "aha" by picture? So then for the person who lacks images (from device or from lacking sight), perhaps an attempt to really describe is helpful? Better than the so vague as to be a waste of words "bottom of a western painted turtle"! (Consider the analogy to "painting of Napoleon Bonarte".)

TCO (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding from WP:ALT is that alt text depends on context. In its current position in Painted turtle (in a gallery showing tops and bottoms of the four painted turtle subspecies), such an alt seems reasonable, but if the neighboring text were discussing animal camoflage, the alt text would need to be something quite different. cmadler (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It came from the W3C, so yes, it was handed down from the mountain on a tablet. Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion there says that you can go either way (an actual description OR just the placeholder "painting of Napoleon Bonaparte"). It is not a no-brainer and there are advantages/disadvantages to either approach. See examples 2.1 and 2.2 hyar.TCO (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ITN passive voice

"The closure of News of the World is announced..." Who announced it? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This was addressed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, where it was decided to "phrase the blurb in the passive voice, as the sources differ between whether News Corp or News International announced the closure, and because who announced it really isn't important." —David Levy 22:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

We could just say 'James Murdoch announces...' since that's unambiguously true. Modest Genius ^talk 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has said it was Otto von Habsburg Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased text

The text about evangelical Protestants rioting against Abolitionists contradicts the article. —Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that was my bad on the reading comprehension. howcheng {chat} 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow's POTD: WP:VERIFY

Tomorrow's POTD: I had to put a refimprove tag on the main article. And the Commons description page cites a "P. Boomgaard, 2001", but there seems to be no way of locating this reference, which might have been translated from the Dutch. The source link is to a page in Dutch that doesn't mention the claimed author (if it's on a subpage, I think the Boomgaard ref should link to it directly). The blurb info is not in the article. I'm not good at sorting out this kind of thing. I've left a note on Howcheng's page. Can anyone assist? Tony (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The description on Commons comes from the source page ([1]) - you need to click more ("Meer") to get the complete paragraph. There is also listed on the source "Boomgaard, P. en J. v. Dijk, Het Indië boek, Zwolle, 2001, p.218". Perhaps this is what the description refers to?--Kateshortforbob _talk 09:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds promising, thanks, Kate. Anyone speak Dutch, to translate the title? Possibly this source should be included in the article. BTW, I removed "nicely" from the blurb (comes from pic description page, apparently from Boomgaard), because it's a bit subjective and vague. I'd love to know what the cultural anchor is for the decorations; the pictured stone doesn't seem to be decorated. Tony (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Google says the title means ....

Dragging the stone 'Darodaro' for the death of Saoenigeho Bawamataloea, Nias.

• My Dutch is rusty but Google's is pretty good. The village where the stone was set up was Bawamataloea. "Darodaro" seems to be the name of the stone (capitalized as if it's a proper noun). "For the death of Saoenigeho" suggests it was a monument to somebody whose name was Saoenigeho. Sharktopus ^talk 11:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

POTD

Why is it so small? It has about as much impact as a tea bag. We're not lacking in space that I am aware, so allowance should have been made to display the panorama at a size which does it justice. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Bigger is better (in pictures).TCO (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSIMAGE sets the maximum width to be 550px. I tried not too long ago using {{wide image-noborder}} but there were complaints that it didn't work correctly for IE7. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Ohconfucious more and more every day, but that's beside the point ;)—the image is useless at that resolution. There's enough unused space that it could be made "longer", and probably "taller" as well. The MoS was written for articles, which consensus has repeatedly deemed the MP not to be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The MOS takes into account screen width; just because we're on the Main Page doesn't mean users' screens are going to be any wider than when they're looking at articles. It is true that we're working based on an 800px wide viewport, which may or may not be accurate anymore. howcheng {chat} 02:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ERROR IN 9 JULY MAIN PAGE

Please add Independence Day of South Sudan to the "On the next day..." section (next to Independence Day of Argentina) --Gimelthedog (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not an error. That section is for anniversaries, and since this is the independence day itself, rather than an anniversary of independence, it doesn't belong there. It is, however, currently the first item in In the news. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Giorgi Chanturia (Voetballer)

Gio (Giorgio Chanturia)staat sinds zijn 18e verjaardag onder een professioneel voetbal contract bij Vitesse. daarvoor speelde hij in tijdje in de jeugd van Barcelona maar hij koos voor een contract bij Vitesse omdat hij dan betere kans had om een basisplaats te bemachtigen in professioneel voetbal.

File:Gio2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swippie (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation please someone? (I can deduce it is something to do with a footballer turning professional). Jackiespeel (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm bored

too tired to work on an article. but no good flame wars going on. Discussion forums seem slow. maybe someone direct me to something interesting? TCO (reviews needed) 04:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)