Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 165

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160←Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167→Archive 170

Bad choice of featured article

The choice of "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" as Today's Featured Article seems gratuitous. I think it was a bad decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.214.88 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because its subject matter offends you? That's irrelevant to our criteria. —David Levy 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
And you think this one set of criteria has reached a state of perfection because ...? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've made no such claim. You're welcome to propose revisions. —David Levy 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It's just unnecessary. We put something gratuitously unsuitable for family consumption in big letters on Wikipedia's main page just because we can? Not clever. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Your use of this website is at your sole risk.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for missing the point. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The en. Wikipedia boast millions of articles and yet there's nowhere to go for a lead story other than "anal probe"? I don't see a page-wide banner with Jimmy's picture at the top stating your risk comment. Invoke the word "censored" to give it a Hitler hedge - nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It also means that nothing stops us. Like I said below this is an adult website.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, think of the most offensive or "adult" Wikipedia articles that you can. I'm sure I don't need to spell out some candidates for you. Would you be happy to see all of those highlighted on the main page? 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You're mistaken. We only have 3,465 featured articles of which at a complete guess only about half are eligble for the main page (the other half have already been on the main page). Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I just checked Wikipedia's core values. Suitable for family consumption wasn't there. Could you point to the Wikipedia policy, guideline, or official statement where suitability for family consumption is included. Because I can't find it... --Jayron32 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That is no justification. I would not reply to you with a stream of profanities just to assert my freedom of speech -- just because I can. Sensible judgement must be applied. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That's something else, called civility, which is currently being debated about in the editor community. However, articles are not censored. If we can't document a topic without bad words, we have to use the bad words, plain and simple.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not arguing against the existence of the article, or saying that Wikipedia's article space should be censored for bad words where they are necessary to explain the subject matter. I am saying that the decision to highlight this article -- to give it such prominence -- was a bad idea, in my opinion. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it's just how we remark at the professional-level writing we can make. This site's intended audience is mainly for adults. See Wikipedia:Guidance for parents.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Just saying, permitting that article to exist on Wikipedia isn't the same as sticking it up on the front page.  Marlith (Talk)  01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Where should we draw the line? —David Levy 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Do thinking people need others to draw the line for them?
Here is a criterion for you: "What would Jimbo do?"
Let's set up a scenario:
  • It is fund raising time.
  • Your picture is at the top of the Wikipedia main page.
  • You are making an appeal for people to contribute.
  • You are trying to make the case that Wikipedia is worth funding because it allows knowledgeable people to share their knowledge with the world. For example, here is a feature article to showcase the kinds of things editors spend their time on to share with the world.
  • One of your volunteers decides it is time to get in everyone's face with something just a little naughty appearing immediately below your photo and your appeal on the Wikipedia main page.
Question: Is the fund raising effort helped or hindered by the bit of naughtiness on the main page? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The above relies on the premise that the TFA selection was based upon a desire to "get in everyone's face with something just a little naughty". Apart from that, you apparently wonder, what possible motive could there have been to showcase an article that you find objectionable?! —David Levy 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of motive, all other things being equal: do you think fund raising efforts were hindered or helped by featuring an article with the words "anal probe" in the title? Do you think Google pays no attention to what might offend their advertisers? Wikipedia is not a for-profit organization, but it still needs cash. Saying "F you if you don't like it" to potential donors visiting the main page may not be helpful.
Like Google, what one can find in going beyond the home page in Wikipedia might make a sailor blush. But that isn't the point here. If, after eleven years of operation, the best face Wikipedia can put forward is an article with the words "anal probe" in the title, it would seem to have a systemic problem. - Ac44ck (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of motive, all other things being equal: do you think fund raising efforts were hindered or helped by featuring an article with the words "anal probe" in the title?
I don't know whether the article's appearance as TFA led to a net loss of contributions (due to people taking offense) or a net gain (due to people appreciating Wikipedia's comprehensive, uncensored nature). And frankly, I don't particularly care. I disagree with the premise that "What will bring in the most money?" is the appropriate question to ask when determining Wikipedia's content.
Wikipedia is not a for-profit organization, but it still needs cash.
And it receives it. We have no funding shortage.
Saying "F you if you don't like it" to potential donors visiting the main page may not be helpful.
We've done nothing of the sort. Certainly, we display content that some people dislike. This isn't remotely the same thing as "saying F you" to them.
If, after eleven years of operation, the best face Wikipedia can put forward is an article with the words "anal probe" in the title, it would seem to have a systemic problem.
I don't follow. What's wrong with the article? What title should it have? Why can't a writeup about a controversial work of fiction be among Wikipedia's best? —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The intended purpose of such hypothetical behavior would be to insult/offend. Are you suggesting that this is the motive behind the selection of Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as today's featured article?
Please define "sensible judgement". Some readers might be offended by articles about religious/non-religious beliefs other than their own (e.g. Intelligent design or Evolution, both of which are featured articles). Should those articles not have appeared on the main page? Should we institute a main page ban on anything that might offend someone, or just the articles that you deem objectionable? —David Levy 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
We use common sense. You're not going to lead me down that well-trodden and fruitless "anything might be offensive to someone" road, I'm afraid. At some point someone makes a decision, and at the point that person saw "anal probe", some mechanism should have kicked in to say, "nah, no need to put that on the main page". 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, Wikipedia hosts a variety of material that would not be suitable for certain demographics or could otherwise cause controversy. And of course, what could be deemed "inappropriate" varies massively from person to person. But how can we define this standard? To a parent, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is no more suitable for the main page than History of Erotic Art, Human Centipede, or Vulva (which was featured on the main page of the German Wikipedia some time ago, if I remember correctly). To a deeply Christian person, featuring Scientology or Same-sex marriage would likely elicit disgust. Bloody Sunday or Gaza strip would be equally controversial for political reasons if they were featured on the main page. Even Missingno and Bulbasaur had their share of controversy.
In summation, it is understandable that to the parent of a young child, seeing this article on the front page is most likely less than desirable. But to anyone over the age of 14 (a random pick, please don't quibble over it) who is not in that situation, there is no reason why such an article should not be featured; it is after all just a television episode, and I would hazard a guess that the most unseemingly aspect of the article is the episode title. This is the reason why Wikipedia is not censored; what is controversial to one person doesn't elicit even the thought of that in another. We cannot police what people have access to. Doing so is not our responsibility. Taking care of what a child has access to online falls first and foremost to the parent. As to what a parent should say to a child if they are asked about today's featured article? I'd suggest a simple "it's about a TV show for grownups" would suffice. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I cited non-hypothetical examples. The concepts of evolution and intelligent design are far more controversial than the aforementioned cartoon episode is. Should they have appeared on the main page? Why or why not? (Others have cited numerous other examples.)
You evidently find a particular word more bothersome than you find those subjects, but you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't objectionable. Neither is Wikipedia. —David Levy 02:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The cartoon episode title is (mildly) offensive in a peurile and pointless way. I'm afraid I do not see any connection with any of the lofty subjects you mention. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Those articles' subjects are highly controversial. Their prominent display is likely to offend many people. Your description of the cartoon episode's title as "(mildly) offensive in a [puerile] and pointless way" doesn't bolster your argument; it increases my curiosity as to why you're complaining about it and dismissing my question about subjects that generate massive societal controversy. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I am equally curious as to why you think objections to the prominence of a schoolboy joke about body parts has anything to do with questions about religion etc. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
On what basis do you object to the decision to display Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as today's featured article? Its likelihood to offend, or something else? —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Children using Wikipedia

My seven-year old (who uses this web site for school) just asked me about this. Thanks Wikipedia brain trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of parent lets their seven-year-old child surf Wikipedia, which hosts most decidedly adult content throughout. Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
On what planet do you live?
http://www.ieminc.org/handbook/curriculum/Firstsecgrwebsites.htm
Third item on the list: Kindergarten, First, & Second Grade - Free Educational Website Links - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - Wikipedia offers free encyclopedia with close to 1.5 million articles. - Ac44ck (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a problem with the list, not Wikipedia. Modest Genius talk 10:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I do sympathise that this leaves you with a rather uncomfortable discussion to have with the young one, but if we turn this perfectly good article down simply on the basis that it might make some people somewhat uncomfortable, where does that end? Many of our articles about painters contain nudes. Many of the articles about religion will offend someone. So it is about AIDS, about Palastine, about Mohammed, the King of Thailand, the Indian border, global warming, (London)Derry, or evolution. Featured articles are the best of Wikipedia, not the blandest. We never set out to offend, but if we pulled back every time someone might feel uncomfortable or think the content wasn't suitable for their kids, their wife, or their servants, we'd compromise or most basic standard, that of neutrality. We have a (fairly) objective standard for where lies the quality threshold for a Featured Article, and if an article meets that it gets promoted. And FAs are eligible for the front page. Once we let someone decide on their own subjective criteria which articles to reject (from this most public, most important, position) we've subtly jaundiced the neutral position we claim to have. If you discovered we had super-high quality content that we were scared to publicise, wouldn't that offend you too? 91.125.80.151 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've yet gotten an answer to my question: what responsible parent would let their seven-year-old browse Wikipedia? It hosts serious adult content; why on earth would a parent who lets a very young child browse this site have the audacity to come here and complain about a cartoon? See Fisting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a borked question. "Browsing Wikipedia" and "surfing to the Wikipedia home page" are entirely different things. Why would a responsible parent allow browsing to the Wikipedia home page? For the same reason they allow browsing to the Google home page. Google contains links to things that would not be allowed on Wikipedia. Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
What a silly rhetorical device. Do you murder people? If not, why not? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Because people are generally nice and huggable creatures. They're just misunderstood. Some of my best friends are people. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
But would you want your daughter to marry one? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You call the analogy silly in a transparent attempt to discredit that which exposes the hypocrisy of your position. Your question about murder is irrelevant. Murder isn't merely offending sensibilities, it is the destruction of life itself.
Two situations:
  1. The editor is anonymous and can hide behind a policy which prohibits censoring to offend the sensibilities of millions of people, then declare: "F them if they don't like it!"
  2. The same person is in an elevator with others. They can hold a fart until they exit the elevator, or they can let fly with full audio while others are confined in the elevator with them. Will that same person let fly and say "F you if you don't like it!"?
Isn't the issue about offending sensibilities in both cases? Everyone farts. Why should this avant-garde editor refrain from farting in an elevator? Don't they believe in freedom of action? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Editors invested a great deal of time and effort in the Cartman Gets an Anal Probe article, thereby improving the encyclopedia. The community recognized their contributions by promoting the article to "featured" status.
You disapprove of the article's subject, so you denigrate these accomplishments by comparing the TFA selection with the act of deliberately passing gas in a crowded elevator out of spite (as though the motive was to derive juvenile satisfaction by upsetting people with the word "anal").
You might want to reconsider who's being disrespectful here. —David Levy 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the tone as "we can't possibly discern what might be offensive, so we shouldn't even try to have such a criterion in selecting a FA."
Wouldn't you agree that most people would be offended by a fellow passenger in an elevator farting without any inhibition or apology?
Why can we discern what is offensive in an elevator, but not have any clue that some number of potential monetary contributors to Wikipedia might visit the main page of the eighth most popular portal on the web (http://webtrends.about.com/od/webportals/a/topten_portals.htm) and be offended an ill-considered selection for the feature article?
Do you think that might close a pocket book or two? Or is Wikipedia funded only by the avant-garde? Some have the opinion that those who want to be avant-garde should do it on their own dime.
I am not saying the article should not exist. I just think it wasn't a wise choice for a FA. - Ac44ck (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's get the terminology right. These are FAs. FAs are chosen here (any article that meets our notability requirements is eligible to be an FA. FAs are requested for the mainpage here. If they run on the mainpage, they are referred to as TFAs (Today's Featured Aticle), not just FAs.

Next, the person with gas and his/her fellow passengers may depend on the elevator-- they may be unable to avoid it. Nobody has to come to Wikipedia, and no parent should have any seven-year-old surfing anywhere on the Internet that is an adult-content site. Anyone who ever said Wikipedia is a child-friendly site hasn't been, for example, here or here or here or here. Any (lower or middle) school that doesn't have Wikipedia behind a firewall should be taken to task by the parents, and any parent who objects to Cartman shouldn't be letting their children on the internet unsupervised. Unlike an elevator upon which people may depend, the child does not have to come here in order to get to work, to get to school, to get to his apartment, etc. Invalid analogy. Relative to the adult content hosted on this site, exactly what is your objection to Cartman (what specific words there, I'm really curious to know)? Do you think children of all ages don't joke about things coming out of people's arses? If you don't like the adult content on Wikipedia, then challenge all of Wikipedia, or challenge the school that lets children surf adult sites, or challenge the parents who don't supervise their children on the Internet. Or challenge the TV network that runs Southpark. But this is not a TFA problem; anyone who comes to Wikipedia should expect to find content much more "offensive to the delicate and sensitive" than Cartman.

Further, the Cartman article was written by User:Awadewit, an editor who has over 30 FAs and is a professor with a PhD in literature, so why don't we stop with the 'avant-garde', 'pop culture', 'teenage' business, since she's a serious writer on serious topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The question about farting on an elevator addresses the claim that we can't envision what large numbers of people might find offensive. And the position that even if it is offensive, we'll do it anyway because Wikipedia isn't censored.
This section started with a demand for an answer to your question. I provided one. You haven't provided an answer to my question: Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of TMI. My answer is not based on the meme "Wikipedia is not censored" (I've little use for that meme-- it would be more useful to simply acknowledge that "Wikipedia contains adult-only content"). My answer is based on the fact that Wikipedia has much more adult-only content than you'll find just about anywhere short of a sex toy shop in The Village, Cartman is not such content (you haven't answered exactly what you think is wrong with it), and if you are subscribing to lists that tell you Wikipedia is a child-friendly site, then you need to go educate them. It's not. If you allow your child to come here, s/he is a few clicks away from adult content. Deal with the facts, not some list some misguided school gave you. The school my children went to rightfully did not allow youngsters on sites like Wikpedia. They did allow them on many sites where they could read about SouthPark episodes (likely not written as well as our version). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Strange that someone who posts links to articles about fisting invokes a TMI threshold when asked: Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? And then is given a real-world example to describe why they would or would not intentionally offend in that situation. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The question about farting on an elevator addresses the claim that we can't envision what large numbers of people might find offensive.
We know perfectly well that large numbers of people will find much of Wikipedia's content objectionable. We decided to write the encyclopedia anyway.
And the position that even if it is offensive, we'll do it anyway because Wikipedia isn't censored.
...which you apparently interpret to mean "LET'S TRY TO OFFEND PEOPLE! IT'S FUN!".
Some people might be offended by the term "anal probe". Others might be offended by the term "anal cancer". Others might be offended by articles about evolution, intelligent design, Christianity, Islam, atheism, homosexuality, transgenderism, interracial marriage, women's suffrage, and countless other topics. We can't realistically hope to filter everything "objectionable" from the main page.
You haven't provided an answer to my question: Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not?
You're clinging to an analogy in which the act causing offense is committed for that purpose (with nothing else accomplished in the process). If you refuse to believe that we aren't setting out to offend people, there's little point in continuing this discussion. —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
We know perfectly well that large numbers of people will find much of Wikipedia's content objectionable. We decided to write the encyclopedia anyway.
Which evades the point. The issue was not "much of Wikipedia's content." The issue was the selection for the TFA on the main page, not the encyclopedia in general.
You're clinging to an analogy in which the act causing offense is committed for that purpose (with nothing else accomplished in the process). If you refuse to believe that we aren't setting out to offend people, there's little point in continuing this discussion.
There is no mention of intent in the question. One simply has the choice to fart in the elevator or to wait until they exit the elevator. Why should anyone inconvenience themselves to wait until they exit the elevator, if not to avoid offending the fellow passengers? Why should they give any more thought to the possibility of offending their fellow passengers in an elevator than they would to the possibility of offending people who surf to the main page of Wikipedia? - Ac44ck (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Which evades the point.
Your "point" is a straw man. No one is claiming to be unaware of the offense that's caused.
The issue was not "much of Wikipedia's content." The issue was the selection for the TFA on the main page, not the encyclopedia in general.
I include that TFA selection (and other material appearing on the main page) in "much of Wikipedia's content." We know that it offends some people. That isn't our motive for placing it there (contrary to your apparent belief), but we're well aware that this occurs.
There is no mention of intent in the question.
You described a hypothetical scenario in which someone must choose between passing gas in a crowded elevator or waiting until the ride has ended (presumably without suffering any serious consequences). You elaborated that the first option includes exclaiming "F you if you don't like it!", thereby deliberately insulting fellow passengers.
This is not a valid analogy. You're complaining about material displayed for the purpose of showcasing a high-quality article and encouraging further improvements to the encyclopedia. There's no dispute that it offended some people, but that was neither the reason for its appearance nor the only effect. —David Levy 05:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the tone as "we can't possibly discern what might be offensive, so we shouldn't even try to have such a criterion in selecting a FA."
This section contains a great deal of discussion about content that people find objectionable. Setting aside the broad statement that anything can offend someone, numerous specific examples have been provided. Would you care to comment on them?
Wouldn't you agree that most people would be offended by a fellow passenger in an elevator farting without any inhibition or apology?
Yes, I would. I reject your assertion that this is analogous to yesterday's featured article selection.
Why can we discern what is offensive in an elevator, but not have any clue that some number of potential monetary contributors to Wikipedia might visit the main page of the eighth most popular portal on the web (http://webtrends.about.com/od/webportals/a/topten_portals.htm) and be offended an ill-considered selection for the feature article?
We know perfectly well that some visitors to the main page (and other parts of the site) will find some of its content objectionable. Your view that this renders it "ill-considered" is inconsistent with policy.
Do you think that might close a pocket book or two?
I have no doubt that it does. I also have no doubt that this approach opens pocket books. I don't know which occurs more often, and I don't particularly care. Perhaps we could draw more contributions by presenting Wikipedia as "family-friendly", but I don't believe that misleading the public is an appropriate means of soliciting money.
Or is Wikipedia funded only by the avant-garde?
It's funded by people who evidently don't object to our current practices strongly enough to refrain from donating. And it's funded quite well, I might add. —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
We know perfectly well that some visitors to the main page (and other parts of the site) will find some of its content objectionable. Your view that this renders it "ill-considered" is inconsistent with policy.
This sounds like we should check our brains at the door and do anything not prohibited by the letter of Wikipedia policy, simply because we can. That seems extreme to me. Who made Wikipedia policy the arbiter of what is prudent? Everything that is allowed is not necessarily prudent.
I have no doubt that it [closes some pocket books]. I also have no doubt that this approach opens pocket books. I don't know which occurs more often, and I don't particularly care. Perhaps we could draw more contributions by presenting Wikipedia as "family-friendly", but I don't believe that misleading the public is an appropriate means of soliciting money.
Presenting all of Wikipedia as "family-friendly" and ambushing visitors on the main page are different issues. Note the Google does not ambush visitors to their home page. Why do you think Google refrains from doing so? Why is Wikipedia exempt from being a good netizen? How many people hang naughty messages on their front doors? Free speech allows it. Why not do it? It wouldn't have anything to do with avoiding giving offence to others and being perceived as unmannered, would it? - Ac44ck (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This sounds like we should check our brains at the door and do anything not prohibited by the letter of Wikipedia policy, simply because we can.
No. Like most of Wikipedia's rules, the policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. We've used our brains to formulate and document decisions shaping the project, including one to not suppress material on the basis that it offends people.
Contrary to your continual claims, this doesn't mean that we seek to offend people "because we can" and enjoy "[getting] in everyone's face with something just a little naughty".
Presenting all of Wikipedia as "family-friendly" and ambushing visitors on the main page are different issues.
Please specify which content must be excluded from the main page to avoid "ambushing visitors". Obviously, Tuesday's TFA selection fits your definition. What else does? Numerous other subjects commonly regarded as "objectionable" have been cited as examples.
Note the Google does not ambush visitors to their home page. Why do you think Google refrains from doing so?
Are you referring to www.google.com? If so, does that strike you as similar to our main page?
How many people hang naughty messages on their front doors? Free speech allows it. Why not do it? It wouldn't have anything to do with avoiding giving offence to others and being perceived as unmannered, would it?
That's yet another analogy based on the premise that we're showcasing content because we enjoy getting away with being "naughty" and offensive. —David Levy 05:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, First let's examine your goofy analogy.
1) If I knew that the majority of Elevator riders found the smell of farts enjoyable and/or educational...
2) If I there was a long-standing policy that riders should fart in elevators (because of #1)...
3) If It was well known that riders regularly farted in elevators (because of #2)...
4) If riders who did not enjoy the smell of farts were entirely free to ride other elevators with other policies...
... then yes. Yes I would.
Perhaps this illustrates why I thought your analogy was goofy?
Perhaps a better analogy is this : Would you smoke in your building's designated smoking area? Even if occasional non-smokers decided to hang out there for no compulsory reason?
However, like all analogies, even that "better" analogy has flaws. We could go on forever posing analogies back and forth. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You're letting your child browse the web unsupervised, and you're surprised and upset that he learned about a massively popular pop-culture television show that runs on basic cable?
That doesn't make sense at all, and frankly isn't entirely believable.
If true, it betrays a deep misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Most articles are less than a dozen clicks away from depictions of sexual activity and close-up photographs of human naughty bits. If you're upset that your child might hear the word "Anal", what insanity possessed you to let him browse a website where you can find full color, high-resolution, closeup photographs of the human anus?
Sometimes, things aren't designed to be 100% child safe, even if they're educational. (A good example is National Geographic magazine. Children can learn a lot from that publication, but if you don't want to risk you child occasionally seeing a naked human, or a gory nature photo, you have to pre-screen them. That's normal.)
Even if everyone agreed with you 100% and promised never to run such an article again, it still wouldn't excuse you from your responsibility to pre-screen your child's reading material. That's part of a parent's job. Yelling at strangers on the Internet doesn't make it any less your job. How could it? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Much hay is being made about children being allowed access to the internet only with supervision. Okay. Johnny surfs to the Wikipedia main page with mommy supervising. At the top of the page, both see "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe." Johnny asks, "Mommy, what's an anal probe?" The supervision accomplished what, exactly? - Ac44ck (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess you're unfamiliar with rectal thermometers? And your children as well? This is really getting silly. You'll encounter signs around town that will cause more delicate conversation than this one. You still haven't said which part you object to-- the scientific term "anal"? What term do your children use? Bobo? Tooshie? Petusky? Some folks let their children know that a vagina is a vagina, a penis is a penis, an anus is an anus, etc. Those kiddos have an easier time talking to doctors. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question: The supervision accomplished what, exactly? - Ac44ck (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm done entertaining you; someone else can take the next shift. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the admission that your berating of parents for letting children visit the Wikipedia main page without supervision was baseless. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It would probably accomplish getting the parent in question to review basic anatomy and physiology; I knew what an endoscope was by the time I was 7 (my dad works for Olympus), and if they were so prudish they hadn't brought it up yet it would force their hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If someone stops arguing with a Apollo-denier it doesn't mean that they acknowledge the moon-landing as a hoax. Frankly, to pretend that they have is a very asshole thing to do. Not sure how to Assume Good Faith on such a dick move. APL (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
"Mommy, what's evolution?" —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
In the case of reading material, "supervision" means "pre-screening". Otherwise, as you say, it's worthless.
This has always been the case. Even with print media.
Sorry if it involves expending effort on parenting.
(However, if you would rather side-step the featured article, why not bookmark www.wikipedia.org? That hub page does not show featured content, while still providing a search box. It's my understanding that simple.wikipedia.org is also kept roughly child-safe, for sufficiently left-wing definitions of child-safe.) 76.28.67.181 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The key thing to understand here is that Wikipedia is not a safe place for unwary children. Never mind the horrors of the anal probe - your real fear should be the Edit button. Your child could easily get out on a talk page for some obscure article nobody reads and get drawn into some conversation where he reveals details about himself, arranges a meeting, etc. that could lead to attack. It's like sending your kid into the big three-level building where they have the Chicago Public Library - you never really know what could happen in there. Articles like this serve useful notice to parents that this is a big open space like that. It's not designed to keep your kids safely penned under a watchful eye. Wnt (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(And if you think that's bad, picture what could happen if someone makes a special website for a favorite cartoon character and links to it from an article...) Wnt (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the comment at the top, I'd be interested to know what exactly the child asked (if the story is true). Because one would have thought that the article itself (being an FA) would have been able to explain everything. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---
My last comments began with a reply to:

We know perfectly well that large numbers of people will find much of Wikipedia's content objectionable. We decided to write the encyclopedia anyway.

I replied with:

Which evades the point. The issue was not "much of Wikipedia's content." The issue was the selection for the TFA on the main page, not the encyclopedia in general.

The point was dismissed as a straw man based on the responder's statement:

I include that TFA selection (and other material appearing on the main page) in "much of Wikipedia's content."

That one editor chooses to make no distinction between "much of Wikipedia's content" and the main page is their choice. It does not make my distinction a straw man.

If there were no distinction between the main page and other pages, there wouldn't be special groups to decide what goes on the main page. Of the pages I typically edit, I can't think of one where there is a formal committee deciding what should be on the page. The claim that there is no distinction between Wikipedia's main page and "much of Wikipedia's content" appears to be false.

Much is said about TFA being a showcase for the best writing. How many people know that?! There is no indication on the main page that the article was chosen for its technical excellence. If its purpose is to showcase technical excellence, why is there no mention of any way in which this particular article exemplifies technical excellence?

None of the current definitions at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feature give any hint that a "feature" has anything to do with technical excellence. Rather, the word conveys the idea of importance. To the general visitor who is not a Wikipedia nerd, "Today's Feature Article" would seem to be synonymous with "Today's Important Article"; like the lead story in a news broadcast, or the headline in a newspaper. That is: If you get nothing else from this effort, get this.

Just like the "lead story" on the news, the casual visitor to Wikipedia probably comes away with the impression that the TFA is what Wikipedia deems to be "important" information, not highlighted only for its exemplary wordsmithing.

Was "Cartman gets an anal probe" really the most important thing Wikipedia had to say on Tuesday?

Maybe cash isn't important in some ivory tower fantasy, and one can claim ignorance of whether a provocative headline will or won't have a negative impact contributions. But there is a real world with real dollars. Real servers run on real dollars. Shocking headlines help the Enquirer sell their tabloid. But Wikipedia is not the Enquirer; it is an encyclopedia.

Although there are numerous claims that "we do not intend to offend," I can't believe there is no element of snicker factor in having "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" on the Wikipedia main page. I snickered to see the bit of naughtiness on the main page, more so when I saw there was also a nude painting on the same page. That doesn't mean I think either was appropriate for the setting, because I don't. And I don't defend the choices that were made.

The self-righteous, open-minded posturing falls silent when asked what the supposedly free spirits would do in a real-world confined space where they could be identified as the offender in the presence of the offended. No one has an answer for that. Why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That one editor chooses to make no distinction between "much of Wikipedia's content" and the main page is their choice. It does not make my distinction a straw man.
You appear to have misunderstood. I didn't refer to that distinction as a "straw man". The straw man was your statement that others "claim that we can't envision what large numbers of people might find offensive". We claim no such thing. We know that certain content will offend some readers.
The claim that there is no distinction between Wikipedia's main page and "much of Wikipedia's content" appears to be false.
It's another nonexistent "claim".
I referred to "much of Wikipedia's content" not to imply that all of it is the same, but to address the aforementioned straw man by noting that we're well aware that readers are offended by material appearing throughout the site (including the main page).
Much is said about TFA being a showcase for the best writing. How many people know that?! There is no indication on the main page that the article was chosen for its technical excellence.
That's true. Perhaps we should add such an explanation. It would alleviate a fair amount of confusion (e.g. people inquiring as to why we haven't "featured" a particular article on a relevant day).
Just like the "lead story" on the news, the casual visitor to Wikipedia probably comes away with the impression that the TFA is what Wikipedia deems to be "important" information, not highlighted only for its exemplary wordsmithing.
I don't know how prevalent that misunderstanding is, but it does arise on this page from time to time. If we can do something to clarify the section's nature, we certainly should.
Was "Cartman gets an anal probe" really the most important thing Wikipedia had to say on Tuesday?
You know that this isn't what "today's featured article" means, so that's a silly question.
Maybe cash isn't important in some ivory tower fantasy,
Another straw man. No one said that cash isn't important.
and one can claim ignorance of whether a provocative headline will or won't have a negative impact contributions.
I answered your question with the honest statement that I don't know whether showcasing content that you deem "provocative" has a positive, negative or neutral monetary impact. Do you possess any relevant data, or is this purely speculative on your part?
But there is a real world with real dollars. Real servers run on real dollars.
And the Wikimedia Foundation has no shortage of said dollars. On the contrary, it continually expands its endeavors in response to increased funding.
Although there are numerous claims that "we do not intend to offend," I can't believe there is no element of snicker factor in having "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" on the Wikipedia main page.
Likewise, it's possible that some editors appreciated the Evolution article's TFA appearance as a means of "sticking it to the science deniers". It's possible that some editors enjoyed "rubbing it in the Kiwis' faces" when the Australia article appeared as TFA. We can't read people's minds.
All of this is irrelevant. No matter what sort of satisfaction editors derive from an article's TFA selection (stemming from their personal fondness of the subject or from something else), specific criteria must be met.
This applies to other main page sections as well. You've touched on a real issue, which recently arose at DYK when someone apparently tried to exploit WP:NOTCENSORED by includng the song title "Fuck You!" in an item to which it was only tangentially relevant. In that instance, there was no legitimate reason to mention the phrase; someone went out of his/her way to include it ("because we can"). This was inappropriate, as I opined at the time.
I snickered to see the bit of naughtiness on the main page, more so when I saw there was also a nude painting on the same page. That doesn't mean I think either was appropriate for the setting, because I don't.
Ah, you object to the painting's main page display too. What else should be off-limits? I assume that this is a major no-no. What about the other "objectionable" subjects cited as examples? (You've ignored this question twice.)
The self-righteous, open-minded posturing falls silent when asked what the supposedly free spirits would do in a real-world confined space where they could be identified as the offender in the presence of the offended. No one has an answer for that. Why not?
Your absurd "farting in an elevator" analogy has been addressed repeatedly. —David Levy 20:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought I was done with this issue, but the analogy is not absurd; and no one has answered the question in a real-world scenario: What would they do and why? It speaks to the issue of consistency in disregarding what offence one's actions may provoke in others. I don't believe it has been addressed, other than to pan it because it brings an inconvenient truth to the surface. - Ac44ck (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
In such a situation, I would attempt to avoid passing gas in the crowded elevator. And If I were unsuccessful, I wouldn't exclaim "F you if you don't like it!" at my fellow passengers. My rationale is that I don't aim to upset people.
The analogy is quite absurd, as it equates offense arising as a byproduct of a constructive endeavor with that arising deliberately through a mean-spirited act.
To analogize your analogy, it's like reacting to a painful dental procedure by asking the dentist whether he/she goes around punching people. (Dentist: "No, of course not. I don't want to hurt anyone." Patient: "Then why did you just hurt me?!")
I've answered your question. Would you care to answer mine (which you've now ignored three times)? Of the examples cited (and any that you wish to add), what material is/isn't too "objectionable" to appear on the main page (and why)? —David Levy 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer and your many replies. You have repeatedly seized on one illustration of my analogy; comparable to the "we are not censored" reply if someone is offended by a deliberate act with the intent to offend, as your example on DYK illustrates. The others were presented in a neutral setting: one has the option to wait or not. I agree with your approach: waiting when practical. So there seems to be some level of agreement that avoiding offence is preferable.
To answer your question, I have no firm guidelines. However, I do think that Wikipedia's main page should not raise red flags in content filters used at workplaces, schools, etc.
A zero-tolerance policy could get someone fired, expelled, etc., merely for surfing to Wikipedia's main page. No one should have to explain to their boss why the excerpt from Gropecunt Lane on Wikipedia's main page set off the company's content filter and why they shouldn't be fired for accessing inappropriate content on company machines. The position that "everyone else should understand what Wikipedia is, we will not conform to any external social mores" is simply hubris.
Which brand of content filter? I don't know. Pick one. Will it catch everything? No. But most of them will probably flag Gropecunt Lane as potentially problematic.
It appears that no one is making any effort to catch anything now. Rather, they are proud of how open-minded they are, regardless of the consequences elsewhere; spewing statements like: Why should that be a problem for ...? What research says it is damaging to children? I can't imagine that it should be a problem, therefore it isn't. And similar declarations of why any level of circumspection about what appears on the main page should be taboo because it would undermine what Wikipedia is, by some grandiose definition of "is."
The analogy about hanging naughtiness on one's front door is equally not absurd. The main page is Wikipedia's front door. A neighbor who hangs not-safe-for-work items on their front door is a boor. Wikipedia is not immune from a similar assessment merely by the self-declaration "we will not be censored." - Ac44ck (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You have repeatedly seized on one illustration of my analogy; comparable to the "we are not censored" reply if someone is offended by a deliberate act with the intent to offend, as your example on DYK illustrates.
I agree that it's a reasonable analogy in that context. Your references to sneaking in something "naughty" ("because we can") and attempting to invoke WP:NOTCENSORED as justification to go out of our way to provoke controversy are similar to my thoughts on the DYK incident.
That simply isn't what's occurring with our TFA selections.
The others were presented in a neutral setting: one has the option to wait or not.
But the latter option doesn't benefit others. It's a selfish (and possibly petty) act with no benevolent motive.
I agree with your approach: waiting when practical. So there seems to be some level of agreement that avoiding offence is preferable.
All else being equal, of course it is. The problem with the analogy is that all else isn't equal. In the case of TFA, the offense is a byproduct of a process intended to provide a valuable service to readers and improve the encyclopedia (an endeavor that's quite successful, I might add).
I agree — unreservedly — that Wikipedia shouldn't deliberately offend readers. I disagree that Wikipedia should suppress content that happens to offend readers.
To answer your question, I have no firm guidelines. However, I do think that Wikipedia's main page should not raise red flags in content filters used at workplaces, schools, etc.
A zero-tolerance policy could get someone fired, expelled, etc., merely for surfing to Wikipedia's main page. No one should have to explain to their boss why the excerpt from Gropecunt Lane on Wikipedia's main page set off the company's content filter and why they shouldn't be fired for accessing inappropriate content on company machines.
The explanation is simple and straightforward: "I was visiting Wikipedia." The website is sufficiently well known that such a response (easily corroborated) surely would suffice...unless the employee wasn't supposed to visit Wikipedia on his/her work computer, in which case the consequences are justified.
Which brand of content filter? I don't know. Pick one. Will it catch everything? No. But most of them will probably flag Gropecunt Lane as potentially problematic.
This approach focuses on "naughty" words. It ignores a multitude of concepts that many people find considerably more objectionable. (Numerous examples have been cited.) —David Levy 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The explanation is simple and straightforward: "I was visiting Wikipedia." The website is sufficiently well known that such a response (easily corroborated) surely would suffice.
How nice for you that, in a dodgey economy, you have such certainty of the outcome. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
How silly of me to speculate on the outcome of the imaginary scenario that you invented. —David Levy 10:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I invented neither content filter nor zero tolerance. This is an example of the type of thinking I mentioned above: I can't imagine that it should be a problem, therefore it isn't.
I was going to let this slide, but you amended the excerpt I quoted to include another declaration about how the world should work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=476098572&oldid=476082636
...unless the employee wasn't supposed to visit Wikipedia on his/her work computer, in which case the consequences are justified.
Which provoked this thought in me:
How nice of Wikipedia to assist employers in the enforcement their policies. If the Wikipedia main page hadn't set off the content filter, the employer may not have known.
Someone else in this discussion linked to this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png
So a group consisting largely of unmarried, childless, college kids and younger have it all figured out how the world should work. They have time to become Wikipedia nerds and wikilawyers, and hone skills at deflection in arguements. And from a mother's comfortable basement, they can ask: "Why should that be a problem?"
While I'm PO'd about pronouncements from children about how the world should work, I'll include this quote from elsewhere in this discussion:
Q: The supervision accomplished what, exactly?
A: It would probably accomplish getting the parent in question to review basic anatomy and physiology.
Who knew Wikipedia took on the role of deciding when a tired, busy parent should launch into a discussion of these topics? This in addition to helping employers enforce policies.
Why was Wikipedia against SOPA? Was it because they don't want competition in deciding how the world should work? - Ac44ck (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I invented neither content filter nor zero tolerance.
But you invented the scenario in which an employee is confronted for visiting Wikipedia's main page when a "naughty" word was present, yes? Or can you cite documentation of this actually occurring?
This is an example of the type of thinking I mentioned above: I can't imagine that it should be a problem, therefore it isn't.
I can imagine all sorts of problems. I just don't agree that it's Wikipedia's job to solve them.
Perhaps a pro-life employer will fire someone for visiting Wikipedia's main page when the word "abortion" appears. Maybe a mention of Dick Van Dyke will trigger a content filter twice. We can't realistically hope to prevent such situations from arising.
I was going to let this slide, but you amended the excerpt I quoted to include another declaration about how the world should work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=476098572&oldid=476082636
...unless the employee wasn't supposed to visit Wikipedia on his/her work computer, in which case the consequences are justified.
1. I corrected your misquotation of my statement, in which you replaced an ellipsis with a full stop and omitted an essential potion of the sentence. And you've reverted. Why do you insist on misquoting me?
I sometimes divide sentences when quoting others (to enable separate replies to individual segments), but I do not insert new, misleading punctuation. And I always seek to avoid quoting someone in a manner that alters the text's meaning or reduces its clarity.
2. You've misunderstood. I don't personally believe that someone should be fired for visiting Wikipedia at work. I meant that such consequence is "justified" in the sense that it's stemming from an intentional rule infraction on the employee's part. I wasn't commenting on the appropriateness of the rule itself, which is immaterial.
Which provoked this thought in me:
How nice of Wikipedia to assist employers in the enforcement their policies. If the Wikipedia main page hadn't set off the content filter, the employer may not have known.
1. We aren't assisting employers in the enforcement of their policies. We're simply publishing encyclopedic content without censorship. You want us to assist employees in circumventing policies (by removing "naughty" words that might lead their employers to realize that they've visited Wikipedia).
2. If an employer has a rule against visiting Wikipedia, the aforementioned software can easily be set up report or block such page loads, so I doubt that the above is even an issue.
Someone else in this discussion linked to this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png
So a group consisting largely of unmarried, childless, college kids and younger have it all figured out how the world should work. They have time to become Wikipedia nerds and wikilawyers, and hone skills at deflection in arguements. And from a mother's comfortable basement, they can ask: "Why should that be a problem?"
Argumentum ad hominem.
You certainly seem to have strong opinions on how the world should work (e.g. that people shouldn't be "ambushed" with words and artwork that you've deemed "naughty"), but I don't seek to discredit your views by mocking your demographics or lifestyle.
While I'm PO'd about pronouncements from children about how the world should work, I'll include this quote from elsewhere in this discussion:
Q: The supervision accomplished what, exactly?
A: It would probably accomplish getting the parent in question to review basic anatomy and physiology.
Who knew Wikipedia took on the role of deciding when a tired, busy parent should launch into a discussion of these topics?
1. Are you referring to me as a "child"?
2. The above is a reasonable suggestion of how a parent could handle such a situation if and when it arises. It doesn't mean that we deliberately instigate it; we simply don't engage in special measures to prevent it.
3. As 76.28.67.181 noted, in this context, the best form of supervision is pre-screening.
This in addition to helping employers enforce policies.
See above. —David Levy 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Break

I get that the article is what it is (and that far more graphic content within is a given). Placing it as the Featured Article is where I question the application of editorial common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Whose common sense? It's just a fantasy to imagine that different people the entire world over have much common view about what is or isn't appropriate. 91.125.80.151 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's appropriate or not. If it's good writing it's featured, usually on the main page, fair and square.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors always seem to come out guns-blazing on this particular topic. I'll just note here that the Wikimedia Foundation did pass a resolution regarding controversial content here, which contained the phrasing "We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement." I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that, even though the article in question may well be very well written, it would be a stretch to call its educational value 'realistic' and its placement as featured article may not satisfy the 'principle of least astonishment'. Just putting that out there, anyway. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"If it's good writing it's featured" -- Jasper, per my question above, would you be happy to see any Wikipedia content featured on the front page, if the other quality standards were met? 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no. I might be flipped off by something like the current featured article but I would not oppose it and would endorse it if it had the sufficient quality standards.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Any and all articles can be featured articles if they meet the criteria for featured articles, which someone has linked to above. The subject matter is irrelevant. freshacconci talktalk 02:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that most people would baulk, at, say, featuring the article about the n-word on the front page (to pick just one example). So, to pick up David's comment above, somewhere we draw the line... 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Realistically, that line usually is at any form of pornography or any bad word not used in science, in general, though this is not a set rule and there are exceptions.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the day, I really do think it comes down to the much-derided "common sense". We don't all agree on the details, but there are some things, such as the one I mentioned, or putting big photographs of genitalia on the front page, that, I assume, we just wouldn't do, even though the rules allow it. I think the present example is a weaker case of the same thing. I do not think the idea that Wikipedia should be completely unconcerned with people's sensibilities in the matter of front-page content can really be sustained. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
And for some reason, you apparently believe that an article about a cartoon episode is more likely to offend than articles on subjects inconsistent with people's religious beliefs are. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The two things really are not comparable. The question about religious beliefs is much more difficult. Not putting (mildly) offensive material of a "schoolboy" nature on the front page is an easy call. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
But the "schoolboy" nature of the offending words are South Park's creators', not Wikipedia's. Did you read the article? It's about the pilot episode of South Park and it clearly states that they created it to push buttons. Wikipedia's choice for featuring it is not "schoolboy" naughtiness, but the quality of the article, with a secondary consideration being its cultural significance. I'm not a fan of the show but it is important around issues in the culture wars. freshacconci talktalk 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
In other words, you're okay with material that's more likely to offend, provided that it reflects your sensibilities. Conversely, a "(mildly) offensive" cartoon episode title should be off-limits because you find the subject matter childish. —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
If Nigger were a featured article, I would strongly support its appearance on the main page. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be in a minority there. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but most people are mostly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a b-class article and could be brought up to good article and then featured. Sure, it would be controversial but I think the point is that Wikipedia isn't promoting the subject of the featured article, it's promoting the quality of the article. The whole featured article process is daunting and that's why I don't get involved with it. Articles aren't just randomly picked. If the article is of featured article quality, it will usually get featured at some point. freshacconci talktalk 03:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think "controversial" is an understatement. To be honest, I think there would be a shit-storm if you did that. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe so. I've never understood the belief that censoring a word (in this context, censoring history) is a logical response to bigotry. To me, it makes no more sense to bar the word "nigger" from appearing on the main page than it does to bar the appearance of articles about slavery or the Holocaust. How is scholarly coverage of these subjects inappropriate? —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The word is historically important and the current article is actually pretty good. There would be no reason to not feature it other than squeamishness. And no, I don't think people should throw that word around (or actually use it at all). But there's nothing wrong with an article on the word itself or to bring it up to featured article standards. freshacconci talktalk 03:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Well it is a minority of at least two as I would also support that. In a couple of conversations, I have been more than a little surprised that people who strongly think that "nigger" is a taboo word don't realise how recently this has come to be the case. For example in 1955 in Britain it was used without any concern. Also the same people don't object to calling a black dog Blackie. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So, Today's Featured Article is controversial, but no one mentions Today's Featured Picture? Chris857 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm offended by side boob. freshacconci talktalk 03:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw that later. I usually don't go to the main page. More rarely do I scroll to the bottom. When I saw the nude painting as a featured picture in the same setting as the featured article about an anal probe, I thought, "Someone wanted to be particularly provocative today." I think the featured article is spam. Is South Park falling in the ratings and needs a boost from Wikipedia? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic, but I think it's a shame there is no way to make the featured picture visible without scrolling. I often miss them, and often they are superb. I suppose the layout constraints just won't permit it. Anyway, gotta go now, thanks for the intersting debate... 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
These complaints seem to stem more from the perception that a subject is trivial or unimportant than from anything else (hence the flood of angry posts whenever an article about something from popular culture appears). A "naughty" word merely helps to stir up the sentiment.
Today's featured picture will generate less criticism because it's an "important" work of art. Likewise, if today's featured article were about a classic work of literature whose title contained a word regarded as obscene, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but Wikipedia is made for human beings. It is not made for an alien race neutrally seeking to learn more about humans. "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."[1] Many of these human beings are young children. Many of them are accessing Wikipedia in public schools. Many of these human beings don't want to read about anal probes or see pictures of naked women (or homoeroticism or other topics from the past). I'm not saying these things are "bad"—there isn't bad knowledge. But forcing every single human being who goes to en.wikipedia.org to view pictures or read content offensive to them isn't helping "every single human being . . . freely share in the sum of all knowledge." It's alienating people. I foresee parents and schools blocking Wikipedia for this kind of thing. How does that help Wikipedia?

Remember that Wikipedians do not represent a fair sample of English-speaking readers (consider this graph). What is acceptable to the general public must be considered when making decisions on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.21 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not buying your Jedi mind trick there. The "general public" is generally made up of people of different faiths and belief systems, and what flies with one person won't necessarily fly with many other people. South Park spoofed this line of reasoning, to very poignant effect, in Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo (their first Christmas special), where the school holiday pageant gets neutered to one song that has bugger-all to do with the holiday season en generale because members of the general public keep taking offense to the most innocuous (not the most religious, the most innocuous) elements of the pageant. Arguing that the general public knows what is best for it is garbage at best - largely because the general public will always disagree with itself on any given matter. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I first became aware of anal probes as part of the stories of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. It's only becomes a puerile adolescent joke because people made fun of those "abductees". I think we need to remember how the expression hit the mainstream. It was mainly via weirdos with vivid imaginations. Would those complaining still complain if the article was about such abduction claims? HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
My point is that the Wikimedia Foundation's commitment is to enable "every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." In order for Wikipedia to achieve that goal, it must strive to be accessible to as many human beings as possible. I entirely agree with the statement that "what flies with one person won't necessarily fly with many other people." If Wikipedia is actually trying to share knowledge with every human being, it must strive to "fly" with as many people as possible. Wikimedia Foundation's statement is people-oriented, not content-oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.21 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Wikipedia commits to offer water for every horse - but that's all. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to voice my agreement with the complainers that this is a poor choice for today's featured article. It makes wikipedia look like it's run by a bunch of seventeen-year-old boys, which I suppose it probably is. After the Human Centipede debacle, I thought there was also going to be broader discussion of potentially offensive featured articles before they went on the mian page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Debacle? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
In the minds of some users, "decision with which I disagree" = "debacle". —David Levy 06:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Your personal opinion of "South Park" (i.e. that its audience comprises "a bunch of seventeen-year-old boys") is irrelevant to our mission to treat it as we do any other notable subject. Only failing to do so would make Wikipedia appear juvenile. ("Mommy, Mommy, I saw a bad word! Make it go away!")
2. All subjects are "potentially offensive". —David Levy 06:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure decisions about curation and selection have to interfere with the neutrality of the project's content. The spirit of the Board resolution on controversial content might be relevant here. —Emufarmers(T/C) 05:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the title of the pilot episode of a major television program that has appeared in US and international television for years. Bowdlerization is not in Wikipedia's best interest. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
If anything, it should have been the episode where he joins NAMBLA... Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So, when is a sexual position or fetish gonna be thrown onto the front page?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to test David Levy's theory a bit above. Get Lick me in the ass to featured status and put it on the main page :D Someguy1221 (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible April Fools Day material there. I do see Anal people & Fabulous Willy are in April Fools DYK. Of course, I'm against the FA on different merits.......--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Well we had Gropecunt Lane a while back. Is that close enough? FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I assume that no-one recalls the day when Gropecunt Lane was the TFA? Manning (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that while there may be a consensus that the content of Wikipedia is not censored and that there shouldn't be limits on what Wikipedia is "allowed" to have articles about, there is not a consensus on what is appropriate for display on the Main Page. We have a number of people saying "this is appropriate" and a number saying "this isn't". This is not the first time this has happened, I was here for the discussion four months ago on The Human Centipede which, like the South Park episode here, was about a subject which is deliberately trying to be noticed by transgressing boundaries. There was a long debate after the Human Centipede was put here on the Main Page too, after a while a admin closed the debate with the words "Article no longer TFA; reasonable concluding remark made and further discussion can be taken elsewhere". The concluding remark he refers to was "Since the article is off Main page for a while now, could we just say something like "if the choice of Main page content is expected to raise several eyebrows, someone should drop a message to some frequently-monitored page, such as this one, so that we can have a discussion prior to the apperance on the Main page"?" by User:Tone. My question is... was this advice taken? It seems to me that nothing changed, there was no attempt to gain consensus on this issue and now we are back in the same place again. Fine, some of you don't think these sorts of articles are a problem, but why hasn't there been an attempt to see if that is the consensus? Kaid100 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I just came here because i knew by reading the main article, there would be an interesting discussion here. Its one of thosse common sense things that is going to stir up trouble with some readers, but proceeds anyway under the not censored (or in some cases- no consensus established yet) umbrella. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I for one wish the editors responsible for the main page wouldn't do things that they should know are going to 'stir up trouble'. I don't particularly care about today's FA myself - in the grand scheme of things, South Park is not all that offensive. But obviously some other editors do think it inappropriate, and it's depressing that the main page people either failed to see that coming, or decided they just didn't care and went ahead anyway. After the Human Centipede fiasco - an article that definitely should not have appeared on the main page - I really would have thought they'd know better. Robofish (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Displaying an article about a Pokémon character as TFA "stirs up trouble". You apparently want us to base such decisions on mob rule (i.e. to exclude whatever subjects people dislike) instead of relying on our featured article criteria. —David Levy 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
And the less said about Gropecunt Lane, the better. I've ranted about this before, but to be brief: WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean we should purposefully go out of our way to offend people just because we can get away with it. Robofish (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Nor should we pretend featured content does not exist because some people are easily offended. The purpose of TFA is to show our best work, not to make people happy and fluffy inside. Count me as someone fully and completely in support of TFA being allowed to fulfill its mandate without interference. Resolute 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
These are your views, but are they the consensus? Kaid100 (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
We aren't going out of our way to offend people, nor are we going out of our way to avoid offending people by banning "objectionable" subjects from the main page. (As discussed above, that would cover an enormous number of articles, many of which you might be more reluctant to exclude.) —David Levy 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, it contains the word "anal probe", big deal. Please stop pretending to be offended by something that is not offensive. If you child asks you what anal means just explain to them that it's a grown up word for their bottom, and that they shouldn't repeat it at school because it's a silly technical word that won't sound right. Then stop your children from reading a website that is full of adult content. Coolug (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Any child able to read this site is probably old enough to know what the word "anal" (and far, far worse) means. There's this real attitude in the Western World that kids learn bad language from the mass-media. And it's absolute bullshit. They learn bad language from other kids and often from their parents. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say that the next 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells main page was due (g).

Until and unless 'vanilla/worksafe Wikipedia mainpage', 'ordinary/occasionally annoying' and 'anything controversial is encouraged' options are created this situation will occur occasionally (along with 'too much of the main page is devoted to (insert topic of choice discussions).

Scarlett O'Hara's most famous quote applies here. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"As God is my witness, I won't go hungry again"? Or do you mean Rhett Butler's most famous quote?  ;) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(interpolation) 'Tomorrow is another day' (and there will be different things on the main page). And these discussions will still be going on when the Y10000 Problem is threatening to become operational (assuming WP and its equivalents are still around). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to stay out of debating whether it was sensible to mainpage this particular article, but I will point out that treating "WP:NOTCENSORED" as the be-all and end-all of a discussion on the issue, as several commenters in this thread have done, is very poor reasoning. As I observed in a recent arbitration decision:

"The principle that "Wikipedia is not censored" is properly invoked in resisting attempts to control the content of Wikipedia articles based on factors other than our editors' informed and mature collective editorial judgments. In controversial instances, reminding fellow editors that 'Wikipedia is not censored' will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content.... A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

In other words, to reaffirm that Wikipedia does not allow itself to be censored does not meant that we abdicate making our own collective editorial judgments as to what content should be contained in the encyclopedia, and in what parts of the encyclopedia, including the main page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It actually goes both ways though. "I'm offended." "Well Wikipedia is not censored." "But, I'm offended!", rinse and repeat. The discussion pretty much stops there anyway because the opposition to the article is not based in any rational argument. It is based around the fact that some people find the words "anal probe" distasteful. Consequently, they seek to suppress the words they don't like. That, IMNSHO, is not a credible reason to deny the article a place at TFA. Resolute 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. It's quite true that WP:NOTCENSORED isn't blanket justification for the inclusion of any and all material. But it does mean that content meeting our normal editorial standards shouldn't be removed on the basis that it offends someone. —David Levy 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why:

  • It could be a problem if a 7-year-old sees todays featured article?
  • It could be a problem if a 7-year-old sees todays features picture?

Is there any evidence that either is bad for childs' psychological development and all that? Apart from the risk of hypothermia, where is de danger in nudity? Thanks! --Gerrit CUTEDH 17:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of asking the question of whether we could explain it to you (because of course you could refuse to accept any explanation), ask the question of how many parents would intentionally show their seven-year-old this article or this picture. In fact, I'm not quite as bothered by today's Main Page as I was about the Human Centipede one a few months ago, the main reason for me bringing this up is because lessons weren't learnt from that incident. There has still been no attempt to establish consensus on what should be shown on the Main Page - the first thing people see when they get here and the content of which is involuntary to them. They could choose not to search for The Human Centipede or Cartman gets a Anal Probe, but they can't choose not to see it as the main article until they get here. Incidentally, the notion of not all articles being suitable for the Main Page is not new, Jenna Jameson (a porn star) has deliberately not been put on the front page for its subject matter- so the whole NOTCENSORED argument doesn't apply. As the Jenna Jameson example shows, The subject matter of TFA already is censored, but there has been no attempt to establish consensus on how it should be. Kaid100 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Many parents wouldn't want their children to read about evolution or intelligent design. Should those articles not have appeared as TFA? Adherents to certain religions find photographs of unveiled women (or even women in general) highly objectionable. Should those be banned from the main page as well? To whose moral standards should we defer? The ones that seem reasonable to you?
2. Our featured article director has explicitly stated that he decided against making Jenna Jameson TFA not because its content is objectionable, but because he doesn't want to deal with complaints to that effect. (Users have commented that he's scheduled articles more likely to draw such criticism, so we don't quite understand this decision and aren't certain that it still stands.) —David Levy 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You mention the Featured Articles Director: his exact words were "As far as putting this article on the main page, I am undecided, but leaning a bit towards 'no'. IMO, 'History of erotic depictions' was close to the line, but still a few steps inside the boundary. I'm not so sure about Jenna Jamison though." In other words, he considers that there is a boundary which History of erotic depictions is a few steps on the right side of, but Jenna Jameson might not be. Now, why has there not been an attempt to establish for the whole community, rather than just one person's whims, where that boundary is? As for evolution and intelligent design, those are controversial not because they are deliberatly transgressive, but because people disagree as to whether or not they are correct. It makes no sense to ask if "The Human Centipede" or "Cartman gets an anal probe" is correct or incorrect, as they are not factual statements but motion-picture portrayals which transgress boundaries in order to gain notoriety. Kaid100 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I will speak only anecdotally, but I saw the South Park Christmas Special when I was 7 years old at someone else's house, and I didn't develop any psychological issues because of it. It's not going to cause anyone harm, and quite frankly what 7 year old is even going to be seriously looking things up on Wikipedia? I remember being around that age and deliberately opening dictionaries to the pages with swear words and/or gory pictures on them; that was the only time I ever opened such books. To quote someone who wrote in defense of a Far Side cartoon that was a satire of torture, "As for the children, don't worry about them. They don't get it. And when they do, they will not be nearly as affected as you seem to think." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
1. "I was asked to comment here about my position vis-a-vis Jenna Jamison as daily FA. As David said, I'm not planning on scheduling it, because I don't want to deal with the inevitable controversy that would erupt. The decision is mine, and it is discretionary -- I decided of my own volition not to run it, not because of any particular policy. Nor is my position set in stone -- I may change my mind at some point in the future." — Raul654 [diff]
2. The concern is that people find certain content objectionable (because it offends them and/or because they don't want their children exposed to it), right? So how is the reason why a topic is controversial relevant? If anything, readers are more likely to be deeply offended by claims inconsistent with their personal/religious beliefs than they are by "motion-picture portrayals which transgress boundaries in order to gain notoriety".
And what about the photographs of unveiled women (and women in general)? The offense that they cause has nothing to do with a factual dispute. In certain cultures, their display transgresses the established boundaries of decency (to a far greater extent than use of the phrase "anal probe" does).
I ask again: to whose moral standards should we defer? Those whose beliefs we deem "reasonable"? —David Levy 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You asked a question which you already answered with your quote. You are already deferring to the moral standards of the person you quoted. Kaid100 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You appear to have missed the point, which is that Raul's decision stems not from his "moral standards", but from a desire to avoid inconvenience.
And no, I don't defer to this position; I've expressed disagreement on several occasions.
Regardless, my question is "To whose moral standards should we defer?" (You obviously aren't satisfied with the status quo.) —David Levy 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Then balance it out: Make it clear that the home page (which is the only point of debate here as opposed to all this "censored" babbling) tempers any impression of Wikipedia as an academic resource (what with all the "History...Geography...Mathematics" portal links at the top) by including some links at the portal masthead to some of the more colorful topics from this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like some users want a clear message stating whether Wikipedia is a genteel, polite academic resource suitable for use by 7-year-olds, or not. Apparently there are a lot of people reading stuff here or there implying that Wikipedia is that thing, and they don't question it. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Carman article placed at sole discretion of FA Director

Don't like it? There's a current RfC on FA's leadership:

Alarbus (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This information is false: see next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It's quite true, Sandy. Nowhere was there any discussion about this particular TFA; it just appeared. Alarbus (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

TFAs are chosen by the community

In fact, TFAs are chosen by the community at WP:TFA/R-- a place which the "community" largely ignores in spite of the the FA director's attempts to leave article choice more in the hands of the community. When no TFA is requested there, then the TFA is chosen from those that haven't been run. Nice try, but every time we see these complaints, we do not see people going over to WP:TFA/R and helping to choose the TFAs. In fact, at this moment, the page is in complete disrepair because no one seems to care. Yet, the person posting here is one of only a very small handful of people who called for tossing out the FA leadership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
!votes there are mere suggestions; nothing binding at all about it. Alarbus (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Misleading; provide a legitimate case where the director or delegates have ignored community consensus or requests on that page. I'm aware of none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Meh. Provide anything that says he has to abide by what is said there. It's sole discretion — for life. Alarbus (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm pretty sure that Cartman Gets an Anal Probe was never requested at WP:TFA/R. User:Raul654 just pulled it out of his hat. Alarbus (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You're free to present a diff showing the community uses, updates, pays attention to, or cares about the TFA requests page in general, and requested an article for that date. The fact is that Raul set up the page so the community could take an active role in scheduling the mainpage TFA, and the fact is that the community ignores that opportunity. Talk is cheap, and complaining here is more fun than, you know, actually doing some work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think no one much bothers making suggestions at tfar because posts there matter little. mere suggestions from the peons. nb: I do plenty of heavy lifting around here. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy for linking to the requests page. I wasn't aware of it and I've added it to my watchlist. Cloveapple (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Much obliged, Clove; more active editors getting involved there would be great.

@Alarbus: Once again, you are welcome to provide diffs of articles that had consensus there and were ignored, or stop spreading these false allegations on a high-profile page. Now let's see, why would the same editor who called for FAC leadership to be tossed out want to spread information here that isn't true ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is aware of TFAR and has both nominated and voted on submissions there on many occasions, I have to say you are full of shit, Alarbus. Resolute 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No wonder there's a civility case at present. Alarbus (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Resolute, would you mind striking and rephrasing that? We don't need another side show, do we? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say any articles that had 'consensus' were ignored (not saying either way); I said that:
That article wasn't requested at all, it was simply selected by one person: User:Raul654. Alarbus (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Still false. The TFA/R page is underutilized, no request was made for today, hence the community had a role-- they just ignored it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Tap, tap, tap. Not false, Sandy. Maybe yesterday was a centennial of something, or someone's birthday. Whatever could have been requested. All moot, though. No one requested anything and the FA process owns the most prominent spot on the Main Page. That article was selected by an individual without any public input.
As Carcharoth said below, tfar is about a few specific requests; off the cuff I'd say it's about 1-in-7. Perhaps the reason few bother participating at tfar is that the whole FA process is hostile and most shy from that. Alarbus (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I agree with that. I also support Raul's decision on that front (and thanks for the notice above, btw, it reminded me to vote in support of Raul's reconfirmation.) However, your dismissive attitude towards TFAR and how it exists to placate the "peons" is no more useful than Sandy running around everywhere overreacting to the slightest criticism of the FA process. Resolute 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I for one have added TFA/R to my watchlist and intend to be somewhat active there in the future. Hopefully these long-winded, multi-prong arguments will at least have made others more aware of the process too and maybe some good will come out this. Think positive, y'all! :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
My understanding of the TFA/R process is that it is where requests are made by those wanting a featured article to appear on a particular date. That is only a small proportion of the featured articles available for TFA, though. The vast majority, as far as I'm aware, are selected by Raul654 and Dabomb87 from the available pool of those not mentioned at TFA/R. If people want to make any objections to those selections in advance, the only way to do this, as far as I know, is to watch the 'TFA archive' list, or 'tomorrow's main page' page, and see the future TFAs appear as Raul and Dabomb slot them in. I would suggest that objections would need to be raised a few days in advance for any traction to be gained. I'm not sure if any objections have ever been raised in advance. I do recall a few instances where possible selections were discussed in advance in a venue other than TFA/R (apart from the one's like the April Fools selections), such as the decision to put two articles as TFA during a US presidential election (or was that a TFA/R discussion as well?).

Of course, rather than object to articles after they've been selected, it might be more productive to peruse the list of FAs not yet featured on the main page, and point to any you think might not be suitable, and make your views known to Raul and Dabomb. And then return periodically and note the promotions to FA made since you last looked, and update your list of your personal vetos. Maybe someone should also rustle up a list of which TFA articles have prompted threads like this, though that would involve a fair amount of digging through various archives. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As to your first part, misleading; it's not Raul's fault that the requests page is underutilized and poorly utilized. On your second para, the place to make those views known is not to Raul or Dabomb; it's at WP:TFA/R. As long as the community doesn't use that page, and allows it to go unmaintained, there is no reason to give more responsibility to the community. It's already there for them, and they ignore it in droves. Complaining is easier than working; blaming others for something you don't like is easier than accepting responsibility. Every time I go to that page, I have to do the maintenance there. IF the community wants to be part of the TFA decision-making, then they should be-- they don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't blame Raul if he picked it out of a hat and it happened to be this episode. Nor should we blame him if the FA 1987 (What the Fuck is Going On?) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) came out of the hat either. If it's a featured article, then we should automatically assume that the person (or people) who wrote it put in hours of research and work to get it up to that standard. It's insulting to article writers to insinuate that their work is automatically bad because the subject is controversial in some way. There's a brilliant quote by the pastor Tony Campolo which highlights what I mean perfectly:

I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said "shit" than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.

Ironholds put up a brilliant post on what the mission of Wikipedia is a few hours ago: we exist to expand human understanding. We exist to be the sum of human knowledge. We should be able to talk about The Human Centipede, and the issues it presents. All featured articles, especially about controversial topics, must do this (FA criterion 1b). We can't pretend that these topics don't exist, out of some nebulous desire to "protect the children" and we shouldn't, because the moment we do that, we stop being an encyclopedia. Sceptre (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As an addendum to this, the article that Ironholds used as an example was Polyamory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't doubt that if that, or Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), was included on the main page we'd get complaints about how we'd be harming the children by running it. The use of "for the children" has historically always been used as an easy excuse to repress what society disapproves of. But to reflect society's disapproval of topics by pretending they don't exist (which is what we do if we don't run these articles when they come out of the hat) runs counter to our neutrality policy. Sceptre (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Big Butte Creek

Today's selection of Big Butte Creek has some asking, "Is the FA scheduler a 15-year-old boy?" --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer: no. A slightly more pertinent question might relate to whoever named the geographic feature, but even then the answer is still no. And who are these phantom 'some'? That's a case for the {{who}} tag if I ever saw one. Modest Genius talk 11:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Not unless the geographic feature was named "Big Butt Cheek". —howcheng {chat} 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It's pronounced "byoot", not "butt". Jehochman Talk 22:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No complaints, on the contray : thanks

a lot for your choosing "Cartman's anal probe" , and that gorgeous Bouguereau's nude ! Reminds us our flesh is yet here, and needs its spring revival (we had our La Fête de la Chandeleur lately, but weather as worsened just after it, & there is now a sound 15°C under zero, & North-East Wind force 9, on the Lake Leman shores...) . Cheers ! (& please gon on digging out some more L'art pompier masterpieces for your "Today's f. pic." , many of us just love it !). BTW , we have here an expression : "te laisse pas abattre par les pisse-vinaigres" (don't vinegar pissers deter you...)Arapaima (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No complaints about the Bouguereau, but who wrote that stuff accompanying it? It's "an example of an art nude, an art form where the naked human form is the dominant theme and is not intentionally erotic." Oh please! Of course it's erotic. "It does not involve the subject interacting with anyone or the face of the nude as a prominent feature." Er, yes, it does. She's looking right at the viewer - interacting with and smiling at you, the person who is imagined to be there with her naked on the beach. She is skinny dipping. OK, so it draws on mythological imagery of water nymphs, Naiads, etc, but the context is clearly a beach not a pool or river, typically associated with nymphs, so it links to contemporary social practices of sea bathing, which was a widely discussed issue at the time. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I compiled the caption based on what's in the art nude article. If the article is incorrect or if the image not suitable to be placed in the article, there's really no way I could have known that. —howcheng {chat} 17:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That text was under the "In photography" section, FWIW. —Emufarmers(T/C) 07:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Paul B - when you insist that it's erotic, it reminds me of the old joke....
A psychiatrist was administering a Rorschach inkblot test to his patient. The doctor showed the first blot and asked what it resembled.
"That's two poodles having sex," replied the patient.
To the second inkblot, the patient said, "That's a naked guy leaning out a window, telling all the men who go by to come in and have sex with her."
The doctor showed him the third inkblot. "That's two naked women," the patient said.
Unable to withstand this any longer, the doctor blurted out, "You have a filthy, disgusting mind!"
"Look who's talking!" the patient cried. "You're the one with all the dirty pictures."
It's all in the eye of the beholder. HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe the technical term is "zing". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Endorse too

The main page is where we showcase our content, that as a community we can take subjects from the sublime and profound, the complex and painful, the humorous, the unreal, and the crude, and as a community we can provide high quality neutral encyclopedic coverage of them all.

Articles based on body parts, sex, religious controversies, etc, are an opportunity too. They are no less articles than any other; their writing is no less meritworthy (and no more so) than any other. They show what can be done with South Park and a toilet/abduction joke, by skilled content writers. To our readers, who are incredibly varied, our articles may have immense and varied value. I wrote a large part of an article related to drowning, I have no doubt by doing that task, I will have saved lives. Wikipedia will have saved lives. To a reader it has great value - immense perhaps. Other articles benefit other readers (they will, or they wouldn't return). To readers, each article has differing value.

As writings and articles, they are all equal examples of our community's endeavors. They are all measured by the same yardstick - that they are each well written, neutral, sourced, and comprehensively informative on the important points of their topic. The test is whether Cartman Gets an Anal Probe describes its topic well and informatively, and whether Mona Lisa describes its topic well and informatively.

For everyone who may take offense at some article -- almost any topic can cause offense -- someone else will go "wow, I didn't realize..." and ten others will laugh, chuckle, blink, tweet and then move on. Part of spreading knowledge is spreading knowledge of what kind of knowledge may be there. Never forget, some will want to know, some will use it for research or for their own work. Never, ever assume any article has not got a time, place and reader who will benefit from it. The main page, as Raul explained when he was Director of FA back in 2006, is a place where sometimes we will be boring, and sometimes we will be controversial or post an article that will raise eyebrows. Mona Lisa can be there, so can Lady Gaga, so can HIV vaccine, so can Walt Disney, bullying, Cold War, and cunt. Each is capable of informing and each can be the subject of an article that children may giggle over and others will learn from in a non-crude and very genuine and worthwhile sense.

Any article can inform, any article can be written to a high standard.

The Bus Uncle and Xenu do so, though neither are weighty topics -- and so can the fictitious Eric Cartman and his anomalous anal probe. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It always makes me laugh to see people so offended by such things. Especially as that mock indignation is never present for reports on mass murder, war, terrorist bombings, miscarriages of justice...etc. Priorities, eh? Let's get offended by a middle finger, but not by the several dancers behind her making sexually suggestive dance moves. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Very well put FT2. I too support the featuring of this article on the main page. the wub "?!" 12:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It's extremely sad that we're celebrating Wikipedia's status as "uncensored", because it dared to describe ... a TV show. Watched by millions, ... on basic cable.
Thank goodness we've achieved the same level of glorious freedom as TV Guide! APL (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree. This shouldn't even be an issue. /Julle (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If people really had such a problem with TFA, the obvious solution is to launch themselves via catapult at one of the Wikipedia server buildings. --82.3.51.98 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
^That made me smile :) Modest Genius talk 13:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Silliness

This discussion has been had again and again (and again and again), the article is off the Main Page, and it's highly unlikely you'll ever establish any consensus for change in policy. Stop whining and get your business people. ResMar 14:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


'Until and unless' there are 'vanilla main page' and 'tachyon main page' (dealing with topics that come variously under adult, squick, 'non-work-safe', violence, 'not to be read while drinking beverage of choice/eating crumbly biscuits' etc) versions this discussion will occur 3-4 times a year. 'Next in line' - excessive themeing of the main page. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


Syria

Can the blurb be changed to "Syrian opposition leaders claim". They are hardly a credible source and have every reason to exaggerate death tolls. I also asked on ITN/C. I forget which is the correct location to inquire.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A good idea. I've posted this and a related request at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Due to weeks of protest"

That statement that Mohamed Nasheed resigned DUE to weeks of protest seems a bit POV to me, particularly since he claims that the real reason he resigned because people pointed guns at his head and threatened to kill him if he did not. If it not for us to decide the reasoning behind his resignation, so I suggest we change it to "following weeks of protests" instead of "due to weeks of protests". かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I simply removed "due to weeks of protests". The blurb already contains one instance of "following", and mentioning the protests without identifying their nature didn't really convey much anyway. —David Levy 22:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Panoramic Photographs

For today and another maybe last week, "today's photograph" came in strangely when I opened Wikipedia. In both cases, they involved panoramic photographs, which normally come in just like any other photograph. Today, the margins are unusually wide (maybe twice the width of the earlier sections); but oddly, the photograph itself came in with only a small partial view and a drag-bar. The other time that I remember this happening, the set-up was similar but not quite so wide, as I recall. Anyone else having this problem? Shocking Blue (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The (scrollable) image *is* rather narrow compared to the width of the section. Maybe something in the template that's used for the scrollbar? Modest Genius talk 13:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

TFA images

On February 3rd and 7th, I added images to the TFA blurbs. For the Pathways into Darkness blurb, I added an image of that video game's sole programmer. For "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe," the current TFA (the 7th's), I added an image of that episode's sole creators. In both cases, the images were removed with a statement that the images were of insufficient quality and were tangentially related. I disagree on both accounts. An image of the author of a book is directly relevant to a blurb about the book; the same is true of the programmer of a video game and the creators of a television episode. Both images were also quite as visible as the other images that are commonly used in TFA blurbs. Is there concensus to omit images from TFA blurbs that relate to popular culture? Neelix (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not. But it often is difficult to find free images illustrating such subjects, and there is consensus that we shouldn't throw in the closest thing available (for the sake of having an image).
In this discussion (in which the distinction between a book's author and a video game's creator was addressed), I noted two questions that are helpful to ask:
  • Will the image's general nature be readily apparent to most readers seeing the blurb (before they read the caption)?
  • Would we seriously consider including the image in the article's infobox?
If the answer to both questions is "no," the image probably isn't particularly suitable.
February 3's featured article was about a video game, not its programmer. That photograph is of relatively low quality (poor focus, partial obstruction in the foreground) and does nothing to illustrate the article's subject. A vast majority of readers, likely including those familiar with the game, wouldn't recognize Jason Jones or understand why the photograph was present until reaching "pictured" in the blurb (at which point the image still would fail to illustrate the game).
Today's photograph made more sense than that (given the fact that Parker and Stone are well known as the program's creators), but it nonetheless was tangentially relevant (because the article is about the episode, not about them) and didn't work well at that size. (I'm familiar with Parker and Stone, but I wouldn't be able to recognize them from the thumbnail.)
Incidentally, we italicize the parenthesis enclosing "pictured". —David Levy 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course the best solution would be to finally get rid of the diktat that fair use images cannot be used on the Main Page. Then we could use the cover art or a still from the work. Every time this problem occurs this simple solution is ignored. Modest Genius talk 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Our pre-Scooby-Doo incident practice of using a non-free image to illustrate TFA only when no available or realistically obtainable free image could serve the purpose (just as we do in articles) was quite sensible. I don't understand why a special main page policy is called for. —David Levy 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the pre-Scooby-Doo policy seemed more sensible and consistant.
However, You have to admit that it would be a very rare main-page blurb that was made difficult to understand by a lack of illustration. ("A great Dane and four teenagers? I don't understand! What are teenagers?") APL (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The policy just needs to be changed. There is really no good reason why fair use images shouldn't be used on the main page for TFA if no free use image is available. There are already too few images on the main page as it is, and having a TFA without an image only compounds that problem. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
What we lose in not putting fair use images on the Main Page is minimal. What we would lose if American fair use law were tightened would be quite substantial. Given the patchy state of commons:Category:Players_of_Watford_FC I'm wary of telling others to take more pictures of things they like, but save for the very specific instance of fictional characters that's what this ultimately boils down to. —WFC— 03:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm really not trying to be flippant here, but I have no idea what you just said. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm really not surprised. —WFC— 17:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually there are some key reasons which come up nearly every time this is discussed, hence why we achieve no consensus. You don't have to agree with them but pretending they don't exist doesn't help the discussion in any way. Note that as has also been mentioned before, if you really want to change things, it likely makes sense to seperate those cases when the actual loss is questionable (as even APL has said, the image isn't actually that important to understand the blurb) and when you can perhaps make an argument that the blurb is difficult to understand with the image (as in the case of the painting a few years back, although I still question how much the thumbnail actually helps even if we used a large Tony size thumbnail).
It's perhaps also worth remembering that although we completely disallow NFCC on the main page now and were generally generous in the past, it's clear even if we did achieve consensus, what level of tolerance for NFCC we would allow in the TFA blurb. After all even before the infamous Scooby-Doo case we used free images when they were sometimes controversial e.g. this pre Scooby case received complaints here Talk:Main Page/Archive 94#Featured Article's picture. Although the Scooby-Doo case resulted in JW's involvement which lead to our current policy, it didn't actually start there. In fact it started as a dispute over whether to use an NFCC image or a free image (that was used in the article) amongst editors of the blurb. That in itself probably arose probably at least partially arose out of the ongoing discussion Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions/Archive 1#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page" at the time.
In other words, even if you can achieve consensus to allow NFCC in some instances on the main page, don't be sure you'll achieve consensus to allow it when the image isn't that important to understand the topic or when there are other, albeit more tangential alternatives in the article. Our stance on NFCC itself has changed over time, I believe it was only pre mid 2006 when we were still routinely allowing fair use images of living public people just to show what they looked like which was only about a year before the Scooby-Doo case. It was in fact in the 2006-2007 period when we began to get stricter with our policy surrounding NFCC images (and we adopted the term NFCC) leading to this initial foundation position [2] followed up by their resolution [3].
The way we achieve our current status quo may not be ideal (but if you've followed wikipedia policy development long enough, you must know it rarely is) but it does seem to me that horse has bolted.
P.S. It's worth remembering that allowing NFCC images on the main page was even with the historic policy considered the exception, rather then not allowing them the exception. Despite the lack of consensus for any move, there is general consensus the main page isn't an article and therefore NFCC or fair use images aren't and weren't allowed without an exception.
P.P.S. Looking back, it seems most discussions have been similar to this so there has been limited discussion on the reasons why we may want to disallow NFCC images on the main page. Therefore I have removed my above comments and apologise for any offence caused. If you do want to know the reasons, I suggest you start with the discussion linked above at NFCC.
P.P.P.S. I think I've noted something similar before but I'd forgotten the NFCC discussion leading up to the JW action. But interesting enough, despite this being presented as an Wikipedia:Argumentum Jimboni, in actual practice the NFCC discussion ended up at 40 agree with removing the exception for the main page (although some suggested they would consider allowing it in some exceptional cases like Iwo Jima). 25 disagreed i.e. they wanted to continue to allow NFCC images on main page. 1 agreed/disagreed. Only 14 !votes on each side plus the person who agreed/disagreed came after JW's involvement (JW first commented in that discussion before removing the Scooby-Doo image). In case this isn't clear, a majority of the disagrees (14/25) came after JW agreed but only a minority of the agrees (14/39). Vote counting is not a good way to determine consensus and this is an incredibly simple vote count (although I did count my own disagree), but I think it does demonstrate why it's flawed to suggest the opposition to NFCC on the main page has or had much to do with JW. You could in fact suggest the opposite although the more likely possibility is those concerned about the usage were already watching the NFCC page and it took a while for those supporting NFCC usage to notice the discussion.
Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
IANAL, but keeping Fair Use images off the Main Page seems like it could have a plausible legal basis. After all, the Main Page is not requested by readers in the same way as an encyclopedia article; it might be argued to be more like an ornament, which the Fair Use image is used improperly to prettify. And the Fair Use image there goes out to many more readers than in any article, both increasing the extent of use and the potential reward if liability were to be awarded. Besides that, there's the question of why Wikipedia should showcase an image that is a private asset of someone else who grudges us the use of it. Wnt (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Want to help make In The News better?

A (very small) handful of us are trying to address concerns expressed by a much larger number of editors about the processes behind the In The News section of the main page. It's a large and very conspicuous part of the Main Page. I find it interesting that this page has masses of intense debate about matters which seem to me of minor import (breasts and anuses), yet it's hard to raise interest in making the In The News section of the Main Page better.

Anyone interested is cordially invited to Wikipedia talk:In the news. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Put Georgian language wikipedia into More than 50,000 articles section!

Why don't you put Georgian language wiki page link http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/ into the More than 50.000 section?

This is the section how it looks now:

More than 50,000 articles: Bahasa Melayu · Български · Eesti · Ελληνικά · Simple English · Euskara · Galego · עברית · Hrvatski · Lietuvių · ‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬ · Slovenčina · Slovenščina · Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски · ไทย

But where is Georgian? There are more than 54.000 articles in Georgian language. Please, do put Georgian language ქართული in the section. RSVP. Georgianჯორჯაძე 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted at Template:Wikipedia languages, "this is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted." The Georgian Wikipedia appears to consist primarily of stubs (very short articles). —David Levy 21:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
What does that mean? You do not count these 54.000 articles as articles? That's rediculous. How many articles should be written in Georgian for you to put Georgian language into the bar of these languages? When would you add Georgian in that template? Again, it has more than 54.000 articles. Georgianჯორჯაძე 21:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not the quantity of articles; it's the quality. Instead of (or in addition to) working to create more articles, please focus on improving those that already exist. —David Levy 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Where is the determination made that a wiki is composed primarily of stubs? This seems to be something that lends itself to a bit of statistical rigor, at least as a starting point of discussion. --mav (reviews needed) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Georgian represents a group that wants to make a serious attempt to fulfill the requirement for inclusion in the 50K category. In that case a clear indication of the criteria might stimulate some good work. --Ettrig (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Such discussions usually occur at Template talk:Wikipedia languages. —David Levy 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
David Levy, and by your count how many articles does Georgian wikipedia has which satisfies the quality requirements? I mean there are more than 54.000 articles, but from these number how many of them are in that "quality" as you've mentioned? RSVP. Georgianჯორჯაძე 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
We customarily sample 50 random articles. My 50-article sample yielded 44 stubs and placeholders. Most were stubs (many about years, places, people, and popular music), though there were some placeholders (articles containing little or no content other than headings for empty sections, such as this one).
Of the six other articles, four were slightly longer than stubs. This one is fairly long and this one is very long (but appears to lack references, unless they're in a format that I don't recognize). —David Levy 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder whether English Wikipedia would qualify using the same methodology. I randomly went through 10 articles and 7 of those were stubs or placeholders, and that's being quite generous. -86.143.74.161 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed at Template talk:Wikipedia languages. The relative quantity of non-stub/placeholder articles isn't directly relevant; the absolute quantity is. The latter determines the likelihood that a reader typing "x" will find a useful article about x. (He/she probably doesn't care whether a non-useful article about y exists.)
For smaller Wikipedias, we gauge the relative quantity of non-stub/placeholder articles purely as a means of estimating the absolute quantity.
For larger Wikipedias, this is unnecessary. Your English Wikipedia sample contained 30% non-stub/placeholder articles, which translates to more than 1.16 million. You said that you were being generous, but even if we cut that number in half, we're left with more than 580,000 non-stub/placeholder articles. —David Levy 01:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking you again, how many articles do satisfy for this moment in Georgian wikipedia to your requirements to put Georgian wiki in the bar list? RSVP. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 16:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, if the Georgian Wikipedia keeps its current proportions of decent articles to stubs, it would need 416,666 articles total to have 50,000 non-stubs, according to the percentages indicated by Davud Levy's test. However, if 100% of new articles are stubs, not even an infinite amount of articles added would change its status. --Yair rand (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
We don't require 50,000 non-stub/placeholder articles. We've never set a formal cutoff; we simply omit Wikipedias that fall far outside a reasonable range. (In other words, we err on the side of inclusion.) Most cases are clear-cut. —David Levy 18:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the result would be for the Georgian Wikipedia, wouldn't it be best to decide on an objective cutoff point? I admit that, as with all minor technical issues on Wikipedia, there would be pages of pointless bickering before it could be decided, but in the end we would have an objective standard. 208.84.123.4 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It isn't always as simple as counting. In occasional borderline cases (the only ones in which this matters), we sometimes look to other factors (e.g. "well, there don't seem to be any placeholders, and most of the non-stubs appear thorough and well-referenced, so that tips the scales.") I'm not sure that it would be feasible to incorporate this into a completely objective system. (If anything, we probably would end up including fewer Wikipedias.) —David Levy 18:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd argue that, even if we did have fewer Wikipedias listed, still everyone would know what they need to do to get listed guaranteed, which could potentially be a motivating factor. Whatever the merits of the current system, there does seem to be some confusion over what the standard is (otherwise this whole thread would not exist) which in turn could potentially discourage efforts to meet that standard. But, this is all just my reaction as someone who has no particular involvement with the non-English Wikipedias. 208.84.123.4 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
(undent) I think the problem is that people are misunderstanding the purpose of the list. From my understanding, making the list is not an "honor" or an "award" and it isn't an insult to be left off of the list. The list is a tool or a service to our readers to direct them to a language which has a vibrant enough Wikipedia to be useful to readers who know that language. 50,000 articles is somewhat arbitrary, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and some language Wikipedia that is close to that number may still not be useful, so for Wikipedias that barely cross that number, a close analysis is needed to see if the information at that Wikipedia is up to standard. That's all David Levy is trying to explain; it isn't an insult to the Georgian Language, or to the Georgian Wikipedia that it has slightly more than 50,000 articles and doesn't make the list. As he indicated, if Georgian editors wish to see it make such a list, the best way to fix the problem is to make Georgian articles of a higher quality. --Jayron32 14:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Beyond that, letting "everyone would know what they need to do to get listed guaranteed" is something to avoid, as it encourages efforts to meet technical requirements (as opposed to general efforts to improve a Wikipedia's quality).
When we relied strictly on article counts (and didn't gauge quality), some Wikipedias were deliberately creating stubs and placeholders (sometimes via the use of bots) with the specific goal of reaching the quantity needed to make our list. We don't want that sort of thing to happen again. —David Levy 14:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fauré

I know that this doesn't classify as a bad choice of a featured article had I had to ask for clarification, wouldn't it be biased that "The piano music of Gabriel Fauré is among his best known work". I would love to have some clarification on what that is implying. This post is not to libel his name but the phrase is worded like someone had typed that in. --Joman66 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)-

Moved from above. — foxj 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

An idea for converting readers to editors...?

I was musing on ideas to increase reader participation, and am wondering on the below:

  • A small apricot or peach-coloured box with a heading "Join and edit" or "These articles need your help!" or something. Now to determine which articles are listed, my thinking was for (say) 4 or 5 broad articles in bad shape - ones which require a range of different input (gaping holes in general info, referencing/sourcing, copyediting etc.) - and leave them up for a period of time (a week? three days? one day?), and then monitor after three months to see (a) to what degree the articles saw active editing, and (b) track whether any IPs converted to active editing, or inactive editors became active editors again. The key would be the selection of the articles, so broad articles like pink, North Island or Screwdriver were what I was thinking of. My feeling is that vast swathes of established articles have remained fairly static in size and quality for years, with the spurts of improvement occurring only in response to a drive for GA or FA status, or the development of articles for DYK. However in all three of these categories, there is a preponderance of specialised articles, and 'runs' of articles in subject matter of interest to certain editors (e.g. birds, fungi and some plants with me, cricket etc. with others), so am also thinking of how we can kick start improvement of other broad articles.

So......hands up who thinks this idea has legs? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a nice idea. Many readers, myself included, are converted into editors because they see a problem that needs to be fixed.   Will Beback  talk  05:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I like this idea - I started editing when I saw the poor state some of the articles on Eastern theologians were, and I think this will both bring in new users and encourage improvement of neglected areas on the encyclopaedia. --He to Hecuba (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I also like this idea. You could call it something like "Did you know?" and feature new or expanded articles that might be in need of attention. Just be careful that it doesn't expand to become a competition where only bureaucracy matters. Yomanganitalk
I agree, this seems the basis of an excellent scheme, and an opportunity to replace something which trivialises Wikipedia (DYK) with something that enhances it. How to take the idea forward is the problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like this which became this, so we might learn from that previous experience. Art LaPella (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Whilst this might be a nice idea, adding it to the main page would be contrary to the long-standing policy that the MP is for readers, not editors. I would strongly oppose adding something like this to the MP, especially if it isn't already working somewhere else. And as Art LaPella has indicated, similar ideas have been tried in the past. Modest Genius talk 16:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. We already encourage editing, less directly, by prominently referring to Wikipedia as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (linked to Wikipedia:Introduction) and linking to numerous editable articles. The concern, I take it, is that some potential editors are reluctant to dive in. But that isn't entirely bad, as this motivates them to familiarize themselves with our basic practices beforehand. If we were to explicitly urge newcomers to jump directly into the fray, I suspect that we'd end up with more unhelpful (even if well-intentioned) edits than anything else. —David Levy 16:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree w/ Modest Genius & David Levy. A well intended idea, but one that would likely produce counter-productive unintended consequences, per David's comments.--JayJasper (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Err, no. There was no link from the main page at the time as far as I can tell, and the aim (as far as I can tell) was existing editors or readers who were already interested in editing. What is different also is a concern over drop off in active editors. I am also not overly keen on the idea of a division between readers and editors and anything we do that might increase participation is (I think) a Good Thing. All I am proposing is a smallish pale orange box somewhere, maybe hiving off a little of the News, DYK, or On This Day sections. Yes it will be a little crowded but I do think it is worth trying. Collaborations among the established community have had a very variable rate of participation (usually poor), having been involved with them for five years now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If there is no division between readers and editors then there is no need to encourage readers to become editors. Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My version - floated occasionally - a 'random article needing help' button underneath the 'random article' button, calling up any article with a relevant tag. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the thrust of this, but would suggest a more targetted approach. In my opinion it would be more effective to advertise an improvement drive through banners on top of today's featured article/list. The selected article should ideally be of terrible quality, high importance, and relevant to the TFA.

For instance, if Ketogenic diet were today's featured article, advertising an improvement drive for List of diets via a banner at the top of that article might be effective. People who have clicked through to the article clearly have some sort of interest in the subject matter. The version of List of diets that I link to above is important enough, broad enough and of low enough quality that any well-meaning editor could improve it. —WFC— 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about random - I was trying to maximise possibility of input by thinking of broad articles such as the examples I listed above - that might act as lures. I think alot more people might have some input on pink or screwdriver than something really esoteric. Also having it at FA or FL will get a lot fewer hits visibility-wise. The aim of the exercise is (a) improving some broad articles, many of which have lain fallow for years, and (b) maximising the exposure and breadth to give the best chance of converting readers to editors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Casliber: I think we agree on most of the principles of this idea, other than where to put it. My view is that TFA would attract a higher quality of editor, as a relatively high proportion of people who arrive there are looking for a good, encyclopaedic read. Show those people just how terrible related, high importance articles are, and you should be able to convince a few who previously felt they had nothing to contribute that there is plenty they can do. I see that as a bigger prize than an aggressive growth drive.

There is also the problem of vandalism. Unless we use pending changes (which would be controversial in itself) we can't protect a collaboration that anyone is supposed to edit, not to mention an increased risk of edit conflicts. Those issues will be far more of a problem if it's linked directly from the Main Page. —WFC— 01:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

While vandalism might be a slight problem I think Cluebot and the RCP could handle any increase in vandalism that would be the byproduct of readers becoming editors and improving Wikipedia. I can say personally that I originally joined Wikipedia because there was a mispelled word on a semi-protected article and I wanted to fix it. Dan653 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
@Dan653 (and David Levy) - I agree the problem of potential vandalism will be pretty minor at worst. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mention vandalism. I referred to "unhelpful (even if well-intentioned) edits".
Sending readers directly to articles specifically for the purpose of editing them will invite the participation of persons unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editorial expectations. And when we have to revert their good-faith (but inappropriate) changes, many will become discouraged and never edit again (which wouldn't have occurred if they'd been made aware of our basic practices beforehand).
That, of course, already occurs to some extent (and is unavoidable). My concern is that this idea would greatly exacerbate the problem. —David Levy 05:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
@WFC - I have been musing about the idea of a link on a today's FA page and am really warming to it. Will open up a discussion over there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Is that really true, though? The problem with these broad articles is that people will be tempted to contribute to them out of general knowledge—and promptly get bounced right back out again because it wasn't cited. This is likely to be counterproductive. I think we'd be likely to do more good by going down a tier to slightly more obscure (but not too obscure) articles, where a few editors may say, "Hey, I think I have a book on that..." and start pitching in. Maybe alert appropriate WikiProjects so there's someone to issue a welcome if someone does show up and start fixing. Choess (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good idea to have maybe more prominent templates to remind people that Wikipedia, as a wiki website, can be edited by any one. However, I really do not think that Wikipedia: Main Page is the right place to such an indication. What probably starts people reading Wikipedia in the first place is that many articles in Wikipedia have quite a high Google search. This would mean that a lot of people probably read many articles in Wikipedia before they read the main page. 10:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, where do you place to get new readers to become editors then...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Another idea

In a similar spirit, there is Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Make all pages edit forms when visual editor is complete.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External link: Kaltura

I think that the external link: http://www.kaltura.org/project/HTML5_Video_Media_JavaScript_Library, which is today linked from the Main Page for those who use the Multimedia Beta gadget, is overly promotional, not directly related to the subject of the featured article, and does not bring anything that a Wikipedia namespace page couldn't. It is in contradiction with the criteria No. 4 and 13 of the external links policy. It goes against the principle that Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations, as cited on the linked policy page. --Eleassar my talk 10:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see that link anywhere on the Main Page. If it has been added by the gadget, you should take it up on the talk page for the gadget. Modest Genius talk 16:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

German President

in the news: the german president, christian wulff has resignation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Wulff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.48.2 (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed and promoted on our page for ITN candidates. To nominate in the future, please use WP:ITN/C. matt (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Another day

Another tombstone. I'd rather nothing to them. ResMar 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The tombstone image was ridiculous. Why shouldn't a properly rationalised non-free image of the TFA subject be shown? I doubt that any worlds would collapse as a consequence. Brianboulton (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mario's initial post. As for Brian's, if we were ever to change our existing approach, it would surely have to be on a one-slip-and-we-stop basis. Would the Main Page operating within fair use law make much difference? Probably not. Would repeatedly being found to have used inappropriate fair use rationales on our most prominent page? Quite possibly. —WFC— 03:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This came up last week. My position hasn't changed - the ad Jimbonum ban on fair-use images on the Main Page is unreasonable and counterproductive. Modest Genius talk 11:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Not much chance of it changing when we continue to get highly inaccurate offensive comments like that either. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, do you mean that you found my comments to be "highly inaccurate" and "offensive"? I can understand that you might not agree with them, but don't see how they could be offensive. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

John Glenn

Shame on you for ignoring John Glenn on the 50th anniversary of his launch into Earth orbit! He inspired a generation of geeks, and not only in America. It was international news in 1962. If an oversight, it's not too late to update the Main Page, is it? All I would like to see is a mention in the "On this day" section. -- tbc (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mercury-Atlas 6 is tagged, which dictates against its being featured on the Main Page. OTD gives no particular priority to round number anniversaries: it is just as eligible for posting on the 51st anniversary next year. Kevin McE (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Now I know I have to plan ahead and spruce up pages so they're ready to showcase. -- tbc (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, we do prefer round-number anniversaries when possible. Unfortunately, as Kevin explained, the article is ineligible. The other rule we have is that one article can only be featured (the bold link) on one day a year, which is why the blurb doesn't highlight John Glenn; he's been reserved for October 29 (which currently has a small pool of potential candidates). —howcheng {chat} 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The date on the main page

A passing mention could be made of the palindromic nature of the date - 21.02.2012, as this won't happen again 'for a while.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Even longer if you're a Yank! They use a different date system in the United States (and indeed they use completely different systems all over the world!). — foxj 11:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It could be linked to Palindrome#Dates. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should be highlighting such minor trivia on the main page. Modest Genius talk 13:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Should have mentioned it before so a link to the palindrome dates could have been included. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If we did that, though, we would need to mention 12.12.12, 31.02.2013... Anyway, "for a while"? Today, 22 February 2012, will never ever ever happen again. We don't comment on that, so why these? — foxj 07:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I am certain that if 31.02.2013 came around we would mention the extraordinary date somewhere one the main page. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.65.57 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It was the palindrome that was not going to repeat for a while - and 21.02.2012 #will# occur again, several times (depending upon which calendar one uses).

Perhaps there could be a (Rationalwiki funspace equivalent) to satisfy people's inner 12 year old fascination with strange dates etc (including 12.34.56 on 7/8/910 - if our system of dates and times had been around then).

In part trying to find a topic for the main page talk page that does not involve a reference to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In the News

Shouldn't it be "At least 44 people" were killed? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 08:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The section is written in the present tense. —David Levy 09:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Skyscraper

Why does it say "that a Skyscraper won the Epsom Derby of 1789" when Skyscraper was the name of the horse? It make it sound like it is a literal skyscraper. Bzweebl (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that was the intention. Personally, I think it's a bit annoying when DYK does that (outside of April 1). Aside from being gimmicky and misleading, it waters down to novelty of the April 1 hooks. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
And here I was, about to comment that I was looking forward to the resumption of the same debate on April 1. You beat me to it, Tariqabjotu. (Incidentally, I disagree with you, in that I think the is-it-a-vase-or-two-faces approach is never out of place. Keeps our cognitive abilities flexible.) - Tenebris 04:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.6 (talk)
Except the indefinite article before a proper name implies uncertainty. Might as well have written "Skyscraper possibly won what may be known as the Epsom Derby, maybe in 1789 or maybe not". Hooks shouldn't be worded like that on days other than 1 April. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Job well done

Most front page clips are of considerably higher than average quality, but special congratulations are due to those who are responsible for the OTD blurb "1987 – Light from the supernova SN 1987A ... reached the Earth." A welcome piece of precise wording! - Tenebris 04:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.6 (talk)

Not sure if this is snark or not. — foxj 06:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
(1) What a cynical age; and (2) is genuine positive feedback really so rare? (And yet I do understand. In my experience, most people are quick to complain, but rarely as quick to compliment. So much of what masquerades as positivism these days is really cheerleading and/or determined blindness on one side, and sarcasm on the other. How can assuming the possibility of snark upfront be anything other than sheer self defence?) - Tenebris 13:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. Read what you wrote again, I think you'll forgive my cynicism.
  2. Well, yes, especially here... :( — foxj 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Without getting into a debate about context and perspective, can we just take it as read that I meant it at face value? - Tenebris 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.191 (talk)
Yes, and thank you. :) By the way, that precision was introduced by User:Howcheng (diff). -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't even remember doing that... heh. —howcheng {chat} 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

I apologize if this isn't the place to post this. If it is not then it would be nice if someone could point me in the right direction. A tool I absolutely love on the main page is the random article section. However I sometimes find it a bit broad. I think it would be great to be able to do a random article for different categories that you could select. So it would be a random article, but in a category you are more interested in or are in the mood to read about. Art, history, politics, sports, etc, whatever categories could be thought of and decided upon. I'm not sure how feasible this would be, but I thought I would toss the idea out there. Thanks. --Politicsislife (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'Random link' link in the navigation menu on the left-hand side of the screen performs the function you have in mind; I think it also works for non-category pages. Hope this helps, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Your 'Random link' is not default. It's made by this line in User:Black Falcon/vector.js:
importScript('User:GregU/randomlink.js');
See more at User talk:GregU/randomlink.js and Wikipedia:Random. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Huh... I don't remember adding that. Anyway, thank you for pointing that out. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Christian Wulff

Shouldn't the photo of Christian Wulff be located adjacent to the blurb about him? In its present location, it looks like he's happy about the train crash in Argentina ... Rani nurmai (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. —David Levy 06:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

copy vio on main page - again

Does anyone actually bother checking the articles that are placed in the ITN section? The article 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, in addition to being badly written (in the parts that were not copyvios) half consisted of stuff copy-pasted from various news agency reports.VolunteerMarek 05:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You realise of course that you are welcome to check the stuff coming through WP:ITN/C yourself? — foxj 07:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Which is of course exactly what I did here - and removed the most blatant copyvios from the article. However, the fact that I personally am unable to devote enough time to fix everything that's wrong with Wikipedia is no excuse for ITN to be putting copyvios on the front page.VolunteerMarek 20:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to discuss it before the sub-projects have committed themselves to it: April Fools' Day

We've got 5 weeks before it is upon us, so rather than the annual brouhaha over the dedication of the Main Page to silliness in honour of the date. Personally, I consider it entirely unencyclopaedic, totally disproportionate, and without parallel in any other publication that preserves ambitions of being taken seriously. I know others feel differently.

Every year recently, we have had material prepared, arguments against, defence on the grounds of past practice and on the grounds that work has gone into the preparation, confusion from readers on the day, and complaints or gratitude afterwards. Whether one is for or against the practice, the fact that it makes such a large impact on our Main Page renders it worthy of timely discussion. I hope that the subheadings I propose are helpful. I suggest that we should try to have committed ourselves one way or the other by 18th March: 3 weeks from today, 2 weeks before the fateful date. Kevin McE (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know a way to link to previous versions for comparison? Since the main page is populated by templates, I can't just browse the history to see what it looked like on April 1, 2011. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
For the reference, the discussions and pages from past years are collected at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page. As a rule of a thumb, TFA is always themed (this year we have an excellent article Pigeon photography, where the text can be written in totally serious way and it would still look like a prank - what is actually what we are trying to achieve), DYK is already collecting items that can be written in an unusual way, there has not been much of a discussion at TFP currently (though there's a funny picture every year) and ITN varies from a year to a year. Because of its nature, we cannot prepare items well in advance. Some years, the whole ITN box was filled with funny news, sometimes just with one or two uncommon and some years it keeps serious. --Tone 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I expressed myself in a bad way. What I wanted to say was that in the last couple of years, we've always tried to find an article with an unusual topic or at least something where a humorous caption could be written (Ima Hogg, Museum of Bad Art, etc.). Some of these articles had been previously improved to a FA status with exactly the purpose to be featured on April 1. --Tone 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for dedicating whole page

April Fools' pranks are definitely not "without parallel in any other publication that preserves ambitions of being taken seriously". They have a long and noble pedigree [link removed by Art LaPella, because Malwarebytes considers it malware]. They are harmless fun and teach people the value of scepticism.

Of course, Wikipedia should aspire to more than just creating surreal front-page content. Being transparently daft misses the point. It would be good to have items in the different front page boxes that come together to effect a single hoax. --FormerIP (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that pranks are without parallel: I was referring to dedication of the whole front page to it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been highly critical of the implementation of April Fool's Day in the past, but I see nothing wrong with the basic concept. Contrary to FormerIP's comment above, and the misconceptions of some users, AF day is not about perpetrating "hoaxes" on an unsuspecting public, it's about featuring articles with content that looks preposterous when summarized but is in fact accurate. All that really happens on AF day, or which should happen, is that some of the more preposterous-sounding topics are saved up to be featured on the same day, and in that regard I don't see why it should be considered any different from any of the other special days that are featured. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But April Fools' Day is about hoaxes. Just creating nonsense content or misleading blurbs or whatever is a poor substitute. Why bother in the first place? It's like inviting your family round for Christmas dinner and then telling them that, as a vegetarian atheist, you'll be serving beans on toast.--FormerIP (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

April Fools' Day is quite widespread, and the internet has spread awareness of it. Staid and reputable institutions like the BBC celebrate it. I suspect a lot of people look at our Main Page on April Fools' Day specifically to see what we've done for it - do the stats show an uptick on that day? I am not aware that we have ever peddled misinformation, and I think we would both disappoint our readers and take ourselves way too seriously if we didn't continue to have weird and wonderful and hard to believe stuff in all the Main Page sections on April 1, especially Did You Know and Featured Article. Wife selling (English custom) can serve as a model - it's incredible but true. We didn't hoodwink the readers with that FA, we gave them a good chortle over something encyclopedic. This isn't Britannica. We aren't limited to the safe, boring information and those who like their Main Page devoid of shocks can have it back on April 2 - just as those of us who don't observe Christmas got our Main Page back on December 26. WP:NOTPAPER. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We absolutely have peddled misinformation, including hoaxes (e.g. an announcement that Britannica has acquired Wikipedia). We've tried to move away that (in favor of "incredible but true" content), but more and more outright nonsense has been slipping through.
I see no reason not to include unusual subjects (provided that the articles meet our normal criteria, another area in which we've sometimes failed). It's fine if a subject inherently seems unbelievable, but going out of our way to manufacture bizarre blurbs seems forced, unfunny and unprofessional. —David Levy 17:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Britannica hoax and European toilet paper holder, 2005 is the middle ages in internet time. I think even the most anti-AF editors can admit that we've cleaned up our act a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
David Levy and Crisco, could you both please clarify where these "hoaxes" occurred? TFA has always been written in a way that it is not intentionally inaccurate. I'm a bit concerned here that TFA is getting tarnished by some other brush than recent facts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
2005. See Signpost coverage. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to TFA. ITN and DYK are the sections in which most of the problems have arisen, along with edits to Main Page itself. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I acknowledged above that "we've tried to move away that". It hasn't been that bad in a while, but we can do much better than we have in recent years. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To summarize the Signpost article, for about 12 hours we had "today's featured nihilarticle" which was a hoax. That was April 1, 2005. Agreed with David, we're doing better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe we're doing boringer. I fail to see what's wrong with a hoax FA. FormerIP (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
When it appears on the front page of a website "that anyone can edit", it sends the message that "any article could be a hoax" (and encourages users to edit the encyclopedia accordingly). —David Levy 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't, because that's not how people respond to April Fools' jokes. It just sends the message that, on April 1, the FA could be a hoax. Which is a perfectly OK message. Is there evidence that it has an effect on the editing of WP. Did we go mad for a day in 2005? --FormerIP (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't, because that's not how people respond to April Fools' jokes.
As I noted, when someone visits Google or YouTube and finds an April Fools' Day joke, they know that it's the joke for that year. Wikipedia is different. "Anyone can edit" it, so if the featured article is a hoax, who knows what else is?
Is there evidence that it has an effect on the editing of WP. Did we go mad for a day in 2005?
Many administrators certainly did. It used to be pandemonium, with random pranks turning up all over the place (even in system messages).
If admins didn't know better, it's safe to assume that many other editors didn't either. And why should they have? The main page showcases examples of how to contribute. Placing nonsense there is an invitation to do so throughout the encyclopedia (if only on 1 April). —David Levy 04:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure having or not having a "joke" Main Page will affect the behaviour of admins and experienced users - there'll be pranks either way. Your point applies to a certain limited subset of newbies; I would suggest that the "it's April Fools so let's vandalize no matter what" group is larger, but YMMV. Also, the featured article isn't a hoax, it's just something a bit more "quirky". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure having or not having a "joke" Main Page will affect the behaviour of admins and experienced users - there'll be pranks either way.
They were significantly more prevalent in the past. FormerIP wants us to return to that (on the basis that the current approach is "boringer").
Your point applies to a certain limited subset of newbies;
No, it really doesn't. If someone sees nonsense on the front page of a website that "anyone can edit", it's downright reasonable for him/her to interpret it as an invitation to join in the fun.
I would suggest that the "it's April Fools so let's vandalize no matter what" group is larger, but YMMV.
This is entirely possible, but there isn't much that we can do about that. We can, however, avoid encouraging vandalism.
Also, the featured article isn't a hoax, it's just something a bit more "quirky".
Indeed, and I've noted in this discussion that I see no problem with that. I'm addressing FormerIP's suggestion that we make it a hoax instead. —David Levy 05:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There's an established tradition of running articles that look like hoaxes but aren't. Actually running a hoax that is a hoax would be doubly deceptive. And for no particular purpose. The content and the interest garnered by it would be of no use to anyone by the 2nd. Worse, people not aware of, or not familiar with April 1st traditions in general, instead of being surprised by a quirky article, would actually be deceived by intentionally false information.
(That last drawback could be solved by making the hoax so obvious that even a child could spot it, but what would be the point in that? That'd just be tiresome.) APL (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't understand why some editors assume that every culture observes April Fools' Day (and therefore expects false information). I wonder how they would feel about similar behavior on 28 December. —David Levy 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be absolutely perfect for Spanish Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for maintaining standards and style of any other day

I agree strongly with the proposer's argument. It's not a joke any more; it's seriously disruptive to have this silliness thing. Many international readers are unaware of the culturally centric meaning of April Fool's Day; for that reason alone, it should have been disregarded after the first time, years ago, when it might have been a little hoot. Now we've grown up. Last time I looked, other websites and publishers—especially those that expect to be taken seriously—don't go for repeated, predictable, yearly indulgence in this unfunny practice. Tony (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When these discussions are held, people invariably cite April Fools' Day jokes occurring elsewhere. In particular, Google usually is mentioned.
Well, Wikipedia isn't Google, and the context isn't the same. Google's credibility isn't widely challenged. Google creates separate, easily recognizable entities that don't call into question the integrity of its search results. (Some of its other websites, such as YouTube, behave similarly.) The public can point to one special section/element of the site, with the understanding that it's "this year's joke".
This isn't so with Wikipedia. Many already perceive Wikipedia as untrustworthy. When we condone April foolery on the main page, it sends the message to readers and editors alike that we condone it within the encyclopedia as well. Because "anyone can edit", there's no expectation of demarcation (e.g. "this year's joke", clearly separate from everything else), regardless of how much effort is invested in the special content's organization. ("If this nonsense is on the main page, it could be anywhere." / "Cool, I'll add some gags too!") We make Wikipedia itself come across as a joke.
In recent years, we've sought to place "strange but true" content on the main page for 1 April. I appreciate these efforts, but the results seem to have steadily declined in quality. More and more, we've been setting aside the various sections' rules, thereby contradicting our pledge to not compromise their normal standards. In many instances, the wordings used have gone far beyond "misleading due to intentional ambiguity", instead landing at "outright lies". And now FormerIP suggests that we attempt to perpetrate an actual hoax. (What a great way to improve Wikipedia's reputation for reliability.)
As noted above, April Fools' Day isn't a worldwide observance, nor is it universally enjoyed within the countries in which it's recognized. Many people would very much appreciate a serious encyclopedia on 1 April. The foolery will be widely available elsewhere. —David Levy 15:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about AF day being misused for "gags" (usually bad ones) and other nonsense, however, again I see this as a quality control problem, not a problem with the concept itself. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The endeavor's quality control seems to have sharply declined in recent years. And even when we've managed to meet our goal, I'm not confident that this is clear to readers. We know that the main page's content is "strange but true", but it comes across as nonsense (and likely encourages the addition of actual nonsense to the encyclopedia). In my view, this is not in Wikipedia's best interests.
I don't oppose the selection of unusual topics (particularly for TFA and TFP), but I believe that we should abandon the idea of deliberately incorporating misleading wording (which has been leaning more and more toward outright falsehoods). —David Levy 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you have an example of these falsehoods, and where they occurred? To my knowledge, it has never been the case at WP:TFA-- or at least not since I've been around. I can't speak for DYK, or ITN, or OTD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to TFA. ITN and DYK are the sections in which most of the problems have arisen, along with edits to Main Page itself. I can find some examples when I have the time. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Not to worry; as long as it's clear that it's not TFA we're talking about, you need not take time to find examples. I'm aware there are/were problems in other areas, which is unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
"Many people[who?] would very much appreciate a serious encyclopedia on 1 April." Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who wishes to use the encyclopedia for normal purposes that day. Some of our past April Fools' Day main page content has conveyed (albeit unintentionally) "Today is Nonsense Day! Feel free to vandalize articles, and don't expect an actual encyclopedia until tomorrow." —David Levy 02:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Are there any metrics we can look at to see whether or not David's assertion might be true? Do we have evidence that vandalism increases on April 1st? (Even if it does, I'm not sure we could validly correlate it with the Main Page content, but it would still to see the records if they exist.)
I think David is grossly overstating the impact the main page prank has on the rest of the encyclopedia. I would guess that the majority of Wikipedia's traffic comes from search engines linking directly to articles. People looking for info on a topic, who come to Wikipedia through Google, will not see the main page, and the main page has absolutely no effect on their Wikipedia experience. Even so, it would take a pretty unlikely leap of intuition for a casual user to look at the main page and decide that all of Wikipedia had become Uncyclopedia for a day.Fallingmasonry (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a danger of getting diverted onto a red herring here. David is of course free to hold an opinion on the danger of what is perceived as bad practice on the Main Page leading to bad practice elsewhere in the project, but agreement that this is a danger is not necessary for an editor to believe that a different type of hook on April 1 is a bad idea, and lack of evidence of that effect does not unvalidate that viewpoint. Kevin McE (talk) 07:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. Even if there were conclusive proof that the material in question has no effect on editors' behavior, that wouldn't automatically justify its inclusion.
Some editors treat April foolery as the default and demand evidence of consensus against it. (When issuing warnings to editors who vandalised articles, I've actually encountered the argument that there's no rule explicitly forbidding joke edits on April Fools' Day.) In actuality, the onus is on those who wish to deviate from our everyday standards. —David Levy 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Are there any metrics we can look at to see whether or not David's assertion might be true?
As I noted, in the days when our main page contained random nonsense on 1 April, it certainly seemed to inspire administrators to post similar/related pranks elsewhere (including system messages, templates, and the encyclopedia proper). Many of these admins either hadn't edited recently or had little/no historical involvement in these areas; they apparently saw what was occurring and decided to join in the fun.
Said behavior declined sharply when we switched to "strange but true" content, and I doubt that this was coincidental.
If admins were influenced in this manner, I see no reason to believe that other editors are less susceptible.
Do we have evidence that vandalism increases on April 1st? (Even if it does, I'm not sure we could validly correlate it with the Main Page content, but it would still to see the records if they exist.)
I don't know whether any formal analysis has occurred, but I think that it's widely acknowledged the April Fools' Day observance itself inspires a significant amount of vandalism (irrespective of whether the main page plays a role).
I think David is grossly overstating the impact the main page prank has on the rest of the encyclopedia. I would guess that the majority of Wikipedia's traffic comes from search engines linking directly to articles. People looking for info on a topic, who come to Wikipedia through Google, will not see the main page, and the main page has absolutely no effect on their Wikipedia experience.
That many users arrive at articles via search engines doesn't change the fact that many arrive via (or subsequently view) the main page. This month, it's received an average of more than 6.4 million views per day.
Even so, it would take a pretty unlikely leap of intuition for a casual user to look at the main page and decide that all of Wikipedia had become Uncyclopedia for a day.
But it isn't such a leap to infer that the insertion of some jokes is tolerated/encouraged on 1 April. I've gotten into many arguments with editors (including some administrators) who assumed this.
I reiterate that my criticism pertains primarily to outright nonsense appearing on the main page (not to the basic idea of including "strange but true" material, which is the only reader-facing April Fools' Day content for which consensus has ever been established). My main concern is that inappropriate implementations (i.e. blurbs with little or no factual basis) have been slipping through. —David Levy 07:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that in recent years there has been a decline of "tomfoolery" among experienced editors, but I'm not sure that's because of a change to our approach to the Main Page, or whether both that and the changed approach to the MP are evidence of a cultural shift. I'm inclined to suggest the latter, though I have no strong evidence either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
My impression is that both have occurred; a cultural shift preceded our change in approach, which then influenced the behavior of copycats (editors who historically lacked involvement in the advance planning and simply imitated what they found). "We have stuff like that on the main page, so why are you picking on me?" ceased to be a valid argument, and attempts to expand or one-up specific main page gags (e.g. by duplicating fictitious claims elsewhere or inventing ones even more absurd) vanished. —David Levy 23:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reasons for maintaining standards" is a misleading subject heading (and such is the problem of poorly formulated RFC's). There has never been an April Fools TFA that was substandard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have made several replies that are specific to TFA, but this discussion involves all 5 daily MP elements. Maybe it has not been the case with TFA (where the main April 1 criticisms have revolved around taste and decency), but there have undoubtedly been hooks in at least some of the other sections written on April 1 that have deliberately obscured the facts that they purport to communicate, and that is not the standard that those sections normally aspire to. If you wish to propose a different section heading, feel free. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
TFA is part of the mainpage. TFA does not lower standards. The subject heading is misleading. I have been vaguely aware of some problems with other mainpage entries, but want to be sure we're not tarring TFA with that brush. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
We're discussing the main page as a whole, not implying that every section has been problematic in the past. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
In any case, I disagree with the suggestion that TFA has not clearly mislead. I presume we're referring to the blurb, since AFAIK, the problem is limited to the main page (and this page is about the main page). The articles themselves are usually up to whatever standard is normal. (For DYK, I presume it's often higher since they have more time to work on them and they likely get more attention.)
And if we look at the blurbs, I would suggest it's rather unobvious from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2011 that the Fanny scratching was refering to the alleged scratchings of s ghost. (Note that this isn't comparable to a case like George Washington.)
Similar with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2009, it says "prompt viewers to appeal loudly for divine intervention". By checking out the our version [4], I can only presume this is referring to 'the art must have an "Oh my God" quality', but I think it's quite questionable whether the former is an accurate summation (for most people, saying oh my god ins uch a context clearly isn't going to be a genuine appeal for divine intervention).
Similarly Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008, mentions her being a 'ostrich jockey' and then goes on to mention how she rode to Haiwaii. It's not clear to me what the 'rode to Hawaii' bit is referring to even having read the article [5] (she went to Hawaii sure, but I'm not sure how she 'rode' there, perhaps part of the journey involved a horse but this isn't mentioned which it shouldn't be since it seems beyond trivial). But besides that, while there is a story about her and ostriches, AFACT she wasn't an ostrich jockey It seems all she did was mount one once due to a challenge from one of her brothers. I presume the manner of her fathers death is accurate but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article on her at all (it just mentions he dies) and even the article on her father just says he died as a result of railroad accident. Also while the wikilink may clarify what is meant by the 'doctor', it seems highly likely to mislead in the context without hovering over the link. (It's often controversial whether or not to refer to someone who only has an honourary doctorate as a 'doctor', and it doesn't seem clear that the subject herself even referred to herself as one. And definitely saying someone was a future doctor, who nursed three family members early in life would strongly suggest they were a medical doctor.) The same with saying she lived in government housing when we are referring to the governors mansion.
And from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007 our article [6], doesn't seem to say 'and the nominator forgot to tell him about it'. It may have been a joke nominator and if so, perhaps GW was never made aware of it, but that doesn't mean the nominator forgot to tell him, there's a fair chance the nominator intentionally did not tell him.
And from 2008 to 2011 (I didn't check earlier then 2007), including Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2010 (which I didn't mention before because it doesn't have anything which I noticed that's likely to mislead, I think it's questionable whether any of these adequately summarise the article, which we normally do an okay job of since the blurb is a reworked WP:LEDE. E.g. 2011 I don't need to say more. 2010 doesn't mention the legal situation. 2009 isn't too bad but because it aims to be funny, it still features somewhat trivially things (as basically all the blurbs do) compared to a better summary. Similarly 2008 fails to properly mention her support, work and restoration of antiques, her philantrophy (it seems clear she did a lot more then giving away her sibling's stuff) and her musical interests and work. I excluded 2007 because it isn't too bad although as with 2009 it tends to the trivial (a probably joke nomination for president he may not have even been aware of).
I'm not complaining about these examples. Personally it's not something I really care about. But even if DYK etc are worse (I don't know if this is true or not), it seems clear the TFA blurb is also misleading and doesn't follow the normal standards of summarising the article in whatever space is available.
Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of these blurbs. The "fanny scratching" gag was particularly unfortunate, given the meaning of the word "fanny" in British English (which the British editors who proposed the wording, but not all of the American editors who supported it, knew) and its application to a child (until Raul was informed of the UK connotation and removed it).
But yes, some of the items appearing at ITN and DYK have been far worse. Editors of those sections have linked to articles not meeting the usual criteria, sometimes via gags invented out of whole cloth (i.e. not even inspired by the articles' content). Franky, it's embarrassing. —David Levy 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Although this discussion mainly concerns the main page, since people are concerned about other parts of the encylopaedia, you may be interested in Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2011, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2010, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2008, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2007, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2006, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2005. Most of this happens in parts outside the encylopaedia proper like user pages and xFDs. (Well there is a lot of stuff in articles, but I think we prefer not to memorialise it.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • TFA foolishness: considerable editorial resources went into making Ima Hogg an FA for the fool thing. I was very uncomfortable about the sexist implications. A non-native English-speaking reader in India or Nigeria would have wondered "what the ..."??? Many native English-speakers must have thought it was weird. We just embarrass ourselves by doing this kind of thing. And meanwhile we leave DYKs as ghost towns as soon as they've had their airing on the MP. Let's allocate our resources better now we've grown up. Tony (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

All that April Fools Day jokes do here is provide what we in Australia call smartarses an opportunity to show how clever (they think) they are, while obviously upsetting a lot of people. They are of no benefit whatsoever to a serious encyclopadia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "smartarse" is an especially Aussie term, but in Home and Away they always used to use the term "tryhard", which I took to mean that someone was over-conformist at the expense of ever doing anything interesting. --FormerIP (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It's good to know that our major cultural exports are having such a positive educational effect. I'd say you're close to the tryhard definition. Maybe just add that the tryhard is sometimes aiming for a non-conformist image, while not being that way inclined in the slightest. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Compromise proposals

  • FWIW Do an april fools day FA, leave ITN, DYK and on this day unchanged. Banner the joke FA page to clearly label it as such. Remember this is en.wikipedia.org and most en countries have a clue about April fools day. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
A "Joke FA PAge"? I don't believe that Wikipedia has ever done that. Certainly not in recent years.
The April fools' FA's are real articles about things that appear to be jokes but are completely real. (Perhaps with a few key sentences omitted from the summary that would have made that clear, but ideally not.) APL (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
We is the English Wikipedia as a whole. An examination of the edit history shows that the addition was not through the normal TFA promotion process but by an impromptu reworking of the Main page code.[7] There are a whole series of similar Main page "tweaks" that occurred in April 2005. If memory serves, the "tweaks" even included modifying the control files on Meta to relabel the tab names used by the Monobook skin. --Allen3 talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Allen3; that's hard to follow, but again, not part of TFA, just for the record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The blurb is rewritten in a completely different, more joke-like way. compare the original blurb for George Washington to the shorter, lighter, more humorous one. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I looked at 2k11 and it was fanny scratching in London for FA. Very funny. The DYK on the other hand, at least for me, was annoying. I clicked Rudyard Kipling and I find out, ha ha, the SS Rudyard Kipling is at the bottom of the sea. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Which was the whole point of the exercise. So, you clicked on the link, and it too you somewhere other than where you were expecting to be taken. Hopefully you will have read the article and learnt something new. Mjroots (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of interest, why would anyone type "2k11" when "2011" uses the same number of keystrokes and is not wilfully obscure? 46.208.182.143 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Lighten up, Francis!

Yes, some of the DYK jokes end up seeming stupid. Yes, some people have a serious problem with being, well, too serious. My suggestion? Relax, have fun and roll with the jokes. Doing so will not make our image or "credibility" problems any worse. The rest of the world has a sense of humour, no reason why we can't. Resolute 15:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed on the claim that "Doing so will not make our image or "credibility" problems any worse. I, and many with me seriously believe that it does. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
plz don t do the april fools day thing again it looks very very unprofessional. --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.173.109 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware of the irony inherent in your post? --Khajidha (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Citation needed that it does make image worse. Unless you think annual April Fools jokes by other major outlets, such as Google, hampers their credibility, I am not buying it with respect to Wikipedia. Resolute 18:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The onus is on those who advocate deviation from our everyday standards to demonstrate that it's a prudent course of action.
Note that I'm referring primarily to the most extreme examples (some of which would be considered vandalism on any other day), not to the idea of showcasing "strange but true" content.
I addressed the Google comparison (which invariably arises) above. —David Levy 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lists

Thanks to User:Kevin McE for notifying the list folks. We won't be running on 1 April as we have but one slot a week, but we wish the rest of the main page luck in resolving the perennial issues. Having said that, we may be able to stand a better chance of being involved in this next year if we could expand to, say, two featured list slots a week...?! Just putting it out there (and yes, before you descend like wolves, this isn't the right forum, I'm sure) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK

For DYK, April Fool's Day is a year-round project. The contents currently under consideration for DYK on April 1, 2012, are at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. If people have objections to anything that's under consideration, please comment now, rather than holding your complaints until these items are already on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tangential note

I do not want to wade into the middle of the argument (although, for the record, I would not object to seeing the Main Page silliness go). Instead, I want to point this out somewhere so that people will see it. The April Fools' mentality has infected article space recently. This was added to April Fools' Day last year. (I removed it myself.) The article's FAC candidacy was totally unserious, yet the FAC notice was put at the top of the article, where even notices for real FACs do not belong. No doubt most readers reacted with puzzlement and moved on, but still, the article made an apparently serious invitation for people to comment on what was, in fact, a prank. That is an example of what WP absolutely should not be doing: inserting a hoax in article space, not even waiting for the casual user to take the step behind the scenes (the step from articles to other namespaces) that is usually required to see the silly stuff we do. Even the Main Page is less a part of Wikipedia's supposed primary goal than actual articles are. Whatever is decided here, I want to ask the community not to disrupt articles for the sake of April Fools' Day. A. Parrot (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_165&oldid=1246979912"