Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
Main Page error report
To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.
- Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
- Offer a correction if possible.
- References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
- Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 18:47 on 15 May 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
- Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
- Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
- No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
- Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
- Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed, determined not to be an error, or the item has rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Today's FA
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
Next DYK
Next-but-one DYK
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
Tomorrow's OTD
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Friday's FL
Monday's FL
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
Today's POTD
Tomorrow's POTD
General discussion
Anders Bagge
Vill höra lite mer om A.Bagge, blev fascinerande att han har gjort så mycket för musiken. Dels på egen hand och tillsammans med andra. Förvånad över att jag är äldre, (två år). Annveas (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Google translates this as "Want to hear a little more about A.Bagge, was fascinating that he has done so much for music. Both on their own and with others. Surprised that I'm older, (two years)"
- Hi Annveas, this is the talk page for the Main page on the English Wikipedia. Assuming you mean Anders Bagge, the place to discuss that article, in English, is at talk:Anders Bagge. There is an article on the Swedish Wikipedia at sv:Anders Bagge. Edgepedia (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC).
Seriously?
- Frank's Cock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Featured on the Main Page on December 1, 2013)
Cock "Frank" ? Why are you are showing an article about movie of the penis of the man ! I knew what I have come to expect from online encyclopedia, and it is not this. In addition, the page is locked, how am I supposed to edit ? You guys are slipping ... Frankscock (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please read the article, then you may or may not comment, as you will. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have read an article. It's about stupid Canada movies. Who heard of this "cock"? Writer of the article was laughing all the way as he probably chose a movie with a provocative title. Frankscock (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's about a film, singular, not movies plural. Perhaps you didn't read it that well, or perhaps we're still waiting for Mr Maturity to pay a visit? Nice shiny account you have - always good to see new, open-minded editors joining us.... - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. With such glorious grammar as that, you should write for the MOS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- 13 hours, I was really expecting a comment like this sooner. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. Too much turkey? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- No such thing. Ask my wife. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Considering how expensive it must be where you're at (and how expensive it is here) I should think any amount of turkey is acceptable, no matter how large. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ha! Actually, if we're talking fowl, any amount is too much for her. I served it once, to family and some neighbours. Everyone loved the stuffing, but kept asking what was wrong with the flavour of the funny chicken. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- LOL! I don't know why, but it's become a bit more popular here... though most couldn't tell you the difference between turkey and chicken except for the size. No a la king for me, though... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ha! Actually, if we're talking fowl, any amount is too much for her. I served it once, to family and some neighbours. Everyone loved the stuffing, but kept asking what was wrong with the flavour of the funny chicken. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Considering how expensive it must be where you're at (and how expensive it is here) I should think any amount of turkey is acceptable, no matter how large. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- No such thing. Ask my wife. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- It said I was holed infinitely for using my name as "Frankscock" so I had to pick another. --kelapstick(bainuu) If you have been waiting for the specific comments, you can make your own comments. Franklin dfd (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. Too much turkey? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's about a film, singular, not movies plural. Perhaps you didn't read it that well, or perhaps we're still waiting for Mr Maturity to pay a visit? Nice shiny account you have - always good to see new, open-minded editors joining us.... - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it was rude of the — Crisco 1492 (talk) and the SchroCat (talk) to tell me that my spelling was bad. It is not my fault, it has been limited to the translator. You should be more welcoming for new users create a fun alternative, Wikipedia, you guys are supposed to be to an experience collaborative. Franklin dfd (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm... do you know the story of trolls under glass bridges? Seriously, "stupid Canada movies", "You guys are slipping", "Writer of the article was laughing all the way as he probably chose a movie with a provocative title"... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Am not a troll. I was ashamed to look at the article. Who is the writer? I think he has been trying to provoke an imperfect reaction by making sure the word "penis" and the erection of Frank's featured movie becomes the front page. Franklin dfd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. So what is it, exactly, you are ashamed of? The existence of AIDS? The suffering the disease causes? Perhaps you are ashamed of homosexuality? Perhaps you think "those people" shouldn't be mentioned or covered? I mean, you said you read the article, so obviously your concern is the content, right? You're not so childish as to register multiple accounts just to whine about the movie's title, right? Resolute 15:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm offended by the image being used on the front page. How dare they show someone drinking orange juice out of a plastic cup? What image are we trying to show for our future generations to know such taboo was a thing? GamerPro64 17:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The alt text in the article says that it's beer... even worse or what? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You know, I sympathize with OP here. TFA director/former TFA director Raul had blacklisted Jenna Jameson from appearing on the main page for the longest time because the subject matter was considered too provocative. Is that article any more provocative than what we have here, particularly the title? It's great to say that we, as editors, can take a sober, scholarly approach to all sorts of unorthodox subject matter. And we can; that's one of the many great things about Wikipedia. But today's featured article is primarily for readers, not editors, and we should at least take into consideration what our readers would expect to see on the main page of a top-ten website, rather than focusing solely on what we think they should see.
Let me offer one hypothetical: suppose the main page featured article was Nigger. For an entire day, we'd have that word displayed very prominently on our main page. Would that really be the type of image that we'd want to present? Is there any doubt whatsoever that the heaps of criticism that we'd receive would be richly deserved? --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat it". No, a featured-quality article on nigger as a word should be featured. As for Raul's unilateral decision about Jameson... that's already quite controversial, and many editors feel the article (if it still meets the FA criteria) should be run. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- You hit the nail on the head. If Nigger becomes a featured article, I see no valid reason to bar a main page appearance. (As a Jew, I'll note that the same goes for Kike.)
- We frequently run articles about massacres and other ghastly events, but we're worried about mentioning naughty words? —David Levy 00:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the quality of that particular article, I think it would be a fine idea. Knee-jerk reactionists can go on having knee-jerk reactions, and the rest of us will carry on sensibly. Vranak (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED is always well worth remembering. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly, but whenever WP:NOTCENSORED is invoked, it's usually a gross oversimplification. It's a bit more nuanced than just bleating "NOTCENSORED" and doing whatever we want. It's not a substitute for actual editorial judgement. There are boatloads of words and images that are appropriate in an article context, but wouldn't be appropriate in a main page context. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. There is a big difference between doing a service to our readers and doing a service to ourselves by showing off how cutting-edge and uncensored we are. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit more nuanced than just bleating "NOTCENSORED" and doing whatever we want.
- No one (in this discussion) asserts that the principle gives us license to do "whatever we want".
- We wouldn't make a non-featured article TFA because its subject is controversial and we want to show off to the world that Wikipedia is uncensored. And it's inappropriate for us to go out of our way to include content on the main page because it's likely to cause a stir, even if it complies with the section's criteria. (In one instance, someone cherry-picked a piece of trivia as an excuse to get the word "fuck" into DYK. This was ill-advised.)
- In other words, WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that we should do something just because we can; it means that we shouldn't not do something just because it might upset/offend people.
There are boatloads of words and images that are appropriate in an article context, but wouldn't be appropriate in a main page context.
- So far, we've covered the words "cock" (in the context meaning "penis") and "nigger". Can you provide other examples of words and images that you regard as off-limits? —David Levy 03:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in compiling a blacklist; I'd merely like to see some occasional restraint when selecting main page content. Failing that, we could certainly do a better job of addressing concerns from our readership when these items do appear. Such concerns are inevitably dismissed out of hand with a chorus of WP:NOTCENSORED and claims of prudishness. I'm not even sure that Frank's Cock is over the line regarding main page content. But again, anybody who thinks there is no line is delusional. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm attempting to get a general idea of where you believe the line should be drawn (and on what basis). For our purposes, "I know it when I see it" isn't an actionable standard (particularly given the site's worldwide audience, comprising many distinct cultures).
- I agree that complaints shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but in this instance, the OP's approach was hardly tactful. —David Levy 08:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in compiling a blacklist; I'd merely like to see some occasional restraint when selecting main page content. Failing that, we could certainly do a better job of addressing concerns from our readership when these items do appear. Such concerns are inevitably dismissed out of hand with a chorus of WP:NOTCENSORED and claims of prudishness. I'm not even sure that Frank's Cock is over the line regarding main page content. But again, anybody who thinks there is no line is delusional. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly, but whenever WP:NOTCENSORED is invoked, it's usually a gross oversimplification. It's a bit more nuanced than just bleating "NOTCENSORED" and doing whatever we want. It's not a substitute for actual editorial judgement. There are boatloads of words and images that are appropriate in an article context, but wouldn't be appropriate in a main page context. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. There is a big difference between doing a service to our readers and doing a service to ourselves by showing off how cutting-edge and uncensored we are. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED is always well worth remembering. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(reset) When will we have the 'vanilla/work/library/school safe' and 'anything goes' versions of the MP? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The 'vanilla list' would probably cover the following.
- A selection of words #considered# 'gratuitously offensive.'
- A variety of 'adult themes.'
- Violence, 'very medical', 'some war-related topics.'
- 'Certain historical topics, books and artworks etc.'
- 'Topics which one thinks #other people are likely to have much discussion about on the MP talk page.'
- 'The tenth reference to a theme in only a few days.'
One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.' Jackiespeel (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED says that content should not be removed; it does not say anything about making considerations about what we want to put on our front page. Indeed, Wikipedia:Offensive material in its current version talks explicitly about making considerations; and that's not even on the front page: Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.
- Guidelines for what's considered appropriate for the front page can be decided through votes. First vote: should we have such guidelines at all? If yes:
- Which words are offensive? Individual vote for each candidate.
- Should titles containing offensive words not appear on the front page if they concern an obscure topic? If yes, Frank's Cock will not appear on the front page. If no, it may.
- Add more votes as needed. --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're misinterpreting Wikipedia:Offensive material.
- As discussed above, we don't favor controversial material and shouldn't go out of our way to insert it. For example, this photograph (which contains nudity) wouldn't be an appropriate addition to the Guitar article (where it would provide no illustrative value beyond that of an image not containing nudity, so readers wouldn't expect to find it there).
- Likewise, this photograph (also containing nudity) would have little illustrative value at Beach (where the concept of nudity is addressed only in passing), but it's a perfect fit at Nude beach (where its omission would sacrifice the article's quality).
- We don't suppress (let alone "vote" away) relevant, informative material on the basis that it's offensive. —David Levy 08:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- The point about Wikipedia:Offensive material is that we make considerations at all about what may shock readers. The main page is about promotion of our content; and if our readers are turned away by it, it works against its own purpose. NOTCENSORED does not apply to the main page, because the main page does not hold any information on its own, it only reflects/summarises other pages where the information is actually stored.
- Out notability guidelines are ultimately completely subjective; but we still need them. And we still manage to create a sensible encyclopedia despite this obvious imperfection (indeed, notability is its own form of censorship, since information is actively suppressed). There are widely different views on what user behaviour should lead to a block, but we still have guidelines and block people to make things go smoother. This topic is no different from the two previous ones. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The point about Wikipedia:Offensive material is that we make considerations at all about what may shock readers.
- But the idea isn't to exclude content simply because it's "offensive"; it's to apply our normal inclusion standards instead of intentionally inserting controversial material because we can.
The main page is about promotion of our content; and if our readers are turned away by it, it works against its own purpose.
- Readers are "turned away" by all sorts of things. Restricting the main page's content to subjects widely regarded as pleasant would hardly convey the encyclopedia's nature.
NOTCENSORED does not apply to the main page,
- That's been debated for years.
because the main page does not hold any information on its own, it only reflects/summarises other pages where the information is actually stored.
- And in terms of subject matter, it's intended to reflect the encyclopedia as a whole. We might showcase an article about a mass murder one day and a pop singer the next.
Out notability guidelines are ultimately completely subjective; but we still need them. And we still manage to create a sensible encyclopedia despite this obvious imperfection (indeed, notability is its own form of censorship, since information is actively suppressed).
- Do you acknowledge that there's a material distinction between omitting information on the basis that it's non-notable and omitting information on the basis that it's offensive?
- Certainly, assessing notability entails the application of arbitrary and imperfect criteria, but the level of subjectivity is nowhere near as great.
- Editors might not unanimously agree on how much coverage by reliable sources a subject must receive (as one example of many) in order to be considered notable, but such considerations are relatively objective measures. Conversely, the determination that something is offensive is purely subjective (and easily swayed by systemic bias at the English Wikipedia level, resulting in the identification of material widely regarded as objectionable only among members of certain cultures).
- But if we are to vote on what's offensive, allow me to be the first to cast a ballot: I'm offended by the idea of voting "offensive" words off the main page.
There are widely different views on what user behaviour should lead to a block, but we still have guidelines and block people to make things go smoother.
- That's even less connected.
This topic is no different from the two previous ones.
- Should I interpret this to mean that you don't recognize any material distinctions? —David Levy 12:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.'
- Indeed, and that's a big problem. To a Hindu reader, this image might be more upsetting than any of the above examples are. Meanwhile, a Haredi Jew might find this image's display highly objectionable. The only "safe" content is none at all. —David Levy 08:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As 'the cup of tea' remark is taken from comments I made (and could add 'things which will annoy library and other computer blocking poliices( - I am referring 'to things encountered unexpectedly' (whether on the main page, through idly clicking on blue links/random article button) as distinct from 'deliberately looking for a topic' (shall we say for understanding a previously unknown term).
Entries on the main page involving 'sex, very medical/veterinary, war and similar, violence, and certain persons and events' and 'things constituting bad taste' are always likely to cause at least some degree of comment and complaint, however well the articles themselves are written.
I have said previously one of the benefits of the Main Page is to bring to the readers' attention to topics they would not otherwise be aware of, and it can be said of WP as well as the newspaper 'all human and other life (among many other things) can be found herein.'
There will always be degree of conflict between these two aspects - whatever arrangements WP makes to allow people to select which categories of topics they view. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has now officially gone to hell ...
No, not because of the above subject, but because we now have a cute cat picture as the Featured Picture of the Day.
Obviously it's all about getting clicks fom now on ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- You think that's cute? You ain't seen nothing yet. Meow! (next year, maybe). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
We should have more articles on cats featured. I nominate Frank's Pussy. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. Let's get Catgirl that bronze star on it then. GamerPro64 04:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can I mention the Kitten War site, and the intermittent withdrawal of the Argos cat-alogue. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)