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 |
Main Page error reports
To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.
- Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
- Please 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 13:38 on 10 June 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
- Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
- Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
- No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
- Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
- Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Today's FA
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
- 2022 Sitakunda fire and explosions – CNN The death toll has been updated from 41 to 49. – BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- HEADS UP! If you want to view the article, just remove the "=share" part. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- or just remove "=share" from the link here? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and I just noticed that it in fact HAS been removed. Thank you very much, how did you do it? BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- you're gonna want to just cut it out in the source editor. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- May I ask that editors tidy up the target article first, which is semi-protected and would thus be able to be edited by most of the people watching this page? It says in the prose:
At least 49 people were killed and more than 450 others injured in the incident.
That's referenced toref "BBCUpdatedDeathToll"
and that article states:On Monday, officials revised down the initial death toll from 49 to 41, saying some bodies had been counted twice.
We shouldn't have something on the mainpage that differs from what the sources say in the target article. Schwede66 22:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- May I ask that editors tidy up the target article first, which is semi-protected and would thus be able to be edited by most of the people watching this page? It says in the prose:
- you're gonna want to just cut it out in the source editor. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and I just noticed that it in fact HAS been removed. Thank you very much, how did you do it? BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- or just remove "=share" from the link here? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done. The death toll was revised down from 49 to at least 41, and that is the latest sourcing we have on that so it should not be made higher unless newer information becomes available. I have also reverted the article back to the 41 figure. — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you still have to fix the Main Page also... BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- HEADS UP! If you want to view the article, just remove the "=share" part. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Errors in "Did you know"
Current DYK
- ... that Mahendra Raj's engineering work on the Hindustan Lever pavilion resembled a crumpled sheet of paper? The second link is to the Hindustani Lever company page, which does not contain the word pavilion. In fact, I have been unable to find a mention of the pavilion even on the architect's (Charles Correa) page. Old Aylesburian (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- These appears to be possible issues with two pages (Hindustan Unilever and Charles Correa) that aren't the bolded subject of this DYK hook. As such, they aren't subject to quality checks in the same way that the main bolded link is and they aren't required to have the level of detail you mention. It might be that the pavilion isn't notable in the wider context of the company or even its architect, but are relevant when considering Mahendra Raj. Or perhaps those articles are just incomplete. Either way, the hook fact is in the bolded article and is cited, so unless you have evidence that it's incorrect, there's nothing to be done here. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- ...that Artemisia Gentileschi produced the first of her four renderings of Susanna and the Elders (pictured).... The wikilink is to the wrong article. It should link to Susanna and the Elders (Artemisia Gentileschi, Pommersfelden), not Susanna and the Elders in art. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 13:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it seems like the pictured version is an inferior version. Why doesn't DYK use this one instead? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 13:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Next DYK
Next-but-one DYK
- ... that the Electronic Arrays 9002 microprocessor was on the market for only a year before the company stopped marketing it without a single design win?
This doesn't seem to be said as such in the source [1]. That they "couldn't mount a competitive sales effort" may mean that they didn't have enough design wins, not necessarily that they didn't have a single design win. In fact, this seems to explicitly contradict the claim of the hook, as it includes the Prolog 8921 as a micro-computer with the Electronic Array 9002 microprocessor.
(Oh, and the first hook in the queue has a typo, "togther") Fram (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Amakuru swapped out the hook. I fixed the typo. I think the hook could be ok if we just omit "without a single design win". —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yes, thanks Fram, you beat me to the mark - I spotted this error when I was doing the admin checks on this set so swapped it out but hadn't got around to raising it at WT:DYK yet. Maybe removing the "design win" part is satisfactory, but better remove it from the article too if the source doesn't say it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
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
Planned POTD 2022-06-13 (File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg)
There was clear consensus against including this image as POTD at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 6#Discussion regarding possible picture of the day: Michele Merkin. I'm confused as to why User:Adam Cuerden removed it from Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused without discussion and scheduled it to run on 2022-06-13. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps Wikipedia:POTD/Unused should actually link discussions if it's meant to be held by them. As it was, it very much gives the impression it was one person's opinion. However, I don't think the discussion is particularly relevant given the blurbs provided with the image were quite... bad, which contextualised things differently. Now, 8 years on, with her having done a number of notable things, I think the context is very different, especially compared to the blurb about glamour photography that I'm a little shocked this image was trying to run as. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 16:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden The discussion was explicitly mentioned and linked. Before you deleted it, the listing for this image ended in
The decision not to feature this image on the main page was affirmed through a two-week discussion in May 2014.
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)- Very well, but that was 8 years ago, in a very different Wikipedia environment, and the summary of the argument is "Too cheesecake-y", which is hardly a compelling case against. And, frankly, I don't think anyone really cares if it's on the main page. We've had literal people dying on the main page before. We've had more nudity. If it shouldn't be a featured picture at all, nominate it for delisting. There's plenty of time for that. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 23:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden The discussion was explicitly mentioned and linked. Before you deleted it, the listing for this image ended in
- The POTD guidelines specifically mention this as an example of an image which shouldn't be used. Hut 8.5 16:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm open to a vote on it, but I don't think it would really have any substantial controversy. I don't love the image, but I doubt it'd cause that much harm, and I don't like the precedent it sets to deny things more for fear of immature giggling than any concrete reason. And it's no doubt airbrushed and unrealistic, but it's not like we're going to make a habit of it. It's certainly an outlier for FPs, but it's not any worse than you'd see on the covers in any British shop's magazine rack.
- I 'm not against leaving things off the main page, but I feel like there should be a standard of balancing possible harm with possible educational benefits. While a model's career might not be high academia, I'm really not seeing much harm, so... I think we call back to the default and run it.
- And, you know, if we're really worried we can always move it to June 26th, at which point the featured article will absolutely assure no-one cares in the least about the FP. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Given the prior consensus against posting this I don't think it should be done without a discussion. Hut 8.5 11:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, we've been having one. I can't force people to comment. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 16:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll comment then and say that I see no good reason not to include it. It is a fine image of a beautiful person, and there is no suggestion of any exploitation of the subject. Maybe some cultures will find the semi-nudity mildly offensive, but by using the internet such users will be routinely exposing themselves to far worse, and our policy is not to accept such censorship on our pages. Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. No issue as far as I can tell. WaltCip-(talk) 15:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- May be relevant to point out Template:POTD/2018-04-02 while we're at it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 22:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. No issue as far as I can tell. WaltCip-(talk) 15:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll comment then and say that I see no good reason not to include it. It is a fine image of a beautiful person, and there is no suggestion of any exploitation of the subject. Maybe some cultures will find the semi-nudity mildly offensive, but by using the internet such users will be routinely exposing themselves to far worse, and our policy is not to accept such censorship on our pages. Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, we've been having one. I can't force people to comment. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 16:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Given the prior consensus against posting this I don't think it should be done without a discussion. Hut 8.5 11:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Howcheng added that to the POTD guidelines that
Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg is a bit too salacious
back in 2008 [2]. Was that determined by a consensus, or was it just one editor's opinion? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)- @Muboshgu: There was a discussion. If consensus has changed since then, then so be it. —howcheng {chat} 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- There was another discussion in 2014: "Consensus is against this being used as POTD". I believe that's the most-recent consensus on the matter. Levivich 20:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good to see there was a discussion. WP:CCC in 14 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: There was a discussion. If consensus has changed since then, then so be it. —howcheng {chat} 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- And, you know, if we're really worried we can always move it to June 26th, at which point the featured article will absolutely assure no-one cares in the least about the FP. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Featured pictures that are apparently less controversial
It kind of feels silly to block this one in the light of those. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 01:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't run the picture of the model on POTD because it's not a good picture. It's airbrushed and thus unrealistic. It's not educational; it doesn't really illustrate or depict anything well. There are better pictures of "glamour shots", of modeling, of airbrushing techniques, of bikinis... this just isn't a good example of anything. The bodybuilder is a famous historical figure ("the father of bodybuilding") and the Renoir is a famous painting; this photograph of a model is not a famous photograph nor a particularly famous model; they're not comparable. Levivich 07:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- The remedy for "It shouldn't be an FP!" is a delist nomination at WP:FPC. They take ten days, and if closes as delist before it runs, what, 14 days from now? It can't run. If it happens, problem solved.
- Frankly, it's boring '00s men's magazine cover stuff, with, at this point, it's biggest point of notability is being the oldest FP never to have gone on the mainpage. But it's also too old to effectively rejudge, and if I'm to start blocking things from the main page because they don't interest me, well, that's more power than you should give or that I should have as a co-ordinator.
- Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 07:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- "It hasn't run yet" is a terrible reason to run anything. Are we running low on candidate pictures? There's really no reason to remove it from /Unused. Also, I'm sure I don't need to tell you why these airbrushed glamour shots of models are harmful, e.g. to young people's body image and self-esteem. By the way, I'm not gonna spend my free time fixing the mistakes of years past by nominating FP's for de-listing (nor would I do that with FAs), but you're welcome to. That would be a better thing to do with a bad photo than removing it from /Unused and then kinda threatening to list it unless the community deals with it. I think as POTD coordinator what you should do is make choices so that we have the best outcomes with the least disruption/editor time spent. Don't use this position to make a WP:POINT. (I read the draft Signpost essay.) Levivich 12:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yes, think of the children! Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, I think we are all tolerant of doing so on the Main Page as an exception in extreme cases. This is surely not one. Images of untypically beautiful people are everywhere in most societies, so I don't believe that Wikipedia running such a picture on one day does one jot of harm. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Let's all stop using the word "censored" in these discussions. Choosing an image to showcase on the front page, or choosing not to showcase an image on the front page, has nothing to do with censorship. Censorship would be deleting the image, not declining to showcase it. This is not an image of an untypically beautiful person, and even if it were, we are not here to showcase beauty. What is the encyclopedic value of this image? How does it educate? It does harm because it presents an unrealistic, unobtainable image of what some people think beauty is or should be. And yes, think of the children. Levivich 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, you don't have to delete an image for it to count as censorship; just not showing it will suffice. You seem to disapprove of the glamour industry (maybe for good reasons, but others differ). Not displaying the image for that reason seems like censorship to me. The encyclopedic value of the image is that it was judged to be a high quality example of the genre. Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Judged to be a high quality example of the genre by whom? From among what choices? It's an example of the genre, but it's not a high-quality one. It might be the only one with a compatible license. Levivich 17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- And may I suggest you look up the definition of censorship. It's rather specific. "Not choosing an image for the main page because it's not the best image we can put up there" is not censorship under any definition you'll find. Levivich 17:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: I feel that every featured picture should potentially run. As I said, if the only objection is feeling it's an insufficiently good picture, the remedy is a delist nomination at WP:FPC, not requesting an extrajudicial judgement.
- I have nearly 8% of all featured pictures. That means I can't go around judging other people's work arbitrarily, lest I end up treating them differently than myself. The Merkin image is, at worst, boring. It won't break Wikipedia, and I have no idea why it's managed to cause so much hand-wringing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- If your contributions to FP limits your ability as POTD coordinator, then don't volunteer for the job. I am operating on the assumption that having you as POTD coordinator is no different than having anyone else as POTD coordinator. No previous coordinator felt that respecting /Unused was a problem or "extrajudicial judgment". You're the one who removed this image (and others) from /Unused and scheduled them, so you're the one who needs to justify that. I don't think it's right for you to unilaterally remove images from /Unused and schedule them, and then tell the rest of us to have it delisted if we don't like it because you want to run every FP. There is no consensus to run every FP; there is consensus not to run this and other FPs. It worries me that you admit this isn't a good picture but you've removed it from /Unused and listed it anyway. That's kind of the definition of WP:POINTy behavior: doing something that's bad (scheduling this bad pic) in order to make a point (about nudity? Censorship? /Unused? Every FP should be POTD? Idk.) Levivich 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- The point is that it doesn't seem that bad. There's no point to be made if the image doesn't look like a problem. The Unused page shouldn't be an arbitrary collection, it should make sense. I'm not really hearing concrete reasons not to put it on the main page, just... well, WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a side of WP:THEREFOREYOUSHOULDNTLIKEITANDDOWHATISAY Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 22:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, you don't have to delete an image for it to count as censorship; just not showing it will suffice. You seem to disapprove of the glamour industry (maybe for good reasons, but others differ). Not displaying the image for that reason seems like censorship to me. The encyclopedic value of the image is that it was judged to be a high quality example of the genre. Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Let's all stop using the word "censored" in these discussions. Choosing an image to showcase on the front page, or choosing not to showcase an image on the front page, has nothing to do with censorship. Censorship would be deleting the image, not declining to showcase it. This is not an image of an untypically beautiful person, and even if it were, we are not here to showcase beauty. What is the encyclopedic value of this image? How does it educate? It does harm because it presents an unrealistic, unobtainable image of what some people think beauty is or should be. And yes, think of the children. Levivich 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yes, think of the children! Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, I think we are all tolerant of doing so on the Main Page as an exception in extreme cases. This is surely not one. Images of untypically beautiful people are everywhere in most societies, so I don't believe that Wikipedia running such a picture on one day does one jot of harm. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- "It hasn't run yet" is a terrible reason to run anything. Are we running low on candidate pictures? There's really no reason to remove it from /Unused. Also, I'm sure I don't need to tell you why these airbrushed glamour shots of models are harmful, e.g. to young people's body image and self-esteem. By the way, I'm not gonna spend my free time fixing the mistakes of years past by nominating FP's for de-listing (nor would I do that with FAs), but you're welcome to. That would be a better thing to do with a bad photo than removing it from /Unused and then kinda threatening to list it unless the community deals with it. I think as POTD coordinator what you should do is make choices so that we have the best outcomes with the least disruption/editor time spent. Don't use this position to make a WP:POINT. (I read the draft Signpost essay.) Levivich 12:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- The remedy for "It shouldn't be an FP!" is a delist nomination at WP:FPC. They take ten days, and if closes as delist before it runs, what, 14 days from now? It can't run. If it happens, problem solved.
IMO, POTD coord shouldn't be scheduling pics that, in his own words, "doesn't seem that bad". POTD should be the best pictures. This is not one of them. Nobody is saying it is obscene or lewd. It doesn't matter that she's half naked. That's not the issue--and as your own examples show, that was never an issue. This is a poor quality image. It shouldn't run for that reason alone. You seem to agree it's a poor quality image. You shouldn't schedule it for that reason alone. Levivich 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Was going to say this in a previous section, and have probably expressed as much in the past, but I agree that NOTCENSOR should be irrelevant for main page decisions. The encyclopedia isn't censored, as in if you go to an article about sexuality, anatomy, blasphemy, violence, etc., we shouldn't censor images that illustrate that subject. All of that is really easy to find on Wikipedia. The question is what we want to showcase for the broadest possible audience. There's obviously a ton of gray area, though, and that is where we need some imperfect form of consensus, weighing the educational value against objections. NOTCENSORED on its own shouldn't carry any weight, though. Even when we're talking about articles rather than the main page, NOTCENSORED is just an argument against removal -- it still needs to be accompanied with a persuasive argument to include. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think the Wikipedia is, and should be, fundamentally an educational project. Putting this photo on the Main Page does not seem to me to have any educational value. It is, in a weird way, somewhat similar to the lynching photo above: in both cases, there could be educational value, but that getting that value requires more of an explanation than the Main Page's FP section offers.
- I really don't think that the 120-year-old photo or the 19th-century painting are at all comparable, precisely because everyone involved in those historical words is long dead. If this photo comes up again a hundred years from now, you can put me down as supporting, except to the extent that Missvain was probably right in her prior comments about the white balance being off. (Also: When people respond "Maybe this ought to be de-listed", I think the response should be "Maybe we should think longer about running this – it's been eight years, so what's another month?" instead of "My poor hands are tied and I just have to run it unless you rush over there and get it de-listed first"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- A separate objection: do we have a model release to put this image on the front page? Aside from licensing rights, the model is covered by WP:BLP, and there are personality rights to consider. Levivich 22:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of another RFC or vote or whatever, if need be, over whether to run this image; it's been 8 years, and consensus can change. I agree that NOTCENSORED applies differently to the Main Page, in which people are more likely to come across content they see as offensive without intending to view such content; cf. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, in which the privacy interest at issue in Stanley v. Georgia (which held that possessing obscene movies et al. could not be criminalized since no negative externalities exist) does not apply to public establishments (where such externalities can exist). That said, I don't think this image is very lewd (no excessive nudity), and I don't have any particularly strong feelings over whether this image should be run as POTD or is FP-worthy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's kind of my point. It's nothing worth getting so bothered about, and I think we need a positive reason to skip, not a mere negative one. If we have a good reason to not put on the main page, that's one thing. But I find it odd that the main argument against it appearing appears to be a mere... not liking it. I mean, she's a public figure. We're not Brittanica, we cover popular culture as well. If we accept we're in part an encyclopedia of popular culture, models and television personalities aren't any less valid than more traditionally academic subjects, and me having no real interest in them is irrelevant. For example if a featured article co-ordinator started blocking the prolific roads or hurricane projects from the main page, we'd be quite upset at them, even if their argument is that they didn't interest them. I don't see this as any different: a co-ordinator needs to judge things dispassionately, not by what interests them to write or photograph or work on. And any of the sorts of subjects Wikipedia covers should be considered valid unless there's a good reason not to include it. My lack of passion for the subject shouldn't matter. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 22:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- If "IDONTLIKEIT" is another way of saying "poor quality image", then that's like the #1 best reason not to run something for POTD. And whole consensus can change, the way to change an RFC consensus is with a new RFC, not by ignoring the old consensus. Levivich 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's kind of my point. It's nothing worth getting so bothered about, and I think we need a positive reason to skip, not a mere negative one. If we have a good reason to not put on the main page, that's one thing. But I find it odd that the main argument against it appearing appears to be a mere... not liking it. I mean, she's a public figure. We're not Brittanica, we cover popular culture as well. If we accept we're in part an encyclopedia of popular culture, models and television personalities aren't any less valid than more traditionally academic subjects, and me having no real interest in them is irrelevant. For example if a featured article co-ordinator started blocking the prolific roads or hurricane projects from the main page, we'd be quite upset at them, even if their argument is that they didn't interest them. I don't see this as any different: a co-ordinator needs to judge things dispassionately, not by what interests them to write or photograph or work on. And any of the sorts of subjects Wikipedia covers should be considered valid unless there's a good reason not to include it. My lack of passion for the subject shouldn't matter. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 22:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Currently no strong opinion for or against using the image as a POTD, just wanna say that Adam Cuerden scheduling the image for a POTD (without consensus) and removing it from the unused list feels very WP:GAMEy and uncivil. The edit summary Adam used was "They're scheduled for the main page. Putting them on here if they're running is ridiculous" which in itself is ridiculous, since Adam is the one who scheduled it. Adam should have sought consensus first, and this whole discussion feels WP:POINTy. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- It had three weeks, and still has most of two. Sometimes the best plan is to say you're doing something (which I did, right here) and see if anyone actually cares. Given the remedy for "not good enough be a featured picture" is a delist nom, and there's no real arguments besides that, there's really no valid opposition I'm seeing. Especially none that cares enough to do something (such as create a delist nom) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 13:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Look at this thread and reconsider whether anyone cares to do something. The "something" might not be the thing that you expected (delisting the pic). Levivich 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: I've now looked at June's POTDs and /Unused and I see that you've taken a number of pictures from /Unused and scheduled them all in June. This is unacceptable, particularly when a number of them have already appeared on the main page--and you've said you want every FP to be a POTD, so why are you running repeats? It's clear to me that you've done this to make a WP:POINT about /Unused, and that's not an acceptable reason. So, over the next few days, I'm going to endeavor to find replacements, and will be replacing the /Unused pictures in the June schedules, and restoring them to /Unused. That's the "something" I'm going to do. Levivich 18:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- It had three weeks, and still has most of two. Sometimes the best plan is to say you're doing something (which I did, right here) and see if anyone actually cares. Given the remedy for "not good enough be a featured picture" is a delist nom, and there's no real arguments besides that, there's really no valid opposition I'm seeing. Especially none that cares enough to do something (such as create a delist nom) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 13:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Levivich: The thing is, they aren't duplicates. compare:
Image that appeared on the main page in 2008
There used to be a policy of not featuring things twice, even if the versions were completely redrawn, different versions, &c. This was ended long ago, but a few slipped through the cracks. They are similar, but fundamentally different, especially in credit line. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Those two images are the same image with minor rearrangements made, as is the odd-eyed cat one, the illusion one, and the Rembrandt painting. That these have run, and that we have many that have not run, is a great reason not to pull all four from /Unused and run all four in June, as you've scheduled. The model image has a consensus not to run it on POTD; there will need to be a new discussion to see if consensus has changed before it can be POTD. This may be that discussion, and if so, you'll need to wait for its outcome before the image can be removed from /Unused and scheduled. I don't really care about the guano pic; AFAIK there was no consensus discussion and it hasn't run before, so no objection to running that. I'm not sure if there are any others that were pulled from /Unused and scheduled. June 9 I believe is the earliest scheduled date (the Rembrandt painting) so we have until then to resolve this :-) But the painting shouldn't run again because it's run before; and if we're going to run repeats, there are better repeats to run than that. There's really no reason to put that particular picture on that particular date, particularly given that it's run before. Levivich 23:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm wrong, but that painting looks like a very, very different scan, at least as linked. Perhaps I misjudged. As for the others... I'm uncomfortable not running the two SVG versions of images since they represent dozens of hours of work. I've done SVG conversions before; they're hideously finicky. I have absolutely no objections to losing the Odd-eyed cat, which I thought was borderline even at the time. I still say that the place for a Merkin discussion is at FPC, since the objection is it shouldn't be an FPC, but I don't mind shoving it to... well, we're filled up to November now... if that allows proper discussion. I just don't want to throw out people's work. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- We have very, very different ideas about what "very, very different" means
- Pintaflores festival in San Carlos, Negros Occidental, Philippines
- What does it matter that it's a different scan? It's the same Rembrandt painting. And while the SVG no doubt represents dozens of hours of work, the FP that's not running so that the SVG can run twice also represents dozens of hours of work. "They can both run", you say? Sure: run the one that hasn't run first, then run the one that's run before. For example, for June 9 when the Rembrandt is scheduled, the TFA for that day is about a Philippine film. Instead of re-running the Rembrandt painting, we could run File:Pintaflores Queen.jpg, which is used at San Carlos, Negros Occidental#Tourism. Levivich 00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because the decision not to block new scans and restorations was made years before I started. Here's some that used to be on POTD/Unused, and their old versions:
- I didn't set those to run. That's been accepted practice for about 5 years. Also, you know you're suggesting replacing it with something that isn't even an English Wikipedia featured picture? I'm not trying to be rude here, but I'm not sure you understand how POTD works, the history of decisions, or what is meant to appear on it. You're objecting to things like "not blocking an image because a similar one appeared" which I' m pretty sure was Crisco 1492's big change when he took over like, three or four coordinators ago. You're suggesting things as replacements which have not gone through WP:FPC and seem unaware that POTD is meant to roughly run in order of FP promotion. I'd really suggest spending some time reviewing before touching anything. If you want, I'll delay the Merkin image to give you time to do so. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- /Unused is not accepted practice? The 2014 consensus not to have this pic as POTD is not accepted practice? There are over 700 FPs that haven't run on the main page (and many more pics that could be FPs); we can make better choices than to dump a bunch of /Unused and repeats in June. Levivich 05:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unused is little more than notes; barring other discussion, it's not, and never was meant as more than that. Things have always gotten removed from there regularly. I'm quite happy to delay Merkin as long as we need to have a discussion, replacing if the discussion goes that way, but you're taking it as if Unused was a policy page, when it's just the notes of the POTD co-ordinators, and nothing more. For example, a lot of the things on there were literally only on there because the article wasn't good enough at the time.
- I don't particularly care about Merkin. If you think it needs more discussion, I'm happy to shove it forwards to the point where the discussion can happen. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 09:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to run Merkin, it's on you to show that consensus has changed. Levivich 12:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- That no-one but two people cares to object does show that. I've offered a dozen ways we could move forwards, from a delist nomination at WP:FPC to delaying the image five months to allow time for more discussion, to, you know, having a discussion right here. If all you want to do is complain, though, I may as well not have bothered. You kind of have to stop complaining, and actually interact with the possible solutions, or you may as well not say anything. It doesn't feel like you want a solution that makes everyone happy, and are kind of running out of time for one of them - if the delist nomination doesn't start today, and ideally pretty damn soon today, it won't close in time. Can we please stop faffing around? I'm happy to work with you, as long as you show the slightest sign you want to actually move forwards in a productive way, but pick an option, please. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 14:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here's how you move forward, and these steps are outlined in WP:CCC and WP:RFC:
- Here's the last consensus discussion that was closed with "Consensus is against this being used as POTD."
- Anyone who wants to see if that consensus has changed is welcome to start an RFC, linking to the previous discussion, and explaining why they believe we should come to a different outcome.
- If that RFC is closed with consensus to list it at POTD, then the image can be scheduled at POTD.
- By the way, that's the only way forward, per WP:CONSENSUS. You and I don't have the authority to come to some agreement that overrules the 2014 consensus. Sorry, but there is only one way: if you want to list it, you need to gain consensus for that. It's something that the person who wants to list it has to do.
- Remember, a "no consensus" outcome would result in the prior from 2014 consensus holding. Levivich 15:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- This entire section is getting quite a messy, conflating different topics back and forth. Seems like there are at least 2 things that some community consensus measuring is needed on: (a) Should File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg be featured on the main page at all? (b) When multiple high quality images of similar content are available, how should main page featuring be determined?
- These will likely both have many opinions, the former only really has two outcomes - the later has a range of outcomes. I'm not seeing any extraordinary reason that There is no deadline wouldn't apply here as well. — xaosflux Talk 16:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think the second question is answered same as everything else: order of promotion. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 01:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here's how you move forward, and these steps are outlined in WP:CCC and WP:RFC:
- That no-one but two people cares to object does show that. I've offered a dozen ways we could move forwards, from a delist nomination at WP:FPC to delaying the image five months to allow time for more discussion, to, you know, having a discussion right here. If all you want to do is complain, though, I may as well not have bothered. You kind of have to stop complaining, and actually interact with the possible solutions, or you may as well not say anything. It doesn't feel like you want a solution that makes everyone happy, and are kind of running out of time for one of them - if the delist nomination doesn't start today, and ideally pretty damn soon today, it won't close in time. Can we please stop faffing around? I'm happy to work with you, as long as you show the slightest sign you want to actually move forwards in a productive way, but pick an option, please. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 14:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to run Merkin, it's on you to show that consensus has changed. Levivich 12:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- /Unused is not accepted practice? The 2014 consensus not to have this pic as POTD is not accepted practice? There are over 700 FPs that haven't run on the main page (and many more pics that could be FPs); we can make better choices than to dump a bunch of /Unused and repeats in June. Levivich 05:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't set those to run. That's been accepted practice for about 5 years. Also, you know you're suggesting replacing it with something that isn't even an English Wikipedia featured picture? I'm not trying to be rude here, but I'm not sure you understand how POTD works, the history of decisions, or what is meant to appear on it. You're objecting to things like "not blocking an image because a similar one appeared" which I' m pretty sure was Crisco 1492's big change when he took over like, three or four coordinators ago. You're suggesting things as replacements which have not gone through WP:FPC and seem unaware that POTD is meant to roughly run in order of FP promotion. I'd really suggest spending some time reviewing before touching anything. If you want, I'll delay the Merkin image to give you time to do so. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Adam Cuerden: Yes, FPs are considered for inclusion in order of promotion. That consideration took place on schedule, and the consensus was not to include. It can be reconsidered at any time, but the consensus doesn't get overturned automatically just because it's the oldest candidate. Certes (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC) - @Levivich: As far as other pics pulled from /Unused are concerned, there's also File:Indecency2.jpg, at Template:POTD/2022-06-21. It was put on the /Unused list for the same reason as the guano picture: a risk of too many immature comments. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thinking about this some more, and having read some of the previous discussions, I would like to hold off on the Merkin image until the 2014 consensus is re-evaluated, should we wish to do so. I do consider that discussion binding still. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting I reverted this edit, which changed the date in the section header and OP, as that was confusing. I guess the POTD has been rescheduled from June 13 to Dec 11. I'm glad it was delayed, but I nevertheless believe that anyone who wants to list this at POTD needs to get consensus to overrule the last consensus from 2014 not to list this pic as a POTD. Consensus first, then scheduling, not the other way around. Levivich 16:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)