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 10:07 on 16 July 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"
- Are we intending to keep the JWST item on ITN as solely the First Deep Field or mention the other photos in the initial batch by updating blurb and rotating the featured pic? Omnifalcon (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The blurb now looks out of date, with the release of highly publicised images on the next day, so could do with updating. However the other targets have only one-sentence updates in their articles (and on the JWST article), so can't be bold links on their own, and it would be tricky to list them all in a single blurb, or show thumbnails of them all. How about tweaking the wording:
- The first operational images taken by the James Webb Space Telescope are released, including Webb's First Deep Field (shown)
- If there's desire to use some of the other images:
- The first operational images (example shown) taken by the James Webb Space Telescope are released, including Webb's First Deep Field
- Modest Genius talk 13:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The deep field was the first operational image to be released. First is typically what ITN focusses on? Stephen 05:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Arguable. The initial JWST release consisted of four images and two spectra. The deep field came out ~16 hours before the others, because that was when Biden was available to do his press conference, but they were all part of the same release and all reported in the popular media. So yes that image was first, but they were all part of a single event. Modest Genius talk 13:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- But it wasn't a single event. The original plan was for the NASA release on Tuesday but then Biden stole their thunder with his separate pre-release event on Monday. See Vice. Anyway, the single picture worked out well for us because we have a specific article about it and it saved us from having to decide which picture to show when. The other pictures can be run as featured pictures which will work better as the FP thumbnail is not so small. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Arguable. The initial JWST release consisted of four images and two spectra. The deep field came out ~16 hours before the others, because that was when Biden was available to do his press conference, but they were all part of the same release and all reported in the popular media. So yes that image was first, but they were all part of a single event. Modest Genius talk 13:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The deep field was the first operational image to be released. First is typically what ITN focusses on? Stephen 05:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
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
- I have (belatedly) copyedited this blurb for proper style and context, and fixed the credit line, but can't copy the changes over to the protected version. Could an admin kindly copy over the updated blurb and credit line from Template:POTD/2022-07-17, and increase the image size to
400px
? Many thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
General discussion
About FAs
I've been thinking about Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Racial bias in Wikipedia featured articles, and the problem that what's transparent and known to all of us is completely unexpected to nearly all readers.
The bottom of the FA box currently says:
Recently featured: Tyler Skaggs • Mount Melbourne • Midland Railway War Memorial
Archive • By email • More featured articles
I suggest that we add another link, "About Featured Articles", to a brief/TLDR-aware page that says something like "Featured Articles are some of the best articles at the English Wikipedia. They are written by volunteers about subjects of their own choosing, and judged by other volunteers against the featured article criteria. Each day, volunteers select one of the newly approved articles as today's featured article. If you would like to see a new subject featured on the Main Page, you can learn about contributing to Wikipedia."
What do you think?
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- PS, this post refers to the bottom of the TFA box, eg, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 12, 2022; the specific wording is at {{TFAfooter}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe adjust the label that already goes to Wikipedia:Featured_articles and include any other needed notes in the short write up there (The reading content is only 2 paragraphs now)? — xaosflux Talk 18:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Only 2 paragraphs" is about three times as much as I think people will read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe a {{nutshell}} on top? — xaosflux Talk 18:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think a proper nutshell for that page would say "Here is a list of all the FAs", and the part that I think needs to be emphasized for someone trying to find out "about" FAs is "There is nobody in charge of deciding which subjects are important enough to be turned into FAs". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Was just trying to give some summary prominence with that idea, a nutshell to say this list is a list would just be clutter. — xaosflux Talk 21:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure I like "nobody in charge" - the community is in charge, and you (the person reading this) can help! — xaosflux Talk 21:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. These proposals will need to be refined to something usable. "Nobody in charge" isn't in that basket ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The community doesn't decide which subjects are important enough to be turned into FAs. The community decides whether a nominated article meets FACR, but that's very different. There is nobody in this community who gets to say things like "Christmas is an important holiday, and we think it'd be nice to have Santa Claus appear in TFA in December. How about we assign Xaosflux and SandyGeorgia to bring that article up to snuff before then?" Almost every TFA happens because one or two individuals, of their own volition and without regard for whether "the community" thinks the subject is "important enough", decided that they'd like to nominate an article they've written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose as any editor is in charge of deciding if they want to write an article, if they want to write it to the community's FA criteria, and if they want to do it individually or collaboratively - any editor is "in charge". It is their taking responsibility for any topic they want to create or improve that births FA's. It certainly isn't "nobody", FA's don't spontaneously generate. Collectively there are many WikiProjects that strive to generate FA's as part of their goals as well. — xaosflux Talk 13:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Anybody (with the relevant skills) can do it. Nobody is in charge of doing it.
- Here's what Wiktionary says:
- In charge
- Having the responsibility of leading or overseeing.
- Having the power of command or control.
- (dated) Being in the care or custody of someone else.
- Does anyone have "the responsibility of leading or overseeing" the creation of FAs? Nope. It's not a "responsibility", and there's no "leading or overseeing". Does anyone have the power of command or control? Nope, there's no ability to order anyone to do it. Is the creation of FAs really in the care or custody of someone? Obviously not, since it's purely voluntary and you said anyone can do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- WAID, quite true, but saying all that to readers with limited attention span isn't going to be as helpful as saying, alternately, something more positive. And no one yet has looked at how this should optimally happen. If we are just changing the name of the link to an "About FAs" link, while still linking to WP:FA, or creating a new "About FAs" page ... in either case, addressing the new wording and the "where to put it" is best done via a specific proposal with collaboration with the overall FA process (FAC, FAR, TFA). "Nobody in charge" as contrasted to "you can help" ... very different tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Nobody in charge" is probably too informal, but the key point for me is to tell readers that there really is no central organizing principle for writing FAs. TFA really is stuck with whatever comes down the turnpike. There's nobody telling the FA writers to choose topics that will appeal to a wider/different audience. The flip side of that is that there's nobody telling you not to become an FA writer on whatever subject appeals to you personally, including (e.g.,) subjects that you expect to be offensive, to appeal to almost nobody, to be spectacularly unimportant to the world at large, etc. Readers should leave that page with whatever encouragement you like, but also with a clear understanding that there simply is no person or committee that they can go to and say "Please change your de facto policy of running so much white/Western stuff and run some stuff about my culture, too". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If anyone wants the responsibility of leading or overseeing creating a featured article - capre diem! Assemble a team of volunteers if you want and go for it. Unless someone seizes that opportunity, they won't happen. My main point is that these only get created by a lot of hard work by volunteers and I don't want to have any suggestion of triviality for their work. As far someone thinking there is nowhere to go, my message is that there is: it is you the reader, you are the person that can fix the thing you are concerned about. — xaosflux Talk 15:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The ratio of experienced Wikipedians to population in a developed country is usually around 1 in 100,000. (It is worse elsewhere; there are a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa, of which a mere 3,000 edit the English Wikipedia each month, and about as many again at all of the non-English Wikipedias combined – and that's counting all of the first-edit newbies, rather than only experienced editors.)
- Only about 0.01% of registered editors have ever successfully taken an article through FA. Even if you count only experienced editors, only a small minority (maybe as high as 10%, depending on what you count as "experienced") can claim an FA article.
- This means that, realistically, there is at least a 99.999% chance, and probably closer to a 99.9999% chance, that any given reader actually can't fix it even to the miniscule level of producing one FA ever – an effort that would have only a tiny (0.3%) effect on the distribution of TFA's subjects that year.
- The facts are:
- There's no identifiable individual or group with the power to change the subjects individuals to develop into FAs.
- You almost certainly can't do anything about it, either (though you are welcome to try).
- I think we should own these facts. They might be ugly facts, but they are real ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- What can one random person do? Well they can join up with others, such as via a WikiProject. They can add one helpful statement and reference, add one helpful illustration, fix one line of grammar, etc. They can start a draft or start a stub. FA's don't come about in one edit. If you don't like that Cabbage is a FA while Bok choy isn't, we should encourage someone to make the later incrementally better to put it on the path to becoming excellent. (this is how Cabbage started.) They are not in it alone, but can be part of the solution. — xaosflux Talk 17:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If anyone wants the responsibility of leading or overseeing creating a featured article - capre diem! Assemble a team of volunteers if you want and go for it. Unless someone seizes that opportunity, they won't happen. My main point is that these only get created by a lot of hard work by volunteers and I don't want to have any suggestion of triviality for their work. As far someone thinking there is nowhere to go, my message is that there is: it is you the reader, you are the person that can fix the thing you are concerned about. — xaosflux Talk 15:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Nobody in charge" is probably too informal, but the key point for me is to tell readers that there really is no central organizing principle for writing FAs. TFA really is stuck with whatever comes down the turnpike. There's nobody telling the FA writers to choose topics that will appeal to a wider/different audience. The flip side of that is that there's nobody telling you not to become an FA writer on whatever subject appeals to you personally, including (e.g.,) subjects that you expect to be offensive, to appeal to almost nobody, to be spectacularly unimportant to the world at large, etc. Readers should leave that page with whatever encouragement you like, but also with a clear understanding that there simply is no person or committee that they can go to and say "Please change your de facto policy of running so much white/Western stuff and run some stuff about my culture, too". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest that once we've allowed time to get general views here, the specifics should be proposed and discussed in a separate thread, cross-linked to FAC, FAR and TFA. So far, no one disagrees that something can change, but we're light on the specifics of where, what link, and what wording. The wording at WP:FA has been fine-tuned over the years, and it's hard to imagine how "no one is in charge" would fit in there. (And by the way, there has been a huge, Huge effort at FAR to preserve vital and core FAs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose as any editor is in charge of deciding if they want to write an article, if they want to write it to the community's FA criteria, and if they want to do it individually or collaboratively - any editor is "in charge". It is their taking responsibility for any topic they want to create or improve that births FA's. It certainly isn't "nobody", FA's don't spontaneously generate. Collectively there are many WikiProjects that strive to generate FA's as part of their goals as well. — xaosflux Talk 13:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The community doesn't decide which subjects are important enough to be turned into FAs. The community decides whether a nominated article meets FACR, but that's very different. There is nobody in this community who gets to say things like "Christmas is an important holiday, and we think it'd be nice to have Santa Claus appear in TFA in December. How about we assign Xaosflux and SandyGeorgia to bring that article up to snuff before then?" Almost every TFA happens because one or two individuals, of their own volition and without regard for whether "the community" thinks the subject is "important enough", decided that they'd like to nominate an article they've written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. These proposals will need to be refined to something usable. "Nobody in charge" isn't in that basket ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think a proper nutshell for that page would say "Here is a list of all the FAs", and the part that I think needs to be emphasized for someone trying to find out "about" FAs is "There is nobody in charge of deciding which subjects are important enough to be turned into FAs". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe a {{nutshell}} on top? — xaosflux Talk 18:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this approach ("adjust the label that already goes to Wikipedia:Featured_articles and include any other needed notes in the short write up there"). There's already a link to FAs; just add something there. Notifying @WP:FAC coordinators: , @WP:FAR coordinators: , @WP:TFA coordinators of this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In broad terms I like WhatamIdoing's suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would not be opposed to either. Hog Farm Talk 18:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Only 2 paragraphs" is about three times as much as I think people will read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fine with me too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Things got a bit confusing here with the suggestion of "no one in charge" and recent edits to WP:FA that (seemed???) to introduce a proposed "about" section. WAID's original proposal is to create a separate About page. I'd agree on that (even though I doubt most complainers would actually read it), but some of the proposed wording (above) needs adjustment:
Featured Articles are some of the best articles at the English Wikipedia. They are written by volunteers about subjects of their own choosing, and judged by other volunteers against the featured article criteria. Each day, volunteers select one of the newly approved articles as today's featured article. If you would like to see a new subject featured on the Main Page, you can learn about contributing to Wikipedia.
Not "just" random volunteers, but community-endorsed Coords, and not just "newly approved" ... they can include those that recently passed FAR, and the TFA date can be well removed from when the article was passed FAC or FAR. So:
Featured articles (FAs) are some of the best articles at the English Wikipedia. They are written by volunteers about subjects of their own choosing, and evaluated by other volunteers against the featured article criteria. Each day, Today's featured article coordinators select one of the FAs to be featured on Wikipedia's main page. If you would like to see a new subject featured on the Main Page, you can learn about contributing to Wikipedia.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I separately suggest the page name for this text would not be About Featured articles, rather About Today's featured article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly prefer both of your suggestions to my original idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Once we get more feedback, I can put up a formal proposal ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- PS, I'm concerned that someone (?? who are those in the know ??) let us know that we have the space to add another link at {{TFAfooter}}. I don't know who we should be pinging on that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia There is room to add some more in there, maybe 20-ish characters unless we can remove some from somewhere else maybe (So "About Today's featured articles" is a bit long) for some screens. What would you want the line to say in its entirety, optimally? — xaosflux Talk 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, that help! That's what I was afraid of Ok, so what if we took this line in the TFAfooter:
- Archive By email More featured articles
- and re-jigged it somehow along these lines to use abbreviations?
- TFA archive By email More FAs About TFAs
- which would require making the lead line (before the TFA) define the acronym ... From today's featured article (TFA) Otherwise, unsure how we can do this ... it is the eternal character limit issue. That would address the character limit problem, but would introduce a lot of acronyms, which can be offputting ... WAID, do we know how many readers request TFA via email? Is it worth considering dropping that to save characters instead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Or, we could just use "About" for the new link, and let them sort it out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, that help! That's what I was afraid of Ok, so what if we took this line in the TFAfooter:
- @SandyGeorgia There is room to add some more in there, maybe 20-ish characters unless we can remove some from somewhere else maybe (So "About Today's featured articles" is a bit long) for some screens. What would you want the line to say in its entirety, optimally? — xaosflux Talk 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly prefer both of your suggestions to my original idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: here is what we have now:
- It could hold more like this:
- I'm only thinking about small mobile screens when considering brevity here. — xaosflux Talk 18:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only thing that would fit there, then, is TFA, and for that we'd have to define the acronym in the header before the blurb. Unless someone has another idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia is the goal of such another link to tell about the "TFA" process, or to explain about what a "FA" is? — xaosflux Talk 18:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's to explain what is in my second blurb at 14:47, 15 July 2022. That kind of does a bit of both: it explains to those complaining that sorta/kinda "no one is in charge" (you can help!) along with links to those places where you can help, while also explaining that TFAs can only be chosen from the pool of FAs we've got. It's telling a bit about each process: what an FA is, how that status is conferred, and how one is chosen to be featured on the main page ... while reminding the complaining reader that we're all volunteers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd think an About may do (at least it's a start!) - a page for it to go to will be needed, since the section is already titled "...today's featured article" it should be natural that this is about this section - so if it start with a short blurb explaining what today's FA is on the landing page it should be natural. Maybe Wikipedia:About Featured Articles or something similar? "Everyday volunteers pick ....." (Just brainstorming the landing page - go wild with it!) — xaosflux Talk 18:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you dislike the wording above that WAID and I concur on? I don't want to re-invent the wheel, and risk having pages get out of sync, along with becoming too long. It would be ideal to keep this short, just as in the proposal above. And I'd rather it be Wikipedia:About Today's featured article, as explained in my post above. That said, if we can do that, I agree that just calling the link "About" ought to work, and avoid character limitation problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia I'm not too picky on the verbiage there, just want it to include at least a little encouragement for people to know that there is something that they can do (and that the best way to see a change is to be be the change!). Feel free to start whatever you want that page to be, the first edit doesn't have to be FA quality — xaosflux Talk 19:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don't really want to start it without having a formal proposal, and getting full feedback from FAC, FAR and TFA :) Just the way I roll, particularly because it deals with the highly visible content ... I'll put up a formal proposal after a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia I'm not too picky on the verbiage there, just want it to include at least a little encouragement for people to know that there is something that they can do (and that the best way to see a change is to be be the change!). Feel free to start whatever you want that page to be, the first edit doesn't have to be FA quality — xaosflux Talk 19:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you dislike the wording above that WAID and I concur on? I don't want to re-invent the wheel, and risk having pages get out of sync, along with becoming too long. It would be ideal to keep this short, just as in the proposal above. And I'd rather it be Wikipedia:About Today's featured article, as explained in my post above. That said, if we can do that, I agree that just calling the link "About" ought to work, and avoid character limitation problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd think an About may do (at least it's a start!) - a page for it to go to will be needed, since the section is already titled "...today's featured article" it should be natural that this is about this section - so if it start with a short blurb explaining what today's FA is on the landing page it should be natural. Maybe Wikipedia:About Featured Articles or something similar? "Everyday volunteers pick ....." (Just brainstorming the landing page - go wild with it!) — xaosflux Talk 18:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's to explain what is in my second blurb at 14:47, 15 July 2022. That kind of does a bit of both: it explains to those complaining that sorta/kinda "no one is in charge" (you can help!) along with links to those places where you can help, while also explaining that TFAs can only be chosen from the pool of FAs we've got. It's telling a bit about each process: what an FA is, how that status is conferred, and how one is chosen to be featured on the main page ... while reminding the complaining reader that we're all volunteers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia is the goal of such another link to tell about the "TFA" process, or to explain about what a "FA" is? — xaosflux Talk 18:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only thing that would fit there, then, is TFA, and for that we'd have to define the acronym in the header before the blurb. Unless someone has another idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- One thing to keep in mind, is that Wikipedia is a volunteer-based organization. You cannot make, coerce, encourage, or alter the behavior of volunteers in any meaningful way; you don't pay them, they have no obligation to do anything except what they feel like doing for the encyclopedia, so if a topic is in any way under-represented, there is exactly one thing, and one thing only, anybody has the ability to do to fix that: they can write the articles themselves. You can feel free to ask for help, but you should never expect that anyone would ever help, they don't have to, and we need to not have that expectation. If FAs are skewed because certain topics are under-represented, there is absolutely no way that you can get anyone except yourself to fix it. You can't take random Wikipedia editors and make them work on the topics that are needed to provide a better balance of FAs. The only thing anyone can do is do it themselves. If there are multiple like-minded people, feel free to collaborate, but just "taking care of it oneself" is literally the only means to fix it. --Jayron32 18:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. But WAID's proposal is intended to alert our readers in a way that will encourage them to get involved and discourage complaints. See the separate discussion linked above at the Village Pump, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Racial bias in Wikipedia featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it's probably a good idea, but I also expect next to no effect on the amount of complaints; people who complain frequently start complaining first, and find something to complain about along the way. If they were interested in fixing the problem, they would be already fixing the problem, and not complaining. Add your link if it makes you feel better, but it won't actually divert any complaints. --Jayron32 18:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mostly agree ... but we can hope, and try to do it in a way that doesn't cause any harm at least, and is informative to meet WAID's concerns. I want to keep the blurb we plan to add very short, sweet and simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Jayron, I prefer to believe that the complainants are thinking we have merely accidentally overlooked this problem, and that they therefore optimistically hope that pointing out the concern could realistically lead to a rapid resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mostly agree ... but we can hope, and try to do it in a way that doesn't cause any harm at least, and is informative to meet WAID's concerns. I want to keep the blurb we plan to add very short, sweet and simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it's probably a good idea, but I also expect next to no effect on the amount of complaints; people who complain frequently start complaining first, and find something to complain about along the way. If they were interested in fixing the problem, they would be already fixing the problem, and not complaining. Add your link if it makes you feel better, but it won't actually divert any complaints. --Jayron32 18:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. But WAID's proposal is intended to alert our readers in a way that will encourage them to get involved and discourage complaints. See the separate discussion linked above at the Village Pump, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Racial bias in Wikipedia featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)