Talk:Main Page/Archive 194

Maybe add a page for the F9 launch on the 12th of June :) JayJay Aviation (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The article RADARSAT Constellation already exists. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the Main Page. Modest Genius ^talk 12:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps JayJay Aviation actually meant an entry in In the news. --184.248.65.126 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Day in and day out, this page experiences plenty of random edits about completely unrelated topics, by users with about one contribution apiece. As it's fairly unlikely that an unconfirmed user would be suggesting a legitimate improvement to the Main Page, is it time that we begin indefinitely protecting this talkpage? Note that this would not affect ERRORS, as it's a separate page that's transcluded onto here. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Protecting this page would just drive such editors to another talk page, it wouldn't stop them. It's just the way it is. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This page has certainly been temporarily protected before. Do you know where they've gone when that has happened? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the theory has been that this is the very first talk page many potential new users ever see, and if they can't edit it at all, they'll wander off without trying another more appropriate page. And that there are enough people watching so that the silly stuff stays up for about 1 minute.

I'm not 100% sure I buy into that, since such a large percentage of new people who post here are posting something like "Fendlethorpe is AWESOME", and I'm not sure Fendlethorpe is the kind of new editor we're trying to attract. But that's been the theory. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if people would read the screen? Eman235/talk 14:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but they won't, especially the vandals. You'd think we'd either protect it or unprotect it once and for all, rather than the weekly drama of temporary protection because next week will be different. Art LaPella (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Better for this page to be vandalized than any other. I don't think any protection longer than a few hours is appropriate on this page since this is the front page. We have to keep the door open to accept criticism from the masses. I suspect that most of the recent vandalism traces to a small block of IP addresses. Perhaps a checkuser of some recent vandal user names will yield some info. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The majority of vandalism on this page appears to originate from India. A checkuser on these "contributions" might show if they are actually the same person(s). Otherwise, a much longer protection of this page will be necessary. David J Johnson (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are right, a indefinite block might work but majority of Indians use a shared IP connection (either it's from mobile data or broadband) and therefore their IP changes from time to time. Also I think we can reduce by a range block but that will affect other editors as well. I think the best way to keep this page safe is to indefinitely semi-protect it.Masum Reza^📞 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It is very sad to see Wikipedians losing confidence in the open-access model of the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". This talk page gets between 1,000 and 2,000 page views every day, but it is only edited a handful of time a day, and reverting occasional random vandalism is easy enough at the click of a button. Just go ahead and lock down the entire thing if you are so concerned about keeping it "safe". 213.205.240.239 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:PAGEPROTECT. This page isn't even in article space, so protecting it would hardly do much in preventing people contributing to the encyclopedia as a whole. Besides, I don't think the vandalism prevalent on this page can really be described as "occasional". Semi-protection is also a fairly low bar (four days and ten edits) that wouldn't affect the vast majority of users seeking to post legitimate topics here. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You do realize you're replying to an IP who posted here legitimately? :D --valereee (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well... yeah, but I suppose it's for situations like these that Wikipedia advises editors to create an account. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would support protecting this page but just to tell you India is the second biggest country in the world so banning people from India editing may not be a good idea as Wikipedia I think had once banned the entire country of Qatar from editing in 2007 I believe and it ended up being a disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting we ban the entire country of India from editing all of Wikipedia. Eman235/talk 13:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• The vandalism here is reverted so fast that I've literally never gotten here in time to revert. Once I thought I got here in time, but by the time I clicked restore version the edit was already gone. --valereee (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• I have to say I support this as there is spam and vandalism from people or at least add a strong filter to block vandalism and spam on this page 71.173.78.82 (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  You realize that would mean you could not make this comment post semi-protection. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What if we added this to the very top of this page:

Press this button to create a new Wikipedia article:

It should handle most of the randomness. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, hahaha I like it! --valereee (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It already says "To submit an article or redirect, please use the article wizard." People seldom read all that stuff, but each line we add makes it less likely that the rest will be read. If one line is judged more important than the others, we should at least remove duplicate instructions. Art LaPella (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not obvious enough. Here is the evidence that is not working. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that's less of an article request than an obvious attempt at self-promotion modelled loosely on a Wikipedia article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, upon closer inspection, it seems to be a partial copy of an existing Wikipedia article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is a great candidate for WP:TNT. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, my point was that none of the instructions are working. It may be worthwhile to emphasize one of them more strongly; just recognize that it pushes everything else further down into TLDR territory. Art LaPella (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, they probably work, just not 100% of the time. It's not like the Teahouse takes a poll at the door asking where one found that page. Eman235/talk 21:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia. A few of the edits are vandalism, a few more are tests, and even more are legitimate. There are enough editors keeping an eye out that edits from the three categories are easily discerned, and corrected when needed. A brand new, potentially valuable contributor may try their first edit here. Why would we discourage that? WP:Protection policy Orville1974^talk 22:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In all fairness, considering that edits from the first two categories are almost immediately reverted (being unrelated to the Main Page), I'm not sure it's all that encouraging for a new user to make one test edit here and then receive a notification about its reversal just seconds later. My hope is that page protection would at least make some users who would otherwise make some irrelevant edit here read the box at the top and be directed to a more suitable place. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi all

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Further discussion, regarding the content, scheduling and other aspects of the POTD section of the main page. Please could anyone with an interest in main page content go to that discussion and offer their thoughts and perspectives? Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all

I just wanted to query the POTD currently scheduled at Template:POTD/2019-10-28. As far as I'm aware, the convention has been that even though WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles, we don't include very graphic images of genitalia on the main page. Thus images such as this, this, and even this are listed at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused as images which, despite being featured pictures, are not suitable for POTD. I personally think that's a sensible policy, and I've added the hermaphrodite picture to the unused list, but would welcome second/third opinions here please. Pinging Adam Cuerden, who created the template in question. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: Please change the section heading to the more neutral "Image depicting an intersex person on the main page?".--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• It sure does have an educational function, though... Drmies (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, its disgusting and not to mention kids use Wikipedia and if that's the first thing they see on the Main page then well! Stuff like that should not be on the Main page in my view. ImpWarfare (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not disgusting at all unless you find the natural variations of the human body to be disgusting. Torture, murder, starvation and warfare are disgusting, not human bodies. So I disagree with you on that count, ImpWarfare, and agree instead with Drmies that the image is educational, useful, and should be displayed in the appropriate articles. Where I do agree with you is that it is not a good idea to display explicit photos of human genitalia on the main page, so I oppose that particular usage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Disgusting is the wrong word. Far too subjective. Disturbing, for sure, to many people (but not all). And I agree, the Main Page is probably not the best place to display it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This is my thought too and the reason I raised this. I don't find this disgusting at all, it's just body parts, and certainly educational... I wish we could live in a world where such things are generally accepted for educational purposes. But we don't, yet, and it's not Wikipedia's place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Like it or not, if parents/teachers/people with sensitive dispositions find genital pics on our front page, it damages our standing as a reputable resource in their eyes and they may stop visiting Wikipedia. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

ImpWarfare, stuff that starts with "disgusting" and continues with "but the children!" rarely flies here. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly I think that most readers would find this a fascinating image, both on account of the medical aspects and from the historical perspective. It is just a pity that the blurb does not provide more information about the circumstances in which this photograph was taken. Some readers will certainly be offended, but I suspect in reality rather a small proportion (maybe that is my British/European bias). Children will not be horrified but intrigued. I don't think that anyone will stop viewing the main page on subsequent days because such an image occurs once in a blue moon. It is a trade-off between disturbing a few and interesting and educating many. I would vote for presenting it, but there would need to be a consensus otherwise someone will pull it on the day. Jmchutchinson (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• I sincerely believe this photo should be shown on the Main Page. It is not disturbing, and certainly not disgusting. Many people come to Wikipedia for exactly this. I think we are underestimating our audience. The page views show that our articles on human organs are hugely popular; I would venture to guess in a significant part due to innocent adolescent curiosity. The other images Amakuru linked have a different reason for not being posted on the Main Page. They are salacious according to WP:POTD/G. There is nothing salacious about this photo. It represents one of the best things about Wikipedia: the availability of free knowledge without bias or censorship – just there in front of you with neither fear nor shame. The only thing we have to fear is fear of knowledge. Will people snicker? Will they spew some hate at us? Yes, sure. But so what? We get tons of hate mail and vandalism every hour, every minute. This is nothing new. Just like the existence of intersex people is nothing new. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  That section calls out examples of "if a picture probably wouldn't make the front page of a major newspaper like The New York Times, then it shouldn't be on the front page of Wikipedia either." - would you expect this image to appear in another such publication's front page? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  AND · THE TIMES · THEY · ARE · A-CHANGIN. Also, this photograph of a naked four-year-old girl appeared on the front cover of Aperture, which according to our article on the magazine is an award-winning international magazine, about photography. This section of the Main Page has a similar interest to Aperture and is not even visible on mobile phones. It is also below the fold for most laptops. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• If this is going to be the "vote" place for this, I'd say no. No issue with the topic being on the MP (e.g. if it was in DYK, TFA, etc), but placing a picture of genitals on the MP is certainly going to be off-putting for many of our readers. I'd like to quote from Jimbo: In all parts of the world, there are images that people under the principle of least astonishment don't expect to pop up on their screen at an encyclopedia without clicking something first...^{(regarding NSFW content,2013)}. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• I chose carefully: That day is Intersex Awareness Day; Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, it's an important image in its own right, and displaying it serves an educational function about a subject. Unlike some of the other images in that group, there's no-one else in the frame (the photos of the genitalia being prodded I could understand being skipped), it's simple genitalia, with no sexual content, and we have had genitalia on the main page before (Template:POTD/2009-10-20 for instance) - I can't see how a simple medical photograph is so disturbing that we need to protect people from learning about the subject. Also, while I expected some discussion, I wasn't expecting to have to have the discussion now, and, inevitably, again in three months' time, when it's due to run. The main page doesn't show FPs on mobile, so it's not like people are going to be getting surprises on their phones, only on proper desktops. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 05:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Just some of the many examples of paintings with nudity we have featured can be found here and here. We even had one called The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus. And this one which in my POV objectifies women. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  No comment yet on this either way, but in nearly all cases of art as POTD that includes nudity, the nudity/genitalia are de minimus to the overall composition. Here, the image is clear focus on those parts as well as being in realistic detail. It's not an equal comparison. --Masem (t) 13:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Masem, that is certainly not the case here and here where nudity is the main point. Why does art get a pass? Why are genitalia censored but not other body parts. This line of argumentation is fraught with POV. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  It's not that its nudity, it it detailed focus on the genitalia. Add that there's a general recognizition that classical art of that period will likely included nudity, and I think there's a common perception that that is generally not offensive to anyone. And in these cases, this is artistic drawings, not highly detailed photographs. I fully recognize that this photo was done for medical purposes, and certainly no intent to be provocative, but I'm sure there will be people that take it that way, due to the positioning and focus. Basically it is not really a fair comparison to put this photo against artwork that has been featured on the main page. I still offer no opinion whether it should be included or the like. --Masem (t) 16:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Adam Cuerden: regarding Intersex Awareness Day, if the article can resolve the cleanup concerns, you may want to look in to having it put on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 26 if the discussion below is not in support of the image placement. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If I might be allowed a moment to vent about how poorly this whole thing is being handled: NO-ONE EVEN BOTHERED TO SEND ME A TALK PAGE MESSAGE? The discussion didn't successfully ping me, you know. Nothing in my alerts about it. It looks like you tried. It didn't work, though, unless I'm missing something.

But, seriously, Amakuru? You started this discussion in an untimely manner, basically guaranteeing a revisit nearer the time if the discussion is successful for the image, you didn't talk to me first, and failed to notify me or anyone else to allow the for-sidecan be put forwards before the voting starts? I'm sure this was accidental, but still, you should know better than this. Was October 28th feeling so near that you couldn't wait and ask for the reasons I thought it was appropriate before you started a survey that practically begs for people to deny its main page place through its subject line, framing, and lack of contextualization? Calling a simple, non-sexualised nude, by a notable artist "graphic" seems excessive. And it's not like we haven't put up plenty of graphic images before. Do you know how many close-ups of dead bodies have been on the main page? Because I found three on a quick check, and remember at least two others, including that somewhat infamous video of people being killed in a targeted shooting - I think from a helicopter or drone - in Iraq, I think? You presented the subject completely devoid of its historical importance, educational value, notability of itself and the photographer, and instead encouraged a framing that ignored all positive aspects, and that's going to really skew the discussion.

This isn't the kind of thing I'm going to hold a grudge over, and certainly doesn't call for any backlash against Amakuru. But I do need to point out how badly this was fucked up, so it (hopefully) doesn't happen again.

Also, the things removed from the main page for salaciousness? None of them are after 2006, by my count. Are we going to bring back literal decade-old censoriousness that has't been used since then? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 05:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This image should be on Wikipedia, it is an important and informative image with a significant story to tell. The topic should be on the MP. But a photo of genitalia is not what people expect to see when coming to the front page of Wikipedia, and that will harm Wikipedia's reputation and use. Prior examples of nudity listed above are artistic representations, not photos of actual people: one may feel that distinction doesn't matter, but it is one that society makes. Bondegezou (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - thanks to everyone for the comments so far. Given the wide variety of views already expressed on this topic, (I had hoped for a straight yes or no to whether it's OK), it's going to be hard for anyone to make a definitive decision on what to do. I'm therefore converting this to a full RFC and the final decision on whether to post or not-post the image on the main page can be decided by an uninvolved admin based on the opinions expressed. Hopefully, whichever way this goes, a decision made by RFC will also remove any need for possible subsequent discussions that might take place nearer the time or on the day. And @Coffeeandcrumbs I'm not removing "graphic" from the title, since that's the purpose of the discussion; we aren't just discussing this because the person is intersex. I had added "educational image of intersex person" to the title though, to provide a bit more context and because nobody disputes that.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  I have added notices at WT:NPOV, WT:MED, WT:SEX, and WT:WikiProject Gender Studies. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Pinging @Coffeeandcrumbs: @Masem: @Bondegezou: @Adam Cuerden: @Xaosflux: @Drmies: @Jmchutchinson: @HiLo48: @Cullen328: @Isanae: @ImpWarfare: @Amakuru-Mobile: who have already participated in this discussion, to notify that I have started a formal RFC. Hopefully the ping works this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I share the concerns expressed (primarily in the survey below) that featuring a photo focusing on a person's genitals is a questionable way to bring focus to intersex people, whether on Intersex Awareness Day or any other. Intersex people are already quite misunderstood as it is; the majority are not "true hermaphrodites" as depicted (and of course the word "hermaphrodite" itself should no longer be used for such people), and don't necessarily have visibly obvious variations in genitalia as shown in the photo. I hope some (more) actually intersex people weigh in on this discussion, as I fear featuring this photo on the main page could cause serious distress to members of that community, which is of course the opposite of the intended purpose. Funcrunch (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Question I wonder if, for that day, if the image can be right justified (And if necessary, left-justify any DYK). There's just something when the image is left-justified that your eyes go right to it, while if it were on the right, it seems less -- apparent? I don't know how POTD works to know if that's an option or not. Alternative, a slight reduction in size (50%?) also may help without ruling out the use of the image. --Masem (t) 21:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I wrote an essay a while back, User:Ritchie333/NOTCENSORED isn't just about boobies. Every time somebody uses NOTCENSORED to justify putting shocking images in the encyclopedia, it runs the risk of devaluating the less talked about times where that policy makes a real positive difference. (random example) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: It's a powerful image. Thanks for your work, Adam, in restoring it. I would unequivocally support its addition to the Intersex article. I'm still considering whether it's a good fit for the main page. If there is interest in looking for a non-nude photo that could be used for Intersex Awareness Day, I submit a picture of an intersex pride boat for consideration. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Whoops, didn't know when I suggested this that the picture of the day has to rated as a Featured Picture. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Compromise suggestions: I voted support below, but acknowledge that the consensus is against this. However, many of the opposers recognised the historical interest of the pictures as well as their educational and interest value; they were concerned that readers might not want to see a close-up of genitalia. I can think of 2 compromises that might satisfy most in both camps, based on the other images in the series displayed at Hermaphrodite (Nadar). One is to run another image from the same series that is not a close-up of genitalia: e.g. this or even this. Another possibility might be to make up a 3 x 3 montage of all images, so that each is reduced to a thumbnail; each component image would be small enough not to offend but large enough for readers to recognise what they would see if they clicked to enlarge. Jmchutchinson (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Jmchutchinson: The problem with this is that those files aren't featured pictures on the English Wikipedia; we can't simply select any image for POTD. If we were to run those, the photos would have to be restored and undergo the featured picture process first. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  True, but, if someone has the skills and the will, would there not be time to do this before the end of October? Or for another date. Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So, procedural question. Do any words written here (main page talk) have any actual effect on the actual procedure which results in the actual publishing of the picture of the day?

My understanding is that there's a written-down procedure which results in the actual publishing of the picture of the day, and I assume that no part of that procedure includes instructions to the effect of "Also, check what main page talk says" or "first check the results of any external surveys".

I note this beause a similar situation came up a few years ago regarding another controversial pending main page entry, in the "did you know?" section. Those folks were pretty pointed about "we have our own discussions, which are based purely on whether the proposed entry meets the technical requirements, and we aren't required to pay the slightest attention to any opinions made outside or after our own discussions and decisions have concluded, particularly any opinions which do not speak solely to our listed technical requirements. And we won't." And they didn't.

I'm just wondering if this is play here, or what. I mean, the survey below is running 56-10 against including the image, is this going to be translated into any actual effect, or is it just a moot court? The person/people who are resposnible for the actual actions to pubish the picture-of-the-day images could reassure here. Herostratus (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I can reassure on both counts really. (1) featured images for which there is no consensus to allow at POTD are listed at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, and precedent says that community discussions can dictate what is listed there. (See the reason why the top entry is not appearing - it was [based on this discussion). And (2), I'm currently the POTD coordinator anyway, so it's not like I'm going to go against the community on this one when I also don't support it being on the MP. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, then! Thanks for responding. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, I would like to point out this discussion does not mean that this photograph goes into the Unused page. You asked in the RfC: "Should the Picture of the Day entry currently at Template:POTD/2019-10-28 be used on the main page on that day?" (Emphasis mine.) This RfC does not preclude moving this POTD to a different day. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, come off it, Coffeeandcrumbs, you can't WikiLawyer it that way. Although some Oppose !votes here are related specifically to the Intersex Awareness Day, there is nonetheless a clear consensus that the image is not suitable for the MP at all. We don't need to repeat this exercise all over again just to ascertain that it can't be posted on another day. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Dismissing NOTCENSORED is not something I am willing to pass without significant objection from myself. This RfC was framed around Intersex Awareness Day. I believe people would be less willing to ignore the obvious censorship if it was about a different day. My point of view may seem ridiculous to you but I am very determined in its merits. Barring nudity from the Main Page is exactly the opposite of what five pillars stand for. Every time we do this, we choose to stand on side of the POV that says genitals are something to be ashamed of and hidden. This is a photograph of genitalia. Period. It is a very notable photograph of genitalia and is therefore featured. There is nothing more to say. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: This is not a "photograph of genitalia". This is a photo of a human being. And I as I hope my prior comments in this discussion made clear, I would be opposed to featuring it on the main page on any day. This is not about censorship, it's about dignity and respect for intersex people. Funcrunch (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Funcrunch, I stand corrected. This is a photograph of human genitalia. Perhaps you do not understand that I would support this photograph of a penis being featured just as adamantly because it has educational value. The photograph of an intersex person from 1860 is not disrespectful, especially in 2019. The person is long dead. I will admit that doing this on Intersex Awareness Day is ill-advised. But barring all nudity of intersex people or any people altogether is most certainly censorship. It is no different that saying "there are no gay people in Russia" or... "it is fine as long as you do it in the privacy of your own home" or... "why do gay people need marriage? aren't civil unions enough?" or... "colored people have their own swimming pools". It is a tired old line. It is the intentional withholding of information and the segregation of a people, from either way you look at it. We are treating our readers like 2-year-olds that cannot understand nuance and must be protected from knowledge.

This is a slippery slope. Tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of the Chicago race riot but I can't put this photograph on the Main Page. We continue to adhere to the same old ideas of "decency" and forget our primary purpose: the sum of all human knowledge. We are not here to collect and feature non-offensive knowledge but to collect and feature all human knowledge, and the most notable of which we feature, briefly, on our Main Page. Yesterday, we featured the baptism of Jesus Christ. I honestly find the veneration and deification of any human or even any god as offensive, and the cause of most human problems but I did not complain. Why are the things that offend me any less important? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: The photo of a penis that you linked to above is indeed a "photograph of human genitalia". There is no identifiable person visible in the photo, only the penis itself. As such I would have no objection to it being featured on the main page of Wikipedia. The photo in question is not comparable, and while you might not find it disrespectful to intersex people, others, including actually intersex people, have said that it is. Speaking as a queer black person, I do not find your comparisons to heterosexism and racism at all compelling. And speaking as an atheist, I don't think your opinion or my opinion on deities has anything to do with this topic. Funcrunch (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Funcrunch, I have no objection to cropping the image to show only the genital area. But we all know that the majority of the people here are not actually opposed to the face. BTW, I am also a queer black person and the correlations are abundantly clear, to me at least. But my POV is besides the point; that is exactly my point. What is important is NPOV. We should avoid clouding our actions and reasoning with our preconceptions and assumptions. We let the reader decide what to make of it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

How about another of Nadar's photos? The subject is in a much more active position in this one File:Hermaphrodite_by_Nadar_4.jpg. It sounds like these images did a lot to advocate for the history of sexual health, or at least according to the journal of medicine, i'm glad it will be highlighted on the main space. I'm also opposed to cropping artwork as it changes the integrity of the composition.Fred (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason the hsitory on HomePage pre-2002 hasn't been merged with the history of the main page, which starts at 2002? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.89.181 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links: without redirectHomePage and the history. Eman235/talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the capability did not exist at the time? There are now so many edits (>5000, so already in bigdelete territory) that is probably isn't worth doing. Prodego ^talk 23:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There's some relevant information at Wikipedia:Main_Page_history#Edit_history. Modest Genius ^talk 10:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Who created the Horncastle boar's Head Ademols (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The article says "The Horncastle boar's head is an early seventh-century Anglo-Saxon ornament ..." The early seventh-century Anglo-Saxon's name is presumably unknown. Art LaPella (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) You'd probably be better off asking at Talk:Horncastle boar's head. The article states it is of "Anglo-Saxon origin, and dates from the first half of the seventh century AD" - which is probably as close as the research can or has come to explaining who created it. Spokoyni (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Aug. 6, 1945 – During World War II, the U.S. Boeing B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb code-named "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, Japan, resulting in an estimated 140,000 deaths. (– From AP's Today in History.)

Due to its lethal consequences and epoch-making importance, this event never should be omitted from OTD.
– Sca (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's something you'd need to bring up at WP:Selected anniversaries where OTD items are selected. Enola Gay and "Little Boy" have each been featured at least three times in the past eight years, but there's no such category as "always in OTD as long as it's up to minimum quality standards" (analogous to ITNR), but if you'd like to propose one, I don't see why you shouldn't. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A general discussion here would better gauge user opinion than a project-specific discussion among OTD regulars. – Sca (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but what appears in OTD is governed by the Selected Anniversaries department, not the generic main page. In my opinion, we should vary what we feature as much as possible, to avoid systemic bias, so we should absolutely never seek to "nail on" an OTD to appear every year no matter what. The absolute best way to make your proposal would be via an RFC of course. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TRM. There needs to be flexibility in picking OTD entries, so we don't end up with the same events every year and entrenching a biased view of history. I don't have any strong views on today's picks, though the WWW probably had just as big an influence on history as the Hiroshima bombing. Declaring some items 'never should be omitted' is going too far. Modest Genius ^talk 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't bother with an RFC as I'd think it would have zero chance of success. There are hundreds of events with a better claim to "so important it should always be included"—just taking 6 August alone, we have the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, the creation of the world wide web and the Voting Rights Act in the US. Even genuinely world-changing events like VE-Day, the Fall of Constantinople, the Protestant Reformation or the Russian Revolution don't get guaranteed slots. ‑ Iridescent 18:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What Iridescent said. A list of "things that should always be included" will be either a very long list, or a very narrow, unglobalized list, or it will take forever to produce. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well of course, but the only way to substantially change OTD is by RFC. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I wanted to save it for next year. It was not skipped for no reason. We have a rule that we don't feature both bombs in the same year. I was hoping if I skipped both this year. We can IAR and feature both next year which is the 75th Anniversary. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I give.
I guess reading it in an AP newsletter I subscribe to made me feel guilty on behalf of the U.S.
Or to quote Oppenheimer (quoting the Bhagavad Gita), "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
– Sca (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the plan for the 75th anniversary next year. Good idea. Thank you, Coffeeandcrumbs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors § Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 13, 2019

 – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This TFA blurb was just edited with an edit summary that implies the TFA blurb text was too short. It was 933 characters with an image; we've been keeping them between 925 and 1025 (with an image) for a long time now. I don't think it would be feasible to try to keep all blurbs between, say, 975 and 1025 ... that wouldn't give us enough flexibility to meet constraints. What would work best for everyone here? - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware of scope of the issue and all the significant changes that are relevant:

• ITN has increased the number of recent deaths to 6 people which bleeds into a second line for most screen sizes
• DYK has gotten a lot better at writing shorter blurbs and even considered going to 9 hooks because of consistent Main Page imbalance.
• OTD has been often forced to reduce to 4 blurbs (perhaps limiting OTD to only 4 maybe the solution)

Looking through the Wikipedia:Main Page history, Main Page imbalance is a constant problem, often solved by adding an old DYK hook to restore balance day of. We are currently on a 55%/45% split between the left and right sides. Perhaps a solution is to go to 53%/47% split. Today is not a good example but you can see a demo of 53%/47% split at User:Coffeeandcrumbs/sandbox/Main Page 53/47. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should move this discussion to Talk:Main Page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No objection. Thanks for bringing this up. Quick bottom line: we've been running blurb reviews for newly promoted FAs since the beginning of the year. The resulting blurbs aren't set in stone, of course, but it's better to respect consensus than not to. It is sometimes hard to find 950 characters that meet various constraints of precedence and relevance. I'll abide by any consensus, of course, but if a 53%/47% split will get the job done, I'd much prefer that to changing the 925-1025 range. - Dank (push to talk) 04:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we see how the Main Page 53%/47% demo I created looks in comparison over the next week before making the change. OTD for August 12 is only 4 items, so that should give us another different data point to consider. The Main Page for August 9 had 9 DYK hooks, so that gives us another option to consider. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK just went to 2 sets per day because of a backlog at WP:DYKNA. I think we should instead give going to 9 or 10 DYK hooks per set another consideration. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that it should be up to DYK to strike the balance. I also disagree that , "DYK has gotten a lot better at writing shorter blurbs ..." The length of the DYK hooks are a random coincidence, subject to change on every nomination. The DYK rules state, "The hook should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the ... or any (pictured). While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." The promoters put them in prep for a variety of topics and geographic interest. Sometimes it just works out that we have short sets, and sometimes it works out the other direction. This discussion of making sets with 9 or 10 hooks has made the DYK roundtables repeatedly, and nobody really agrees on anything about this. Mostly, they would like to keep it at 8 hooks. Why should it be on DYK shoulders? There are 3 other sections that affect the Main Page balance. Put this on shoulders other than DYK. It is not our place to bring up the rear and resolve the issue for everybody else. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not a coincidence. My rough guess is that the now average DYK hook is in the 100-130 characters lengths, sometimes below 100 characters in some instances. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There has been no plan in place, nor organized effort, to shorten the hooks. DYK goes through ebbs and flows of anything. Sometimes everything is one direction, and sometimes another direction. But they are not "getting better" at writing shorter hooks, because they're written by the nominators, some of whom have never written a hook before. And then everybody else gets in the act of suggesting alt hooks. But nobody is suggesting the alt hooks because of length. Hooks are based on "hookiness", not how short they can be. — Maile (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

My statistics agree with Maile. The July Did You Know archive has a total length of 54,146 bytes. Only May 2019 is longer, among comparable recent months (31 days, always one set per day). There were occasionally 9 hooks instead of 8, but that isn't enough to explain it. Art LaPella (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I confirmed it another way, just to make sure I'm not overlooking something like image size. July 2019 has 71 hooks that go beyond one line of text, and July 2018 has 59. That statistic depends on my screen and font size, but anyway it isn't obviously shorter. Art LaPella (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Below is a table showing July 1 – 14. It included (pictured) and "?" but excludes the "..." and the bullet.

I was not far off on my estimate. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

But in any case, you are correct that it does not seem to be a significant change compared to July 2018 or July 2017. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm a latecomer to this conversation, having only just seen it. I don't really have any good statistics to offer, but I'm not convinced we need a massive change at this point. Yes, anecdotally I would say the right is more often longer than the left, and we tend to solve that by adding in an extra DYK hook, but occasionally it's the other way around. And the issue is usually at the DYK/OTD end, I find that TFA and ITN are more often in sync with each other. If someone wants to mock up what the 53%-47% page might look like so we can examine it, I don't mind. But even with an adjustment there will still be days when it doesn't match, so we either have to decide it doesn't matter, or just patch it up whenever it occurs as we do at present. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, already mocked up at User:Coffeeandcrumbs/sandbox/Main Page 53/47 but today is not a good day to preview because OTD has 4 items (because of predicted imbalance). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not simply go to a single column and not have to worry about it? Seems rather silly to argue over how to "fix" a "problem" that only exists because we insist on making it exist. --Khajidha (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Two Cents Worth opinion: The concern over the Main Page balance has been going on for who knows how long. It seems to be an internal concern, as opposed to complaints from the general public, and even internally seems to be limited in how many people are bothered by it. Regardless of all that, the imbalance issue is fluid, subject to daily changes by all sections involved. It will never be perfect. The only resolution is for it to be redesigned with another format. That would take a coordinated effort from TFA, ITN, DYK, OTT, TFL, TFP and every listing below that. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think today proves your point quite well. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think the point is that most readers don't know how to raise an issue at Wikipedia. How many errors raised at WP:ERRORS come from either IPs or brand new editors? Practically zero... BECAUSE: Almost all of our readers are not editors. What we should be doing as an encyclopedia is striving for excellence all round. That means working hard to avoid six, seven or even eight lines of whitespace (or pinkspace as we had a few days ago). It's unprofessional looking and can easily be avoided with a few tweaks every day. What seems obvious is that TFA and DYK can't easily be adjusted without upsetting people, while ITN and OTD are easily adjusted, dropping/adding old news stories or removing/adding OTDs. The effort to do this once (or twice when DYK up the rate) a day is practically trivial. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I played a Taylor Swift song for my daughter this morning because it was in the "new" section of youtube music. Later Amazon Music notified me that her new album is here. Now I see she is today's featured article. Is Wikipedia now part of the PR industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.173.54 (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Although the main page content is deliberately chosen on occasion (i.e. April Fools Day, historical anniversaries, special events, etc.) I think this was a coincidence. In The News content aside, most of the main page content is planned weeks or months in advance. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This was a result of this discussion. The nominator had originally wanted to do it in conjuction with her birthday in December, but it was decided that it would get more interest if it coincided with the release of her new album. AFAICT there was no involvement from her publicity team, although I have no doubt this pleases them; we have done this with a lot of other pop-culture–related FAs. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Its says 5194651 but when you click on the link it says 5194666 articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.247.249 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this number tends to change rather quickly ;) --Tone 13:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi IP user - I'd suggest that it's likely both of these things are true. When you loaded the main page, there was the correct amount, but when you clicked the link, there were 15 articles created in that time. It's also possible the mainpage needed a purge, as it doesn't auto refresh. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Why? There doesn’t seem to be anything significant about this band or tour. Am I missing why this tour is so special? Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be significant or special, only that someone cared enough to write a great article about it, and take it through the featured process. Stephen 06:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

See this FAQ entry, particularly the first bullet point. Modest Genius ^talk 10:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How to download an article Bongumsa (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bongumsa This page is for discussing the contents of the Main Page; you may want to try the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Dawsonfieldcamels.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Not 1, but 2 featured hurricane articles today. Sigh. 74.109.253.152 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

They were secretly featured by hurricanes. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.72.238 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with what appears on the Main Page, you are welcome to participate in the processes that decide that. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the Hurricaninati are behind all this ! Time to store Area WMF like Naruto! --Masem (t) 22:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There are two separate complaints currently in MPE re the lack of non-breaking spaces in dates.

My personal opinion is that non-breaking spaces should be used in all blurbs on the Main Page. However, others may disagree. Please can we discuss whether or not the following instruction should be introduced? Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The use of non-breaking spaces is mandated in blurbs on the main page when used in dates and measurements. [Note: "etc." removed. - Dank (push to talk)]

• Support Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. As far as I'm concerned they should be mandated on all public-facing parts of Wikipedia, but life's too short to argue with the handful of zealots who act as the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. On the Main Page, where the relatively narrow columns makes it more likely that any given piece of text will be at the end of a line, it should be a no-brainer. ‑ Iridescent 15:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, I support this too. It just makes sense to keep dates all on the same line, rather than splitting them in twain. — 🦊 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support for consistency and better style, although I have encountered some opposition in the past from User:Dank regarding this issue in the context of TFA blurbs. I note also that all of the OTD templates would need to be lightly reformatted to nowrap the date at the very top, but this isn't really a major problem as it's highly unlikely to be wrapped anyway. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Question: Is there any objection to leaving TFA blurbs alone (at blurb reviews, WP:TFAR and WP:TFAA) for a week before they're subjected to any non-MOS-compliant edits, so that FAC writers and reviewers will be dealing with text that's familiar to them while they're editing and reviewing the blurbs? If that's acceptable, then I don't need to take a position. (Note: I removed "etc." from the end of what we're voting on ... none of the voters so far seem to be endorsing a blank check on nbsp rules.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as "proposed". I understand why this may be more of a problem on the main page where column width is narrower and thus breaking spaces mid-date etc is more likely to occur, but why isn't this still a problem in every other article across Wikipedia? Surely this should really be discussed as a MOS adjustment which would then naturally flow to main page blurbs, hooks, etc? Are we going to add a specific formatting rule in each of TFA, TFL, TFP, DYK and OTD to mandate this? Where does that instruction live in each case? I don't have a major beef with this but it seems to be the cart leading the horse. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Per discussion below, this is already MOS. I support rigorous application of MOS:NBSP on the Main Page, even if it is not widely used or very important on articles. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Dank: Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't understand what you're asking for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You're never being dense, Floq. I'm asking that any non-MOS-compliant edits be deferred until writers and reviewers have a chance to discuss the blurbs. I'm not going to lead any charges here ... I'm not a pro- or anti-anything warrior. I'm almost always happy with the way Main Page discussions turn out. But no one is disputing the facts: neither MOS, nor the usual practices among Good Article and Featured Article writers, support what's being proposed here. I don't want to get dragged into other people's fights. If you guys will just leave us alone for a week while we do blurb reviews before you add nbsps or other cosmetic changes, I don't think this is an issue that my writers are going to care much about one way or the other. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• @Ravenpuff: - if the date is highly unlikely to be split in a header, then it can be left alone. @The Rambling Man: - let's walk before we can run. Yes, this is something that could be mandated at MOS, but this proposal is put forward to address a specific problem in a specific place. @Dank: Early indications are that there will be support. How does an implementation date of 1 October sound to you? Does that give enough time for people to get used to the idea? Mjroots (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well no, it's the other way round as far as I'm concerned. Blurbs should follow MOS, not make up their own rules. Are there other rules unique to blurbs which aren't covered by MOS? If so, where are they described? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  I've left a pointer and a note at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem to be much interest from the FAC regulars. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I asked a couple of fundamental questions about the logistics of such a mandate, I'm still wondering how this works in practice. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: It's been a while since this discussion has been active, but the way I see it is that this proposal for greater use of non-breaking spaces in Main Page content is more or less already in line with the Manual of Style's guideline on their use (at MOS:NBSP), just that most editors don't seem to bother with using them when writing articles. What's being proposed here, in my opinion, is just to mandate a more rigorous application of the above guideline so as to maintain better style on our welcome mat. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

When this Main Page lists "Recent deaths" in the "In the News" section, it could include Michael Edwardes. Vorbee (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC for nominating candidates for the ITN section. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been discussing the idea of saving the Main Page twice a day when User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates is 43200 and go back to once a day when it is 86400. I discussed the matter with Amalthea over here and proceeded to work with Danski454 to create some templates to use on Template:Main Page history. You can find them at:

• Template:Main Page history generic calendar – this will be used to create the templates each year like the one for 2019 below
• Template:2019 Main Page history – this template can be created using the template above using the following:

{{subst:Main Page history generic calendar|venue=Main Page history|year=2019}}
<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
[[Category:Main Page]]
</noinclude>

To work properly, the individual year templates like 2019 Main Page history have to be edited manually when we switch back and forth (which I will handle myself for the foreseeable future). A demo of how they look can be seen at Template:2019 Main Page history/sandbox, which over the next few days will start growing redlinks labeled 16a, 16b, 17a, 17b.... These redlinks would be blue when Amalthea (bot) starts archiving twice a day after consesus is formed here.

I will write template documentations and ensure implementation of this plan moving forward. But before I do, I wanted the community's blessing and comments. Please feel free to ask questions and point out any issues we have not foreseen.

TL;DR: I would like to archive the Main Page twice a day when there are two DYKs a day. Just need your blessing or criticism.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea to me. It's clearly sensible to have both morning and afternoon versions of the MP archived, when they differ. Thanks for looking into this.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Good idea, and since it's a manual edit and you're willing to take care of it, I think it would be useful --valereee (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Two shapshots sounds fine but I think the first on a day should still be called Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 September 17, so such page names always exist. A second snapshot could then be called Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 September 17b. I suggest the bot starts adding a non-expanded template call at the top and bottom of snapshots so we can provide information, navigation and categories if we want. For example {{Main page history top|2019|9|17|time|number}} and {{Main page history bottom|2019|9|17|time|number}}, where "time" is the time of day the snapshot was made, and "number" is 1 for the first snapshot of that day, and so on. Some of the parameters could be deduced from the page name but it's good to have them directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  PrimeHunter, I tested your first proposal at Template:2019 Main Page history/sandbox and see no problem with implementation. As for your second suggestion, can we discuss further elsewhere, perhaps my user talk page or Amalthea (bot)'s talk page before proposing a formal change here. I want to make sure it is done carefully and thought-out thoroughly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• This sounds like a viable idea, but I also note that snapshots are currently taken by Amalthea (bot) at 11:20 UTC. This might not capture the "best" version of the day's Main Page, as errors are routinely posted at WP:ERRORS throughout the day; hence, I propose that such snapshots are taken as late as possible (say 11:59 or 23:59), to ensure that any resolved errors in hooks/blurbs are reflected in the corresponding Main Page history. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Amalthea, do you see any issues with this suggestion? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have edited Wikipedia:Main Page history to use the new templates in preparation for implementation of this plan and, since there appears to be no opposition to this proposal, I have asked Amalthea to begin archiving twice a day. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 1 is adding about 700 pages to Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, the problem is this edit by David Levy which added |width=200 when there was already a |width=x120. To correct the problem, remove one of the two width parameters. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done (I mean, I think it's done, let me know if I didn't fix what I thought I fixed) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)