Revision as of 03:50, 7 December 2013

Main Page error report

• WP:ERRORS
• WP:MP/E

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English. While Misplaced Pages strives to use language common to all English varieties, some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

• Error reports
• General discussion
• FAQ
• Help
• CSS
• Sandbox
  • CSS
• History
• Alternatives
• April Fools'

• It is currently 21:55 UTC.
• Purge the Main Page
• Purge this page

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 21:55 on 11 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1969 – British rock band Led Zeppelin released their first album, Led Zeppelin, in the United States. - Since last appearance at OTD, the release date was changed to 13 January on 8 March 2024 here with a ref, put back to 12th here on 23 July, then back to 13 here on 30 August. JennyOz (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Per WP:OVERLINKING, please delink London in the description. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

   Done Schwede66 21:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

• T:MP
• WT:MP

Anders Bagge

Vill höra lite mer om A.Bagge, blev fascinerande att han har gjort så mycket för musiken. Dels på egen hand och tillsammans med andra. Förvånad över att jag är äldre, (två år). Annveas (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Google translates this as "Want to hear a little more about A.Bagge, was fascinating that he has done so much for music. Both on their own and with others. Surprised that I'm older, (two years)"

Hi Annveas, this is the talk page for the Main page on the English Misplaced Pages. Assuming you mean Anders Bagge, the place to discuss that article, in English, is at talk:Anders Bagge. There is an article on the Swedish Misplaced Pages at sv:Anders Bagge. Edgepedia (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC).

Seriously?

• Frank's Cock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Featured on the Main Page on December 1, 2013)

Cock "Frank" ? Why are you are showing an article about movie of the penis of the man ! I knew what I have come to expect from online encyclopedia, and it is not this. In addition, the page is locked, how am I supposed to edit ? You guys are slipping ... Frankscock (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Please read the article, then you may or may not comment, as you will. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have read an article. It's about stupid Canada movies. Who heard of this "cock"? Writer of the article was laughing all the way as he probably chose a movie with a provocative title. Frankscock (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's about a film, singular, not movies plural. Perhaps you didn't read it that well, or perhaps we're still waiting for Mr Maturity to pay a visit? Nice shiny account you have - always good to see new, open-minded editors joining us.... - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. With such glorious grammar as that, you should write for the MOS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• 13 hours, I was really expecting a comment like this sooner. --kelapstick 15:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. Too much turkey? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • • No such thing. Ask my wife. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Considering how expensive it must be where you're at (and how expensive it is here) I should think any amount of turkey is acceptable, no matter how large. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Ha! Actually, if we're talking fowl, any amount is too much for her. I served it once, to family and some neighbours. Everyone loved the stuffing, but kept asking what was wrong with the flavour of the funny chicken. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
          • LOL! I don't know why, but it's become a bit more popular here... though most couldn't tell you the difference between turkey and chicken except for the size. No a la king for me, though... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• It said I was holed infinitely for using my name as "Frankscock" so I had to pick another. --kelapstick If you have been waiting for the specific comments, you can make your own comments. Franklin dfd (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it was rude of the  — Crisco 1492 (talk) and the SchroCat (talk) to tell me that my spelling was bad. It is not my fault, it has been limited to the translator. You should be more welcoming for new users create a fun alternative, Misplaced Pages, you guys are supposed to be to an experience collaborative. Franklin dfd (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... do you know the story of trolls under glass bridges? Seriously, "stupid Canada movies", "You guys are slipping", "Writer of the article was laughing all the way as he probably chose a movie with a provocative title"... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Am not a troll. I was ashamed to look at the article. Who is the writer? I think he has been trying to provoke an imperfect reaction by making sure the word "penis" and the erection of Frank's featured movie becomes the front page. Franklin dfd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting. So what is it, exactly, you are ashamed of? The existence of AIDS? The suffering the disease causes? Perhaps you are ashamed of homosexuality? Perhaps you think "those people" shouldn't be mentioned or covered? I mean, you said you read the article, so obviously your concern is the content, right? You're not so childish as to register multiple accounts just to whine about the movie's title, right? Resolute 15:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm offended by the image being used on the front page. How dare they show someone drinking orange juice out of a plastic cup? What image are we trying to show for our future generations to know such taboo was a thing? GamerPro64 17:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• The alt text in the article says that it's beer... even worse or what? Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 17:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You know, I sympathize with OP here. TFA director/former TFA director Raul had blacklisted Jenna Jameson from appearing on the main page for the longest time because the subject matter was considered too provocative. Is that article any more provocative than what we have here, particularly the title? It's great to say that we, as editors, can take a sober, scholarly approach to all sorts of unorthodox subject matter. And we can; that's one of the many great things about Misplaced Pages. But today's featured article is primarily for readers, not editors, and we should at least take into consideration what our readers would expect to see on the main page of a top-ten website, rather than focusing solely on what we think they should see.

Let me offer one hypothetical: suppose the main page featured article was Nigger. For an entire day, we'd have that word displayed very prominently on our main page. Would that really be the type of image that we'd want to present? Is there any doubt whatsoever that the heaps of criticism that we'd receive would be richly deserved? --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat it". No, a featured-quality article on nigger as a word should be featured. As for Raul's unilateral decision about Jameson... that's already quite controversial, and many editors feel the article (if it still meets the FA criteria) should be run. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. If Nigger becomes a featured article, I see no valid reason to bar a main page appearance. (As a Jew, I'll note that the same goes for Kike.)

We frequently run articles about massacres and other ghastly events, but we're worried about mentioning naughty words? —David Levy 00:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering the quality of that particular article, I think it would be a fine idea. Knee-jerk reactionists can go on having knee-jerk reactions, and the rest of us will carry on sensibly. Vranak (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is always well worth remembering. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, but whenever WP:NOTCENSORED is invoked, it's usually a gross oversimplification. It's a bit more nuanced than just bleating "NOTCENSORED" and doing whatever we want. It's not a substitute for actual editorial judgement. There are boatloads of words and images that are appropriate in an article context, but wouldn't be appropriate in a main page context. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. There is a big difference between doing a service to our readers and doing a service to ourselves by showing off how cutting-edge and uncensored we are. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit more nuanced than just bleating "NOTCENSORED" and doing whatever we want.

No one (in this discussion) asserts that the principle gives us license to do "whatever we want".

We wouldn't make a non-featured article TFA because its subject is controversial and we want to show off to the world that Misplaced Pages is uncensored. And it's inappropriate for us to go out of our way to include content on the main page because it's likely to cause a stir, even if it complies with the section's criteria. (In one instance, someone cherry-picked a piece of trivia as an excuse to get the word "fuck" into DYK. This was ill-advised.)

In other words, WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that we should do something just because we can; it means that we shouldn't not do something just because it might upset/offend people.

There are boatloads of words and images that are appropriate in an article context, but wouldn't be appropriate in a main page context.

So far, we've covered the words "cock" (in the context meaning "penis") and "nigger". Can you provide other examples of words and images that you regard as off-limits? —David Levy 03:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in compiling a blacklist; I'd merely like to see some occasional restraint when selecting main page content. Failing that, we could certainly do a better job of addressing concerns from our readership when these items do appear. Such concerns are inevitably dismissed out of hand with a chorus of WP:NOTCENSORED and claims of prudishness. I'm not even sure that Frank's Cock is over the line regarding main page content. But again, anybody who thinks there is no line is delusional. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm attempting to get a general idea of where you believe the line should be drawn (and on what basis). For our purposes, "I know it when I see it" isn't an actionable standard (particularly given the site's worldwide audience, comprising many distinct cultures).

I agree that complaints shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but in this instance, the OP's approach was hardly tactful. —David Levy 08:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(reset) When will we have the 'vanilla/work/library/school safe' and 'anything goes' versions of the MP? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The 'vanilla list' would probably cover the following.

• A selection of words #considered# 'gratuitously offensive.'
• A variety of 'adult themes.'
• Violence, 'very medical', 'some war-related topics.'
• 'Certain historical topics, books and artworks etc.'
• 'Topics which one thinks #other people are likely to have much discussion about on the MP talk page.'
• 'The tenth reference to a theme in only a few days.'

One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.' Jackiespeel (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED says that content should not be removed; it does not say anything about making considerations about what we want to put on our front page. Indeed, Misplaced Pages:Offensive material in its current version talks explicitly about making considerations; and that's not even on the front page: Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.

Guidelines for what's considered appropriate for the front page can be decided through votes. First vote: should we have such guidelines at all? If yes:

1. Which words are offensive? Individual vote for each candidate.
2. Should titles containing offensive words not appear on the front page if they concern an obscure topic? If yes, Frank's Cock will not appear on the front page. If no, it may.

Add more votes as needed. --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting Misplaced Pages:Offensive material.

As discussed above, we don't favor controversial material and shouldn't go out of our way to insert it. For example, this photograph (which contains nudity) wouldn't be an appropriate addition to the Guitar article (where it would provide no illustrative value beyond that of an image not containing nudity, so readers wouldn't expect to find it there).

Likewise, this photograph (also containing nudity) would have little illustrative value at Beach (where the concept of nudity is addressed only in passing), but it's a perfect fit at Nude beach (where its omission would sacrifice the article's quality).

We don't suppress (let alone "vote" away) relevant, informative material on the basis that it's offensive. —David Levy 08:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The point about Misplaced Pages:Offensive material is that we make considerations at all about what may shock readers. The main page is about promotion of our content; and if our readers are turned away by it, it works against its own purpose. NOTCENSORED does not apply to the main page, because the main page does not hold any information on its own, it only reflects/summarises other pages where the information is actually stored.

Out notability guidelines are ultimately completely subjective; but we still need them. And we still manage to create a sensible encyclopedia despite this obvious imperfection (indeed, notability is its own form of censorship, since information is actively suppressed). There are widely different views on what user behaviour should lead to a block, but we still have guidelines and block people to make things go smoother. This topic is no different from the two previous ones. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The point about Misplaced Pages:Offensive material is that we make considerations at all about what may shock readers.

But the idea isn't to exclude content simply because it's "offensive"; it's to apply our normal inclusion standards instead of intentionally inserting controversial material because we can.

The main page is about promotion of our content; and if our readers are turned away by it, it works against its own purpose.

Readers are "turned away" by all sorts of things. Restricting the main page's content to subjects widely regarded as pleasant would hardly convey the encyclopedia's nature.

NOTCENSORED does not apply to the main page,

That's been debated for years.

because the main page does not hold any information on its own, it only reflects/summarises other pages where the information is actually stored.

And in terms of subject matter, it's intended to reflect the encyclopedia as a whole. We might showcase an article about a mass murder one day and a pop singer the next.

Out notability guidelines are ultimately completely subjective; but we still need them. And we still manage to create a sensible encyclopedia despite this obvious imperfection (indeed, notability is its own form of censorship, since information is actively suppressed).

Do you acknowledge that there's a material distinction between omitting information on the basis that it's non-notable and omitting information on the basis that it's offensive?

Certainly, assessing notability entails the application of arbitrary and imperfect criteria, but the level of subjectivity is nowhere near as great.

Editors might not unanimously agree on how much coverage by reliable sources a subject must receive (as one example of many) in order to be considered notable, but such considerations are relatively objective measures. Conversely, the determination that something is offensive is purely subjective (and easily swayed by systemic bias at the English Misplaced Pages level, resulting in the identification of material widely regarded as objectionable only among members of certain cultures).

But if we are to vote on what's offensive, allow me to be the first to cast a ballot: I'm offended by the idea of voting "offensive" words off the main page.

There are widely different views on what user behaviour should lead to a block, but we still have guidelines and block people to make things go smoother.

That's even less connected.

This topic is no different from the two previous ones.

Should I interpret this to mean that you don't recognize any material distinctions? —David Levy 12:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But the idea isn't to exclude content simply because it's "offensive"; it's to apply our normal inclusion standards instead of intentionally inserting controversial material because we can.

That may be what it says literally (it seems more like the page contradicts itself, ultimately), but expectations on what to find in articles are not formed from nothing. (quote: respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible )

And in terms of subject matter, it's intended to reflect the encyclopedia as a whole. We might showcase an article about a mass murder one day and a pop singer the next.

In that case, they should have been randomly selected with the only criterion being that notability is met. Instead, we only have featured articles in that spot, presumably because they make for a better reading.

Assessing notability is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen, just like assessing offensiveness is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen.

and easily swayed by systemic bias at the English Misplaced Pages level, resulting in the identification of material widely regarded as objectionable only among members of certain cultures

Indeed; and that's how everything goes here. We only have articles on subjects that we have people to write about, and we only have featured articles for the content that our authors cares enough about to make featured.

Here's another funny detail from notability: according to WP:NASTRO, a star is not inherently notable, even though it has much more influence on the Universe than any tiny hill down here on Earth that we may have an article on, and which it may outlive by billions of years.

Should I interpret this to mean that you don't recognize any material distinctions?

They are no different in the sense that the topics are complicated with no ideal solution. Any solution is a compromise, but a solution is still possible. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be what it says literally (it seems more like the page contradicts itself, ultimately),

To what contradiction are you referring?

but expectations on what to find in articles are not formed from nothing. (quote: respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible )

Readers conventionally expect to find material that aids in their comprehension of the article's subject.

In the case of the Guitar article, they expect to see images of guitars, guitarists playing guitars, and other things directly relevant to the subject of guitars. They don't expect to see a photograph of a random nude woman who happens to be holding a guitar.

Of course, no off-topic material, irrespective of whether someone finds it offensive, should appear in articles. Misplaced Pages:Offensive material exists because some editors have gone out of their way to include controversial content purely for the sake of including controversial content (either maliciously or in a misguided attempt to demonstrate that Misplaced Pages is not censored). There's no dispute that this is highly inappropriate.

In that case, they should have been randomly selected with the only criterion being that notability is met. Instead, we only have featured articles in that spot, presumably because they make for a better reading.

I was careful to preface my statement with the phrase "in terms of subject matter", precisely to avoid the above misinterpretation.

The various main page sections serve different purposes and operate with different criteria. (TFA, for example, exists to showcase featured articles.) But in terms of subject matter, we seek to reflect the encyclopedia as a whole.

Assessing notability is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen, just like assessing offensiveness is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen.

You're ignoring a fundamental distinction. Compiling information about notable subjects is key to Misplaced Pages's mission. Suppressing "offensive" words and images is not.

Indeed; and that's how everything goes here. We only have articles on subjects that we have people to write about, and we only have featured articles for the content that our authors cares enough about to make featured.

Yes, I'm well aware of the issues stemming from systemic bias. And I'm baffled as to why you wish to exacerbate the problem by allowing local majorities to vote away content that offends them.

Here's another funny detail from notability: according to WP:NASTRO, a star is not inherently notable, even though it has much more influence on the Universe than any tiny hill down here on Earth that we may have an article on, and which it may outlive by billions of years.

I don't assert that our notability standards are perfect. Perhaps they should be changed to permit more articles about stars and/or fewer articles about tiny hills and such.

They are no different in the sense that the topics are complicated with no ideal solution. Any solution is a compromise, but a solution is still possible.

Only if it addresses an actual problem. —David Levy 19:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To what contradiction are you referring? Readers conventionally expect to find material that aids in their comprehension of the article's subject.

I think you have to make up your mind here: does WP:Offensive material exist because we want the articles to be on-topic or because we are catering to our readers? The two are not the same.

I was careful to preface my statement with the phrase "in terms of subject matter", precisely to avoid the above misinterpretation.

The featured articles will always represent a subset of the topics that we cover. They are by far the most visible on our main page.

You're ignoring a fundamental distinction. Compiling information about notable subjects is key to Misplaced Pages's mission. Suppressing "offensive" words and images is not. Yes, I'm well aware of the issues stemming from systemic bias. And I'm baffled as to why you wish to exacerbate the problem by allowing local majorities to vote away content that offends them.

The content is still there, but simply not reflected onto the main page. That doesn't mean that we suppress it, but that we do not actively promote it via our main page. Otherwise, it is treated exactly the same any other content, as it should be (with the exception of images, from my POV; but that is a separate topic).

I don't assert that our notability standards are perfect. Perhaps they should be changed to permit more articles about stars and/or fewer articles about tiny hills and such.

They can't be. That's the issue that I was trying to illustrate.

You more or less used as an argument that any solution here will be flawed, when in reality we already have lots of necessarily flawed policies in place. It is not a problem unique to this topic. That's why I am mentioning this.

Only if it addresses an actual problem.

The actual problem is that people may avoid the main page if they are "worried" about what they might encounter there. When people search, they themselves control which articles they want to read (any default manipulation of search results would of course be an obvious violation of NOTCENSORED, anyway). --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you have to make up your mind here: does WP:Offensive material exist because we want the articles to be on-topic or because we are catering to our readers? The two are not the same.

As explained above, it exists to discourage the insertion of "offensive" material for the sake of inserting "offensive" material. It doesn't mean that we should exclude material because it's "offensive"; it means that we shouldn't include "offensive" material that otherwise wouldn't make the cut (based on our normal content standards).

As Bongwarrior mentioned, editors sometimes cite WP:NOTCENSORED as a mandate to favor controversial content and prohibit its removal for any reason (even if better alternatives exist). This is the sort of misunderstanding that Misplaced Pages:Offensive material is intended to address.

If editors seeking to ruffle feathers or make a misguided point commonly inserted unhelpful photographs of cats, Misplaced Pages:Feline material would set them straight.

The featured articles will always represent a subset of the topics that we cover. They are by far the most visible on our main page.

I'm unclear on what the above response is intended to convey. Please elaborate.

The content is still there, but simply not reflected onto the main page.

Firstly, I'm referring to the main page's content.

Secondly, "the content is still there" is a common argument among editors who wish to censor articles by hiding "objectionable" images behind warning messages that readers must click to display them.

It isn't sufficient that the material in question remain available via some means. Treating it differently than we treat any other content (all else being equal) contradicts our fundamental principles.

That doesn't mean that we suppress it,

You advocate suppressing material from the main page (by allowing users to "vote" away words that offend them).

but that we do not actively promote it via our main page.

Where in our policies and guidelines is it established that content deemed "offensive" is less worthy of promotion? Do you believe that removing an incentive to contribute such material would improve the encyclopedia?

Otherwise, it is treated exactly the same any other content, as it should be

The operative word is "otherwise".

(with the exception of images, from my POV; but that is a separate topic).

I'm interested in reading your thoughts on the matter.

You more or less used as an argument that any solution here will be flawed,

My point is that any such "solution" would be highly biased and discriminatory. Through "voting", we would eliminate main page content that offends local majorities (members of the national/ethnic/religious/political groups that predominate among our editors) while leaving in place material offensive to others.

I note this not to assert that the "solution" would be flawed or incomplete, but because it would actively cause harm.

If we could ensure, with 100% certainty, that no one visiting the main page encounter material that he/she regards as objectionable, we still shouldn't. That's inconsistent with our mission.

when in reality we already have lots of necessarily flawed policies in place.

As noted above, said policies are necessarily flawed because they cover matters that are necessary to the encyclopedia's operation.

The actual problem is that people may avoid the main page if they are "worried" about what they might encounter there.

And that's entirely appropriate. Alternatively, they're welcome to create/visit derivative websites that cater to their sensibilities.

You'd prefer that we lure readers into the encyclopedia by providing a false sense of security? You'd prefer that we discriminate against certain cultures by demonstrating favoritism toward others?

When people search, they themselves control which articles they want to read

And if someone is worried about being exposed to subjects that offend him/her, that's precisely what he/she should do. "Problem" solved. —David Levy 12:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.'

Indeed, and that's a big problem. To a Hindu reader, this image might be more upsetting than any of the above examples are. Meanwhile, a Haredi Jew might find this image's display highly objectionable. The only "safe" content is none at all. —David Levy 08:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As 'the cup of tea' remark is taken from comments I made (and could add 'things which will annoy library and other computer blocking poliices( - I am referring 'to things encountered unexpectedly' (whether on the main page, through idly clicking on blue links/random article button) as distinct from 'deliberately looking for a topic' (shall we say for understanding a previously unknown term).

Entries on the main page involving 'sex, very medical/veterinary, war and similar, violence, and certain persons and events' and 'things constituting bad taste' are always likely to cause at least some degree of comment and complaint, however well the articles themselves are written.

I have said previously one of the benefits of the Main Page is to bring to the readers' attention to topics they would not otherwise be aware of, and it can be said of WP as well as the newspaper 'all human and other life (among many other things) can be found herein.'

There will always be degree of conflict between these two aspects - whatever arrangements WP makes to allow people to select which categories of topics they view. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has now officially gone to hell ...

No, not because of the above subject, but because we now have a cute cat picture as the Featured Picture of the Day.

Obviously it's all about getting clicks fom now on ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• You think that's cute? You ain't seen nothing yet. Meow! (next year, maybe). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I can see that making a wonderful April Fools featured pic.... "Socks Clinton resided in the White House from 1993 to 2001. Clinton was elected President of the United States...". MChesterMC (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
    • That would be fun. Or just "I can haz office?" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We should have more articles on cats featured. I nominate Frank's Pussy. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 22:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Let's get Catgirl that bronze star on it then. GamerPro64 04:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I mention the Kitten War site, and the intermittent withdrawal of the Argos cat-alogue. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Van Buren

Fantastic TFP of Martin Van Buren, by Mathew Brady ! A visage of true character... Sca (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, very good article and nice picture too. Much better than the Cock article75.73.114.111 (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Balance on the main page

Time for a few more chappesses on the MP to match the chaps? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. How about some Ada Jafri? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 08:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Main Page