Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
• Please offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones: The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 20:34 on 7 June 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
• Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

• To make it absolutely clear that the lake no longer exists and to add what I think is a very important piece of information, I would suggest adding the date when the lake finally dried up for good. How about "It reached a maximum water level (highstand) presumably during the Illinoian glaciation and subsequently fluctuated between a desiccated basin and fuller stages, before drying up for good ca. 8,500 years before present."? Spike (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

• The jubilee celebrations were almost entirely in the Commonwealth realms (countries where Elizabeth II is the monarch), not the wider Commonwealth of Nations (which includes republics). There were no widespread celebrations in India, South Africa, Ireland etc. Please switch the link in the blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 15:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Please, see the discussion at the article's talk page. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 15:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see any relevant discussion on the talk pages. Which one are you referring to? Modest Genius ^talk 18:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Talk:Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II#It's her reign as monarch that's being celebrated. Not so much her title as Head of the Commonwealth. Peter Ormond 💬 18:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The blurb reflects the current content of the article. Come back if there's an update there first.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK and MOS:PARTIALNAMELINK, the entry on Lizzie's jubilee should read: The Commonwealth of Nations celebrates the Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II (Elizabeth pictured). She should not have her own page linked with the sentence constructed like this.

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Mariano Moreno - maintenance tagged so ineligible for main page. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 10)

Monday's FL

(June 13)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

• Does a photo celebrating the start of a brutal, repressive 55 year occupation really meet the editorial standards for picture of the day? Isn't it insulting to the native population of the occupied Palestinian West Bank, rubbing salt into the wounds of the illegal 55 year occupation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.3.227 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that "photo celebrating" is quite the way I would describe what's on the main page at the moment. But the text that goes with it gives a one-sided perspective. Which is fine in the sense that it describes what the photo is about. I would think that working the Palestinian perspective into the text could be good for achieving better balance. If others agree, can we have some wording suggestions, please? Schwede66 08:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• It would have to be sourced from the entirely one sided starter class article that's just unalloyed celebration of the violent conquest and the start of the brutal, ongoing occupation. But, I don't exactly know what bringing the native Palestinian perspective into the text would do, what would bringing a Ukrainian perspective to a Russian flag raising over a Ukrainian city occupied by Russia, it's population violently expelled or repressed, their land stolen, forced to live as second class citizens in their homeland, with foreign occupiers violently controlling every part of their lives. How did this photo even get in the queue? Also, the main reason the photo is significant in any way is that it's a celebration of the violent conquest and illegal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, and the Palestinian capital city. These are illegal occupiers celebrating their victory. That's as I understand it, the sole reason that this is a nationalistic icon. It's in the same vein as many other famous war photos. These guys aren't tourists, this isn't some architectural photo, or a portrait, or anything else. This photo, as I understand it, is one of the major symbols of the occupiers violent conquest. I don't see what else you could see it as. What do you think the photo represents?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.3.227 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Also, this potd seems ineligible as the article it is based on is too short, based on the criteria in the potd/unused page, which uses this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Diptych as the example with the comment way too short. Again, how did this ever get on the queue?71.178.3.227 (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  The article has a prose length of 2100 characters, which is usually more than enough. We define stubs as being fewer than 1500 characters give or take.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Is that the definition of a stub? iirc one of the guidelines is that stubs are forbidden, but, for instance, in the potd/unused, the example given of a "way too short" article, again, is the vienna diptych article, an article which is not a stub class, but, like this one, a start class article. The example used in the POTD/unused page is a start class article, which, again, the comment says, is "way too short".71.178.3.227 (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Vienna Diptych - 853 prose characters. Paratroopers at the Western Wall - 1,737 prose characters. More than twice as long. I'm not commenting on anything else - just the length issue. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Googling the article, I found something I didn't expect to find, an interesting article in the new yorker, "Reframing the 1967 war" about this photo. It talks about the context of the photo, specifically, why is it such a close shot. The article points out, that, today, the area is quite an open space, and it points out that one might think that the photo might include more of the Western Wall. The article then goes on to talk about how the Western Wall was the site of the Moroccan Quarter, and how there it, at the time, was quite a densely built up area... until June 10th 1967, when, without notice, or even anything that could be reasonably described as a justification, or legal process of any kind, the occupiers razed the Moroccan Quarter to the ground, destroying 135 houses, making 650+ native Palestinians homeless. Which is a long way of saying that the article also has neutrality problems. Which is another reason why it is ineligible for being POTD. Again... how was this ever even considered to be POTD? Oh, a native Palestinian woman, al-Hajjah Rasmiyyah 'Ali Taba'ki (though possibly as many as three native Palestinians) was (were) also murdered by the drunk bulldozer operators celebrating as they razed the quarter and committed murder. And it was also a war crime. For what it's worth. Maybe the photo on the Moroccan Quarter page of the illegal demolition of the Palestinian Moroccan Quarter would be a better photo, with a caption about the war crime, and it's victims. Or, ya know, a celebration of the horror of war, an emblem to the seemingly endless brutally, inhumanly cruel occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, and the violent termination of their basic rights as fellow human beings. Forced to live as a permanent underclass. Denied basic representation, basic human rights. Denied the right to land, property, safety, and much, much, much too often, their lives. Even the lives of the most vulnerable among them, sadly, as is usually the case, especially the lives of the must vulnerable among them.71.178.3.227 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• So... This POTD violates 2 of the 4 guidelines, the article is not up to scratch, it's tagged for POV violation, and it's too short, being roughly as long as the example vienna diptych start class article on potd/unused. That violates guidelines 3, and 4. Not to mention the photo could hardly be in worse taste... What now?71.178.3.227 (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

General discussion

Planned POTD 2022-06-13 (File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg)

There was clear consensus against including this image as POTD at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 6#Discussion regarding possible picture of the day: Michele Merkin. I'm confused as to why User:Adam Cuerden removed it from Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused without discussion and scheduled it to run on 2022-06-13. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:POTD/Unused should actually link discussions if it's meant to be held by them. As it was, it very much gives the impression it was one person's opinion. However, I don't think the discussion is particularly relevant given the blurbs provided with the image were quite... bad, which contextualised things differently. Now, 8 years on, with her having done a number of notable things, I think the context is very different, especially compared to the blurb about glamour photography that I'm a little shocked this image was trying to run as. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 16:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden The discussion was explicitly mentioned and linked. Before you deleted it, the listing for this image ended in The decision not to feature this image on the main page was affirmed through a two-week discussion in May 2014. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Very well, but that was 8 years ago, in a very different Wikipedia environment, and the summary of the argument is "Too cheesecake-y", which is hardly a compelling case against. And, frankly, I don't think anyone really cares if it's on the main page. We've had literal people dying on the main page before. We've had more nudity. If it shouldn't be a featured picture at all, nominate it for delisting. There's plenty of time for that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 23:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The POTD guidelines specifically mention this as an example of an image which shouldn't be used. Hut 8.5 16:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to a vote on it, but I don't think it would really have any substantial controversy. I don't love the image, but I doubt it'd cause that much harm, and I don't like the precedent it sets to deny things more for fear of immature giggling than any concrete reason. And it's no doubt airbrushed and unrealistic, but it's not like we're going to make a habit of it. It's certainly an outlier for FPs, but it's not any worse than you'd see on the covers in any British shop's magazine rack.

I 'm not against leaving things off the main page, but I feel like there should be a standard of balancing possible harm with possible educational benefits. While a model's career might not be high academia, I'm really not seeing much harm, so... I think we call back to the default and run it.

And, you know, if we're really worried we can always move it to June 26th, at which point the featured article will absolutely assure no-one cares in the least about the FP. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the prior consensus against posting this I don't think it should be done without a discussion. Hut 8.5 11:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, we've been having one. I can't force people to comment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 16:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll comment then and say that I see no good reason not to include it. It is a fine image of a beautiful person, and there is no suggestion of any exploitation of the subject. Maybe some cultures will find the semi-nudity mildly offensive, but by using the internet such users will be routinely exposing themselves to far worse, and our policy is not to accept such censorship on our pages. Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. No issue as far as I can tell. WaltCip-(talk) 15:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

May be relevant to point out Template:POTD/2018-04-02 while we're at it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 22:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Howcheng added that to the POTD guidelines that Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg is a bit too salacious back in 2008 [1]. Was that determined by a consensus, or was it just one editor's opinion? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: There was a discussion. If consensus has changed since then, then so be it. —howcheng {chat} 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There was another discussion in 2014: "Consensus is against this being used as POTD". I believe that's the most-recent consensus on the matter. Levivich 20:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Good to see there was a discussion. WP:CCC in 14 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Featured pictures that are apparently less controversial
• 

  Eugen Sandow
  Picture of the Day for 2 April 2018

• 

  "The Large Bathers" by Renoir
  Picture of the Day for 10 November, 2019

It kind of feels silly to block this one in the light of those. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 01:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't run the picture of the model on POTD because it's not a good picture. It's airbrushed and thus unrealistic. It's not educational; it doesn't really illustrate or depict anything well. There are better pictures of "glamour shots", of modeling, of airbrushing techniques, of bikinis... this just isn't a good example of anything. The bodybuilder is a famous historical figure ("the father of bodybuilding") and the Renoir is a famous painting; this photograph of a model is not a famous photograph nor a particularly famous model; they're not comparable. Levivich 07:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The remedy for "It shouldn't be an FP!" is a delist nomination at WP:FPC. They take ten days, and if closes as delist before it runs, what, 14 days from now? It can't run. If it happens, problem solved.

Frankly, it's boring '00s men's magazine cover stuff, with, at this point, it's biggest point of notability is being the oldest FP never to have gone on the mainpage. But it's also too old to effectively rejudge, and if I'm to start blocking things from the main page because they don't interest me, well, that's more power than you should give or that I should have as a co-ordinator.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 07:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"It hasn't run yet" is a terrible reason to run anything. Are we running low on candidate pictures? There's really no reason to remove it from /Unused. Also, I'm sure I don't need to tell you why these airbrushed glamour shots of models are harmful, e.g. to young people's body image and self-esteem. By the way, I'm not gonna spend my free time fixing the mistakes of years past by nominating FP's for de-listing (nor would I do that with FAs), but you're welcome to. That would be a better thing to do with a bad photo than removing it from /Unused and then kinda threatening to list it unless the community deals with it. I think as POTD coordinator what you should do is make choices so that we have the best outcomes with the least disruption/editor time spent. Don't use this position to make a WP:POINT. (I read the draft Signpost essay.) Levivich 12:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, think of the children! Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, I think we are all tolerant of doing so on the Main Page as an exception in extreme cases. This is surely not one. Images of untypically beautiful people are everywhere in most societies, so I don't believe that Wikipedia running such a picture on one day does one jot of harm. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's all stop using the word "censored" in these discussions. Choosing an image to showcase on the front page, or choosing not to showcase an image on the front page, has nothing to do with censorship. Censorship would be deleting the image, not declining to showcase it. This is not an image of an untypically beautiful person, and even if it were, we are not here to showcase beauty. What is the encyclopedic value of this image? How does it educate? It does harm because it presents an unrealistic, unobtainable image of what some people think beauty is or should be. And yes, think of the children. Levivich 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you don't have to delete an image for it to count as censorship; just not showing it will suffice. You seem to disapprove of the glamour industry (maybe for good reasons, but others differ). Not displaying the image for that reason seems like censorship to me. The encyclopedic value of the image is that it was judged to be a high quality example of the genre. Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Judged to be a high quality example of the genre by whom? From among what choices? It's an example of the genre, but it's not a high-quality one. It might be the only one with a compatible license. Levivich 17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

And may I suggest you look up the definition of censorship. It's rather specific. "Not choosing an image for the main page because it's not the best image we can put up there" is not censorship under any definition you'll find. Levivich 17:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: I feel that every featured picture should potentially run. As I said, if the only objection is feeling it's an insufficiently good picture, the remedy is a delist nomination at WP:FPC, not requesting an extrajudicial judgement.

I have nearly 8% of all featured pictures. That means I can't go around judging other people's work arbitrarily, lest I end up treating them differently than myself. The Merkin image is, at worst, boring. It won't break Wikipedia, and I have no idea why it's managed to cause so much hand-wringing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 19:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If your contributions to FP limits your ability as POTD coordinator, then don't volunteer for the job. I am operating on the assumption that having you as POTD coordinator is no different than having anyone else as POTD coordinator. No previous coordinator felt that respecting /Unused was a problem or "extrajudicial judgment". You're the one who removed this image (and others) from /Unused and scheduled them, so you're the one who needs to justify that. I don't think it's right for you to unilaterally remove images from /Unused and schedule them, and then tell the rest of us to have it delisted if we don't like it because you want to run every FP. There is no consensus to run every FP; there is consensus not to run this and other FPs. It worries me that you admit this isn't a good picture but you've removed it from /Unused and listed it anyway. That's kind of the definition of WP:POINTy behavior: doing something that's bad (scheduling this bad pic) in order to make a point (about nudity? Censorship? /Unused? Every FP should be POTD? Idk.) Levivich 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't seem that bad. There's no point to be made if the image doesn't look like a problem. The Unused page shouldn't be an arbitrary collection, it should make sense. I'm not really hearing concrete reasons not to put it on the main page, just... well, WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a side of WP:THEREFOREYOUSHOULDNTLIKEITANDDOWHATISAY Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 22:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO, POTD coord shouldn't be scheduling pics that, in his own words, "doesn't seem that bad". POTD should be the best pictures. This is not one of them. Nobody is saying it is obscene or lewd. It doesn't matter that she's half naked. That's not the issue--and as your own examples show, that was never an issue. This is a poor quality image. It shouldn't run for that reason alone. You seem to agree it's a poor quality image. You shouldn't schedule it for that reason alone. Levivich 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Was going to say this in a previous section, and have probably expressed as much in the past, but I agree that NOTCENSOR should be irrelevant for main page decisions. The encyclopedia isn't censored, as in if you go to an article about sexuality, anatomy, blasphemy, violence, etc., we shouldn't censor images that illustrate that subject. All of that is really easy to find on Wikipedia. The question is what we want to showcase for the broadest possible audience. There's obviously a ton of gray area, though, and that is where we need some imperfect form of consensus, weighing the educational value against objections. NOTCENSORED on its own shouldn't carry any weight, though. Even when we're talking about articles rather than the main page, NOTCENSORED is just an argument against removal -- it still needs to be accompanied with a persuasive argument to include. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia is, and should be, fundamentally an educational project. Putting this photo on the Main Page does not seem to me to have any educational value. It is, in a weird way, somewhat similar to the lynching photo above: in both cases, there could be educational value, but that getting that value requires more of an explanation than the Main Page's FP section offers.

I really don't think that the 120-year-old photo or the 19th-century painting are at all comparable, precisely because everyone involved in those historical words is long dead. If this photo comes up again a hundred years from now, you can put me down as supporting, except to the extent that Missvain was probably right in her prior comments about the white balance being off. (Also: When people respond "Maybe this ought to be de-listed", I think the response should be "Maybe we should think longer about running this – it's been eight years, so what's another month?" instead of "My poor hands are tied and I just have to run it unless you rush over there and get it de-listed first"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• A separate objection: do we have a model release to put this image on the front page? Aside from licensing rights, the model is covered by WP:BLP, and there are personality rights to consider. Levivich 22:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favor of another RFC or vote or whatever, if need be, over whether to run this image; it's been 8 years, and consensus can change. I agree that NOTCENSORED applies differently to the Main Page, in which people are more likely to come across content they see as offensive without intending to view such content; cf. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, in which the privacy interest at issue in Stanley v. Georgia (which held that possessing obscene movies et al. could not be criminalized since no negative externalities exist) does not apply to public establishments (where such externalities can exist). That said, I don't think this image is very lewd (no excessive nudity), and I don't have any particularly strong feelings over whether this image should be run as POTD or is FP-worthy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. It's nothing worth getting so bothered about, and I think we need a positive reason to skip, not a mere negative one. If we have a good reason to not put on the main page, that's one thing. But I find it odd that the main argument against it appearing appears to be a mere... not liking it. I mean, she's a public figure. We're not Brittanica, we cover popular culture as well. If we accept we're in part an encyclopedia of popular culture, models and television personalities aren't any less valid than more traditionally academic subjects, and me having no real interest in them is irrelevant. For example if a featured article co-ordinator started blocking the prolific roads or hurricane projects from the main page, we'd be quite upset at them, even if their argument is that they didn't interest them. I don't see this as any different: a co-ordinator needs to judge things dispassionately, not by what interests them to write or photograph or work on. And any of the sorts of subjects Wikipedia covers should be considered valid unless there's a good reason not to include it. My lack of passion for the subject shouldn't matter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 22:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If "IDONTLIKEIT" is another way of saying "poor quality image", then that's like the #1 best reason not to run something for POTD. And whole consensus can change, the way to change an RFC consensus is with a new RFC, not by ignoring the old consensus. Levivich 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Currently no strong opinion for or against using the image as a POTD, just wanna say that Adam Cuerden scheduling the image for a POTD (without consensus) and removing it from the unused list feels very WP:GAMEy and uncivil. The edit summary Adam used was "They're scheduled for the main page. Putting them on here if they're running is ridiculous" which in itself is ridiculous, since Adam is the one who scheduled it. Adam should have sought consensus first, and this whole discussion feels WP:POINTy. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  It had three weeks, and still has most of two. Sometimes the best plan is to say you're doing something (which I did, right here) and see if anyone actually cares. Given the remedy for "not good enough be a featured picture" is a delist nom, and there's no real arguments besides that, there's really no valid opposition I'm seeing. Especially none that cares enough to do something (such as create a delist nom) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 13:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Look at this thread and reconsider whether anyone cares to do something. The "something" might not be the thing that you expected (delisting the pic). Levivich 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Adam Cuerden: I've now looked at June's POTDs and /Unused and I see that you've taken a number of pictures from /Unused and scheduled them all in June. This is unacceptable, particularly when a number of them have already appeared on the main page--and you've said you want every FP to be a POTD, so why are you running repeats? It's clear to me that you've done this to make a WP:POINT about /Unused, and that's not an acceptable reason. So, over the next few days, I'm going to endeavor to find replacements, and will be replacing the /Unused pictures in the June schedules, and restoring them to /Unused. That's the "something" I'm going to do. Levivich 18:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: The thing is, they aren't duplicates. compare:

• 

  Featured picture, completely redrawn as an SVG, with two more people credited and aesthetic tweaks

• 

  Image that appeared on the main page in 2008

There used to be a policy of not featuring things twice, even if the versions were completely redrawn, different versions, &c. This was ended long ago, but a few slipped through the cracks. They are similar, but fundamentally different, especially in credit line. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 23:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Those two images are the same image with minor rearrangements made, as is the odd-eyed cat one, the illusion one, and the Rembrandt painting. That these have run, and that we have many that have not run, is a great reason not to pull all four from /Unused and run all four in June, as you've scheduled. The model image has a consensus not to run it on POTD; there will need to be a new discussion to see if consensus has changed before it can be POTD. This may be that discussion, and if so, you'll need to wait for its outcome before the image can be removed from /Unused and scheduled. I don't really care about the guano pic; AFAIK there was no consensus discussion and it hasn't run before, so no objection to running that. I'm not sure if there are any others that were pulled from /Unused and scheduled. June 9 I believe is the earliest scheduled date (the Rembrandt painting) so we have until then to resolve this :-) But the painting shouldn't run again because it's run before; and if we're going to run repeats, there are better repeats to run than that. There's really no reason to put that particular picture on that particular date, particularly given that it's run before. Levivich 23:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but that painting looks like a very, very different scan, at least as linked. Perhaps I misjudged. As for the others... I'm uncomfortable not running the two SVG versions of images since they represent dozens of hours of work. I've done SVG conversions before; they're hideously finicky. I have absolutely no objections to losing the Odd-eyed cat, which I thought was borderline even at the time. I still say that the place for a Merkin discussion is at FPC, since the objection is it shouldn't be an FPC, but I don't mind shoving it to... well, we're filled up to November now... if that allows proper discussion. I just don't want to throw out people's work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 23:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• We have very, very different ideas about what "very, very different" means
• 

  POTD from Mar 13, 2009

• 

  POTD scheduled for June 9, 2022

Pintaflores festival in San Carlos, Negros Occidental, Philippines

What does it matter that it's a different scan? It's the same Rembrandt painting. And while the SVG no doubt represents dozens of hours of work, the FP that's not running so that the SVG can run twice also represents dozens of hours of work. "They can both run", you say? Sure: run the one that hasn't run first, then run the one that's run before. For example, for June 9 when the Rembrandt is scheduled, the TFA for that day is about a Philippine film. Instead of re-running the Rembrandt painting, we could run File:Pintaflores Queen.jpg, which is used at San Carlos, Negros Occidental#Tourism. Levivich 00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Because the decision not to block new scans and restorations was made years before I started. Here's some that used to be on POTD/Unused, and their old versions:

• 

  New

• 

  Old

• 

  New

• 

  Old

I didn't set those to run. That's been accepted practice for about 5 years. Also, you know you're suggesting replacing it with something that isn't even an English Wikipedia featured picture? I'm not trying to be rude here, but I'm not sure you understand how POTD works, the history of decisions, or what is meant to appear on it. You're objecting to things like "not blocking an image because a similar one appeared" which I' m pretty sure was Crisco 1492's big change when he took over like, three or four coordinators ago. You're suggesting things as replacements which have not gone through WP:FPC and seem unaware that POTD is meant to roughly run in order of FP promotion. I'd really suggest spending some time reviewing before touching anything. If you want, I'll delay the Merkin image to give you time to do so. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 00:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

/Unused is not accepted practice? The 2014 consensus not to have this pic as POTD is not accepted practice? There are over 700 FPs that haven't run on the main page (and many more pics that could be FPs); we can make better choices than to dump a bunch of /Unused and repeats in June. Levivich 05:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Unused is little more than notes; barring other discussion, it's not, and never was meant as more than that. Things have always gotten removed from there regularly. I'm quite happy to delay Merkin as long as we need to have a discussion, replacing if the discussion goes that way, but you're taking it as if Unused was a policy page, when it's just the notes of the POTD co-ordinators, and nothing more. For example, a lot of the things on there were literally only on there because the article wasn't good enough at the time.

I don't particularly care about Merkin. If you think it needs more discussion, I'm happy to shove it forwards to the point where the discussion can happen. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 09:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to run Merkin, it's on you to show that consensus has changed. Levivich 12:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That no-one but two people cares to object does show that. I've offered a dozen ways we could move forwards, from a delist nomination at WP:FPC to delaying the image five months to allow time for more discussion, to, you know, having a discussion right here. If all you want to do is complain, though, I may as well not have bothered. You kind of have to stop complaining, and actually interact with the possible solutions, or you may as well not say anything. It doesn't feel like you want a solution that makes everyone happy, and are kind of running out of time for one of them - if the delist nomination doesn't start today, and ideally pretty damn soon today, it won't close in time. Can we please stop faffing around? I'm happy to work with you, as long as you show the slightest sign you want to actually move forwards in a productive way, but pick an option, please. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 14:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's how you move forward, and these steps are outlined in WP:CCC and WP:RFC:

• Here's the last consensus discussion that was closed with "Consensus is against this being used as POTD."
• Anyone who wants to see if that consensus has changed is welcome to start an RFC, linking to the previous discussion, and explaining why they believe we should come to a different outcome.
• If that RFC is closed with consensus to list it at POTD, then the image can be scheduled at POTD.

By the way, that's the only way forward, per WP:CONSENSUS. You and I don't have the authority to come to some agreement that overrules the 2014 consensus. Sorry, but there is only one way: if you want to list it, you need to gain consensus for that. It's something that the person who wants to list it has to do.

Remember, a "no consensus" outcome would result in the prior from 2014 consensus holding. Levivich 15:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This entire section is getting quite a messy, conflating different topics back and forth. Seems like there are at least 2 things that some community consensus measuring is needed on: (a) Should File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg be featured on the main page at all? (b) When multiple high quality images of similar content are available, how should main page featuring be determined?

These will likely both have many opinions, the former only really has two outcomes - the later has a range of outcomes. I'm not seeing any extraordinary reason that There is no deadline wouldn't apply here as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the second question is answered same as everything else: order of promotion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 01:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Adam Cuerden: Yes, FPs are considered for inclusion in order of promotion. That consideration took place on schedule, and the consensus was not to include. It can be reconsidered at any time, but the consensus doesn't get overturned automatically just because it's the oldest candidate. Certes (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: As far as other pics pulled from /Unused are concerned, there's also File:Indecency2.jpg, at Template:POTD/2022-06-21. It was put on the /Unused list for the same reason as the guano picture: a risk of too many immature comments. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thinking about this some more, and having read some of the previous discussions, I would like to hold off on the Merkin image until the 2014 consensus is re-evaluated, should we wish to do so. I do consider that discussion binding still. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)