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 quote 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 05:02 on 21 November 2021), not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, 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 page's revision history for any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
• Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook to 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 bolded articles. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Next DYK

• ... that the Cimbrian seeresses predicted the future by slitting the throats of POWs and studying how the blood trickled down into a cauldron? Should POWs be replaced by prisoners of war? —71.105.198.152 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think it should be that or have POWS as a wikilink to prisoner of war. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• The term used in the article is "war prisoners" (rather than the more recent (1610) term prisoner of war); so I suggest that's what's used in the blurb. Bazza (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I have also added "are said to have" because the article itself casts doubt on these claims. Pinging the nominator Berig for transparency. Gatoclass (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• "Two pubs in central Birmingham, England, were bombed," this is a bit weird to my ear. They were blown up with bombs rather than being "bombed" from the air. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  It could use the wording from the article, giving something like * 1974 – Bombs exploded in two pubs in central Birmingham, England, killing 21 people and eventually leading to the imprisonment of six people who were later exonerated. Bazza (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  • The blurb has been revised as suggested by Bazza 7. Thank you. I left out the word 'eventually', though. The blurb was quite long already. --PFHLai (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• 2009 Heilongjiang mine explosion - blurb says "killed 108 miners" but lead says "killed over 108 people". Basics. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The word 'over' has been Removed from the blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Bernardo Pasquini - needs refs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Replaced with Columbanus (d.615). --PFHLai (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 26)

Monday's FL

(November 22, tomorrow)

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.

General discussion

edit request: please add a hatnote

Maybe add

Due to technical restrictions, titles like # redirect here. For # and a disambiguation of similar-looking symbols, see number sign.

or

Due to technical restrictions, titles like # redirect here. For the # symbol, see number sign.

Not to be confused with the sharp sign ♯, the Viewdata square ⌗, the equal and parallel to symbol ⋕, the Looped square ⌘, the Chinese character Well-field system 井, or the game Tic-tac-toe's grid. For uses of number signs within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Number sign.

or

"#" redirects here. For #, see number sign. For ♯, see Sharp (music). For ⌗, see Viewdata square. For ⋕, see Parallel (geometry) § Symbol. For ⌘, see Looped square. For 井, see Well-field system. For the similar-looking game, see tic-tac-toe. For uses of number signs within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Number sign.

Thanks. 96.244.220.178 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean on the Main Page itself? While it's true that # does redirect here, the Main Page isn't an article, and a hatnote would look rather jarring and out of place. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done Sorry no, while we would do that on articles - it would be to intrusive and take up too much high-end screen space on the Main Page. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Belle Delphine GIF

Off MP. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can't imagine anyone would object to this being on the main page. -- Veggies (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The DYK gif really seems wrong for wp; there must be a policy that covers this. What a poor decision. Maneesh (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

How did this get here? horny jail bonk Holidayruin (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Zero idea why anyone thought the front page needed a gif of a woman imitating an expression from Japanese porn cartoons. What's the next Did You Know, a diatribe on the rise and fall of sales of scatological porn? It's not that culturally significant and it's not even an interesting factoid, it's just saying what kind of porn she sells. 166.182.80.87 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It was apparently put there to drive traffic, which is an incredibly worrying precedent for wikipedia. What's next, YouTube-style clickbait thumbnails with open-mouthed shock faces and yellow arrows? Asystole (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove image. What the fuck is this? This image is WP:GRATUITOUS offensive material that has no place on the Wikipedia's main page. Also, has anyone considered the BLP implications of placing this image on the front page? JBchrch talk 06:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I am more concerned by the fact that it was put on top of a hook about the Pope. Normally we avoid the two being next to each other in a set The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

And directly next to the on this day section where the trans day of remembrance is today DogsRNice (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain what is offensive about this? —Kusma (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you need me to explain what's offensive about a pornographic actress' signature orgasm face? JBchrch talk 07:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a fully clothed woman making a funny face. The only thing relating this to sex to people who do not already know her or this facial expression is the hook text. —Kusma (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma: "Ahegao" images specifically have a history of unwelcome public display which makes me, at least, uncomfortable to see one on the main page of Wikipedia. I don't know if that's offensive enough for you, but the nomination discussion that put this image on the main page cited "sex sells" and no other reason for favoring it. That seems to match WP:GRATUITOUS to a T. Autumnontape (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

In the name of Jesus H. Christ, when did wikipedia become such a place of idiocy? Forgive me for the language. But this is apparently unacceptable. We need to preserve the pure nature of wikipedia away from the erosion from youtube, fb, etc... Theanonymity.de (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Can anybody point me to how this section got its place on MainPage in the first place? Theanonymity.de (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

To avoid having competing threads, please discuss at WT:DYK. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: I disagree. The gif is in the jurisdiction of the Main Page since it currently appears in there, instead in the Did You Know? nom page. And the fact that this page has more viewership compared to the DYK talkpage. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Many more editors are involved in the thread on WT:DYK. I assume interested editors will see this thread and follow the link. But you may be right regarding page watchers. Honestly, no strong preference for one page over another but we should definitely avoid having the same conversation in parallel. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wikmoz and Jeromi Mikhael: I have now notified WT:DYK of this discussion [1]. That will take care of it. JBchrch talk 06:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Pull it. This was extremely poor decision making on my part as a promoter, and I take full responsibility for what I did. NOTCENSORED, yes—tasteful and informative, no. Just hunting for attention. I don't care if consensus decides that NOTCENSORED means this has to stay up—I still say pull it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Replace image. I'd supporting swapping the current image with File:Belle Delphine - 2020-c.png. Remove “(example pictured)” and the image caption. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Pull it - Who thought this was a good idea? Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 07:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Pulling this without a policy based argument would make a mockery of WP:NOTCENSORED. —Kusma (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Kusma: See WP:GRATUITOUS. JBchrch talk 07:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• You can't just uncritically cite GRATUITOUS. The subject is treated in an encyclopedic manner and describes what is happening an links to further information. Your only argument so far is that you don't like it, which is explicitly contradicted by the essay you keep linking to: "Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers." — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Read the rest of WP:GRATUITOUS. It is a very relevant guideline. I agree that removing the DYK entirely or removing the GIF from the topic page would go against WP:NOTCENSORED. However, I genuinely don't see how swapping the main page image with File:Belle Delphine - 2020-c.png would go against WP:NOTCENSORED. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The hook is specifically about the cause of her popularity as it relates to making faces like that. Replacing the image as suggested would require reworking the hook just so people don't have to see a fully clothed woman making a silly face on a podcast. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You're damn right that I don't like it. I don't like the way porn seeps into every aspect of our culture. I especially don't like how a pornographic actress whose business is selling the image of a sexualized pre-pubescent child is being promoted by our media and culture, and projected onto the minds of millions of people as something that's fashionable and noteworthy. Was that clear enough, you think? Ok, so with that in mind, I encourage you to return to WP:GRATUITOUS and read the sentence Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. It's pretty obvious to me how we should apply such a principle to the DYK section of the main page, but perhaps, you know, it's just because I don't like it. JBchrch talk 07:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

well ... if it wasn't going to run the twelve hours before, it definitely is now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't like porn either, but it's an encyclopedic topic like any other and has a place on Wikipedia. The GIF in question is not itself remotely pornographic, it's a parody of a parody of an orgasmic face that nobody actually made at the height of orgasm, ever. It also happens to be an excellent illustration of the hook in question, so not in the least "unnecessary, irrelevant or gratuitous" in my view. Again this is not a pornographic image, it's just an image of a young woman making a silly face to poke fun at a particular phenomenon. With all due respect, I think you are overreacting to what is a pretty innocuous image. Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That page is about offensive material. This is a gif of a woman making a weird facial expression. I only learned from the hook that it has sexual connotations in some cultures. Educate me what is offensive about it. Do you think the word "orgasm" should not be on the Main Page? —Kusma (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No Kusma, as I have already explained to you above, this is a GIF of a pornographic actress showing her signature orgasm face. JBchrch talk 07:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• We posted a thirst trap last year featuring a shirtless man in order to thirst trap readers into clicking on the thirst trap link. In January we ran a hook describing Napoleon's leathery and shriveled penis. In January 2020 we posted a nude woman as the image hook. I don't see the current hook and image as potentially more offensive than any of the other hooks; I wouldn't even put it in the same league as those ones. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Wugapodes, I could not agree more. Gatoclass (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The first one is not a terribly strong counter example but it's not worth getting into WP:WHATABOUT. As I mentioned elsewhere, the question in my mind is whether we need to apply a higher standard to main page content that is pushed into view of young readers. Personally, I'm not offended by the image but everyone can draw their own line (I know it when I see it). Looking forward, maybe there could be consensus to follow something along the lines of the Miller test or another standard that more clearly defines what is acceptable on the main page. I think it is definitely worth a broader discussion. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously don't pull it (although at least apparently we've gotten to a centralized discussion finally, after eight hours of people running around yelling in different places). Wugapodes said what I came here to say -- this is in no way worse than other things that have passed through the main page without issue. A gif of a clothed person making a sexualized facial expression is obviously not worse than a nude image -- of which we've had many go through both DYK and TFA -- or uncensored swearing, which also routinely goes through both processes. Vaticidalprophet 08:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  this is remarkably wrong my friend... we are indeed in the end time now. RIP the wikipedia I used to know. Theanonymity.de (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Really? This puts us in the end times? - Wikmoz (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Seven years ago, we put "fuck" in huge letters as the very first thing you saw when you opened Wikipedia, twice; twelve years ago we did the same with "cunt" -- there's a very long history of applying NOTCENSORED to the main page far, far further than a gif. TFA this August was giant nymph breasts. Vaticidalprophet 08:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for linking these! All are very helpful examples but I think they are very different from the GIF in question. Read through the Miller test for an example classification test that would put all of the above well within the acceptable range. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(Indent one level further, by adding another colon : or asterisk * to the line, to reply to a message.) I personally don't think the gif fails the Miller test, which is admittedly quite dependent on where its observers draw the line of a "reasonable person". I can envision images I would oppose at DYK or TFA as Miller failures, but I think it takes a fairly extreme situation for a clothed image to make it there. (There are clothed images I would oppose on that premise.) Vaticidalprophet 08:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this fails Miller either... specifically, the "patently offensive" requirement. Just citing it as an example of a standard along the lines of what we could apply to potentially prevent something like this image from making it to the main page--without preventing an oil painting or most of the other examples from coming remotely close to being censored on the main page. - Wikmoz (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please remove this GIF. It has no place in the DYK page. It is insulting, stuff that belongs to social media. Wikipedia should stick to higher standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivima1 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Look, I don't know what policy this would fall under, if any, but puritanical rants and comparisons to big swear words aside, can we just acknowledge that it's kind of fucked for Wikipedia to use a sexualized GIF of a living woman for the express purpose of drawing clicks, on the legal grounds that a podcast has the rights to the video and not her? My objection to this isn't that I don't like porn or don't think it or imagery related to it should be on the main page; I love porn and think it's culturally important. But an encyclopedia shouldn't be deploying it in this way and these circumstances. Autumnontape (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ugh, I'm sorry for the strong language. I just want to distance my stance from the anti-porn position here. Autumnontape (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

    This is where I'm at too. I'm not anti-porn either, and I'm not a prude, despite my asexuality. But there was a pretty clear purpose to this hook, and it was to shock for attention. As Urve pointed out, arguments about censorship and the anti-porn crowd aside, how are editors supposed to pull this on a Saturday and ask women to join this community on a Sunday? Whether or not this should be pulled is one discussion, but I'm firmly of the belief that it never should have come to that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Main page daily page views have declined recently when compared to the past 24 months so this GIF is an attempt increase daily pageviews of the main page? --Bárðarbunga1 (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, only you would know why you chose to promote this hook to the image slot, and if it was only "to shock for attention", it's hardly surprising that you might be feeling a bit sheepish about your decision. But I had no dog in the fight, and I did not see this image as "shocking" at all and still don't. Eye-catching, yes, shocking, not at all - though clearly there are some who disagree. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Who cares about page views? Wikipedia is a reference material. It's a non-profit company. No dictionary frets when they get less public attention. Holidayruin (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Holidayruin, This woman has already earnt over a million dollars through posting nsfw content on a nsfw website so we do not need any further publicity for her to increase her fan subscriber base via a non-profit website. --Bárðarbunga1 (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Who said anything about page views? I simply said it was eye-catching, which it is - GIFs on the front page usually are. I've never suggested that we should run hooks solely based on how many page hits they are likely to get - that would be turning the project into a tabloid. On the other hand, it isn't bad to run hooks which get a lot of attention, because that helps engage people with the encyclopedia. If overall page hits are down, maybe it's because our main page content just hasn't been interesting enough lately. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: These kinds of things like page views, fluctuate for a myriad of reasons that go beyond even Wikipedia itself. Societal reasons, internet trends, national and international reasons for a site as big as Wikipedia. I highly doubt it had anything to do with the main page being dry, considering it always has been. And to reiterate, Wikipedia it not here to pick up a crowd with an "entertain-me" mentality, it's here to be an encyclopedia. Heck, changing Wikipedia's M.O. to something more tabloid-esque could in the long term risk losing people as it is not what they come to expect from this site -- it's hard to say. Lastly, I never said hooks were bad, although I believe that certain kinds of hooks are. Holidayruin (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll link the nomination discussion once more: Given the combination of a sexuality topic and a freely licensed gif, I think there's a very solid chance this could become one of the top-performing DYK hooks of all time. [...] I think ALT0 is definitely the stronger choice for a hook. (Link: "sex sells.") I'm not plugged into the "do you know" process, but my impression is that performance is measured by increased traffic to the linked page. Let me know if that's not the implication of that quote. Autumnontape (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why did page views literally halve in the last days of April 2020? Page views are weird man, don't do stuff based on that. Do stuff based on being an encyclopedic reference site. A site with so much interesting information to be uncovered by the site's users. Holidayruin (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, you've the resolve and sanity of ten editors, Gatoclass, and i'm not sure why you think i'm trying to stick you with the blame for this. There's an argument in "we're not censored, shocking for attention to then show something real is okay". Forgive me if I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're saying "i didn't think this hook was shocking, and didn't take into account the fact that a strong objection from a lot of people at WT:DYK might be a reasonable indication that this hook will be perceived as shocking". Which makes me feel like you're talking about the hook based on how it should be perceived (which would, i understand, cast it in a more favourable and educational light) and not about its actual (short-lived) impact on readers. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I really don't want to spend any more time on this, but when people keep mischaracterizing my comments it's hard to do otherwise. TLC, I have never suggested that I think you are trying to "stick [me] with the blame for this" - indeed I thought I'd made it clear that I think nothing blameworthy has occurred. As for "shocking", that is your word, not mine, but regardless, when a discussion revolves around perceptions, I'm entitled to express an opinion just like anybody else. Ultimately though, questions of this kind are resolved according to the relevant policies, and apart from the fact that some folks evidently object to a porn actress pulling a face in a main page GIF, I haven't seen a lot of those. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: damn, I'm sorry, I meant to cut the blame line—I kept rewriting and rebodging the response as i reinterpreted your reply. As for everything else, I'll say that we'll just leave it here—this comes off the main page in seventy minutes. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and i value it even when I disagree. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with all the dissenters above. The ultimate thing this comes down to is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference material; not an entertainment social media site like Twitter, Facebook, or even in many cases YouTube.

Most of the precedence examples for past "controversial DYK content" don't really apply here because most of them did have encyclopedic value that someone could reasonably gain greater valuable life information from to some extent (except the thirst trap one), and even those did have well-reasoned dissent.

I'm sure you all know how Wikipedia used to be considered an "unfit" site for citing as factual reference material. This site has built a stellar reputation over many decades at this point and things like this chip away at Wikipedia's encyclopedic reputation.

I worry that I cheapened the discussion over this with my earlier "horny jail" comment, which was meant to be funny. I realize I set the wrong tone for this discussion. Sorry. Holidayruin (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• My issue with it is that it makes the front page look like something you'd find on a 14-year-old boy's Geocities web page circa 1997. And people wonder why we have a gender gap ... sigh. But whatever, carry on, it'll be gone in an hour or so. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• I found the little movie not only harmless, but rather charming. It's a bit of fun that made me smile. Thank you! Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  There are plenty of other websites that can provide you with that type of "bit of fun". Asystole (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  If you mean porn, that is not my cup of tea. The clip was not porn: it was a joke about porn. Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Long time Wikipedia reader here, how is this not considered free advertisement for that person? You irresponsibly exposed millions to her business that would otherwise probably never heard of her. This is not some word that everybody knows and some people are offended by, or some 18th century painting (as some people tried to argue above). I don't care about the article or her person but I find extremely tasteless to have allowed this to happen to the Main Page of Wikipedia. To be honest, I fought at first that the DYK template got vandalized (and was planning to find a way fix it) because the image and the text seem completely out-of-place, unless Wikipedia is planning to compete with fetish subreddits. I was surprised to learn that this was not the case; whoever was in charge of this should lose their privileges immediately. FDN (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  The same happens for any DYK hook of any company or person with direct consumer value. Assuming this is actually a problem, unless we want to exclude hooks about any existant company or living entertainer, this is not solvable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not just companies and people, also books, films, characters, ... featuring any of these could cause people to become interested and spend money that they didn't want to spend. The only real solution (if we consider this a problem) is to remove all content from the Main Page and to keep only the search bar. (I'm opposed to that solution). —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• People seem to have forgotten that "I'll have what she's having" was considered quite groundbreaking as feminist humour. See the Washington Post: 'Not everyone understood the joke. “When the scene was shown to a Las Vegas convention of movie distributors, the men in the room did not react at all. They didn’t get it,” Cohen wrote. “The women, however, did. They laughed, and their laughter became infectious until, one by one, the men joined in.”' This is knowing satire of a similar sort but some people still don't seem to get it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Convert GIF to JPG

Off MP. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the image really need to be in GIF? Some phones don't render GIFs properly. My dad's phone, for example, renders the gif as a still image, and it only displays her smiling. A lot of readers would be confused with this and it would probably be better if we convert the image to a JPG. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

think there might be other issues with your dad seeing the porn gif mate 166.182.80.87 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Welp, the gif is in the main page now, and apparently, an average of 5.5 million people are seeing Wikipedia's main page every day. I hope that doesn't mean that 5,5 million are having "other issues" for looking at an image placed on the main page. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I would second the suggestion to use a static image on the Main Page instead. I have no opinion on the content as such and whether it is unfit for being on the Main Page in the first place, but I find the fact that it's animated very distracting: it constantly draws your attention when you are trying to read the rest of the page. 188.108.121.147 (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, me too. I would like to weigh in on the discussion above, but social repercussions etc. So, this suggestion is the only thing I could do in regards to the GIF. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

But then you would lose the cheeky smile at the end of the GIF that makes it clear she is just kidding around. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This...thread....needs more participants. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A valid point, but since the hook on the Main Page is not intended to convey everything there is to know about a subject to begin with, I don't think that this is much of an issue. In fact, the text itself says “[…] orgasm faces (example pictured) […]”, so a static illustration depicting what an “orgasm face” is, for the benefit of those who're not familiar with manga/anime (the majority of our readers, I would presume), would suffice IMHO. 188.108.121.147 (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that "it is replaced by a still for some people" is a convincing reason to replace it by a still for everyone. —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Solution to Belle Delphine GIF Problem

Off MP. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the ones who are, like me, personnaly offended by GIF, but don't care much about what millions of readers will see, there's a script that hides images. Here: User:Anomie/hide-images. Hope it helps you. Arado Ar 196 (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody cares. This is Wikipedia, not a Disney movie. 211.47.88.109 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If you don't care, it doesn't mean that nobody cares, and it's not exactly civil to speak for all. Look slightly above the header of this thread and you shall see the ones who care. Plus, I don't quite understand what you mean by "not a Disney movie" (you'll be laughing but I find some Disney movies offensive too). I know that Wikipedia isn't censored, thank you very much for reminder, friend. But I haven't proposed to remove anything, I just suggested easy solution for people who don't tolerate such content for whatever reasons. If you don't need the script and have no interest in it, then I kindly ask you to find something other to do than being spokeperson for all readers and editors. I beg my pardon if previous phrase is kind of rude. Have a nice day, comrade. Arado Ar 196 (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diocletian

Solved the Crisis of the 3rd Century? That's pretty funny. The civil wars began immediately again almost as soon as he retired. That statement just isn't backed up with the facts. Stability was reached with Constantine (for a while).50.111.45.222 (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Now THIS, I think, is a discussion worth having. I guess that shows where my priorities lie.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted that part removed from the 'On This Day' section, as it just doesn't wash.50.111.45.222 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

POTD: time limit on nominations?

Editors watching this page may be interested in WT:POTD#Time limit on nominations?. IznoPublic (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)