Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Opinion

← Back to Opinion

Discuss this story

• Thanks for your good work, Adam. Given I have about one in twelve featured pictures, every June will be Adam Month... And for making me laugh out loud. Schwede66 23:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I have to thank all the editors who helped keep my sarcasm from falling into the Sar Chasm, from which no enlightenment about my actual plans could emerge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 23:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Excellent. Thanks for taking on this project with such enthusiasm. I agree with most of what you say above but do think that dealing with random images from sets of banknotes is a good option for displaying them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Cwmhiraeth: Possibly for larger sets. The problem we have, though, is there's no way to flip through the selection if we do, and, as sets get larger, the number of times you need to refresh to have, say, a 50% chance of seeing all the images rises exponentially. I think the current random choice took isn't up to the task (and a bit hard to use), though I'm not against the concept of it if we could do it a bit better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 10:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Given that last year I scheduled both Fuck the Millennium and The Sirens and Ulysses as today's featured article with, so far as I am aware, no negative feedback at all I think that you are going to have to try harder if you wish to turn the main page into a sink of debauchery. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: You know how people won't object if something's never been a controversy, but will if someone in the past had arbitrarily held something back, or suggested it be discussed? Wikipedia:POTD/Unused had a bunch of things put on it by past coordinators, no doubt for well-meaning reasons, but which were quite arbitrary in light of everything else put on POTD, TFA, and so on, and removing things from there was far more controversial than it had any right to be, even when there was no discussion whatsoever to put things on there in the first place. I could try to run Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, but the copy we have is so bad that I find it hard to believe that one's still a featured picture by any quality standard, and I don't really want to be put in the position of having to defend an image I don't firmly believe in the quality of again. Because, from past experience, when you tell people that the appropriate venue to deal with quality objections is WP:FPC's delist system, they won't actually take you up on that suggestion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 14:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, pit of iniquity here we come. Shout if you need any support in getting us there. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Adam Cuerden: So, did the June 28th gallery go "horribly wrong"? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  There were issues on mobile. Think they're fixable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 12:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is such a fun read which also wraps up some of your more serious plans. While I skipped some lines, I didn't miss out on a single image! Now that your despotic regime has dawned upon a larger group of unknowing editors, please make it a criteria for everyone who follows to also write their plans here. A pleasure reading, good stuff! FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @FacetsOfNonStickPans: Glad you liked it! I figured, if I'm going to be writing about myself, I kind of have to lean into my sense of humour, or I'd just be writing some soulless essay about how great I am that I'd hate. (Not meant as an attack on others, it's more knowing where my strengths are, and where they really aren't.) Then the Signpost staff and volunteers helped me make sure the line between joke and actual information was clear. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 02:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)