Talk:Main Page#Errors in "Did you know ..."

On June 20, the 50th anniversary of the release of the film Jaws, both TFA and PotD will mark the occasion. As the TFA scheduling coordinator for June, I picked a different image from the PotD to avoid duplication, but their text is similar to ours. I'm being proactive and asking for ideas as to how best to do this and avoid later criticism of duplication, etc. Potd: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POTD/2025-06-20 here]; TFA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/June_20,_2025 here].--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging @Dream out loud, who scheduled the POTD. Perhaps the POTD could be bumped back to 2026 (or even 2030 or 2035 for a round-number anniversary) to avoid duplication. Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think it's OK if multiple projects feature the same theme as long as there is different content. I'm not suggesting any changes in the choices autonomous main page projects have made.Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Courtesy link|Template:POTD/2025-06-20|Courtesy links:}} and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2025. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I like the call out to POTD in the TFA. If there was a similar call out in the POTD to TFA - Jaws is an American thriller film (see today's Featured Article) released June 20, 1975, directed by Steven Spielberg - we'd have fewer complaints, if any. Stephen 04:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I like Stephen's suggestion, and I think the conjunction is fine as is or with that tweak. My preference would be to rework the POTD blurb to focus more on the poster itself. There's interesting and relevant content to adapt in Jaws (film)#Marketing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::And the fact that the poster, one of the most iconic movie posters ever, is in the public domain due to being published without proper copyright notice per [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Jaws_Illustration_(USCO_Review_Board,_2014) here], could be discussed. The publication without notice was the paperback that is illustrated in the TFA, tying things even closer together. Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Let's try having the two, with references to both, and see what the community thinks. If there is backlash, we know never to do that again. I like the idea of the POTD blurb focusing on the poster and not the actual movie. Z1720 (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::OK, I've taken a swing at it. If people like it, we have plenty of time to fine-tune it. Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I’ve made a minor wording change to the TFA. I like what we’ve got now; it goes well together. Schwede66 21:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think swapping for a different POTD would be a good idea, and then reusing this one in future years as Jay8g suggests. Next year or 2030 would both be fine. It gives the FA another day on the main page without being pointlessly duplicated, and means we can use a proper summary blurb for both. I know we have very occasionally done custom special occasion days, like the Apollo 11 anniversay in 2019, but these are very much IAR and I don't think apply here.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, it would be better to defer the image for a year than to feature the same topic twice on the same day. OTD items are swapped out to avoid duplicating the TFA, so I think POTD should do the same. Modest Genius ^talk 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

: This is 8 days ago can we delete this nowJguywiki (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure the discussion is completed yet. I'm minded to move the POTD entry, given the agreement by Modest Genius above, I would have done this without further comment if I had spotted it before this discussion begun.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::(Sorry for indentation, editing on a phone sucks.) I’d actually prefer trying this and seeing how it works out. I’d oppose if the content was the same, but I like what people have done with the TFA blurb a POTD caption. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If the PotD is moved, obviously TFA would delete the reference to PotD and probably change the image to the film poster. But I'd like to try it this time. When main page areas have shared a theme (the Elizabeth II funeral comes to mind), there have been complaints of lack of coordination. Here, we are taking pains to coordinate, and I'd be interested in seeing community reaction. Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I love architecture as much as the next guy but I swear I’ve been seeing Frank Lloyd Wright designed buildings bimonthly for months now and this week there were 2 in a row. Is there a reason for this besides someone just really liking FLW? —My One Braincell (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{NAO}} I remember there was this thread of "why does wikipedia have so many Alexander McQueen articles as TFA?" The answer was basically that someone was interested writing them, and a lot were promoted to FAs and went to TFA, which likes to have a lot of diverse genres, and without Alexander McQueen we had basically no fashion articles. So basically, yes, someone just really likes FLW. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::There haven't been any FLW TFA's this month, much less two in a row this week. Are we talking about some other section? DYK or OTD maybe? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Most likely DYK, considering we have an FLW hook on there right now. Worgisbor (congregate) 20:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::: (ec) We will have seen DYK, where we had almost one each day this week, and it's so much nicer than some other stuff I saw there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:There are some very tallented editors who expand/rewrite pages on Frank Lloyd Wright's work and nominate them for DYK. DYK always has diversity of subjects day-to-day, but there is less emphasis on having new topics every day. You are always welcome to nominate new articles for DYK if you would like to add to the diversity! GGOTCC 00:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)