Jump to content

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Today's featured article

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bridies (talk | contribs) at 14:37, 9 March 2008 (→‎March 11). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

  • (updates daily)

Articles suggested here must already be Featured Articles. Articles do not have to be suggested to appear on the main page. Requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests on this page at any time.

Requests are not the only factor in scheduling Today's Featured Article; the final decision rests with the Featured Article Director (Raul654). Please confine date requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not mean the article will appear on the requested date.

Generally speaking, preference will be given to requests for older featured articles (articles that have been waiting longest for a TFA slot, provided they clearly meet the current standard), articles whose nominators have multiple featured articles pending, core topics of widespread interest, subject matter that has not been recently on the mainpage, and requests that are particularly relevant to a given date (especially major anniversaries). When nominating, editors should describe the article in terms of these considerations.

Requests

March 14

Frank Lampard playing.
Frank Lampard playing.
Chelsea F.C. are an English professional football club based in west London. Founded in 1905, they play in the Premier League and have spent most of their history in the top tier in English football. They have had two broad periods of success, one during the 1960s and early 1970s, and the second from the late 1990s to the present day. Chelsea have won three league titles, four FA Cups, four League Cups and two UEFA Cup Winners' Cups. Chelsea's home is the 42,055 capacity Stamford Bridge football stadium in Fulham, West London, where they have played since their foundation. Despite their name, the club are based just outside the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. In 2003, the club were bought by Russian oil magnate Roman Abramovich. The club's traditional kit colours are royal blue shirts and shorts with white socks. Their traditional crest is a ceremonial blue lion holding a staff; a modified version of this was adopted in 2005. (more…)


The date they play in the first league cup final at the new Wembley Stadium. Buc (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take your pick from the following:

Image:Chelsea4.jpg Image:Robbencech.jpg Image:Ashleycole.jpg Image:Alex makelele.jpg Image:Shevchenko Chelsea 2.jpg Image:Michael ballack chelsea.jpg Image:JohnTerry.JPEG Image:John Terry during a match vs Everton at Stamford Bridge in 2006.jpg Image:Terry lampard.JPG Image:Stamford Bridge.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose We now have a football FA 6 days after Bobby Robson is up, I don't think that is acceptable. (I understand the mitigating circumstances). I also think it is slightly inappropriate to "take sides" during a Cup final. Would it not be better to have this up on March 14, the clubs foundation? Woody (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, would support on March 14. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-13 21:29
Comment

I don't like the change of this subsection header to February 24 or March 14. It seems unfair to others to ask for one of 2 dates, instead of a discussion of just one date. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

Chrono Trigger (クロノ・トリガー, Kurono Torigā) is a console role-playing game developed and published by Square (now Square Enix) for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System video game console. It was released on March 11, 1995 in Japan and August 22, 1995 in North America. The game's story follows a group of young adventurers who travel through time to prevent a worldwide catastrophe. Chrono Trigger was developed by a group called the "Dream Team", consisting of Hironobu Sakaguchi, Kazuhiko Aoki, and composer Nobuo Uematsu—known for their works on the Final Fantasy series—and Yuuji Horii and artist Akira Toriyama, developers for the Dragon Quest series. Masato Kato wrote most of the plot, while composer Yasunori Mitsuda scored most of the game before falling ill and deferring his duties to Uematsu. Critics considered certain aspects of Chrono Trigger revolutionary, including its multiple endings, plot-related sidequests focusing on character development, unique battle system, and detailed graphics. Square re-released a ported version by TOSE in Japan for the Sony PlayStation in 1999, later repackaged with a Final Fantasy IV port as Final Fantasy Chronicles in 2001. It has never been released in PAL territories. (more…)

As you can see from here, Chrono Trigger's a very old FA (dating from summer 2006) that hasn't appeared on the main page. The date is the Japanese release of the game's 13th anniversary. I invested several hours of work in January to ensure it meets current standards, including a trimming of the plot. For comparison here is the old version. Still, if it has too many fair use images or if anyone has any other suggestions, I'd be more than happy to hear them to make sure Chrono Trigger is perfect for the main page. It's a little embarrassing how bad the article had become. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 06:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - it's a great article, plus it has a date connection. I say it's fine for March 11, no problems with it going then.--Paaerduag (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Would be featured less than a month after the previous video game TFA. Epbr123 (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is the picture really relevant enough to the article? I understand that time travel is an important part of the game, but a random picture of an antique clock seems a tad arbitrary. More importantly, I'm a bit skeptical to the PD license reasoning. Can a clock face, with hands, really be considered a "two-dimensional work of art"? Peter Isotalo 15:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I appreciate that the nominator has done work on this article, but I still have to oppose on topic diversity. We have been averaging about one TFA a month on video games alone recently. That is a high average for this one genre. Awadewit | talk 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, let's look at topics which received more than one article in January. We have two poems, ten biographies (half or more of them about British citizens), two governmental buildings, two geography / geology articles, three wars or battles, and two films. Oh, and only one video game article. Now let's look at February's multiple offenders under your belief: two animals, two biographies, two literary works, and two articles on language. Oh, but we mustn't stop there; let's look at what violates your rule by having one per month across both, excluding the ones mentioned above: two albums, two sports, and two governmental legal documents. It should be obvious now that protesting one video game article per month is an act of savage hypocrisy. I never thought WP:VG would still have to contend with this in 2008; it's as if we are subhuman editors because we write about video games. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is that much broader subjects of generel relevance are equated with a much more specific one. In a hierarchy of topics, geology, languge or zoology would never appear on the same level as video games, and that has nothing to do with any bias against pop culture. The same thing applies to many other entertainment topics. Peter Isotalo 08:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Concur with Zeality, limiting article becuase of a previous appearence is the dumbest thing I have heard on this page in well over a year. The dates relevent and the article has been waiting two years, so put it up and let it shine. PS: for the record MILHIST articles are also major offenders of the "one month" concept, its not uncommon to see two or three articles on or relating to the armed services out on the main page within a 30 day span. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Limiting articles on the main page because of the medium of the subject is idiotic. I'ts a great article about a monumental game and the date is relevant. In the past month we've had numerous sports/fiction/film-related articles featured. Suggesting that those articles are somehow more worthy to be featured than video game-related articles is rather disrespectful to the users who put in such hard work to get these articles to FA. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-13 19:26
  • Support - People work damn hard on these Featured Articles, and to not include them because "I don't like video games on the main page" is absurd, as Zeality has just demonstrated, establishing some kind of rule about it specifically for video games is inappropriate. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Discussing previous appearances is not dumb, absurd, or idiotic. "Topic balance," as it's come to be called, has been a healthy addition to discussions here, supplementing a strict focus on dates. The fact is that a great many people view most video games articles as lacking widespread and long-term relevance. That we should limit them on the main page relative to their weight on the FA list is a defensible position. I was in favour of the last video game, so I don't think I'm being savage. Neutral here. I think more than a month is actually best, but Zeality does have four waiting. Marskell (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that using "idiotic" to describe arguments opposing featuring articles based on the medium of the subject of the article was not helpful. I still maintain that articles on sports, films, and music have a much easier ride. Perhaps this is a generational issue, and I would contend that there are a great number of young people on Wikipedia who find video game-related articles much more relevant than film or TV-related articles. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-13 19:58
We don't need to unpack the full argument here, although perhaps it is time to have it out in full on some talk page. Of course, it's demographic and generational in part. Video games are especially relevant to teenage males and the aggregate of internet users skews in that direction. Hence we have a lot of video game FAs. (Video games are also relevant to some about-30 friends of mine, so there's no belittlement intended.) That a majority of individual video game titles lack long-term relevance is a plain fact. Just as most penny dreadfuls and B movies lack the same. It's not video games per se. It's "short term culture" (I include most individual TV episodes and agree we should limit those). Short term culture is something people are often immediately thinking about (not just teenage males) but something we should suppress, to a degree, on our main page. But we should still reward regular FAC contributors; thus my neutral. Marskell (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My argument has consistently been that video game articles should not be privileged more than any other subject. Those editors that want video game subjects to end up having some sort of de facto TFA subject dominance need to make a very strong case for why that should be. I am willing to listen to their arguments, but they have to make them. Awadewit | talk 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I can't agree with your assessment of that; Knut the polar bear? Cannibal Holocaust, a gloried snuff film? These are not world historic, extremely notable in the history of the world topics, but they get FA treatment. As I have understood it, all articles, except articles like the Missionary Position, will at some point go on the main page, and I think we should stick to that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If literally all FAs are to get mainpage attention, we need to revamp the mainpage. If you have suggestions for how this should be solved, I think the talkpage would be a good place to start. With the current format, however, the expectaion that all FAs except those that are too controversial will get mainpage attention is completely unrealistic. Peter Isotalo 09:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • probable sock Support - In addition to the already-mentioned fact that March 11 is the date of Chrono Trigger's original Japanese release, the author has multiple FAs pending. A TFA of the caliber this author demonstrates can only encourage other contributors of videogame information to sharpen their own articles. Videogames are a major cultural phenomenon throughout the world, and as a regular visitor to Wikipedia I would not mind seeing one or two such entries per month. FaustWolf (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, using sockpuppets on this page *would* be idiotic, since this is a discussion, not a vote. I'm sure that Mark doesn't take the fanboy support "votes" into consideration anyway. Pointing people from WP:VG to this discussion is not a problem for the same reason: this is a discussion. If there are convincing arguments from either side of the debate those arguments will carry more weight than 50 video game-fanboys piling on their support. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-13 20:20
Broadly, this is a vote. (Do we need the wiki-theology discussion about the term?) And FaustWolf clearly appears to be a sock, stacking the vote. It's just a shame, because we haven't had it here. Marskell (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant no offense -- I am merely a regular Wikipedia visitor and wished to chime in. Videogames being a personal passion, I was charged up enough to make an account so I could post. Does one typically need to have a certain number of contributions under his or her belt to participate in these discussions? FaustWolf (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken whatsoever FaustWolf! We're just wary of contributors using multiple accounts to tilt a discussion in their favor (see WP:SOCK). Since this was your first contribution to Wikipedia, I hope you can understand that some people might find it slightly suspicious: usually first-time contributors don't make their first edit in the non-article namespace. But we definitely welcome your contributions! JACOPLANE • 2008-02-13 21:03
I had a lengthy response half-typed, but realized it was mainly beans. Insofar as you appear a sockpuppet, you don't appear a very good one, so I don't want to hand out ideas. If you're not a sock, very sorry—you can prove me wrong by editing mainspace articles. If you successfully do so for a month or two, please call me a quick-to-judge asshole on my talk page. In the meantime, I don't think your vote (or !vote) should be considered. Marskell (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken on my end either. I am well aware of what a "sock-puppet" is and hope to prove my good faith in the coming years. As for my input here, let the cards fall where they may; I assumed it was an open-ended discussion and not a one-person, one-vote event. FaustWolf (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This may be more appropriate for the talk page, but since the discussion has come to this point it doesn't seem completely inappropriate.
    While I can understand the reasoning to which Marskell mentioned in limiting "short-term culture", I feel its main purpose is to help Wikipedia gain creditability as a reliable encyclopedia. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation. And while I agree that Wikipedia should do what it can do bolster its image, I can't help but feel its created a negative view among editors towards "short-term culture" articles. In regard to the demographics Marskell commented on, I feel some data should be mentioned to get a better perspective on the audience interested in video games and how it falls into our culture.
    The Entertainment Software Association found that in 2006, the average gamer age was 33, only 31% of gamers were under the age of 18, only 23% of gamers were males under the age of 18, adult gamers have been playing video games an average of 12 years, and 69% of American heads of households play video games.[1] The BBC found similar results in the UK with the average age at 28 and 59% of all people ages 6-65 play games, with the two largest age groups being 25-35 (5.5mil) and 36-50(6.7mil).[2] Though I don't know the age demographics of internet users, I think the data shows that interest in video games is not relevant mainly to a male, teenage demographic/generation. Video games have been around for more than a few decades, and have gained in popularity and in notoriety. For example, the Writers Guild of America just started a Videogame Writing award.
    The point of my long winded comment is that video games may not be the childish play toys some people perceive them to be. They are growing more and more as a part of our culture, and I hope the various editors here keep that in mind when voicing their support/opposition. To sum up, flooding TFA with video game articles would be foolish, and you are right to limit that number. Though I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the limit somewhat mirror the level of relevance video games have on society. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Again, I emphasize that I, at least, am concerned about topic diversity. I am making no judgments about the value of video games. I think that people are ascribing views to me and my votes that aren't really there. Because wikipedia is an encyclopedia and covers such a wide range of topics, it should showcase that wide range on the front page. It should not repeat the same topics on the main page in quick succession. Awadewit | talk 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In addition to the frequency argument, which I agree with (as an avid video game fan, it is inconceivable to argue that it's as of equal relevance to, say, geology), the content in the article itself is pretty weak, in my opinion. Nandesuka (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it is, now? Then take it to WP:FAR. Right now. How the content of Trigger could differ from that of any other featured video game article is mind-blowing. Before one of five featured articles I'm waiting to get on the main page gets shot down, I want to see hard policy on frequency. Like the entire "no fair use images on the main page" thing, I don't want this to be an act of WP:JIMBO or a few controlling editors. Debate it, codify it, and ratify it. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may, I'd like to comment on the charge of weak content in this article since I came to the opposite conclusion in a previous entry here. The article clearly delineates where Chrono Trigger stands in the development of RPGs as a whole -- how it included features like the Active Time Battle System that were honed in Final Fantasy games released prior, and pioneered the New Game+ feature, which would quickly become a staple in future Square games. As an avid gamer I find the section on Chrono Trigger's development especially intriguing; in reading about the interplay among such notables as Yujii Hori, Akira Toriyama, and Yoshinori Kitase in addition to Masato Kato during plot development, the viewer gains insight into how incredibly complex and politically charged videogame design can become. Stylistically speaking, the article makes appropriate use of visual media, artfully dispersing artwork and in-game shots throughout the text without overwhelming it. Juxtaposing a sample from the original soundtrack with a contemporary acid jazz remix illustrates this game's cultural impact; few RPGs in the SNES pantheon have inspired fanworks that cover so many genres. Finally, it goes without saying but the article is impeccably well-documented. FaustWolf (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zeality, try to imagine what would happen if proponents of all sub-topics of all disciplines and encyclopedic subjects demanded policy codification on how much TFA attention they were entitled to. This would include everything from architecture to zoology in the academic field. Add to that everything from board games to TV-programming from pop culture. I think we can safely say that the number of punters would be a far more than the mere thirty (the once-a-month ratio) we're hinting at here.
Peter Isotalo 07:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we have this page, no? Then the system must be improved. If this nomination is removed, it's not hard to imagine that an album, TV show, film, or other video game will replace it in minutes. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this page will ever be controlled by "hard policy", especially not when it comes to defining exactly how many TFAs individual topics are supposed to get. But if you wish to suggest changes in how the selecting process is done, you should take it to the talkpage.
Peter Isotalo 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bureacracy gone mad. That's what I call this new trend to attempt to stop most, if not all, video game articles from appearing on the main page. These are articles just like any other, and there AREN'T THAT MANY that appear on the main page! we have more articles on movies/music etc than on video games, so I don't know why certain individuals (*cough* *cough*) seem to find it necessary to attempt to stop ALL video game TFA bids. These are FAs just like any other, and they deserve their time to shine.--Paaerduag (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (self) Support. I actually tried to TFA this for Chrono Trigger's American birthday one year. I'll admit I'm a bit biased because I helped bring the article up to FA, but you can't deny the article is a damn excellent article. And this "topic bias and hierarchy" thing is a bunch of BS I think because no one will remember what was featured when anyway. And this article has been featured for a year and a half now, so I think it's time it got its due. And no one topic is more important than another; if I said something like that I'd sound like an elitist snob (which I can be from time to time and I regret doing that). --Sir Crazyswordsman 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am concerned by all the video game articles appearing on the main page, I would much prefer for this to have to wait a while longer. Mattyness (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already waited 1.5 years. Only four video game featured articles that haven't been on the main page are older than Chrono Trigger: 3D Monster Maze, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X-2, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. This leaves Trigger 5th in a line of 44 games that haven't reached the main page. Three of the four before it are parts of franchises that have multiple main page appearances as well, leaving just 3D Monster Maze in the same league as Trigger. Chrono Cross is sixth in line. But let's expand it to all video game related topics—54 total. Only Macintosh is older than Chrono Trigger within these added articles, leaving Chrono Trigger sixth in line still. What shall we do; defer it until 2009? 2010? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Perfectly good FA, and has been so for an extended period of time. What more is there to say? -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sorry for saying it here because it's not the right forum, but I don't think the article calls out why this particular video game is very notable, other than the claim in the intro by Nintendo Power that it's "revolutionary" - and Nintendo Power of course was talking about a game on Nintendo, so it's hardly even worth quoting in the first place. When skimming this article, I felt like I was reading just another overlong synopsis of just another video game. I think there are better FAs about more notable subjects that should get in line first. Tempshill (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose IGN rating it in the top 20 games of all time for four years running means nothing, then, along with its other honors and status as a two million-plus seller. And if you don't like the layout of the article, please acquaint yourself with other video game featured articles. It is the time-proven best way to present information on video games by going through gameplay, characters, plot, reception, sequels, etc. This passed the FAC process like every other, and only after a shakedown by Tony and other quality diehards. It did not get some free ride to FA status as a bad article, and criticizing on that premise boils the argument down to "video games are second-class articles on Wikipedia." And perhaps video game article editors are second-class Wikipedians. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article again Temp, it's one of the most acclaimed games ever made, and if you ever played it you would realize this isn't some video game article that scrapped by, it is a very influential game. This discussion is approaching absurdity; this is not Featured Article candidacy or review, and this is not an old or abandoned Featured article. As Zeality has already demonstrated, video games have not appeared inordinately on the main page, and all the rest of these reasons are a smoke screen for prejudice against video game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your ad hominem argument is not convincing, since I've edited tons of video game articles myself. Nope, I never played it. If IGN called it one of the most important video games in the world, why didn't this stand out for me when I read the article? That four years running stance is a lot more convincing than the "revolutionary" blurb from Nintendo Power. Anyway, as I said originally, this isn't the place for arguing about the article, but I'd point out that other FAs are more FA'ish currently, and so, IMO, they should get in line ahead of this one. Tempshill (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To speak the truth is not an "attack", even if you don't like it or makes you uncomfortable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refering to one's own statements as The Truth usually doesn't add much strength to one's argumentation, Judge. Especially not with all the high-pithced misrepresentation going on.
Peter Isotalo 15:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't think it was true, I wouldn't have said it. Regardless, it wasn't an "attack", and the game is very influential and notable; if the article doesn't reflect that, let Zeality know and he can add something or rephrase it, but to those familiar with it can assure you of its sufficient notability for main page featuring. Also, we've just had some rarer FA's, such as the road article, so it's not like they aren't getting on the main page. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The inexplicable 'video-game-are-for-kids' argument had been disproved above by guyinblack. In addition, the claim that too many video games articles go on the main page is invalid when you consider that film and literary articles have appeared more frequently in recent months (according to zeality, above). Video games are just as prevalent (probably more so) an art form and aspect of culture as cinema and literature. Oh, and can someone please explain what 'short term culture' is supposed to mean, google isn't helping? Bridies (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The date is relavent, and the article is an FA, and a solid one at that. Arguements that video games aren't worthwile topics for main page articles are silly- clearly they are, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten to FA. Waiting 1.5 years is plenty of time, and it will have been a month since the previous vg main page article. --PresN (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No arguments as to the general inappropriateness of video games on the main page have actually been made by anyone opposing this or other nominations. Fewer strawmen and more dialog would be helpful. Peter Isotalo 15:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If by 'general inappropriateness' you mean inappropriate full stop, then you are correct, but notice I didn't say anything about that. I'm talking about the argument that they should be limited compared to other topics (including other art/entertainment/culture articles). You may have missed such comments as: 'The fact is that a great many people view most video games articles as lacking widespread and long-term relevance. That we should limit them on the main page relative to their weight on the FA list is a defensible position.' and 'Video games are especially relevant to teenage males and the aggregate of internet users skews in that direction. Hence we have a lot of video game FAs. (Video games are also relevant to some about-30 friends of mine, so there's no belittlement intended.) That a majority of individual video game titles lack long-term relevance is a plain fact. Just as most penny dreadfuls and B movies lack the same. It's not video games per se. It's "short term culture" (I include most individual TV episodes and agree we should limit those). Short term culture is something people are often immediately thinking about (not just teenage males) but something we should suppress, to a degree, on our main page.' These comments are both incorrect and downright insulting. Bridies (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an FA with an anniversary in April I will nominate, in that case. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 18:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - definitely prefer Japan (and initial) anniversary to US one. I'm just happy an article has an anniversary date....heck, none of mine ever do :( [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Great article, with a relevant day for being TFR. I have no problems with it being done. Hello32020 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent article! ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Another video game article after today's choice, ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion? These articles on the main page are an embarrassment and gravely threaten Wikipedia's reputation as a serious source of information. Just take a look at the talk page of today's FA. I can't believe someone would actually consider putting up another article like that merely six days later. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one at WP:VG nominated or requested that article go on the main page, and my request predates its scheduling. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no such reputation as a serious source. This has nothing to do with video games articles. As Zeality pointed out, the fact you 'can't believe someone would actually consider putting up another article like that merely six days later' is because nobody did. Bridies (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the mainstream media gets the story wrong as they know nothing about Wikipedia doesn't mean it's "unreliable", It means use it intelligently and not like a boob who believes whatever he reads. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By 'reputation as a serious source' I assumed he meant a source you could use in an academic paper (whether a peer assessed or student essay). Currently (and probably ever) you can't do this (without being ridiculed/marked down). If he just meant 'serious' as in some content is reliable, then I don't see how video games FAs on the main page negate this. Bridies (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think showcasing ultra-narrow articles with extremely limited staying power on the mainpage really doesn't Wikipedia much good. It favors a category of articles that already has everything going for it and in no need whatsoever of any special encouragement. I'm pretty convinced it makes anyone who doesn't have a major interest in these topics roll their eyes and go "them Wikipedians sure are trying hard to be kooky". It's not so much a matter of reliability, but focus. If Chrono Trigger is a tad obscure, then it's nothing compared to how ridiculously esoteric the ESRB re-rating article was. If this goes up on March 14, the featuring of the previous video game article is most likely going to reflect poorly on this one.
Peter Isotalo 06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and you are just completely speculating again. For my part, I am 'pretty convinced' that generally people will not give a shit about a term used to describe battleships made for about 10 years over a century ago, anymore than they should be interested in an example of video game censorship. If we're talking about Wikipedia's image, it's problems stem from other issues. I don't recall ever seeing a mass media article regarding what goes on the main page (compared to the plethora on inclusionist/deletionist infighting that get linked on here). Any discussion on (i.e. warning against) using wikipedia for academic research begins and ends with the fact it's made up of user generated content. Complaining that certain topics on the main page damage Wikipedia's external perception is pedantic (neverminding the fact that such arguments are unfounded), especially given they take up a day or two here and there amonst plenty of 'ultra-narrow' sport/military history/whatever articles. Bridies (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the fact a video game article has been featured several days before this proposed scheduking of this article, I wouldn't mind it being rescheduled. It's just that to label these articles 'an embarrassment and gravely threaten Wikipedia's reputation', is unnecessary and preposterous. Bridies (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern has never been about the "academic" use of Wikipedia since encyclopedias aren't intended to be used as academic sources in the first place. What I disagree with is that so many editors portray the development of articles on super-specific topics (particularly when it comes to recent popular culture) as being a challange in need of constant support to survive. Just a quick glance at what kind of articles dominate the list of GAs and FAs disproves this. As long as top-level articles are heavily underrepresented in the statistics, they should be heavily favored for TFA attention.
Peter Isotalo 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I still disagree. Bridies (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think everyone above me has said what needs to be said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose indefinitely. Especially in light of ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, there should be a moratorium on non-classic video games. While this is not a bad article and not directly comparable to the ESRB article, I am against the notion that all FAs deserve to get to the front page and just because a FA hasn't made it there for a long time it is more deserving than higher quality, more significant FAs that have been more recently promoted. If editors are doing their jobs, there will always be an increasing backlog of featured articles that haven't made it to the front page, because there will always be more than one net featured article promoted per day, at least for many years to come. TFA is about Wikipedia's image to the world. Yes, there are a lot of kids who do nothing but play video games and edit Wikipedia. Their good efforts are appreciated, but they are not necessarily the most important or valuable articles to make Wikipedia a serious, comprehensive reference work. This article should be left for a time when there have not been recent video games featured for a very long time on the front page, if it is ever featured at all, and there should never be another "ESRB re-rating"-type article on the front page.
I also totally agree with and would echo Guyinblack's comments about "short-term culture." It's not about "bias against video games." We should not feature articles on the front page on passing catchphrases ("I drink your milkshake!" It's timeless!), recent antics of celebrities, and other superficial fads of passing interest and little significance. NTK (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These responses make it sound as if video games are dominating the main page, and it seems that only video games produce this kind of bile and resistance in Wikipedia. Look at the comments at Talk:ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. The article is well-sourced, well-written, well-formatted, well-presented, and well-established concerning notability thanks to third-party press coverage. But according to User:Koalorka, "I agree, this is a joke." Nevermind that Koalorka's articles are all about a bunch of obscure weapons and that he looks like some kind of paramilitary freak, much as video game editors must look like narrow-focused nerds. User:Zidel333, a very active bureaucrat type who oversees AfDs and arbitrations, notes that "This article simply does not make the cut" despite the fact that it meets all the criteria. What is it about video games that inspires such blind hatred and dismissal by otherwise normal Wikipedians? Why don't they share the same for all those goddamn football clubs, or the ludicrous request to make American football "gridiron" so a few people in Australia could find the Pele article faster by searching "football"? What about WP:Military history?
Some people were so happy to see the Elder Scrolls page on the front page of Wikipedia that they stopped in to write about it. User:Resolute said, "Thirded. One of the greatest attributes of Wikipedia is that you can find high quality articles on topics not covered by traditional encyclopedias. Why shouldn't such topics be on the main page?". User:BreathingMeat said, "Congratulations to the editors of this page who should be very proud to have seen it on the front page of Wiki, despite the tone of many of the comments here." User:DrunkCat was more harsh:
Congrats Wikipedians! You've managed to justify and assert that Wikipedia is indeed subjective and contradicting! Condescending and trolling an obviously well written article just because of it's topic matter? Despite the fact that it isn't even the subject matter? Bravo! Lets go and follow that same logic and ignore content on other wikipedia articles and just make the entire Front Page FA system work by selecting the best title'd article. Who cares what it contains? Obviously though if one of the top articles on wikipedia was a stereotypically negative topic, such as Games in this example, we'll never select it. We're far too pish posh for that.
Oh but wait, if this is about how obscure the topic matter is (ignoring the obvious fact that it isn't really much about the video game at all but the over-gloating power a company has to be illogical) then why don't we put something really 'intelligent' sounding and obscure, that maybe only 3 people in the entire continent of America cared about? Yeah, obviously that idea of you guys is fabulous; there's absolutely nothing wrong with the logistics of that train of thought.
But best of all, User:R. Baley put up some hard numbers at Talk:ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion#My_Observations:. He demonstrated that there was much more interest and activity at the Elder Scrolls article than a few others by comparison (it was less popular than Ronald Reagan. What's that? People had a genuine interest in this obscure subject matter? Yes, people were interested in the Elder Scrolls article. It had 81.7 thousand hits. The event mixed censorship standards, entertainment, and legal problems in an interesting way well presented by the article. Check out the ones before that: The Philadelphia Inquirer had 3.8k hits. Crusaders (Rugby had 6.9k hits. Josquin des Prez had 12.5k hits. Joseph Priestley had 15.6k hits. Hamilton, Ohio had 33k hits. M62 Motorway had 33.9k hits. Axis naval activity in Australian waters had 55k hits. Europa (moon) had 50k hits. Kinetoscope had 28k hits. Ban Ki-moon had 21.5k hits. East End of London had 37.9k hits. Rachel Carson had 30.8k hits. Bengali Language Movement had 14k hits. I'm already on February 20, and nothing has come close to 81.7 thousand hits.
The only argument left is that video game articles somehow fail to uphold some noble encyclopedic aim to inform humanity. Well if you want informed humanity, there it stands in the numbers. Chrono Trigger is a classic game well alive in the genre's consciousness (it ranked 8th best game of all time by a poll of gamers in Japan that came out two days ago) and the Elder Scrolls article also had notability and sparked interest concerning American censorship. The problem that pop culture dominates the main page is not somehow exclusive to video games, and neither is it really as bad as the traditional topic purists think it is. If Wikipedia can break out a bunch of readership on something like that, it's a strength. Encyclopedia Britannica would envy our diverse range of topics and community-driven appeal. I considered threatening to leave Wikipedia at one point, but the entire Elder Scrolls ordeal and the experience of nominating Chrono Trigger has demonstrated that the appearance on the main pages of these articles is most likely a net positive. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the rant. As was pointed out the number of hits is irrelevant. I am sure that we would get more hits even than Ronald Reagan if we featured 2 Girls 1 Cup on the front page, but I hope that we would not do that, regardless of how high quality that article became. Hits don't mean approval or that the article is what we want to feature to represent Wikipedia. We should feature articles that are not so clearly divisive—and I mean divisive as to their fundamental, long-term significance, not controversial but indisputably significant subject matter that can be presented neutrally such as Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. Most people agree that the ESRB article was clearly out of line. And most reasonable people will agree that if the front page is awash with video games, Wikipedia will not be projecting an image as a serious reference (and that doesn't mean as an academic primary source, so don't go there).
Also, I think it is out of line for you to go on ad hominem attacks against people who criticized the ESRB re-rating front paging for their own editing histories. It is irrelevant, and besides, guns (even if I do not like them myself) are clearly more significant than this trivial event, and editing an article has nothing to do with whether you think it belongs on the front page. NTK (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"guns (even if I do not like them myself) are clearly more significant than this trivial event" Aha. The defense rests. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Thank you for the rant' hahaha, what a hypocrite Bridies (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The parallell to featuring 2 Girls 1 Cup exceeds even the lack of tact evident in the call for having Raul deposed over his choice of a particular TFA, NTK.
As a comment to the visitor stats, though, I think the hits for the various TFAs are more indicative of certain groups being over-represented in the Wikipedia readership. There's also a rather obvious "what on earth is this long-titled article actually about"-factor that should be considered. For example, the death of Gary Gygax made that article one of the most visited Wikipedia entries as of lately, but that doesn't mean that the majority of the reading public are particularly interested in RPGs. And if I recall correctly, I also remember that American Idol (season 7) was at the top of the current list of most visisted articles, but that is hardly a good argument for plastering the mainpage with articles on contestants of that show, or indeed any random flash in the pan aspect of popular culture. There's a potential conflict whether we should be a broad encyclopedia or a recent events-promoter. The two aren't entirely contradictory, but I do believe the need to be balanced more carefully.
Peter Isotalo 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

The Globe Arena in Stockholm
The Globe Arena in Stockholm
Melodifestivalen is an annual music competition organised by Swedish public broadcasters Sveriges Television and Sveriges Radio. It determines the country's representative for the Eurovision Song Contest, and has been staged, almost every year, since 1959. The competition is the most popular television programme in Sweden; it is also broadcast on radio and the internet. The festival has produced four Eurovision winners and sixteen top-five placings for Sweden at the Contest. The winner of the Melodifestival has been chosen by panels of jurors since its inception. Since 1999, the juries have been joined by a public telephone vote which has an equal influence over the final outcome. The introduction of semifinals in 2002 raised the potential number of contestants from around twelve to thirty-two. A children's version of the competition, Lilla Melodifestivalen, also began in 2002. Light, orchestrated pop songs, known locally as schlager music, are seen as so prevalent that the festival is sometimes referred to as Schlagerfestivalen by the Swedish media. However, other styles of music such as rap, reggae, and glam rock have made an appearance since the event's expansion. The introduction of a grand final in Stockholm has attracted considerable tourism to the city. (more...)

12 March 2008 is the fiftieth anniversary of Sweden's debut in the Eurovision Song Contest. It is also three days before the 2008 final, which gives it a current relevance. It will have been featured for nearly three months by then. There hasn't been a Eurovision-related article on the Main Page since the main Eurovision Song Contest article in May 2007. Swedish emigration to the United States was featured in January, but apart from the Sweden connection the two articles couldn't be more different. Chwech 16:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


March 18

Princess Louise in 1901
Princess Louise in 1901
Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll (March 18 1848 – December 3 1939) was a member of the British Royal Family, the fourth daughter and sixth child of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. Louise spent her early life under the roof of her parents, and when her father died in 1861, she took on the role as a companion to her mother. In 1871, Louise married John Campbell, Marquess of Lorne, and became the first daughter of a sovereign to marry a British subject since 1515. Although the marriage was initially happy, the couple drifted apart as a result of their childlessness and the Queen's constraints on their activities. In 1878, Louise's husband was appointed Governor General of Canada, and Louise spent five years as his consort. When Louise returned to Britain, she remained close to the Queen and undertook a number of public duties on her behalf. Following the Queen's death in 1901, she remained close to younger generations of the British royal family, and died in 1939 at the age of 91. Louise was a talented sculptress and an artist, and several of her sculptures remain today. (more…)

I'm nominating this because 18 March will mark the 160th anniversary of her birth. However, this has only very recently (17 February) been featured. I think the date is significant, and I hope that it's featured date won't prove to be a barrier. Nevertheless, if editors disagree with this, I will happily remove this nomination from the list. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - While preference is given to older articles, that in an of itself does not require an older FA in every case, so why not? It is high quality, and as the newer FA's are generally of higher quality than older FA's, it would be nice to show a fresh article to readers. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Judgesurreal (never thought I'd hear myself say that...), great chance for article focus and improvement... [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 07:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree w/ Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very good biography. As mentioned above there have not been a lot of royalty articles lately, and this being an English encyclopedia it's alright if there are occasionally a number of British topics. There's not eyebrows raised when someone nominates USA-topics (and I am an American). NTK (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

A sea otter wraps itself in kelp in Morro Bay, California.
A sea otter wraps itself in kelp in Morro Bay, California.
The sea otter (Enhydra lutris) is a marine mammal native to the coasts of the northern and eastern North Pacific Ocean. Its many unusual characteristics include the use of rocks as tools to forage and to open shells, luxurious fur that is the densest of all animals with up to 150,000 hairs per cm2 (nearly 1 million per sq in), and its role as a keystone species, controlling populations of marine herbivores which would otherwise inflict extensive damage to kelp forest ecosystems. Although the sea otter belongs to the weasel family and can walk on land, it can also live exclusively in the ocean. Once hunted to the brink of extinction for its fur, the sea otter's numbers have rebounded in about two-thirds of its historic range, a recovery that is considered one of the greatest successes in marine conservation. However, it remains classified as an endangered species and is highly vulnerable to oil spills. (more…)

This article illustrates many concepts in ecology, evolution, marine resource management, and unsolved scientific mysteries, and gets the public interested because the sea otter is so damned cute. For many, the sea otter became one of the most potent images of wildlife affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 24, 1989. The article ties into the oil spill story, however unlike most angles on the subject matter, this one is not at all depressing to read. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=197005208"