Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• 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 04:11 on 17 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Same mosaic, different color profile.

I was confused as to why Justinian appeared to have a mustache – it turns out the picture of the famous mosaic used for OTD doesn't have the same color profile as the one used in his article. Is there a reason for the different choices? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This kind of thing has bothered me for a long time. Often I'll see a bad image of some piece of art and want to "improve" it. The problem is, I'm never sure what it's supposed to look like. Often by playing with the exposure, I can bring out detail which wasn't visible in the original image. But was it just badly photographed? Badly lit? Was the original faded after many years (or centuries)? Did the original artist intentionally make it dark for aesthetic reasons? Good technical photography will often include calibrated color chips in the frame so you can correct for all those things. But for somebody grabbing a snap in a museum, not so much. RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby and RoySmith: according to this the mosaics were restored between 1989 and 2018, and the photos here seem to be before and after. TSventon (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Also @HotMess: for information, who added the image here. TSventon (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1944 – Operation Queen: ... commenced with one of the heaviest Allied tactical bombings of the war, attacking German targets in the Rur valley. — "Rur" redirects to the Roer Valley. Seems to be some confusion about these toponyms. (Also, not to be confused with the Ruhr Valley. And Ger. Wiki also directs to Roer.) – Sca (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  What do you want to change here? Secretlondon (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• According to the first sentence of the Roer article, "Roer" is the Dutch name and "Rur" is the German name, The Ruhr (river) is nearby, but it's north and east of Düsseldorf, and the Roer/Rur is south and west of Düsseldorf. Art LaPella (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 22)

Monday's FL

(November 18, 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.

Today's POTD

Please sync the unprotected page to the protected page to incorporate copyedits by User:jlwoodwa, User:Cowboygilbert, and User:Art LaPella.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. Oops, how'd I let that happen? Nobody really likes the duplicate POTD system because this keeps happening, but nobody who knows how ever fixes it. Art LaPella (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I’d love to get rid of that archaic system, Art LaPella. Schwede66 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Featured picture layout glitch

Hi, for me (IE 8), the "Today's featured picture" box is about a hundred miles wide, with the whole of "A stitched panoramic view ... the Empire State" on one line before any wrap occurs. The picture itself seems reasonbly sized, with a horizontal scroll bar, centred relative to the box but appearing well off the visible page (i.e. I have to scroll the page far to the right to see it). 86.160.213.4 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep - same for me on IE8 too. Don't feel confident to fix it though. Pedro :  Chat  08:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please report problems at Template talk:Wide image so that the template creators can attempt a fix. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure that's the best page howcheng, given the last edit to it was over six months ago. Nevertherless fixing it is barely worthwhile now. I suppose that as it's a Sunday we have less activity on en.wiki, but it's a shame that for one of the most used browsers by version we managed to bugger up the main page image. Pedro :  Chat  19:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The people who work on the template are all fairly active, so I presume one of them will be able to address any technical issues you may be experiencing without too much delay. howcheng {chat} 16:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing content

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features, the links in "Other areas of Wikipedia" to the community portal, local embassy, site news, and village pump should be removed. I'd be happy to do so, but I wanted to make a note of this change (which currently has consensus) before doing so. Any further objections to the link removal? –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features, the "Wikipedia languages" section at the bottom of the main page should be removed or, at least, trimmed. This has iffier consensus than the link removals discussed in the section above; would anyone like to comment on the section and whether it should be kept as-is, removed altogether, or shortened to include fewer languages? Note the sidebar of the main page lists many languages of Wikipedia already. –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This was/is a straw poll, conceived as a means of deriving a rough idea of what goals to pursue when drafting a proposed main page redesign in the future. The results are inherently non-binding.

The poll attracted a tiny amount of participation (particularly in comparison to the main page feedback obtained in the past), in part because of the opinion that it was fundamentally flawed. Numerous editors (myself included) consciously declined to take part, criticising the use of a poll format (which encourages ballot-casting instead of discussion), the relatively low value of the data solicited (because the main page's elements don't exist in total isolation from each other and cannot simply be inserted/removed in a modular fashion, let alone on the basis of a numerical tally), and the likelihood that some would mistake the questions for binding referenda whose results were to be implemented immediately (which evidently has occurred). —David Levy 18:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So what would be an effective way to go about discussing changes to the main page? –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We need to actually discuss the matter (instead of lining up to cast ballots), focusing on the entire main page (instead of its individual components in isolation).

It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that certain elements be added or removed, but we must consider how these changes affect the main page as a whole. We also need to make such a determination not based on how many people like/dislike something, but by weighing its overall benefit to the community against the benefit of its absence. (For example, if a link is very important to a minority of users, this benefit might outweigh a small clutter reduction for the majority.)

When such concerns have been adequately addressed, we can begin working toward the creation of a new main page draft, incorporating any cosmetic changes in the process. (This, of course, entails further discussion and considerable revision.) After everything's been worked out and consensus has been reached among those involved, then we can seek to confirm the resultant design via a simple vote, which will attract far more participation. (In 2006, more than 900 people commented.) —David Levy 21:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Missingno. as a featured article? Are you kidding me?

Seriously - you're putting an article about an obscure glitch from a mediocre 1990s video game for kids as a "featured article"? What next? Why not put an article on the main page about "Peter Griffin's underpants" or "Theories about the sexual identity of Batman and Robin"? This isn't "Nerdipedia" - this supposed to be an serious encyclopedia, not a collection of fan-cruft. What a disgrace... there shouldn't be a "missingno" article at all - let alone on the main page!--01:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.118.126 (talk)

I was wondering how long it would take for the complaints to start. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Personally, I regard this as an excellent demonstration of Wikipedia's comprehensive nature. The site would be far less successful if we settled for covering only the same subjects as Britannica instead of aspiring to catch 'em all. —David Levy 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It happens to be a Pokémon computer glitch that has been studied by multiple sociologists as well, making it more interesting and notable than most computer glitches in my opinion. Also Mr. David Levy, would that be Ditto (Pokémon)? ;) かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That was an accidental bonus joke!  :) —David Levy 16:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, per the lovely suggestion, anyone want to bring Homosexuality in the Batman franchise up to FA? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I could care less about a Pokemon glitch mob either, but that is irrelevant to the purpose of Today's Featured Article. Articles are judged on quality, not popularity. And if the article meets standards, it deserves its day on the main page, just like every other FA. Additionally, I have written five TFA articles in my time, and this article generates more page views on average than four of them, while the fifth had a very similar number of views last month. Most people may not care about a Pokemon character, but many do. Just the same as a hockey player, Canadian hero or any other topic you can imagine. They all warrant their turn. Resolute 03:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that such a short article can get to be a FA, but great to see a wide range of FAs appearing. Off to start the article on Peter Griffin's underpants. Ridcully Jack (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the tropical cyclone FAs (another common area of complaint) tend to be short too. Ultimately if the article is very well writen and sufficiently comprehensive for the topic and can't be merged elsewhere and whatever else is needed then it probably should be an FA (although that isn't really a discussion that concerns the main page anyway). Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that every video game FA gets flack? Last time I recall someone going through each month's of FA to demonstrate that there was not a video game bias or over-representation of video game FAs over the past year on TFA. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That was probably me. IIRC the average seemed to be slightly over 1 a month. Of course, if you believe the article shouldn't exist and no article of that sort should be on the main page I guess even 1 a year is too much. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember a brief time, I think either late last year or early this, when there seemed to be a game-related featured article every two weeks. (Rather like the polar exploration articles more recently.) That was a bit much, but it only lasted a couple of months. No Pokemon fan I, but a distinct social culture which grows up around a coding glitch is absolutely fascinating! - Tenebris 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Video game FAs make up 4.24% of all FAs (143/3374) and show up on the main page about once/month (3.29%, 12/365), which makes them actually underrepresented on the main page. --PresN 23:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest creating a form letter template for TFA complaints, just to save time and effort for IP users that have an opinion about what goes up on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternately, why don't we just ban certain featured topics from ending up on the main page entirely?--WaltCip (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably because there is no benefit to doing that. Resolute 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Also, the point that the original author brought up regarding this being a "serious encyclopedia"; I've checked the Five Pillars as well as their associated policies but I find nothing to support the concept that we are attempting to be so overly discriminatory that we cannot provide information on subtopics that are notable and verifiable. We are not a paper encyclopedia, and we are not Encyclopedia Britannica. Careful analysis of Wikipedia:Notability also shows that there is no set objective standard that says we cannot publish articles like these. MissingNo, for one, has no less than 18 references, many of which are from very reliable sources.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So when are the 'excess of Mainpage articles on (UK/US/sport/other topic of uninteres)' and/or the 'high squick factor/not in front of the children/Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' discussions starting? Should there be a WikiVanilla Main page from which all the above topics are banned? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I miss these tirades. About time I nominated another article about cricket for TFA. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Shame we can't rerun Fighting in ice hockey. That was a fun TFA! Resolute 16:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Mr. 108.193.x.x in that the article in question gives Wikipedia a rather goofy look. --Belchman (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more 108. What an embarrassment. Vranak (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not usually given to agreeing with TFA complaints, but that is indeed one of the weakest FAs I've ever seen - not because of the subject matter, but the lack of content. It's very short (six paragraphs of body, plus two of lead), has only one image, and the references + navigation box at the bottom are longer than the rest of the article put together. That's hardly an example of our best work. I'm amazed it passed FAC at all, let alone without significant opposition. Modest Genius ^talk 22:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In your assessment, what content is missing? —David Levy 22:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

On this particular topic, I'm not aware of any particular content which is missing (never having heard of the subject until it appeared as TFA). However, that's the not the point I was making. I suppose my issue is with the FA criteria themselves if they allow very short articles to be featured. Whilst it's nice that we have a decent article on the topic, if there's so little to be said about the topic across the entire corpus of reliable sources, it probably shouldn't be allowed to become an FA. Of course I don't want things to move towards any kind of 'importance' criterion, but nor should it be possible to split a tiny sub-topic off another article (here the article on the game itself) and drive this up to FA by virtue of its incredibly narrow scope. DYK has a length requirement, why can't FA, so long as it's sensible set? (maybe 5k words would work) Modest Genius ^talk 19:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The determination of whether a subject warrants a dedicated article is separate. In this instance, the community evidently decided that the MissingNo. article's subject does.

DYK has a length requirement because its focus is article expansion. TFA's focus is overall quality. A minimum length would encourage editors to artificially pad otherwise excellent articles. —David Levy 20:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MG, this simply isn't a great article. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In what area(s) does it need improvement? (If the answer is that it should be longer, I again ask what content is missing.) —David Levy 23:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The point about length (which I made on the wiki-en-l mailing list earlier) is that it short-changes readers who have come to expect a decent-sized read from the daily featured article. There are some sections of longer articles that are longer than this article alone. Consider a reader who came to Wikipedia for the first time and clicked through to this article. They might end up thinking that all featured articles are this short. It is a matter of expectations. If readers come to expect the daily featured article to be a decent length, then that should be taken into consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea basically sums up my thoughts. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You wrote that "this simply isn't a great article." What would make it one? Is it your position that an article cannot be "great" unless it's long? —David Levy 07:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I probably didn't chose my words correctly. I felt the article was too short to be an FA. But to answer you're other question there isn't anything I know of that was left off. I'm not really an expert on the subject. Hot Stop talk-contribs 07:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. —David Levy 13:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That isn't "the point" made by Modest Genius, who appears to suggest that the article's length is indicative of poor quality.

I have a much easier time understanding your point, but I disagree with your use of the term "decent length." An article should be whatever length is needed to convey the encyclopedic information about its subject. I see nothing embarrassing about an article that does so in a concise manner (instead of being padded with fancruft).

Regarding "expectations," let's keep in mind that any featured article is of little or no interest to a large segment of readers. In this instance, why would the article disappoint someone who wishes to read about the video game glitch described therein? Barring the omission of essential information (which no one has asserted), what expectations does it fail to meet? —David Levy 07:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that short length indicated poor quality. My point was that it indicated poor quantity. I think both should be required for FAs (and of course 'too long' is also poor quantity). Modest Genius ^talk 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In my view, an article is "too short" or "too long" if it contains significantly less or more text than is needed to cover the subject in accordance with Wikipedia's content standards. If this can be accomplished relatively succinctly, that's the proper way to do it (and I don't see how this prevents the article from being "an example of our best work"). —David Levy 20:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems in general with that article being a featured article (though I'd have to read it more closely to see if there were any specific concerns). The problem I have is more that it was put on the main page (I haven't looked yet to see if it was nominated at that page for TFA (today's featured article) nominations, or was just selected). I agree that an article should be whatever length it needs to be, but if you re-read what I said you will see that I said "readers who have come to expect a decent-sized read from the daily featured article". The qualification there of 'daily featured article' is an important one. The expectations that may have not been met here are those of the regular reader of the TFA, which may still go out by RSS as well, I'm not sure). Imagine, if you will, a subset of readers who regularly read the TFA. It is those readers who may have an expectation that when they settle down during their lunch-break, or at home in the evening, or take a printout to read on the train (or browse here on their iPad), that there will be a decent-sized article for them to read. You can just imagine someone with a printout turning the page over and wondering where the rest of the article had gone. They might even ask for their money back... :-) And if people say "but regular readers will know that there are other FAs to go and read", I return to my point above about what a first-time reader might think if this was the first FA they saw. They might not bother to go to the FA archives and might presume that all FAs are this short. This is why I think the FAs that are put on the main page should have a length that falls inside a reasonable range around the average length, whatever that is. I might even say the same about really long FAs. Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I realize that you're referring specifically to TFA (a distinction not drawn by Modest Genius, who's "amazed [the article] passed FAC at all"), which is why your argument makes much more sense to me.

As I noted, the section inherently fails to satisfy large segments of visitors on a daily basis. I'm confidant that the type of complaint that kicked off this discussion is far more prevalent than concerns about an article's length are. I'm also confident that the section has far more casual observers (those who read featured articles of specific interest to them) than daily loyalists.

I acknowledge that users with a daily routine of reading TFA (irrespective of the subject) might have been disappointed to find an article of below-average length, but there likely were as many or more users (between the TFA loyalists and casual observers) who were delighted by the article's atypical, unexpected subject matter. Both groups, of course, probably were dwarfed by those who ridiculed the notion of "putting an article about an obscure glitch from a mediocre 1990s video game for kids as a 'featured article'."

I find it unlikely that first-time readers would "presume that all FAs are this short." More importantly, I don't believe that the article would come across as distressingly short to someone lacking a preconceived notion of a featured article's length.

On the plus side, including such articles in the TFA section advertises that an article needn't always be long to meet Wikipedia's standards of high quality. This strikes me as a good way to encourage involvement from potential editors (who otherwise might assume that their work won't be recognized unless it results in an arbitrary quantity of text). It also seems like a good way to discourage padding articles with filler (e.g. the aforementioned fancruft). —David Levy 13:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You make some good points, but on the issue of length, I would have half-expected to find this whole article serving as a section within a larger article. Or at least that it was linked from other articles more than it actually is. It appears to be only linked from Template:Pokémon and a few other pages such as glitch and the 'see also' list at Data buffer. It appears not to be linked from Pokémon Red and Blue, though it is linked from the 'Codes and glitches' section of Pokémon (video game series). This is a classic example of how a massive template like Template:Pokémon swamps the few links from within the actual text of articles (rather than from navigational footer templates of which that template is an example). If anyone does know how to work out how many incoming non-template links there are for this article, please let me know. It is not mentioned at Pokémon. It is not mentioned at List of Pokémon. As far as I can tell, outside of the template, this article is only mentioned in three other articles (Pokémon (video game series), glitch, and data buffer). It could easily be merged to the 'Codes and glitches' subsection of Pokémon (video game series) without any loss at all, as there are only two incoming links from glitch and data buffer. That should give you an idea of how isolated this article is from the rest of the encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a merger would be sensible. As I noted in response to Modest Genius, such a determination falls outside the FA process. Unless and until the community decides that an article shouldn't exist, its quality is assessed based upon what it should/shouldn't contain if it does exist. —David Levy 04:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• As the one who nominated the article at TFAR, I should say that I considered the length and discussion indepth enough. As noted above by DL, not all FAs are articles that take half an hour to read. IIRC, The Volcano (British Columbia) was our last "small" FA run in TFA (it was the last one I saw, at least), and that was last year. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Its no coincidence though that articles on sub topics of non traditional encyclopedic topics get the most complaints, Articles on subjects with subjects such as video games characters/glitches, cartoon/fictional characters and TV episodes especially if short often attract questions. I know of several hundred GAs which encyclopedically have far more merit than this article and would not pass FA. The subject is questionable but discussion amongst sociologists as claimed is at least something. The fact though that such article get promoted to FA illustrates that technical soundness is considered more important than encyclopedic merit, which is one aspect of FAC I've always disagreed with. One might argue though that the article is as comprehensive enough about the subject as it could possibly be so is appropriate as a listed FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic merit" is an inherently POV viewpoint given the scope Wikipedia carries. Resolute 17:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is, but not if viewed traditionally. The argument will always be "we are not a traditional encyclopedia" so it gives us an excuse for cruft and coverage of topics which even a pre-pubescent fanboy would be amazed at.. However technically brilliant the article is though, the questions must be asked "how valuable is this particular article in an encyclopedia in providing knowledge and educating people" and "would wikipedia greatly miss it if this article was non existent." That is how I would assess encyclopedic merit. Of course the argument is that to make such judgements on subject matter is POV and that every subject, even theMoustache of Ned Flanders must be treated with equal respect and consideration encyclopedically. I guess you'd disagree then that some subjects are inherently more encyclopedic (and more important) than others? Anyway.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's ability to cover non-traditional encyclopedic topics is one of its key attributes. Judging "encyclopedic merit"/FA-worthiness based on a subject's perceived importance would relegate non-traditional articles to second-class status, greatly reducing their prominence and discouraging editors from creating/improving them. And because the pool of potential FAs would be greatly narrowed, the bar would need to be lowered accordingly, resulting in FAs of lower quality and disincentivizing further improvement to those articles too.

No one has asserted that "every subject" warrants a Wikipedia article. The hypothetical "Moustache of Ned Flanders" article obviously would be deleted or redirected.

If an article is kept, it ideally will be improved, recognized and showcased. Whether it's about a world leader or a cartoon character, there's no better way to demonstrate Wikipedia's comprehensive nature and encourage continued improvement. —David Levy 18:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see no "encyclopedic value" in an article on a law firm, but you recently took one to GA status. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Resolute 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I ask you to remove that comment and refrain from making this personal. I agree David to an extent, that's the value of wikipedia is the sheer possibility of topics, but some in my view appear to really exploit this open possibility! But I've seen some articles on barely unencyclopedic subjects with great articles written about them. This article is not an example of our best work, that's my point, rather than solely just disapproving of the topic. Really notable topics in my view should have more sources available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know what it means for something to be "encyclopedic". Could someone define that term for me?--WaltCip (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia appropriate" I mean. Work it out. Compare minor Pokemon issues to something like History of China or something. Something intellectual I guess it means, or what you could imagine finding in a traditional encyclopedia book. Look there's no point arguing about this, it is unlikely to change status and wikipedia is unlikely to change as a repository of popular culture so just forget about it. I've tried to delete fictional cruft lists and related articles in the past and they are always kept. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Then the community obviously disagrees with your definitions of "cruft" and "encyclopedia appropriate." —David Levy 19:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really, the vast majority of people who voted keep were members of the anime project. From what I recall barely anybody neutral commented. I'm pretty sure there are many people here who if they had there own way they'd eliminate articles on cartoon characters and in universe fiction. This article of course is fine and fair enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If your account is accurate, it reflects a serious problem beyond this discussion's scope. —David Levy 20:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I nominated a Seiyu of dubious notability once and nobody voted keep but for an angry anime project who turned up in numbers and it ended up being kept. Same thing happened with in universe lists of GI Joe characters. The GI Joe project turned up and forced a withdrawal. Sure this happens frequently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's quite alarming and should be addressed in an appropriate forum. —David Levy 04:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Or should it? I haven't read up on policy for a while, I admit, but are AfD results based on voting now? Because the last time I was an active editor, they were based on rationale for keeping vs. deleting. I had always been under the impression that if every anime-related WikiProject at WP unanimously "voted" to keep an article that policy said should be deleted, it would be deleted despite their "votes." User:Resolute may have been wrong to phrase his/her comment above so personally, but the point, I think, is valid: not everyone agrees on what should or should not be in an encyclopedia. One person's MissingNo. is another person's law firm, and vice-versa. That's why we have (had? are these gone now?) quite clear policies about what is or isn't notable enough to deserve its own article. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Making it personal" was required to communicate my point, and it was by no means an attack on you. You asked "how valuable" is it for Wikipedia to cover certain topics and whether Wikipedia would "greatly miss" such articles if they did not exist. Frankly, I look at that article and say no. I recently expanded an article on a guy who played a dozen NHL games in the 1940s. Likewise, "encyclopedic value" says there is no need for that article either. We all have our areas of interest, and our participation here is all centred around the same purpose: to share what we care about with others. You likely don't care about my obscure hockey player any more than I care about your law firm, and neither of us cares about a Pokemon character. But all three have deserve articles on this project because they meet our notability thresholds. Your article deserves its GA plus (it is a fine piece of work, btw), and near as I can tell, the Pokemon character deserves its FA star. All of these articles have value because there are other people interested in reading about their subjects. Resolute 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Reg Bentley though I view as a decent traditional sort of biography, even if not widelt known, that's the difference. I guess my choice of coverage comes down to IDONTLIKEIT. Its not the first time I've been outspoken against Pokemon and anime. But I'm less likely to comment if the article appears to look like a featured article. Generally though, just looking through the FA list, the vast majority are not on questionable subjects and most have an abundance of sources, so such an article as this is quite rare, so it is hardly much of a concern. The FA reviewers 99.5% of the time do a brilliant reviewing job and are more than well equipped to judge passing FAs. Somebody else commented on the talk page of the article by the way questioning its FA status..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you've now gotten Resolute's point. To use another example, I have absolutely no interest in Reg Bentley and even reading the article he doesn't sound terrible significant. I have little interest in anime or Pokemon and don't really get the facination many of my peers seem to have with anime, but I definitely find the Missingno article more interesting and of encyclopaedic significance then Reg Bentley and without knowing what article's being referred to perhaps even the article on whatever Seiyu (as an example of my lack of interest, I had no idea what that word meant). BTW I have to say the complaints for this article, for whatever reason, are way less then for Ernest Emerson (which I saw recently on ANI someone was suggesting for another AFD). Of course that had complaints of it being an advert, which while we've got some bizzare advert complaints before, including Maraba coffee being a paid advert and for some old video games, is harder to say about the Missingno article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Did any of thne people complaining about this topic being a featured article even participate in the FA discussion? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't but I've looked at it and I completely agree with what Rjanag said.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)