Talk:Main Page

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 11:45 on 12 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 with "In the news"

Olaf Scholz

• The German ruling coalition (Chancellor Olaf Scholz pictured) collapses over disagreements on economic policies.

The word "collapses" seems too strong as the linked article, 2024 German government crisis, does not use it. What it actually says is "...FDP effectively moved into the opposition, rendering the current coalition a two-party minority government." So, there's still a coalition but it has lost one of its members and so will continue as a minority government for now. Scholz is negotiating what happens next and it seems to be too soon to say exactly what that will be. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN given that the government is still very much in place. There will presumably be elections soon and we should post then.

  Also, when I first read this I thought it was Scholz himself who had collapsed. It's a poorly worded hook, given the presence of the photo caption in the middle, making it look like the Chancellor has had a mishap.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN ...: Met WP:ITNSIGNIF:

  It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits

  —Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the first two sources at the ITNC nom were "Scholz sets stage for German snap election as government collapses" and "Germany’s Coalition Collapses, Leaving the Government Teetering".—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are news headlines which, per WP:HEADLINE, tend to use "exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers". And note that those examples are contradictory – one says the "government collapses" while the other says "government teetering". These are metaphors but these can be confusing when we are blurbing actual physical collapses too such as the recent canopy collapse. We should have a more precise description using the encyclopedic language of the article rather than the journalistic hyperbole of the news headlines. In this case, the finance minister was dismissed and his party left the governing coalition. A vote of confidence is now expected but hasn't been scheduled. So, the blurb might be:

* German chancellor Olaf Scholz (pictured) dismisses his finance minister and the resulting resignations leave his coalition without a majority.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to a gross error that will get resolved here. Since it appears to be "major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates" (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Suggesting_updates), the ITNC nom seems like the best venue to gain consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Ger. Wiki's ITN blurb translates as: "After the failure of the ... coalition, the FDP leaves the German federal government and as a result the cabinet of Chancellor Olaf Scholz is reshuffled." -- Sca (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• We should keep this discussion open as there are further developments to consider. Today, there are reports that the major parties have agreed the date for a snap election with the timetable being a vote of confidence on Dec 16 and the election on Feb 23. See DW, Reuters, etc. So, the updated blurb might be:

• German chancellor Olaf Scholz (pictured) agrees the date for an early election after resignations left his ruling coalition without a majority.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 15)

Monday's FL

(November 18)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

Correct this please

DYK about 1977 Moscow bombings must be corrected or removed ASAP, as the claim is based on a single Russian language unreliable source - please see my comment at this article talk page. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Biophys has removed sourced information from a source which is registered with the Russian mass media agency. He seems to be claiming it is unreliable because he has never heard of it...not a valid reason for removal, and most certainly not a reason for it to be pulled from DYK. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I placed this message for administrators. If they think that placing a poorly sourced claim at Main Page is fine, I do not care. Of course they can only judge if they know Russian and know what "Волжская Коммуна" is. An approximate translation: newspaper "Commune (socialism) at Volga". No one knows about such newspaper, even though it may exist.Biophys (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ru:Волжская коммуна is one of the largest newspapers in Samara Oblast, I'm sure someone knows about it. –  LATICS  talk  03:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this discussion, keep it at the article talk page. When consensus is reached about whether the source is reliable or not and the article is appropriately updated, please make an error report if necessary Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

comma?

of the First World War Bat sold

War Bats! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see I've got this in the wrong spot. Won't happen again.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking to discussion about the main page...

Was throwing around an idea here and wanted to get some feedback from mainpage-ers Fritzpoll (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

?

What's with the grey rectangle at the top of the wikiscreen, above the title and below the editing tabs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.111.240 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be an error in the announcement for logged out users. 98.31.12.146 (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC) §hep logged out

When I log in it goes away, but I told the banner to hide when logged in. §hep • ^Talk 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Same problem on Commons, so this probably doesn't belong here (wherever they keep global banners...meta?). If IPs are curious it reads "Candidates for the 2009 steward elections are asked to submit their nominations by January 25." and includes a link to "Nominate yourself". 98.31.12.146 (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the U.S. material?

I see a featured article on Washington D.C., and the image File:Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg on the Main Page. This is absolutely ridiculous -- the U.S. is not the only country in the world, and filling the Main Page just because of the upcoming inauguration is obviously a violation of NPOV.

It is taking away useful links and interesting pictures from viewers from the rest of the world (which, believe it or not, as a whole, is more significant than the U.S.), while biasing the Main Page in favour of U.S. viewers.

Get rid of this trash. -- 121.44.18.220 (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV only applies to articles, or you'd be banned for your post. Parler Vous (edits) 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Both the article and the image will be gone tomorrow. Relax! ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.105.38 (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. That's an oh-so-convenient way to work around the problem. — Jeremy 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the same Encyclopedia that featured 4chan. What did you expect? This is a US-based encyclopedia hosted by a US-based Wikimedia Foundation. Encarta and Britannica are also US based by the way. But I'm British so I'm used to it. 78.145.104.152 (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with 4chan? No honestly, you're the one who's biased. Wikipedia just follows the world hype. Sure, the US isn't the only one with events today but the world will be focussing mostly on the inauguration so it'd be artificial to focus on something irrelevant to the day here. 194.75.236.70 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of an important event today for the United States, if I recall correctly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe wikipedia should follow the lead of the BBC and go with the story they have dominating their website: news.bbc.co.uk/.DavidRF (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL well, If not the UK how about the English speaking Caribbean? cananews.com, nationnews.com (Barbados), guardian.co.tt (Trinidad and Tobago), well wow would you look at that-- the Obama Inauguration was to be broadcast on big screens at various outdoor parties/venues in the Caribbean. Obama on the 'big' screen. CaribDigita (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a single news source covering world events which would is not placing the inauguration at the top of their coverage today. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can get an article and image relevant to the election of the Norwegian Prime Minister (as an example) up to Featured standard, feel free to propose that they all be shown on the first day of his/her premiership. 90.242.190.29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

Come on! If there is a day you can justify a the MP being a little US-heavy - it's today. And I'm not from the US. 203.97.51.149 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but only if we do the same for the UK elections. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure! So long as the next UK prime minister is the first ever (insert feature here) prime minister and that he/she represents a dramatic shift in the thinking of the constituency. And that it generates the same amount of world-wide coverage. 203.97.51.149 (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely related, but when Kevin Rudd was inaugurated, the news item was there at the top of the box for over a week. — Jeremy 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would love it if I could learn about British people tied to current events on the main page, you just have to get the article featured first! Reywas92^Talk 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This site is funded by Americans. This site is hosted in America. This site is mostly contributed to by Americans. I'm surprised you have an issue - its just the way things are. Deal with it. Matty (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the last one of those three should influence the selection. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We usually point people asking this question to the excellent answer here --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a min. Why don't we have a featured article of Obama on the front page?

Pretty sure we had a mccain/obama on day...Why can't we have an Obama thing for once he takes office?? Neverfades (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have preferred Obama too, but I suppose its too soon since his last appearance. Parler Vous (edits) 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, articles can only be the featured article of the day once. Barack Obama has already been the featured article of the day on two occasions (once shared with John McCain), the only article to do so. Barring some serious shortage of future featured articles, that one won't be the featured article of the day again. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

God FORBID we take away the chance to give the Thimble SPOTLIGHT!!!!

pathetic. Neverfades (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Algebraist 09:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea, thimble isn't even close to being FA so is unlikely to be TFA anytime soon Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

move to Wikipedia:Main Page

shouldn't this page moved out of the article Space? this is only one of some Wikipedia-related things, so please put it into the Wikipedia: namespace, thanks. --84.44.177.212 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very, very common suggestion. For better or worse, It hasn't been done because of the sheer amount of traffic this page gets.

If it bugs you there is a [[1]] url that you can use. APL (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

German Wikipedia already got it. Prepare it(other pages had to move too, like archives etc.) and then do it live(via a bot or similiar). --84.44.177.212 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been the subject of more discussions than almost anything else on this project. In the end, the page always remains where it is, despite what the German Wikipedia might do (horror!). - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ § Why is Main Page in the main namespace?

Obama

Image of Obama should be on the news item, since it's like more important than the Israeli Prime Minister. -- Fishyghost 78.32.115.66 (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One picture of Obama on the main page at a time is probably enough. Algebraist 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, didn't see that down there...! When that goes tommorow then presumably the image on the other section should change. Fishyghost 78.32.115.66 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This might be a subtle image to be used if it is going to be added on the Main Page's news section.--megamanfan3 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This mis-juxtapositioning of photo and text continues to make Wiki look stupid. Sca (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Only to people who don't know what the (pictured) signifies in the blurb. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't blame the reader for the page's poor layout. 86.77.186.41 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How about an image like File:Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration.jpg, which is more relevant than the official portrait? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have we not got any decent public domain photos taken today by White House employees? They may be better still. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the new administration has taken down all things that existed before today from the White House website, and there is likely no such thing on the site yet. Doesn't really make much sense though that a picture of Obama can't be used in the In the News template simply because there is already a picture of him in the Featured Picture section. Jason (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't hurt to have a picture of Olmert on ITN for a couple of hours (maybe 2) until midnight UTC, when the POTD will be changed. Spencer^T♦C 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think there should be a picture of Obama in the "in the news" section, regardless of the picture at the bottom of the page. People are going to see some other guy there and wonder what the heck is wrong with the site, just as I was. If it wasn't for going to the talk page to bring it up (which I see it already has been), I wouldn't have realized Obama already had a picture near the bottom of the main page. Obama's inauguration is the big news of the week, so it makes no sense for him not to be the one in the news section. Also, the photo currently on the main page is from 2006. There needs to be an image from today's proceedings, preferably after he was sworn in. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Spencer: In two hours? Meh, that'll be fine, I guess. It's still a ridiculous reason not to have his image there. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's ridicilous to have two picture of the same thing on the main page. Also, big news doesn't matter much since ITN isn't about the news Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The pic should be of obama! of the year 2009 (on current events) 74.67.93.68 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please go to WT:ITN. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Nil Einne - Actually, it's not ridiculous to have two pictures of the same person on the main page. Not sure where you got that idea. Now, having the same picture posted twice - that I can understand. But not having a picture of Obama on ITN (since his inauguration is the biggest news in the world this week) because another picture of him is already on the bottom of the page (requiring people to scroll down to see it) is, well, just stupid. They see two sections when they come to Wikipedia: the "featured article" and the "in the news" sections. People will see the "in the news" section, knowing that Obama's inauguration is the top story this week, and will wonder why the heck his picture isn't there. You have to think about questions which common readers will ask (namely, why isn't Obama pictured?) rather than some ridiculous "policy" about not having two pictures of the same person. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, ThylekShran/From Andoria with Love, it's not ridiculous to avoid having two photos of the same person on Main Page at the same time, either. This is Wikipedia, not Obama's fansite, nor his online photo album. And be careful when you use the word "stupid". A good photo specifically of Obama's inauguration wasn't available till later. Now, it's there. Chill it! --74.14.22.20 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Far more likely people will aski why the heck wikipedia suddenly became a Obama fansite or photoalbum as 74 suggest above. Indeed anyone who has been on the main page for so long knows this is very likely precisely what would happen. It's not surprising too because it IS ridiculous to have two photos of the same guy on the main page. Also whether or not people have to scroll down to it depends on the size of their screen and a variety of other factors. Some people may like to see TFP so they may always scroll down and not even see the ITN pic. All in all, your argumennts are unconvincing particularly since you don't seem to understand that ITN is not about the news and doesn't really give a damn what the top story of the week is. Or to put it simply, it's not stupid to keep wikipedia's main page balanced and avoid having it dominated by one event or person. It's far more stupid to suggest we should ignore common sense because some people don't understand the purpose of ITN, or wikipedia (which is an encylopaedia not a news site). BTW, were it not for the fact that the US government releases their images under the public domain we might not even have a free photo of Obama's inaguration so fast if at all in which case we wouldn't be having this whole silly discussion presuming that people actually understand wikipedia needs free photos (which they should if they want to discuss image selection). As it stands, it looks to me like the image we have wasn't available until after the TFP was taken down, so I'm not even sure what we're discussing here. With due respect to the photographer the image presented above is not really suitable for the main page. Edit: Okay it seems like we did have this image File:Barack Obama after inaugural address 1-20-09 hires 090120-N-0696M-327a.jpg which sorta worked if cropped about 1h and 10 minutes before the end of the TFP. It's still a far cry from being clearly identifable as being part of the inaguration though so doesn't provide a great clue to the reader about why we're showing it. P.S. There is no specific policy that says we shouldn't have two pictures of the same guy on the main page. There are policys which could be construed to apply, but the primary reason we don't is simple common sense and based on our understanding of what the reader wants which is not an Obama fansite/photo album. There are plenty of those available but it's not our goal to become one Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: We could always use this picture of Obama? --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Eichmann picture

At the Eichmann article, there was some discussion on using "captured" or "apprehended" over "kidnapped". I'm thinking that the main page should reflect this. freshacconci talktalk 03:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article currently uses apprehended, captured, kidnapped and abducted, looking in the archives, it doesn't look line consensus was ever reached. I suggest you seek consensus in the article then bring it to the error report section above Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tmizaha Jones

tmizaha jones would like to know the symptoms of hiv/aids. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.196.149 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tmizaha Jones should read the big header which says that this is not the place to ask such a question and should try searching themselves since we do have an article on HIV & AIDS. Tmizaha Jones should also make a seperate section since this has nothing to do with the Eichmann picture Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Click here and here Tmizaha. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost

What is some weird crap about Lost doing on our main page? Doesn't anybody watch these things? --TS 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice featured article. That is where the featured articles go (main page). §hep • ^Talk 03:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a "featured article" full of bilge. This is one of the few really reprehensible things about Wikipedia: that we have so many brilliant articles but we filter them in such a manner that the most ridiculous crap is designated as the best we have. It's pretty horrible. If you're involved in this bilious process, stop. If you're not, stay away from it. Write about what need to be written about , edit the articles that need to be edited, and avoid the preciousness of "featured article" writing. --TS 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should keep in mind that some person spent hours, maybe days working hard on that article? I think they would appreciate that more than having their work called "crap". Regards, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How predictable of you to trash our finest writers and editors with glib hyperbole and crass generalizations, bereft of actual examples or evidence. FA standards are notoriously rigorous/fickle (depending upon your point of view), but they frequently result in minor masterpieces. This is a great article. So are this and this and this. These sorts of articles make me proud to say I'm associated with the project in some small way. I'd go so far as to say that the tiny to extent to which Wikipedia resembles an actual encyclopedia is due in large part to the efforts of our Featured writers and Reviewers. Of course, any human filtering system allows occasional bad apples through, and no process is a above critique. But Tony Sidaway's petulant foot-stomping does, well, nothing to improve the process. It goes without saying there are more important articles we'd all rather see on the front page--like, nasal sex or some dreck about Dr. Who; so hows about a little less whinin' and a little more writing? --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You make your point so well that you don't notice you've proven the opposite of what you believe. Those articles are great articles. And on reading them you immediately realise the difference between a great article on an interesting subject, and a tedious pop culture article on a tedious subject that happens to be on TV right now. One is a well-written article that makes even those who aren't interested in the subject understand why it interests those who are. The other ticks a few boxes (spelt properly, correct use of the arcane inline footnote system, and above all, long) and gets the same star.

The excellent and genuinely interesting article on The Garden of Earthly Delights was written 500 years after its subject appeared. If Wikipedia had been invented 500 years after Lost, no-one would have even bothered writing an article about the TV show, let alone a series of extended trailers. --81.157.142.106 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then do something about it instead of just complaining that everyone else in the world is less intelligent than you. If you don't like the featured articles, actually put in the effort to get an article you like to FA status, and therefore eventually on TFA. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article is well written, but the reception area seems to needlessly group reviews of individual episode by reviewer. This level of granularity seems unnecessary and trivial, detracting from a good encyclopedic article; I wouldn't have expected it FA without having that section pruned. —Ost (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell picks the daily article?

Not to insult the writers or anything like that. But today's featured article isn't exactly epic encyclopedia stuff. I'm left with the urge to ask if wikipedia got paid for running this commercial. --Theodore 03:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a featured article; Featured articles end up on the main page. If you dislike the selection, feel free to work on more significant articles. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the daily article is picked by user:Raul654. DS (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To Juliancolton; If you dislike the selection, feel free to work on more significant articles. What does that mean? Are you saying that I have to work on significant articles before I'm allowed to comment on today's featured article? Where did you come up with this rule? Please tell me - exactly which significant articles must I work on before I'm allowed to express my dislike at the selection --Theodore 06:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on, at least it's not that extremely crappy show about crappy jail guards that's finally gonna end. –Howard the Duck 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool it man. I'm sure you're misunderstanding what Juliancolton tried to say. Eakka (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What Juliancolton means is that if you have a problem with the articles that are selected, you are more than welcome to nominate ones that you'd prefer at WP:TFA/R. I do agree with you that it seems like a strange article to have FA status, but people spent a lot of time on that article. It's only fair that it goes on the main page - it's our best work. Thanks, Matty (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article means it's an excellently-written article as determined by the criteria, not that it's an "epic" subject. I admit to checking here because I anticipated comments on the webisodes' perceived lack of scope, but I'm displeased that the tone here and Talk:Lost: Missing Pieces#I think it's ridiculous is so harsh rather than constructive.

Also, while I was looking at the article, I noticed that blatant vandalism had gone unreverted for 17 minutes. I'm not blaming anyone, but I'm a little surprised that RC/TFA partollers didn't pick up on it. Revelian (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Common misconception

It's a common misconception that Xxxxxxx is insignificant/demeaning/bilge and therefore should not be today's Featured Article.

I was surprised that the relevant section of the Main Page FAQ focuses too much on the systemic bias complaint and does not properly address "this topic is pants". This should be addressed - it's an understandable misconception, after all.

PS A friendlier response to this complaint is a signpost to WP:TFA/R, rather than inviting people, most of whom are newbies, to write an article that passes these hairy criteria. I know only too well that even experienced users find it jolly difficult to get articles featured. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Tony Sidaway can rightly be classified as a newbie though. More importantly TFA/R requires a good reason, I think there's too much crap on the main page is simply not going to cut it. Even if you can't get an article up to FA by yourself, if you do a decent job of it it may eventually become FA. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, I think it's great that the main page includes all kinds of featured articles. I also think it's great that the FA criteria allow articles that one wouldn't find in traditional encyclopedias to qualify. To be frank, one of the things that makes WP work is the fact that anyone would be able to find a corner of the project that really interests them enough to make them want to dedicate time and effort to improving it. And once they start there they eventually move on to the rest of the project. It would be terribly unfair of us to deny the talented writers of this particular article an opportunity to have their work on TFA. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)