Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:02, 8 October 2012

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from February 1 to March 3.

Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Nonspecific date nominations

Nonspecific date 1

Nonspecific date 2

Hanged, drawn and quartered

To be hanged, drawn and quartered was from 1351 a penalty in England for men convicted of high treason, although the ritual was first recorded during the reigns of King Henry III (1216–1272) and his successor, Edward I (1272–1307). Convicts were fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where they were hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded and quartered (chopped into four pieces). Their remains were often displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge. For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were instead burnt at the stake. Although the Act of Parliament that defines high treason remains on the United Kingdom's statute books, during a long period of 19th-century legal reform the sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was changed to drawing, hanging until dead, and posthumous beheading and quartering, before being rendered obsolete in England in 1870. The death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998. (more...)

We haven't had a TFA like this in sometime. PumpkinSky talk 01:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. That's more like it; very educational topic. nb: transclude to ANI ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. But someone will come and say that we just saw a disturbing picture of a boy hanging, sooo similar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. A fine article. But I do think a little time should pass after our recent hanging/burning of persons article. Perhaps a month? MathewTownsend (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support As long as the lead author doesn't mind. An outstanding article, one of the best the project has produced. I have no qualms about running it, but we should be ready for another flood of criticism on Talk:Main page. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• What would people think about having it run on Halloween? --Rschen7754 17:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with that, since we ran the coprophagia movie last year this would be comparatively uncontroversial. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  The subject of this article has absolutely no connection with Halloween. It is a serious topic that should be treated with respect and not linked to an American holiday. Parrot of Doom 09:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Not on Halloween, agree with Parrot of Doom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Agree. No connection with Halloween. It's a serious article covering history. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough. --Rschen7754 20:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose at present; too soon after Lynching of Jesse Washington on September 25, and the main author is just taking a break for personal reasons. But see below. Johnbod (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support assuming the main contributor (Parrot of Doom) doesn't mind. He doesn't look to be on a break. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeeed, apologies to Parrot, I was thinking of Malleus. I agree with Parrot that Halloween is not right, otherwise fine from say late October on if there are no intervening executions. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 3

Reception history of Jane Austen

The reception history of Jane Austen follows a path from modest fame to wild popularity; her novels are both the subject of intense scholarly study and the centre of a diverse fan culture. Jane Austen, the author of such works as Pride and Prejudice (1813) and Emma (1815), has become one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language. During her lifetime, Austen's novels brought her little personal fame; like many women writers, she chose to publish anonymously and it was only among members of the aristocracy that her authorship was an open secret. At the time they were published, Austen's works were considered fashionable by members of high society but received few positive reviews. By the mid-19th century, her novels were admired by members of the literary elite who viewed their appreciation of her works as a mark of cultivation. By the turn of the 20th century, competing groups had sprung up—some to worship her and some to defend her from the "teeming masses"—but all claiming to be the true Janeites, or those who properly appreciated Austen. It was not until the 1940s that Austen was widely accepted in academia as a "great English novelist". The second half of the 20th century saw a proliferation of Austen scholarship, which explored numerous aspects of her works: artistic, ideological, and historical. As of the early 21st century, Austen fandom supports an industry of printed sequels and prequels as well as television and film adaptations, which started with the 1940 Pride and Prejudice and evolved to include the 2004 Bollywood-style production Bride and Prejudice. (more...)

Reception of literature, blurb not final, just to introduce the topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. 28 Jan will be the 200th anniversary of the publication of Pride and Prejudice and every website in the world will be plastered in Austeniana—it's crazy to run Misplaced Pages's only Jane Austen FA now, leaving TFA on 28 Jan to be one of the generic hurricane-battleship-train station pieces of filler, just to help your apparent crusade to nominate here every single page listed at WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the main page. – iridescent 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, this isn't the only piece of Jane Austen material at FA. There's also a film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, and a television adaption too, either of which would also be appropriate for the anniversary. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'm a bit baffled as to why you seem to think that nominating articles for TFA is a bad thing? It spares Raul and Dabomb the extra work, and they're both quite busy at times. In fact, Gerda should be applauded for putting in extra work in this area. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  Why a movie or television series would be more appropriate on the book's 200th anniversary is ... baffling. Also, I'm not sure whether I should be insulted or proud that battleships are now in road/hurricane territory. ;-) Ed  23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly support (Unless anyone here knows of legal reasons to avoid running this.) Per Gerda and Grapple, it makes a lot more sense to run one of our Pride and Prejudice-themed FAs on the anniversary of the book's publication instead of saving this article for then. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It needs a bit of buffing-up, though; there are eight invalid ISBN in there, for example. :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons: 1., per Iridescent; 2., because an 18th century female author (albeit children's author) was run recently, written by the same editor; 3., because the thought of running an Austen film for the anniversary when we have this is mind-boggling to be honest. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • While I respect your opinion, running Pride and Prejudice to celebrate the anniversary of Pride and Prejudice doesn't seem too "mind-boggling" to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I understand the desire to run something more "academic" for an anniversary like this, but the actual relevance of this one is hugely smaller than the two adaptations, which are specifically rather than generally related. For an analogue; I'd rather see, say, The Lion King, run on an anniversary related to Hamlet than see a different Shakespeare play just to stay "high brow" about it. In the end I'm not overly fussed, as I'm far from an Austen fan, but I think if we're keeping things for anniversaries this particular one might better serve an anniversary of Austen herself (given that it's soon the 200th anniversary of a book's release, I assume the 200th anniversary of her death will be within realistic reach?). GRAPPLE X 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is why points are helpful. How long since a piece about literature was run? A TV series? A film? A piece written by the same editor? How much weight does the anniversary carry? How much coverage does the piece have? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iridescent and Truthkeeper. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I suggested a general theme that had no apparent date relevance for ANY DATE - and am quite surprised about the heated discussion ;) - if it's ANY date that can be the one of an anniversary if so wanted, of course, even if I personally don't see a strong connection. No points needed to find out what would be an acceptable date for most people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• In all fairness I realize you had no idea that there was a date relevance looming in the near future. But since Iridescent pointed it out, we are now faced with the decision of running this choice on that date; the TV series; or the film. Each of these choices are candidates for the same date. How would you propose to choose which to run? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest to discuss it right here - and when we come to a conclusion as to when this should run we "park it" until then. I am open for any date, also for a move of the discussion in case the slot is needed for another nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think we're having a failure to communicate. There is clearly a date relevance looming less than four months from now as pointed out in Iridescent's post above. My question is quite clear: do we run all of the Austen/Pride and Prejudice material in the next four months, or do we spread it out? And how, without a point system, do we decide which of the three relevant pages to run on the anniversary? Personally I think things are quite fubar here at this point and I'll wander away again. (That might be an acronym you'll object to, and if so I apologize, but imo generally it is a good thing to impose order.) Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• The easiest solution seems to be to run this article on 28 January, what do you think about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• What I think is irrelevant. I'm only a single voice. Mark Arsten and GrappleX have made arguments for other pages on that date, which though I might disagree, are convincing. What I do think is that one of two things should happen: either the FAC director or the delegate decides which of these three pages to run (or to run none of them); or that we use points to decide which of the three pages should run. Who knows maybe this page will have the fewest points and still be around in 5 years for the anniversary of Austen's death. At any rate I'm returning to my wikibreak - it was very relaxing. And I'm unwatching here again. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• My view is that the film articles aren't as relevant as this one for a date relevance argument in less than four months. Run the film articles any time. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iridescent. Ed  23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 4

Hillsboro, Oregon

Hillsboro is the fifth-largest city in the U.S. state of Oregon and is the county seat of Washington County. Lying in the Tualatin Valley on the west side of the Portland metropolitan area, the city is home to many high-technology (high-tech) companies, such as Intel, that compose what has become known as the Silicon Forest. As of the 2010 Census, the city's population was 91,611. For thousands of years before the arrival of European-American settlers, the Atfalati tribe of the Kalapuya lived in the Tualatin Valley near the later site of Hillsboro. The climate, moderated by marine influence from the Pacific Ocean, helped make the region suitable for fishing, hunting, food gathering, and agriculture. Settlers founded a community here in 1842, later named after David Hill, an Oregon politician. Transportation by riverboat on the Tualatin River was part of Hillsboro's settler economy. A railroad reached the area in the early 1870s and an interurban electric railway about four decades later. These railways, as well as highways, aided the slow growth of the city to about 2,000 people by 1910 and about 5,000 by 1950, before the arrival of high-tech companies in the 1980s. (more...)

5th biggest city in Oregon, USA. Blurb not final. No Oregon place in well over 6 months. --Lucky102 (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Widely covered in other languages (more than 20) which is good, but did you spot that Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/October 8, 2012 is an Oregon river? Toolserver check shows various deadlinks too (as can happen in an FA that's three years old). A collage of images isn't great for the main page, particularly at the standard size of 100px (and I rather doubt that the image is a "watercolour sketch of Jane Austen by her sister Cassandra (c. 1804)"). Overall, oppose because of over-Oregonization of the main page otherwise. Bencherlite 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bencherlite, and this is part of the reason we have people calculate the points for their nominations. Maybe the raw numbers don't matter as much, but the process to derive a point total forces the nominator to consider several factors related to the nomination, including the frequency of similar or related items. Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bencher is the one who proposed not calculating points, IIRC. PumpkinSky talk 01:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but there was no consensus to do away with points and in fact many of the arguments in favour of points were good ones after all. Now we have the worst of both worlds - nominators routinely ignoring points and routinely ignoring the principles behind the award of points (topic similarity, age of FA, widely covered etc). Bencherlite 06:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There's also considerable disagreement, all in good faith, about what constitutes those things, such as spacing of articles, towit, "is one month separation of topics enough?" and "is a ghost town in Nevada too similar to a river in Oregon"? ie, do we go by location or topic or both? All complicated by the fact we're limited by what non-used FAs we have, which is skewed in the first place (lots of birds, lots of coins, etc). Note points and the way EN wiki does this is not the only way. DE wiki does FA land including main page all by consensus, which is more "wiki" philosophically speaking. PumpkinSky talk 12:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Points are there now.--Lucky102 (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Besides today's Oregon article, Oregon is adjacent to Idaho and the Idaho Cabal must be stopped. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hillsboro, Oregon might go after November 8th.--Lucky102 (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to withdraw this nomination to come back at a later date, just delete this section. Bencherlite 07:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 5

Porbeagle

• Support PumpkinSky talk 23:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Specific date nominations

October 20

Andjar Asmara

• Early Asian filmmaker, day of death, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• We just had two Indonesian topics in September, I'd rather let Andjar wait. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

October 22

Nixon in China (opera)

• Anniversary of an important work of contemporary music, seems relevant even if a similar thing was featured the day before, blurb needs concentration, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Nominator needs to calculate points for us.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support; important piece, major anniversary. I calculate at 3 points: two for the 25th anniversary of the premiere and one for the long-ago promotion date. I have trimmed the blurb. -- Dianna (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support and interesting and well done article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - agree its interesting and well done, and also fun to read. Plus the 25th anniversary! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support excellent choice. Bencherlite 07:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

October 25

George II of Great Britain

George II (1683–1760) was King of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Hanover) and Archtreasurer and Prince-elector of the Holy Roman Empire from 11 June 1727 until his death. His grandmother, Sophia of Hanover, became second in line to the British throne after about fifty Catholics higher in line were excluded by the Act of Settlement, which restricted the succession to Protestants. After the deaths of Sophia and Queen Anne, his father, George I, inherited the throne. As king from 1727, George II exercised little control over British domestic policy, which was largely controlled by parliament. He had a difficult relationship with his eldest son, Frederick, who supported the parliamentary opposition. George became the last British monarch to lead an army in battle when he participated in the Battle of Dettingen in 1743. In 1745, supporters of the Catholic claimant to the throne, James Francis Edward Stuart, led by James's son Charles Edward Stuart, attempted and failed to depose George. Frederick died unexpectedly in 1751, and George's grandson, George III, became king on George II's death in 1760. Historians initially tended to view George II with disdain, but more recently, some scholars have re-assessed his legacy and conclude that he held and exercised influence in foreign policy and military appointments.

Deserves to be on the main page. I asked a significant contributor and he said it was alright to put it here.--Lucky102 (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment—blurb needs work. It focuses almost entirely on how he became king without any content on what he did as king. It doesn't paint a well-rounded picture of the man's life. Imzadi 1979 → 13:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – I have re-written the blurb. — Dianna (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment. 20 November is the 20th anniversary of Windsor Castle burning down, and since that page is an FA it ought to run on that date. It wouldn't be appropriate to have two articles on the British royal family five days apart, and the Windsor one is much more relevant. Mogism (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not actually 5 days apart. This is for October.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Striked (stricken?) my oppose - not changing to support as I don't have a strong opinion either way on this article. Mogism (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

October 29

Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy)

Three points: One point for date relevance (three year anniversary of premiere), one point for being a significant contributor/never having an article as TFA, and one point for no television/film article featured within 3 months of the requested date. Recently promoted FA. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support very interesting topic. TBrandley 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose very boring topic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Half the topics on here are more boring. I've never had one of my article's on the main page, and this article has 3 points. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Wake up; it's a television show. It probably is less boring than School Rumble, but everything else on this page has them both beat by 1.6km ;) Interesting is, of course, subjective, but you would benefit from taking an interest in more interesting topics. nb: teh points are deprecated; artefacts of a prior paradigm. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. In theory any encyclopedic topic can be a featured article, and any featured article can be TFA. There's no blanket ban on TV shows. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Unfortunately not; missed E&C 1, E&C 2, I take it? Anyhoo, doesn't make them “encyclopedic”. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  As you very well know, "encyclopedic" on Misplaced Pages is much more inclusive than in Britannica. I doubt Britannica would have an article on Chrisye, for example. Last I checked, they don't even have one on Jaws. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  DYK… taht teh unworded {{Unencyclopedic}}? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Are you saying we need such a template? Encyclopedic, to me, means that it presents a notable subject in a neutral tone and gives a general idea (covering the major points) of a topic, accessible to most readers. I'd much rather see this on the main page than deconstruction in its current state. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  click teh redlink; we had it, for years. But teh “Evil Inclusionists” deleted it. First tehy re-wrote, it, and re-wrote it, and renamed it, and re-wrote it, and after five TfDs and years of teh BATTLE tehy made it an unword. But I {{rescue}}d it: User:Jack Merridew/Unencyclopaedic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  I guarantee the majority of Misplaced Pages readers would rather read about an episode of a hit medical drama, than about some priest from 1452. I have no interest in working on other topics, and bringing television articles up to featured status is what I like to do on Misplaced Pages. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Let's just insult the featured article writers of topics we don't like, because, you know, Misplaced Pages has enough article writers anyway. Or not. Let's stop trolling, Jack. Ed  19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  try setting a better example. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  Oh yes, because I troll all the time. You make me giggle. Ed  20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  bzzt; you did it, again. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support recent FA, new TFA contributor, we need a balance of material on the main page including TV programmes. Bencherlite 23:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: If 13.74 million people cared to see the show, there definitely are people caring to read. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support; to encourage a wider range of material on the main page and attract traffic to our website. Suggestion: The article is stable and is a good candidate for list-defined references. -- Dianna (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - These articles can't be ignored since large numbers of them are FAs. Agree with Crisco and Dianna. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Bencherlite & others. We need to keep trickling these tv articles out. But when did we last have one? Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Last episode was at least "Last Temptation of Krust" in May. The last TV-related topic was a character, Poppy Meadow, in August. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

November 1

Stephen Crane

• Writer on birthday, interesting bio, too bad that some will have to be trimmed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support important author. --Rschen7754 18:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because too similar to the recent TFA Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - both are about American lit; he's a naturalist as is Dillard, and both written by the same editor. I would be more than happy to support this at a later date and I think more thought should be put into these suggestions because it's not nice to have to oppose. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Nominator needs to calculate points for us to reflect any recent similar TFAs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  Needs OCLC numbers for every book written before the 1970s before I'll support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per Rschen7754. I think the connection to PaTC is reaching, to be honest. I looked through the past few months and I don't see any recent similar TFAs. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah and they'd be roughly a month and a half apart. --Rschen7754 22:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is a very important writer, neglected on wikipedia, way above the level of Pilgrim at Tinker Creek IMO. And writing about an important era (the Civil War) in American history. So should be on the main page on his birthday. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  To be fair, there are four Crane-related FAs, two of which I believe have been featured on the mainpage. María (yllosubmarine) 13:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, you're right. Doesn't change my "Support" though. According to Ernest Hemingway: "The good writers are Henry James, Stephen Crane, and Mark Twain. That's not the order they're good in. There is no order for good writers." MathewTownsend (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  You'll get no argument from me as to Crane's notability; I'm a huge fan, hence the four FAs. I'm neither opposing nor supporting this nomination, I just thought your comment strange considering. María (yllosubmarine) 15:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I was unaware. I've not been following FA/FAC for very long. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose because too similar to the recent TFA Pilgrim at Tinker Creek on September 17, per Truthkeeper. Fine in the New Year. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as Tinker Creek is a book while this is a biography. Similar, but not too similar, IMHO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  Agree with Crisco. Crane was not "a naturalist as is Dillard". The word "naturalist" is being misapplied. For Crane the word refers to his introduction of realism, not that he concentrated on writing about nature. "Naturalism was a literary movement taking place from the 1880s to 1940s that used detailed realism to suggest that social conditions, heredity, and environment had inescapable force in shaping human character." Is this the same as Dillard? Their writing is not similar, nor their topics, nor their level of fame and influence on literature. He was primarily a writer of fiction and did not write as Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is described: "Told from a first-person point of view, the book details an unnamed narrator's explorations near her home, and various contemplations on nature and life". MathewTownsend (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry MathewTownsend but I have to disagree. I have on my computer desktop a Cambridge Companion book titled American Realism and Naturalism with a chapter devoted to Crane. In American lit., naturalism (which doesn't necessarily have to do with nature, but sometimes does) began pre-Civil war with Henry David Thoreau and the Transcendendalists (though they were the forerunners), took off fully with Crane, Twain, Dreiser, Sinclair and others after the Civil war, continued with Hemingway (see "Big Two-Hearted River") and Faulkner mid-century and certainly is seen in Dillard. All this is beside the point though; I made a very pointy oppose, for which I feel awful to the point that I will send Maria email to apologize yet again, because I feel this page is being misused. How many articles do we have about American literature? How many editors do we have writing about American literature? These are considerations to keep in mind. Furthermore, since when does the primary editor have the obligation to write the blurb and to provide OLCL numbers (as requested above), particularly when editors are simultaneously being accused of ownership issues. Something's very rotten in Denmark is the point I'm trying to make; and quite frankly this is an issue that's gone once to RfAR. In my view another trip there might not be a bad idea. This page should be used for editors to request main page appearance for articles to which they've contributed, not to be used as a place to post willy-nilly without thinking about long-term ramifications. I didn't support Tinker Creek and had that not run, I'd be happy to see Crane go now. I believe Crane should go and am upset to see the mess that's been made here. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  You decry concerns of ownership and then immediately express the view that proposals for main page appearance should only be made by significant contributors to articles. Obvious issue, right? Any wonder that there are calls for this culture to end? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  No, Jack. I've never used this page and Gerda put a message on my page inviting me to join the conversation. You're letting your personal animus get in the way of seeing the obvious problems: Austen nominated now when a major anniversary looms in four months (maybe the author knows about that?); British royalty nominated now when another major anniversary looms (where's the spot for that request?). A major American author nominated a few weeks after another book by an American author, when today yet another book is being run. We simply don't have that many lit. pages and they need to be spread out. I don't care if you change this place or not, but some kind of order or thought needs to be put into the nominations - order and thought that seems currently to be lacking. You can decry the ownership issue all you like (and quite frankly it was really nice reading your most recent salvo against me on Ezra Pound after returning from sitting at a parent's deathbed), but if you have issues with it, try bringing forward solutions better than those that have been brought forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry to hear about your private concerns. - To these facts: Austen was nominated now, but can very well appear on the anniversary if that is what gets consensus, 2013 that is. If so, I don't see why a male author and a book by a female US author should not appear within the same quarter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)On the contrary, I think Gerda has done a great job nominating articles (which very few people are willing to do) and deserves to be thanked--not criticised. Raul and Dabomb need our help, and we should be encouraging people who try to make their lives easier. I encourage anyone unhappy with the job a volunteer here is doing to step up and try to do it better. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  As to whether this is too close to have articles generally related to American literature together--that's a matter of personal opinion, maybe it is and maybe it isn't. We just have to wait for more people to show up here and form a consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  My name's not Jack. Note that I've not supported this TFA suggestion. This is a forum for discussing potential TFA and... they're being discussed. And don't be attacking Gerda. She's sincere, mellow, and we've a paucity of good female participants on this project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  (blushing, again) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Crisco's comment above about one article being a biography and the other about a book: (see footnote 5 above) "Similar is defined differently than the categories at WP:FA: two dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category. For example, two film articles would be considered similar but an article about a newspaper and one about a film may be both grouped under Media but would not be considered similar. Conversely, similar articles may be in different categories at WP:FA: for example, Atom and Noble gas." MathewTownsend (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. In this case I find it dissimilar enough to not be an issue. If this were a novel and then a short story came along, there might be pause, but novel and author are different enough I think — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

November 17

Metroid Prime

Five points: Date marks the tenth anniversary of the game's release. Featured since 2008, and I'm the main contributor. Last VG article on the main page was in September 20, which can lead to a two month break if no such TFA appears in October. igordebraga ≠ 03:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support even though I never finished the game. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• As a side note, archiving some of these links may be a good idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's a great change of pace from all the articles about roads and dead people. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Today's featured article requests