Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) at 22:37, 17 October 2012 (arbitrary punctuation change). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from February 8 to March 10.

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

The Story of Miss Moppet

• suggested as a noncontroversial subject (a children's story) in keeping with the upcoming celebratory holidays. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Lol that you think this fiesta of sockpuppetry is an "uncontroversial subject". Very strongly oppose unless and until both Truthkeeper (who did the initial cleanup during and after the FAC) and the WP:CCI folks sign off that the current version is clear of any hint of copyright violation—if this goes on the main page, you can be assured that every critic of Misplaced Pages will be waiting to pounce. – iridescent 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (Adding) If this does run, File:The Story of Miss Moppet cover.jpg or File:Beatrix Potter, Miss Moppet, No Mouse.jpg should be the image; the article is about the book and the character, not a biography of Beatrix Potter. – iridescent 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oh my dear God, absolutely not. If anyone wants to know why, please ask at my talk. Thanks Iridescent - wouldn't have looked here if I hadn't seen that you commented. nb. - we to have way to identify this article so that it never runs as TFA. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why don't you explain in detail here why this shouldn't run? That's what this space is for. Your comments are somewhat cryptic, and more explanation would be appreciated.
• In any case, if this article is in so damaging to the project, we should open a WP:FAR and have its star removed. I don't see a need to have a main page blacklist of featured articles--we should just delist the ones that don't represent our best work. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I requested a FAR a long time ago. I am taking a quick break from work at the moment and don't have time to explain - but this absolutely cannot go on the main page. There's a reason we have an institutional memory (which is lost when long-standing contributors leave). I'd very much like to see this entry deleted. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• No need to go into too much detail, but what are the issues with the article? I think an explanation would be a nice cutesy to the person who nominated it. "Institutional memory" is nice, but more explanation will help prolong those memories in case of sudden retirements. BTW, I'd be happy to do the paperwork for an FAR. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't get the anti-article hysteria if the FA article is "clean" as Truthkeeper88 claims. You mean a whole topic, an article that is listed as an FA is off limiteds because of a SPI that is actually inconclusive regarding a specific editor. Why is listed as an FA if it is so contaminated? Is this like the Communist Black list? Should choices be made on the basis of emotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewTownsend (talk • contribs)
• The reasons this page should never go on the front page are as follows: it was brought to FAC by a sock of banned sockmaster ItsLassieTime (about whom I won't say much here right now) and passed at a time soon after another page was pulled from the main page after plagiarism was detected. Almost all of ILT's pages have been found to have varying degrees of copyvio in them. I vowed to myself that wouldn't happen to another FAC and with Ruhrfisch's help I rewrote this page because it was plagiarized from top to bottom. Every single sentence. It took a long time to get it to where it is now. It can't go to FAR because as it stands, there's nothing wrong with it. But if you take a moment to look at the history you'd see a different story. More importantly a CCI case is open with hundreds of pages that need to be scrubbed - some that are GA. The message that would be sent by running this article on the front page - that was plagiarized from the top down and is one reason we now (supposedly) require spot-checks of all FACs - would be very wrong. I strongly oppose this. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Just so I have things straight here: there's nothing wrong with the article now, but you're opposing because a sockpuppet worked on it in the past and wrote other poor articles? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iri and TK; the article itself is probably copyvio-free, but there's a very long history of sockpuppeteering in there, and running it would be a poor choice. I'm sure the nomination was in good faith, but I'm equally sure it should be removed, and unsure as to why that was reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I reverted because I think it is generally best practice to explain why a nomination is being removed. I was pretty confused as to why. I won't revert again, of course--I try to avoid edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Iridescent didn't oppose it, as claimed, but suggested a different image, which I have added. Why should an article be banned if it's an FA. The SPI actually doesn't prove anything about one of the editors of this article. Seems like an emotional oppose with no actual facts. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've bolded the words "very strongly oppose" in my initial comment, as you appear to have missed them. My taking any other position is conditional on CCI approval that the copyvios have been cleared, which at present is clearly not the case as the history is full of them. – iridescent 20:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not to mention all the pages that are linked, almost all of which have histories riddled with copyvio. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously? Please strike the "emotional oppose". You guys have no idea what this is about. Running it on the main page would not be a good idea. Please run it past MRG - she might think it's okay, but even with her endorsement I would oppose, strongly. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, seriously. You give no reasons why this article is forbidden. It isn't in the rules. You're saying that even MRG okays it, you'll still put the final black list stamp on it. Please put your emotions aside. Point to a rule that forbids this article from being an TFA. Something besides your emotional response. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I pinged MRG about this, hopefully she'll weigh in. I'll withhold judgment, but I think it might actually send a good message if we run this--recognition of the excellent work of our copyright cleanup crew. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Mathew, I'm really tired of having people assume bad faith against me and it's happened time and again on this page. It needs to stop now. Mark, no one who has done the clean up has taken credit for the star on this page and no, it should not run. There's a long story here and I don't want to put it out on this page now. Iri said it had to be cleared with me and I'm pleading with you guys to assume good faith. I've had enough badgering and bullying. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to hear that you feel bullied. I was (and still am) looking for more information because this seems to be a very unusual case--I'm still learning and it's good to know how we handle these things. Also, you really should take credit for the star, since you did so much work on the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly present FAC as incompetent at the time this article was passed. Is it still so incompetent? Should we suspect every FA? Especially those passed before the new crew took over? Or what? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is an enormous assumption of bad faith given the situation and work that's gone into cleaning this pages for the sake of the project and readers of the articles. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Commment Iridescent left an interesting response to me here. There may still be copyright issues because of links on the talk page. This would probably have to be fixed before running it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - currently there are five discussions ongoing: one here on Iridescent's page; one here on Moonriddengirl's page, one on my talk, and one on Mark Arsten's page in addition to this here. For those who don't understand the history behind this I will post diffs to my page, but give me a little time to gather them, and I'll provide a summary of the situation. As for this comment, I blanked my page because I need to retrieve from the page history all the ILT material and it's better to start new. Again, please stop assuming bad faith. And give me some time to do this properly. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 2

Introduction to viruses

• Support biology, not mushroom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support PumpkinSky talk 19:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support with my declaration of interest. I wrote this article, following a request from other editors for something more accessible than the main (core) article Virus, which I raised to FA and has been on the Main Page. I particularly like the spoken version (not by me at all) which does not differ significantly from the current version and which is very accomplished. I don't know how many spoken versions of articles, of this high standard, have been on the Main Page, but perhaps this is something we should encourage. Graham Colm (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - blurb needs a rewrite IMO, as it mentions "virus" or "viruses" eleven times. No other way to clearly describe a virus? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

please go ahead, improve it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

if I understood it enough I would. But I don't. So I'm not the one to "improve it". I asked the question: "No other way to clearly describe a virus?" MathewTownsend (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Same for me, or I would do it, tried a bit,

• Support great choice, good to have some accessible science articles on the main page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Solid article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support TBrandley 00:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 3

Hadji Ali

• suggested for nonspecific date. One point for unusual topic not covered elsewhere. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the nomination Mathew. Shouldn't it be three points – one for diversity and two more for no similar article appearing within six months? The question mark is because the scope of the standard is not sparklingly clear. Certainly nothing "similar" has been featured... ever. But if broadly construed, there have been actors and musicians one could I suppose classify as also being "performance artists".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I would suggest three points, as well, but I'm somewhat biased in that I really want to see it on the main page. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support x2. Awesome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very well written article on a very interesting subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as fun. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment blurb is only 840 characters, about 2/3rds the appropriate length. Running a blurb that is too short messes up the balance of the sections on the main page. And "diversity" only wins a point when it's in a specified FA category, see above; this is a "culture and society" article so is 2 points. Bencherlite 21:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 4

Derry City F.C.

Derry City Football Club is a professional football club based in Derry, Northern Ireland. It plays in the League of Ireland Premier Division. It had spent the majority of its time in the League of Ireland in the Premier Division, the top tier of league football in the Republic of Ireland, however it was expelled in November 2009 when it was discovered there were secondary, unofficial contracts with players. It was reinstated, however, a few weeks later but demoted to the First Division, the second tier. The club are the League of Ireland's only participant from Northern Ireland. The club's home ground is the Brandywell Stadium and the players wear red and white striped shirts from which its nickname, the Candystripes, derives. Others refer to the club as the Red and White Army or abbreviate the name to Derry or City. The club, founded in 1928, initially played in the Irish League, the domestic league in Northern Ireland, and won a title in 1964-65. In 1971, security concerns related to unrest in Northern Ireland meant matches could not be played at the Brandywell. (more...)

Deserves to be on the main page. I asked main contributor but hasn't answered yet and I think he's inactive, other people don't ask. Points: +2 (promoted over 2 years ago), +2(widely covered), +1(no football(soccer) article in over 3 months), total is 5.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As galling as that accent is, my neighbours to the west would be a great addition to the main page. However, be prepared for a few questions about our city and county naming compromise; not all of which will be particularly polite. There's probably a good selection of free pictures you could use if you want to go with one; File:Derry 0161.jpg and File:126 Brandywell Stadium.JPG look good and Derry has a lot of good images of the city. GRAPPLE X 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: 3 dead links, 3 sections tagged as unsourced in whole or in part, member of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from July 2007. Beyond that: some of the citations need tidying up (e.g. "pp" but no page numbers); some people might prefer notes and references to be split for ease of reading; some people might think that two "however"s in two sentences in the lead (and in the blurb) is a sign that this 5-year-old FA needs a heavy polish before main page exposure, particularly where the FAC nominator left a few years ago. Bencherlite 18:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 5

Porbeagle

• Support PumpkinSky talk 23:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, no mushroom, no battleship, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• The toolserver TFAR checklinks report shows four dead links. Bencherlite 23:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Cut two, updated two.PumpkinSky talk 23:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Bencherlite 16:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Specific date nominations

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 23

Ian Fleming

Ian Fleming (1908–1964) was an English author, journalist and Naval Intelligence Officer, best known for his James Bond series of spy novels. While working in British Naval Intelligence during Second World War, Fleming was involved in the planning stages of intelligence and military operations and his wartime service and subsequent career as a journalist provided much of the background, detail and depth of the James Bond novels. Fleming wrote his first Bond novel, Casino Royale, in 1952. It was a success, and eleven Bond novels and two short-story collections followed between 1953 and 1966. The novels revolved around James Bond, an officer in the British Secret Service. The Bond stories rank among the best-selling series of fictional books of all time, having sold over 100 million copies. Fleming's creation has appeared in film twenty-four times, portrayed by seven actors, with the latest screen incarnation, Skyfall, due to premiere in London on 23 October 2012. (more...)

• Support, as nominator. Fleming is an interesting individual in his own right, but his creation has outlasted him and gone to new heights, with the Bond films are celebrating their fiftieth anniversary this year, and the latest instalment premiering on 23 October. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, timely, good choice...Modernist (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Non-free image removed. Bencherlite 19:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Apologies—and many thanks! - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • No problem - I use User:Anomie/linkclassifier in my monobook.js, which puts a big red border around non-free images - makes it easy to spot them on this page. It also highlights links to dab pages, another useful trick. </advert> Bencherlite 20:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that - I've installed it and I'll see how it goes. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, good on the day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support after all, on October 23 lots of us will let the skyfall. igordebraga ≠ 21:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support – A topical subject with the upcoming Bond film and the fiftieth anniversary of the film series. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - also as nominator at FAC. I couldn't think of a better tribute to the Bond half centenary than this. -- Cassianto 00:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support TBrandley 00:49, 17 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)

• Thanks. That seems fine. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 13 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, 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)

• We have, in the past, viewed a creator and then a creation as not similar, assuming that they are not related (i.e. don't run The Red Badge of Courage right after Crane.)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support PumpkinSky talk 19:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Truthkeeper88 and Johnbod...Modernist (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: if Ian Fleming appears on October 23 (see above), that will make two male author/journalists on the mainpage in as many weeks. Seeing as how this nom already has several opposes, I think the other one should take precedence. Not to mention, the 50th Bond anniversary is surely more important than Crane's 141st birthday. María (yllosubmarine) 20:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as Ian Fleming should take priority. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

November 4

Gabriel Fauré

I think this should be on the main page. It has 5 points in total.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

November (8) 5

Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot)

• as pending request, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for 8 Nov, support for 5th. Bonfire Night is always on the 5th, if this runs three days late it will just confuse readers. 54.240.197.1 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Confuse? There was no bonfire, and the person died 8 Nov, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is that 5 November, aka "Bonfire Night" in the UK, is the day that the "Gunpowder plot" is commemorated, being the date in 1605 on which the conspiracy to blow up king and parliament was discovered. Percy is only really noteworthy because of his involvement with the plot; his death date three days later has no actual significance. For that reason I agree with the IP above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for 8 Nov, support for 5th, as per Brianboulton's explanation. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for 8 Nov, support for 5th. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Changed to 5 Oct, all supports then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• All supports, so far. :-) Prioryman (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

November 6

William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896

• as pending request, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, what does "as pending request" mean? Are you the nominator? The date relevance will not be obvious to everyone. When did we last have a similar article? NB Bryan's Cross of Gold speech from this same campaign was FA on July 9th. If you are going to nominate things, please do so properly. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment shouldn't we wait for this to be closed to see if we repeat 2008 and put Obama and Romney as TFAs? igordebraga ≠ 19:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We can always change it later, there's no harm in nominating it now. Ed  19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Or we could nominate Sesame Street! .... maybe that was too soon. Anyway, I'm a bit concerned about doing the same thing again; wouldn't this be the third TFA for Barack Obama? --Rschen7754 19:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. A fine article for the date. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Bryan's Cross of Gold speech from this same campaign was FA on July 9th. Prefer Romney/Obama if possible. Is there an alternative? Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

November 13

Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania)

Nov 13 is the date is was listed as a National Historic Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places.

• Support PumpkinSky talk 19:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, on the right track, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 15 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)
• Comment I'd rather the article run with no image than run with a picture of a building that isn't even in the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • As you wish. igordebraga ≠ 03:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Today's featured article requests