Talk:ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/Archive 2

Why does this article exist?
And why is it today's featured article? Hermione is a dude (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It exists because it was created. It continues to exist because the single AFD drawn against it resulted in a decision of "Keep". It is a Featured Article because it passed its Featured Article Candidacy. It is Today's Featured Article because Raul, our Featured Article Director, decided that it should be. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides that, it's pretty riveting, if you read it through. ALTON   .ıl  01:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it through, but I wasn't riveted. But you're right, people voted to keep this article and make it featured. That must mean it's good, then, and something that many people will want to read. Maybe I have a brain tumor or something. Hermione is a dude (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's senseless to put such small topic in the front page. It is a waste of bandwidth with a subject that almost no one cares about, neither is useful, not even for the history of videogames. This article is even classified as low prority. What a shame for whoever chose this as featured article. Daniel de França (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A shame indeed. I vote to remove this article. It blackens wikipedias reputashin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tester101 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 March 2008
 * I disagree. This article is, while perhaps not crucial, interesting and bring to the public eye some controversies. Having those issues clearly present can do nothing but help, and the fact that it is about a video game is not only not a disadvantage, but helpful to bringing about more understanding of these topics. Hpfreak26 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, HOW THE HELL is this the featured article of the day. It's about a relatively less known video game rating change for God's sake. Knowledge of this will not enrich the minds of the vast majority of the millions and millions of people who visit the home page of wikipedia. While this may be an extremely important issue to the minority of people who were affected by this massive ratings change on this video-game, I do not think anyone can argue persuasively that this deserves a front page on wikipedia. Please remove it, moderators, and take the necessary steps to ensure only the best and most *relevant* articles get on the front page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.119.2 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 March 2008

I understand and endorse the existance of this article, but the addition of the picture is bad judgement. If that's the sort of thing this project wants to defend as acceptable, than it has picked its battles poorly. WilliamYeats 4 March 2008
 * I can see where you are coming from. I am in no way a representative of any of the WikiProjects or Censorship Committee (is there such a thing?), but I think, while this is a bit borderline material, it helps illustrate the point of the conflict. I know for a fact that there are more "adult themed" images available that would more readily portray the issue, but this one is a bit more "tasteful" than some others. I vote (informally) keep. Hpfreak26 (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am by no means a deletionist, but the lead paragraph says the events passed by with little notice from the public at large. The article itself seems to argue for its own lack of notability! —johndburger 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if whoever originally wrote that was thinking along the lines of "compared to the Hot Coffee thing, which was all over the place in mainstream media.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, this is a joke. Koalorka (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this article's selection for the front page. The subject's notability is established beyond question by the number and quality of the references. I am certain it would survive a nomination for deletion with notability rationale. As an article with a notable subject, it is NO LESS QUALIFIED than any other FA-quality article for front page selection. If the subject isn't interesting to you, come back tomorrow. I'm not at all interested in the Crusaders, yet I didn't bitch and moan about it when it was a featured article a couple of days ago. Strokes, folks. BreathingMeat (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible choice.
I am not a deletionist, I am extremely anti-censorship when it comes to Wikipedia, but I have to say that this "featured article" features only an embarrassment to everyone who has worked to make Wikipedia great. I don't give a shit about all the people who will come around and say that "Featured articles are chosen only on the basis of their quality as an article" blah blah blah. The fact is, if we are featuring articles on the front page of Wikipedia as the best content our encyclopedia has to offer, and this kind of dreck is what is purported as the best we have to offer, there is something seriously wrong with the process. There are tens of thousands of better articles on Wikipedia of note, and more every day. There is never a need to stoop to this kind of ephemeral crap. I will not reach the point of whether or not the rerating of some game is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, because that is beside the point. With all that Wikipedia has to offer, with all that there is going on in the world today, to have a five-page article on ESRB rerating an obscure video game based on some hidden boobies be featured on the front page is just indefensible. This is barely even side-column tabloid ephemera.

Everyone involved with the process needs to take a hard look at themselves now. NTK (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Entirely agree, not a solid choice when the article itself admits that the event passed with little to no media attention. Yanksox (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check out the policy discussion I have started at Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive 39 NTK (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't actually an obscure game to be fair. The Elder Scrolls series is a pretty popular single player RPG series. Although I do find it funny to see such articles on the main page, I'd prefer to see the article on the game itself. Meh. Basser g (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of it. It doesn't seem to be very popular: , , . This, combined with the narrow scope of the topic makes the entry a very boring and uneducational read for most people. Plus, it has a nude picture at the top, making it controversial. I understand that Wikipedia isn't censored, but it's pretty provocative to put nude pictures in the featured article. I actually don't think Wikipedia should have articles about video games at all. So despite the fact that this entry should probably be deleted, it's featured. Featuring an exceptionally obscure and offensive entry seems like a really bad choice to me.--Awareshiftjk (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "I actually don't think Wikipedia should have articles about video games at all" Why not? We have countless articles relating to songs, albums, novels, television programmes, why is there no room for video games? Not to mention that, as other contributors have said, Oblivion was one of the highest rated and most successful releases of 2006. Gh0ti-2 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't play many video games, Oblivion is one of the most popular and highly rated single player RPG. Read its homepage.


 * Agreed; before reading this I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles. Feel free to rant there for more audience :) PS. I wonder if this would survive an AFD... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to be clear that my objection has nothing to do with the presence of digital nudity at the top of the article. It has to do with the embarrassingly juvenile, obscure, non-notable nature of the whole flap.  I would concede that the game is a somewhat successful RPG, but a rating flap over some hidden-feature breasts in an RPG game is not feature-quality content and is a terrible choice for the front page of Wikipedia.  And my discussion that I have started here is to show that it is not an open or democratic process either.  It is an entrenched, broken, and opaque process. NTK (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree although I don't think any recall of FAD is needed; everybody is entitled to a mistake every now and then - as long as we all agree such stuff will not be mainpaged again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is relevant to any parent whose child plays video games. It is not easy for parents to keep up with everything their child is interested in.  Articles like this help parents decide what is and is not appropriate for their children.  In addition to providing information about a single game, the article sheds interesting light on the ESRB and the whole game rating process.


 * As for the "nude" "controversial" picture at the top of the article... really? Do we really have to be afraid of people who take offense to an image about as erotic as Mrs. Garrison?  They look like awkwardly rendered cartoons of men with breast implants.  Surely the rabid politically correct won't break out the firebombs over this little thing.


 * Also, the fact that Wikipedia contains and even showcases quirky, offbeat (but very well-written and well-researched) articles like this is what makes it such a wonderful place to explore. For the naysayers above - I know it is hard to accept that other people may have different interests and priorities than you do.  We apologize for the inconvenience.  Exophthalmos (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "As for the 'nude' 'controversial' picture at the top of the article... really? Do we really have to be afraid of people who take offense to an image about as erotic as Mrs. Garrison? They look like awkwardly rendered cartoons of men with breast implants.  Surely the rabid politically correct won't break out the firebombs over this little thing." No, this is an awkardly-rendered cartoon. The figures at this article, on the other hand, are enough to get you in trouble at work. They're not suitable for children, either. And I'm not politically correct. In fact, I occasionally look at pornography. But linking to the entry from the main page forces many unsuspecting readers to look at it."This article is relevant to any parent whose child plays video games. It is not easy for parents to keep up with everything their child is interested in.  Articles like this help parents decide what is and is not appropriate for their children.  In addition to providing information about a single game, the article sheds interesting light on the ESRB and the whole game rating process."I'd think you'd be able to contain all of the rating information in the main article about the video game."Also, the fact that Wikipedia contains and even showcases quirky, offbeat (but very well-written and well-researched) articles like this is what makes it such a wonderful place to explore. For the naysayers above - I know it is hard to accept that other people may have different interests and priorities than you do.  We apologize for the inconvenience."I have no problem with your interests or your reading habits. I just think there are more important things to do here than write an article about a video game. It's a waste of time, both for writers and for readers. There are video game wikis you can edit if you'd like. It's better than reading nothing at all, I guess, but not by much.--Awareshiftjk (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno...Wikipedia tends to be the first place I check for obscure/trivial stuff, so it wasn't surprising when I saw an article like this on the front page. As for being taken seriously, well, yeah, this doesn't exactly help. -Pravit (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * People have asked for change over this before, nothing will change. Wikipedia admins and most of its contributors are young adults (high-school/early university) who are into computers and video games. This is why it seems to be at least twice a month that the page is a video game from the last 10 years, or something about an internet fad, or something stupid like this article. Wikipedia has long acknowledged its bias to computers and video games, but needs to reverse this bias by deliberately not selecting these sorts of articles for POTD. Random selection of FA articles is not good enough. Its time to pick articles based on their historical worthiness and their usefulness in proper research and eduction.--58.111.132.29 (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no formality either on Wikipedia or in science on what "proper research and education" is. All fields of endeavor are equal here. And since Wikipedia is largely an internet phenomena created largely by young adults involved in computers, it makes natural sense that it would offer a systemic bias towards that endeavor. My question to you is, what are you doing to counter this bias? How many articles did you build up to FA status? Masterhomer [[Image:Yin and Yang.svg|20px|]] 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that it would have been better not to feature any article at all today. We also could have just picked out an informative article without a star (like "World War II"). Whether other articles are made into featured articles is irrelevant, because under no circumstances should an article like this be featured.--Awareshiftjk (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Choice is shocking, though I am a fan of the Elder Scrolls games, and currently playing oblivion, it is a terrible article. If the game was featured, that would make sense. 124.191.74.29 (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty goofy choice. Most featured articles are compelling enough that I end up reading most of the article, even if I don't particularly care about the topic; this one is of such narrow, limited interest that I doubt most readers will get through the first paragraph.  --Doradus (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The game is interesting to those who play it, but it's not interesting to the rest of the world. However, issues regarding the rating system are rather relevant to many. This may have its impact on gaming industry in general, as it seems like game publishers may be held responsible to some extent for the mods people create. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia does not practice censorship*

Most of the criticism of this selection has been based on the subject of the article, not the content of the article or how well written it is. Featured Articles are based on the latter, not the former, so when you read upon an article with FA status, we don't mean it's important or significant, but that it's extremely well written and an epitome of how various Wikipedia users, who almost always have no relation or organization with each other and are unpaid for their efforts, can write brilliantly about a subject. FA selection does not care about what the subject is to begin with, but how well it's written. FA POTD simply wants to bring attention to these well written articles regardless of the subject.

As for the claim why it "seems" that FA game articles seem to get a lot of attention: Wikipedia is in the Internet, used heavily by young generations and therefore it seems no surprise that many of the people of this generation look up on their hobbies (including video games) in Wikipedia and decide to contribute on a subject they know so well and enjoy. Nevertheless, the article has FA status, and so will be treated equally as any non-game related articles with FA status.

Any remarks to the significance of the article, the nature of the people who wrote or selected the article, or how ridiculous the article may be COMPLETELY misses the point about Featured Articles, its selection in the front page, and Wikipedia itself.

If you would like this to happen less often, then you are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia to make more articles earn FA status to reduce the probability of selection of articles like these ;)

* There are rules to shock-type images, but that's far as it goes, and this article hardly comes close to it.

--BirdKr (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Well said. ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to promote this article to featured status - I think it would have been more appropriate to nominate it for AfD - but it's entirely incomprehensible to me why articles like this (namely video games articles, Pokemon articles, etc.) are repeatedly and disproportionately picked to go on the main page, when there is a higher FA output than available spots on the main page. If we had to scratch to find FA for the main page, it would be a different story, but there are enough articles available, there is simply no need to embarrass this project time and time again with articles that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia to begin with. The ridiculously high number of these soft/pop culture topics on the main page gravely threaten Wikipedia's reputation as a serious source of information. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, you might want to read the criteria for AfD yourself first, to see that it doesn't apply to this article. Furthermore, the fact you don't like video games, doesn't mean all Wikipedia visitors agree with you. Therefore, I must support BirdKr - it makes no sense to discuss whether or not articles on certain topics should be prevented from FA status. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Who are you to say that articles like these, specifically showcasing an article like this, embarrass or "gravely threaten" Wikipedia? If a viewer thinks this project is ridiculous after reading up on other articles that fueled and satisfied their curiosity or wonder, then so be it. Wikipedia was never meant to be a serious source: we highly discourage anyone using Wikipedia as a main source, even the founder of Wikipedia states so. In his words, Wikipedia should simply be a starting point for a person's research endeavors. If at anything that "gravely threaten" Wikipedia, it's articles that contain false, exaggerated, and questionable statements (OR, NPOV, libel against living persons) in which is almost completely absent in articles with FA-status. --BirdKr (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Review?
I've been keeping an eye on the articles on that are featured on the Main Page, and I have to say that over the past three months, many articles have come that are distressing below the standard that almost all FAs are held to. Notably Golden Plates, and Knut (polar bear), and now ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

While I fully understand that FAs for the Main Page are chosen simply because the are FA, and are not reviewed prior to picking because presumably all FAs are of the same level of Excellent; I do think the system, and Raul654 may need a wake up call. Simply put the failure of these articles show the overall failure of the system. That being said, sometimes placing an article on the Main Page creates such a furor that the article becomes Featured from all the views it receives (compare the Golden Plates article after it went up on the MP versus its current state: Golden Plates on Feb. 8th 2008 versus the article now.)

So, I think this article needs a wake up call as well, in the form of a WP:Featured Article Review. This article simply does not make the cut. Zidel333 (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this article a "failure"? --BirdKr (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So far I have always been impressed by featured articles, but this is the first one that has not even come close to being of sufficient merit. It might be even worthy of deletion. Very disappointed in whoever let this one through. Incidentally it should read "Bethesda issued its own press release." JMcC (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with the sentiment above. This article is WAY below the standards we should be maintaining for FAs. Eusebeus (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone disappointed by the quality of the featured articles needs to help shoot down articles from becoming Featured in the first place, at Featured article candidates. I haven't done this enough myself - it's hard to keep enthusiastic about regular visits.  I couldn't believe that vanity article about the knife guy made it to Featured a few months ago.  Anyway, Featured articles are currently getting the nod with 4 or 5 "Support" votes - we need more people to vote "Oppose" for good reasons. Tempshill (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously, what? "Help shoot down"?  Personal interpretations of WP:NOTE aside, so far I have seen no reasons that point to specific FA criteria on why this article does not deserve to be featured.  If someone does have such reasons, then they should take it to FAR.  By the way, the number of "Support"s received in any particular FAC is irrelevant (it can be four or fifteen); what matters is that there is a clear consensus with no remaining actionable opposes.  There was obviously clear consensus for this particular article during its FAC, which is why it passed.  To encourage people to "Oppose" articles at FAC is a needless hindrance; instead we should be concentrating on how to further improve this article and others like it through constructive criticism. María ( habla  con migo ) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read my comment a little more carefully, I didn't criticize this article at all. I stated that there aren't enough people opposing FA nominations; articles are getting to FA status with 3 or 5 "support" votes, which usually are the author and a few friends; it's a broken system.  The long route is to improve the articles, yes, but there is a lot of self promotion going on where people love their articles and ram them through an abbreviated, broken process; and the way to stop the latter practice is by shouting down articles that aren't FA quality.  Tempshill (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would use rather more neutral language than User:Tempshill, but basically agree. To x-post my comment at FAC, we need to get more critical eyeballs on the FA process to stop things like today from happening. We need to ensure that we maintain a good blend of interest, substantiation, strong prose, etc.... Today's FA reads like some fancrufty blog posting; and the mod nudey image is particularly ridiculous. As an aside, I suggest that after this is taken off the main page, we send it straight to FAR. Eusebeus (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What, stop things like today from happening... I don't see your problem really. Is it the choice of this subject for todays FA? I think enough of Wikipedia's visitors are interested in legal issues regarding video games for this to be relevant enough. Is it the style of todays FA? I disagree. I think it reads like a well-documented article, which covers all relevant information without supplying loads of irrelevant stuff. However, if you see any room for improvement, you're welcome. This is Wikipedia, you know. Andreas Willow (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But as the extensive discussion above would indicate, its selection for the main page may hint that some people may not agree in toto with your assessment. At any event, hopefully this will be listed for reconsideration at FAR (frankly, I would take it to AfD). More importantly, it may produce a change in how main page FAs are selected. As you note, this is Wikipedia so your input will be warmly valued in both these forthcoming discussions. But the inclusion of this article on the mainpage is, in my view, a disgrace. Eusebeus (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To take this article for AfD is outrageous, it's easily in the best 5 % of articles present on Wikipedia. Furthermore, it's notable enough, so that can't be a problem either.
 * Yes, I see that many people do not agree with that point of view. However, simply the fact that some 20 people who saw the main page, don't agree with this particular choice for TFA, doesn't imply that the 20 million or so people who visit Wikipedia a day, think it's a bad choice. And even so, most people aren't bothered by a FA they don't care about. Sure, if video games are irrelevant to you, I can see that you're not too happy to see one of these as FA. But does that mean it's "a disgrace" to have a topic related to video games on the main page? I'd say the article on the re-rating, for example, is way more interesting than some video game itself. The article on a video game is interesting only to those who play the video game, while the re-rating is interesting to a lot more people (for example, parents who decide what games their children can play, based on those ratings). I don't see how this article would be so irrelevant, and I think the above discussion is absurd. Andreas Willow (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I work in the video game industry, and this is the first time I've ever seen a comprehensive, well-sourced overview of the incident in question. Discerning what exactly happened in this case is extremely helpful toward understanding how the ESRB functions, a process that impacts nearly every segment of a major North American media industry. I would be just as interested in reading about a case that cast light on the ratings process of the MPAA or of the now-defunct Comics Code. An article on, say, the MPAA rating of Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut and the resulting edits and self-censorship would be just as relevant, at least to those who care about the intersection of art and commercialism. 71.198.40.86 (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Eusebeus, though I think this was a seriously poor choice for a TFA, I don't see you coming up with any really relevant criticism of the article. The picture is pretty silly, but that's because the event that the article describes is pretty silly. I understand the significance of this event perfectly well, but I don't agree in the least that it was worthy of main page treatment. It suffers from a terrible case of recentism and the impact on society is confined largely to the video game industry and certain player communities. It's certainly representative of censorship of media in the US, but rather poorly so, and is even less representative of video games as a whole. I think it would be far better off in a newspaper than an encyclopedia. The article, however, is actually of good quality if judged on its own merits. It's short and to the point, isn't peppered with footnotes, and treats video games from a real life perspective.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment- (I shall give Eusebeus the benefit of the doubt and exempt him from this comment, but it applies to the rest) Well you whiners and complainers are more than welcome to actually develop some articles to featured status or contribute at the Featured Article Candidacy. If not, the only thing "disgraceful" is your childishness and pointless dislike of everyday life subject matter. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My criticism is implicitly one of this article's content - yea, yea, yea I know already we don't use content to determine FA, but in my view that is part of the problem with FA. And even if we allow fancrufty articles like this one to advance to FA, and why not if properly sourced and all that shit i guess, there needs to be a better selection process for TFA so stuff like this doesn't get advanced as part of the best content Wikipedia has to offer. And look, I recognise that is simply my opinion but a brief glance above will indicate it is not necessarily a minoritarian one and we need therefore to rectify the selection process. I also echo what Tempshill is saying, although I concede that by not being a very active FA participant, my criticism thus runs hollow. Observe please, I am not trying to give offense to people who (a) worked on this or (b) think it is important. Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Eusebeus; it seems every time an editor raises a concern, or feels an article is below standard, users just attack the editor who complained than trying to understand what they were trying to say. Major issues with this article: lack of appropriate pictures, I'd like to see a picture of a newspaper or report on the whole scandal, not just screen shots, the writing is good, not superlative which is a pillar of FA, concerns over the number of citations, and the fact I just don't think this article is "the best Wikipedia can offer". I didn't insult video games, I didn't insult the main editors of this page, and I didn't mean to insult the FAC process, but man, everyone is so up in arms over this. Can't we just try to think critically about this article instead of devolving into semi-personal attacks, and complaining?. Jeebus. Zidel333 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I don't see why the selection process is wrong, and I'd like to quote Resolute who wrote below: One of the greatest attributes of Wikipedia is that you can find high quality articles on topics not covered by traditional encyclopedias. Why shouldn't such topics be on the main page? I think this is the core of this dispute - the fact that something is not common knowledge, doesn't mean it shouldn't appear on the Wikipedia main page. It's there because it's a high-quality article (indeed!). If there's so many articles with "superlative" writing, Zidel333, you're invited to nominate them for FA. Personally, I think this article is among the best of Wikipedia and I don't see the problem. Furthermore I disagree with Eusebius - the fact that some ten people are not happy about the fact this article made it to TFA, doesn't mean most people think so. Unhappy people are much more inclined to voicing their opinion, than happy ones. When I come across a good article, usually I just read it and I move on, and I just incidentally ended up at this talk page. However, when I find a bad article, I often visit the talk page to say what I think of the article. So in summary, I doubt your brief glance is justifiable, and the fact that you and some 10 other people think a single TFA was a bad choice, is by no means enough to require that, as you're putting it, we need therefore to rectify the selection process. Thousands of people will have clicked the article, read it, and went on with their lives. Why would a couple of disgruntled readers be a reason to revise the selection process? That I cannot see. Andreas Willow (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a complaint about how the FA selection process works and not the quality of this article. Discussion about how change major policies like that shouldn't be brought up at the talkpages of individual articles.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I for one whole-heartedly support Andreas' assertion that editors posting a body of largely consonant critical commentary is evidence of widespread and enthusiastic support for the article in question. Perhaps Andreas will be good enough to let us unreconstructed, curmudgeonly, minoritarian malcontents, bellyachers and grumblers know when we might be allowed to post on topics where such views might be construed as something other than idle drive-by negativity. Perhaps on topics where he agrees? That would be remarkably coincidental. And by the way, speaking generally, it is crass to assume that this is some kind of notable or bust view of an encyclopedia. Not at all. But this is poorly-explicated fancruft that should not have made it to the front page as is. But as Andreas notes, better not to say anything since he disagrees. Eusebeus (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's an amazing concept: If you aren't going to do anything except whine about this article, then why don't you be quiet? You're not helping improve the encyclopedia or even making any action besides a knee-jerk reaction to impeach Raul because you didn't like one article. You all have no one to blame for it getting on the main page except yourselves, who did not contribute to the featured article/TFA process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fuchs, It was User:NTK and a few others who started hollering about recalling Raul over at Village pump (policy), not Eusebeus. I have problems with this article being featured, I have participated in discussions at Today's featured article/requests over this very issue, and I have worked on plenty of featured content, so please mind your generalizations.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congrats Wikipedians! You've managed to justify and assert that Wikipedia is indeed subjective and contradicting! Condescending and trolling an obviously well written article just because of it's topic matter? Despite the fact that it isn't even the subject matter? Bravo! Lets go and follow that same logic and ignore content on other wikipedia articles and just make the entire Front Page FA system work by selecting the best title'd article. Who cares what it contains? Obviously though if one of the top articles on wikipedia was a stereotypically negative topic, such as Games in this example, we'll never select it. We're far too pish posh for that.

Oh but wait, if this is about how obscure the topic matter is (ignoring the obvious fact that it isn't really much about the video game at all but the over-gloating power a company has to be illogical) then why don't we put something really 'intelligent' sounding and obscure, that maybe only 3 people in the entire continent of America cared about? Yeah, obviously that idea of you guys is fabulous; there's absolutely nothing wrong with the logistics of that train of thought.

As for "childish", obviously this argument has been handed to you by statistics stated above in this discussion but let me make another interjection to this. This discussion asserts that "children" and younger adults have a more curious, open minded and objective look at the world before they are mentally hardened and become close minded and subjective. As it was just illustrated here by you gentleman by not letting go to past assumptions and stereotypes ("Games are immature and for kids lol!") and closing your mind to any "radical" new ideals.

Given that in science, or any other logical and informative path, you require a curiously open mind that is able to objectively view the world; it would seem that vocalizing your disagreement over a topic, not even content or in fact the real topic, really buries your own grave and makes Wikipedia look worse than if Paris Hilton's Dog got front paged. You guys should go edit over here instead. They love ridiculous stuff. And here I thought Wikipedia was all about having as much information about the world as possible and culturing and educating the general populace of the Internet.

Oh, and by the way, don't forget that the Front Page thing is a daily thing. Meaning, throughout the year you have 364 other articles on the front. Doesn't that make you feel silly? DrunkCat (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support DrunkCat. And I don't need to add anything else. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the trolls here. Good response, it is exactly what I was looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew zxc (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to take your sarcasm pill! 71.196.103.116 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 365 others this year 81.151.170.48 (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Genuine Congratulations
Congratulations to the editors of this page who should be very proud to have seen it on the front page of Wiki, despite the tone of many of the comments here. BreathingMeat (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Great job on a very informative article. Una LagunaTalk 06:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thirded. One of the greatest attributes of Wikipedia is that you can find high quality articles on topics not covered by traditional encyclopedias.  Why shouldn't such topics be on the main page? Resolute 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fourthed. I agree with Resolute. Blackngold29 (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To those who wish to put this up for Articles for Deletion
Look here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Decision was: keep. Unless you people have any new and compelling reasons why this article should be deleted, saying that the subject of article is ridiculous or trivial is not enough for it to be deleted.

--BirdKr (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More to the point, "ridiculous" is not a valid deletion argument. An AfD of a featured article would result in a snowball speedy keep within an hour, imo. Resolute 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

really bad, folks
This shouldn't be a Wikipedia featured article. Hell, it probably shouldn't even be a Wikipedia article. I'm afraid the net nerds were allowed too much authority on this one. It was a real embarrassment. 76.186.199.89 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. Unfortunately, you offered no actionable suggestions wrt the development of this article, therefore, nothing can be done.  Have a nice day. Resolute 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actionable suggestions: (1) delete the article or merge with the Oblivion article, and (2) make the procedures more robust so that such an underwhelming subject never becomes the main page featured article again. Save your "have a nice day" comments for someone else.  If you couldn't figure out an appropriate course of action based on my comments, either you're intellectually dishonest or you lack the mental capacity one would hope for in a Wikipedia editor.  76.186.199.89 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because personal attacks are surely the best thing for this response. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but sarcasm is. Again, spare me.  Is the defense for making this article a featured one so weak that Wikipedians are just going to throw asinine rules at me?  76.186.199.89 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty assuming good faith on the part of 76.168.188.89 at this time, given the amount of discussion already taken place prior to 76's posting and the inflammatory nature of his vocabulary.Sigma83 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty understanding why we can't stay on subject. Wikipedians need to admit this was a mistake and make sure a joke like this doesn't happen again.  I mean, I'm trying to make Wikipedia better.  You guys are wasting time by talking about the tangential subjects of assuming good faith, sarcasm, and whatever the hell else.  What's so wrong with trying to prevent Wikipedia's main page from being an embarrassment in the future?  76.186.199.89 (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)