Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Bulbasaur/archive2


 * This probably isn't the place to say this, but it was probably a mistake to put this one on the front page, mainly due to reputation-of-the-encyclopedia reasons. — Philwelch t 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it isn't, this isn't a notability debate. Wikipedia is not convential, and we shouldn't ever be. H ig hway Return to Oz... 18:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Precicely. I actually disagree with Phil on something! O.o &mdash; Deckill e r 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't about notability, it was about public relations. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether this should be a featured article, bur rather on the wisdom of having it on the front page. We can easily show the diversity and scope of Wikipedia with more FA's like heavy metal umlaut, Lindsay Lohan, Three Laws of Robotics, or even Final Fantasy X. This just crosses the line. — Philwelch t 19:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, we'll stop this off-topic discussion here. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not before I've noted my agreement with Philwelch. I also think having something like this on the main page reflects bad on us, regardless of the quality of the article itself. We should never have traded in the requirement of importance for mere verifiability. "Wikipedia... isn't that this gigantic online trivia database?". &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)