Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Pixies

Pixies[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Bencherlite ^Talk 14:51, 22 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Pixies were first created in a garage in 1986. They were often seen in bars and were known to be "either sweaty or laid back and cool", Pixies did not officially exist after 1993, due to arguments, although one Pixie did become a magician. Despite their death in 1997, Pixies revived in 2004, first re-emerging in Brixton, London. Despite originating in America, Pixies are much more popular in Europe, although they have struck gold in the USA. The leader of the Pixies is called Black Francis and they are often heard singing about extraterrestrials, surrealism, incest, and biblical violence.(Full article...)

Support for me, this has the right level of silliness, inherent from the name Pixies. The Fools one would be better (given April 1 is Fools' Day) but I'm unconvinced we can work it up sufficiently in time. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Promoted to FA in 2006. Kept at Featured Article Review in 2011. High quality page. — Cirt (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the comment that 0x0077BE made in the PFW nomination above. There's a huge difference between presenting a humorous article with a standard-style blurb and presenting a humorous article with a blurb like this. This crosses the line, I feel. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Silly, but not too silly. Out of the current suggested articles, I think this is the best. buff bills 7701 21:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support: Goofy. May want to address Sven's concerns about the blurb, though. He has a good point. That said, it is salvageable, it's pretty close to the article, unlike the nom below. I'd say it's only a toe over the line, not the whole foot... Montanabw^(talk) 17:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support—but the blurb needs some tweaking. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed what I think was the silliest and most misleading aspect, which was the reference to "Pixie gold", and toned it down to "gold". --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too mundane: just having a cute name is not enough to sustain the joke for a whole paragraph. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just can't find anything to like about this idea. I feel about this blurb like I feel when I think about mayonnaise and I don't like mayonnaise.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose running an article with a highly misleading blurb, especially when a featured article about a genuinely peculiar subject (such as Disco Demolition Night) is available. —David Levy 09:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—meh. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's misleading. And anyway, I personally don't find the word play on the name to be funny at all. Everyking (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Disco Demolition Night gets the nod overall, I think. Only Fools and Horses needs work (perhaps its appearance on Sports Relief last night will prompt some interest); Pixies is a nice idea but the feeling seemed to be that the joke wore a little thin; the Kaiser blurb didn't work for others. I'd already removed Pig-faced women and Rainbow trout, in particular for the opposition of the respective principal authors (it's more than a little unfair to expect principal authors to put up with a 1st April TFA against their will). Which leaves us with Disco Demolition Night and Quehanna Wild Area. The preference this year seems to be for a "strange-but-true" blurb over a "true-but-presented-strange" blurb, and although some would prefer DDN on its anniversary, we don't have to be limited by anniversaries (and it's only the 35th anniversary coming up, not a particularly special one). Thanks to all who participated. Same time next year? Bencherlite ^Talk 14:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]