 | A fact from Ralph Fitzherbert appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 10,300 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThere may be a problem with the dates in this article. It's stated that Ralph Fitzherbert died in 1483 and that several of his sons (who died early) died in the 1531-1532 period - about 50 years after Ralph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.79.173 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) "Sir Anthony was the youngest of the seven sons of Ralph, but eventually succeeded his eldest brother John as fourteenth lord of the manor of Norbury in 1531, himself dying in 1538." Dobbin, H.J. Church of St Mary and St Barlok, Norbury. Page 8. pub. 2005.Ning-ning (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Second life
editmoved from WP:ERRORS --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) moved from Talk:Main Page ffm 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it remotely notable that someone has produced a copy of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert's armor in Second Life. Second Life is a user generated mess, where people can create as much shit as they want. The hook is about as relevant as saying ...that Ralph Fitzherbert has an article on Wikipedia. The citation, isn't a citation, it's just a link to where you can purchase the 3d model for "Linden Dollars". The fact that a copy of his armour was made by a nobody and placed on sale within an MMO is totally irrelevant to the life and death of Ralph Fitzherbert, and doesn't even belong in the article, let alone on Wikipedia's main page. 86.0.127.75 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- And it doesn't even have a source! I tagged it with a [citation needed] tag. --Jedravent (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you check the history, you will see that their was a source. Anon removed this information from the main portion of the article, including the source. They left the information in the lead of the article, but with no source.
- I don't think it is a very important fact, but the folks who run the "Did You Know?" section of the Main Page have opted to include this factoid on the Main Page today. People coming here will therefore expect to see the fact and a source for it. Therefore, I recommend we retain the fact and the source at least until the article is off the main page. JohnMGarrison (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
an analogy
editThe idea that people who lived 200 years ago in New Guinea didn't find cannabalism remarkable, doesnt mean it wasnt notable. It may be well known to some people that there are hundreds of people who died in the 15th century who have perfect avatars commercially available. Personally I would have thought that there are very few people whose details are known to this level of detail - but then maybe there are. However the people at Did you know found this remarkable. I suspect that many people would also find it remarkable - I think we need to allow others to have a sense of wonder. Victuallers (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)