Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/April 2008

Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation

Main page	Articles
List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes	Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1) - Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2) - Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3) - Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) - Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 5) - Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 6) - Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7)

I have based this topic off of Featured topics/Seasons of Lost. Each is a Featured List, except for Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7) as it has not completed airing on TV yet. It should be possible to get this to FL status by July 08, as with season 4 of Lost. This is my first Featured Topic nomination, be kind, it's been a labor of love :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-04-16T00:39Z (UTC)

• Support. All eight articles are well linked with similar structure for easy follow. All but the last are featured lists, but it meets the remaining criteria regarding that since lists can generally only be start and featured. It seems well on track to being featured when the season is done airing. Collectonian (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think I've been part of the review for each element of the topic and agree that this is a worthy candidate for FT. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think I've observed the growth of this topic from the start, over at WP:FLC. Great work! Gary King (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Meets the criteria, and I fully support it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Episodes of Degrassi: The Next Generation/addition1

List of UEFA club competition winning managers

Main page	Articles
List of UEFA club competition winning managers	List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers - List of UEFA Cup winning managers - List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winning managers - List of UEFA Super Cup winning managers - List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winning managers

I prematurely nominated this as a featured topic candidate before it was politely pointed out I'd missed an entire UEFA competition, despite sitting pretty with six supports here. Well, I've gone back to the drawing board, worked with User:Struway2 to get the Intertoto Cup list up to FL and now the topic is ready to go, with a minor rename. All articles in this proposed featured topic are featured lists. The main page for the topic is an accurate and well illustrated overview of the child lists. The statistics are double-checked by the use of decent secondary sources and all child lists are well referenced and also illustrated. Overall I think the consistent style across all five lists, along with the references and images makes this an ideal candidate for a featured topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I supported the last nom, so with the addition of the Intertoto cup I offer my support once again. Well done NapHit (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great job on getting another featured list in that short a time. Zginder 2008-04-14T18:47Z (UTC)
• Popped in from wikibreak just to Support --Dweller (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - complete, comprehensive, and well constructed. Nice work. I would look to see one change, though: on the Intertoto list I'd like to see the year cells merged, as at the moment it's unnessecarily repeating wikilinks and makes it hard to distinguish between some of the 1980s/1990s years. I've removed the refs to keep this page clean, but something like this:

1995		Jacky Duguépéroux		RC Strasbourg
		Slavoljub Muslin		FC Girondins de Bordeaux

Other than that it's a solid topic. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Sorry to sound cheeky AllynJ but no can do. Using rowspan in this way will mess up the sortability of the table. If you know of a way for it not to destroy the sortability then please go for it, otherwise I'm going to leave it as it is. I understand it makes it slightly less clear but I'd prefer sortability (and consistency with all the other lists) in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Re Support - After a completeness check, it is all set for Featured topic status! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support It seems like a pile-on support, but it still meets the criteria, I supported the earlier FT nomination, and I also gave comments and supported every Featured List. Nice work, TRM. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great job on this topic! Gary King (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Full topic now it would seem. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Credit should go to the nominator for accepting that the topic as previously nominated was in fact incomplete, despite the support it had already received, and putting in the work needed to make it complete. (For complete disclosure I should say I helped a bit with the referencing of the Intertoto list.) Now the topic is complete I'm happy to support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Fantastic set of articles, and well worthy of featured topic status. – PeeJay 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina hurricanes

Main page	Articles
List of North Carolina hurricanes	List of North Carolina hurricanes (pre-1900) – List of North Carolina hurricanes (1900–1949) – List of North Carolina hurricanes (1950–1979) – List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980–present)

Finally, there's a sequel to the Florida hurricanes topic. Every list is either featured, or on FLC. There are no gaps, and they're all inter-connected. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Update - List of North Carolina hurricanes (1900-1949) is now featured. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: List of North Carolina hurricanes is featured per this diff. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support - Damn, Hurricanehink, you never quit. Well done, they even all have matching charts at the bottom. Pending the FLC of the 1950-1979 list you have my support. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support - based on when the last two pass FLC, though I am 100% certain that they will. --PresN (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support as long as current article in FLC passes you have my support. Well done. 02blythed (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per criteria: "The topic should not have any … Featured list candidates,… when nominated for featured topic. Please have all required processes done before nominating." Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  Hurricanehink certainly committed a faut-pas by submitting it early, but I don't think that is worth opposing on that ground when it is very likely that the last article will pass. A conditional support seems reasonable. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'm willing to cut the guy some slack in this regard, mainly because he has to his credit 36 FAs, 15 FLs, and 3 FTs, none of which have ever been de-listed. Honestly, at this point when he nominates something, I just assume it will pass. --PresN (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  Heh, thanks. I knew the FTC nom would take longer than the FLC's to pass. As both FLC noms already have supports, I chose not to wait another few weeks. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  After nomination closed: Support Now meets criteria. Zginder 2008-04-19T12:36Z (UTC)

• Conditional support - will gladly provide full support when the remaining non-featured items pass WP:FLC. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support on the same condition as Sephiroth. Otherwise, he never quits, he'll write till he's done. Anyway, I guess 4 FTs isn't bad for 1 user. ^Mitch32^contribs 02:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the two remaining articles are of high quality, so no need for the "conditional" here. The 1900-1949 list is well on its way to passing FLC, and the topic's main page satisfies all the criteria for {{A-Class}} in WP:WPTC, so I've tagged it that way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the criteria A-class is not enough. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand WP:WIAFT correctly, it is, per criterion 3(c). It is impossible for the list to become a good article, so the other conditions apply. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists can be featured lists which are included in 3(a), so 3(c) does not apply. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 17:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with Titoxd, no need for being conditional, articles not featured are of very high quality. Hello32020 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• ConditionalFull support on the remaining non FLs passing. Even if they are of high quality, they can't be "officially" identified as such because GA and A status doesn't apply to lists. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  That's true for GA's, but not for A-Class pages. A-Class status is designated by WikiProjects, and the assessment scale gives two options to WikiProjects: the first one is to use {{List-Class}}, and the other one is to assess lists using the full FA/A/GA/B/Start/Stub scale. WikiProject Tropical cyclones assesses all of its lists, and does not make use of the List-Class rating. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  Ah. I'm not really involved in projects, which is why I didn't know. Though it is good to know that's how they become A rated. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Agreed with Titoxd and Hello32020. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Just saw that one hasn't been promoted yet. Might as well do this right. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – Has anyone noticed that the very titles of three out of four lists incorporate MoS breaches? En dashes ought to be used for date ranges as opposed to hyphens. I seriously wonder how it has come to pass that this was not noted in any of the three FLCs. Waltham, The Duke of 09:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I experimented with that, but it wouldn't work. Are you sure it's required to have an endash in the title? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I am absolutely certain. I do not understand how it could not work; all one has to do is move the page, fix the double redirects, and, for the sake of appearance, change the most important links (like those on the FL master page and within the topic itself). See Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth for an example of a page—a Featured Article—which has recently undergone this process. Waltham, The Duke of 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Wow, something was screwy when I tried it before. OK, I took care of all of them. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Urm, this is really awkward... Only date ranges should have en dashes; pre-1900 is not a date range, and is correct hyphenated. (Well, was.) That one should go back... Waltham, The Duke of 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I have fixed it myself, although it was not my mistake. I guess I was too impatient... Waltham, The Duke of 22:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The number of users who care about know about dash types is too small to catch all of these from getting through. I guess those editors will have to spend a lot more time in FLC for us to always get it right. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Consensus to promote – Now they are all featured. That's much better. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Lists of North Carolina hurricanes/addition1

Star Wars episodes

Main page	Articles
Star Wars	Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope - Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back - Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

See also Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Star Wars episodes/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Star Wars episodes/addition1

I am rebooting this Featured Topic. I can't believe it wasn't done sooner, considering the high concentration of geeks on here :) Just an FYI to everyone, I primarily worked on pushing Star Wars to WP:GA status. Gary King (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Glad to see it back, and meeting the criteria for once! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well done to Gary in dealing with the prior issue (this one) and getting it up to criteria. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Why not "Star Wars films"? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that they are making it so that they don't have to include the Ewoks films or the holiday special. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support great to have it back! Congrats on making that mess in Star Wars a GA, Gary! And isn't films because it's the old FT title, the category and there are other movies. igordebraga ≠ 15:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Two things: the articles's talk pages were never changed to indicate that the topic was demoted and this nomination should have a different name. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support – Meets the requirements. Nice to see this finally back, I know that its wikiproject has been putting in a lot of work. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong SupportTotally meets the requirements.Xp54321 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Not a big Star Wars fan, I'm forced to watch it by my son, but the articles themselves deserve to be part of a FT as they meet all the criteria. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is a great article and meets the requirements,plus I'm a big fan.71.118.125.165 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - looks good, meets the relevant criteria. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment How many supports does it take for the article to become featured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xp54321 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus much be reached for a nomination to pass. Also, please do not add a Featured Article star to these articles when they have not yet reached that status. Gary King (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • How quick those edits were reverted demonstrates why quality versions only needs auto confered user an not a new user level. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support A great article, we just need to deal with potential vandalism.Pc12345 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Sock of Xp54321 (talk · contribs). Jehochman ^Talk 00:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. You will promote this topic to featured status. Cirt (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support I agree with Cirt,You will promote this topic to featured status.Herowiki101 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC) -- — Herowiki101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of Xp54321 (talk · contribs)
  • Just a word of warning to everyone that the above comment was made by a newly created account, with the only edit (besides their user space) to be this one. Gary King (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Rudget (review) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor

Main page	Articles
Meerkat Manor	List of Meerkat Manor episodes - List of Meerkat Manor meerkats

I am nominating these three articles as I feel they meet all of the qualifications for being a featured topic on the television series Meerkat Manor. Meerkat Manor is a featured article and the two lists are featured lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per the criteria, the articles should be linked using a template. I'd suggest one of those navboxes at the bottom of each page
• List of Meerkat Manor episodes has a sentence that begins with "Also" in the lead, which need correcting

Once that's done I'll be happy to support. Nice work. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• The criteria says "preferably using a template", but doesn't mandate. For only three articles, a template seems like overkill. Meerkat Manor links to the lists using regular main links, and both lists are well wikified with one another through "See Also" links and links throughout the text. There are some other featured topics with only 2 or 3 articles that have no templates. :) It does, however, say they should share a common category so I have fixed that.

• The "Also" sentence in the episode list has been fixed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies. I have only recently begun to involve myself in the FT area. As promised, I now support. I have no problems with any of the articles, having supported at least 1 of them, they are a complete topic, and they meet every point in the criteria—which I have re-read! :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Support A small topic, but it meets the criteria. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - yes, a template isn't 100% necessary, no other issues. All featured, which is nice. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I can not find where List of Meerkat Manor episodes is linked to in the text of the lead article. I can only find it in the info box. If I can not find it after looking for it a few times, the average reader will not go to this article! Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added a "See also" section for this. Like AnmaFinotera, I consider a nav template for just three articles an odd choice. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I removed the see also since it is wikified in the article, but to address the concern, I've added a clearer link in the meerkats section. Will that work as well? AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Support concern addressed. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 19:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - looks good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - meets all of the relevant criteria. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Per thedemonhog (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Consensus to promote – --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Meerkat Manor/addition1