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

Dwarf planets

Note: I've crossed out the definition one but I still think the 2006 one should remain. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Major contributors to the articles involved: User:Ruslik0, User:Ckatz,User:Serendipodous, and me, and a few other members of the WP:Solar System. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic should be furfillng all criteria. The only articles that might need to be added in the future are Cleared the neighbourhood and (136108) 2003 EL61. Nergaal (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The articles seem to cover the concept of a dwarf planet very well, and the two the could be added are a criteria of what makes a dwarf planet, so not required for this first nomination, and the second is a potential dwarf planet. So, full support! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. - 75% of the topic is featured-quality, easily meets WP:FT?. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - this topic would set an interesting precedent as it has a very large overlap with another existing topic; it is almost a subset of it. I guess the reason you're not proposing simply adding Plutoid, Definition of planet and 2006 definition of planet to the Solar Systems topic is that if you did so, this would lead to obvious and notable gaps in that topic. Am I to understand that when the Solar System topic eventually grows to be large enough to have these 3 articles added to it, this topic would cease to exist, but would instead be folded into that one? rst20xx (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Plutoid and Definition of planet apply as much to extrasolar planets as to our Solar System, so don't really belong in it. Eventually, I think the Solar System featured topic could be broken up, and this could be the first step, but much more is needed. Serendi^podous 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note - Hydrostatic equilibrium I believe is much like Cleared the neighbourhood as a potential addition - rst20xx (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This should organize them well, we need to sort out the other ft into smaller chunks as well. --LordSunday 13:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Well done. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose due to precedent technicalities — It's a good topic, but based on president of past topics, I don't think that you need to have Definition of planet nor 2006 definition of planet in the topic. As has been said above, this topic is kind of a sub-topic of planets in general, and we decided not to put higher-importance articles within subtopics (this debate happened when we were discussing whether to put the article about a musician in the topic about one of their albums). The relevant information about the definition of a planet should be included in the main article and links therein. Those two articles are clearly relevant, but they don't match the technical setup of topics as they currently exist. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While the Definition of planet would might not necessarly be a part of the topic, the 2006 definition one should definately be a part of the topic since it was then when the term was laid down. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - per comments made by Arctic.gnome - a definite need for the others to, well, make sense. Weak support - I'm supporting by Nergaal's comment, but I feel the topic doesn't need the article.Mitch32^(UP) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by this guys - was the conclusion of that discussion that we needn't include the main article, or that we shouldn't? And additionally I'm not convinced that Definition of planet and 2006 definition of planet do represent such articles anyway, I would more consider them a side-step than an up-step, with their mutual parent being Solar System or Table of the largest objects in the Solar System. However, I may as well mention here that I'm still hoping for an answer to my above question Nergaal... rst20xx (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your question; my impression was that the SS as it stands now looks a little loose and that rather than bulkying it up some more, it might be better to redefine the topic exactly and attach to it different subtopics. Also I think that the second article does not fit that well into a SS topic. To be sincere, I would much rather have the SS contain only the Sun, the 8 planets, dwarf planets, asteroids/minor planets, and Oort cloud only, and attached to this big topic, subtopics for each of these 11 entries or so. This way the subtopics could be increased separately, perhaps one at a time, and not have to worry instead about gaps. Ah, another potential inclusion could be List of plutoid candidates. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In order to attach topics together, you need to have a main article for the subtopics in the main topic. What would the main articles be? And are you proposing a permanent overlap of 4+ dwarf planet articles? rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Big suggestion here, maybe it's what you had in mind though! (especially with the "11" comment which didn't make sense to me before but does now): You could in this case potentially use Dwarf planet in the main FT and remove the actual dwarf planet articles from there. That would solve the overlap and main article problems. However it wouldn't solve gap issues entirely as dwarf planets are more notable than moons, so having moons and not dwarf planets in the main topic would cause a gap. But you could I suppose also remove the 6 moons (leaving obviously The Moon), under the fact that 4 of the 6 can be included in the Galilean FT anyway, and then this only leaves 2 articles losing out (for the time being) completely, and ties the whole lot up quite nicely :) What say ye? :P - rst20xx (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is what you're planning. If it is, I wish you'd made it clearer! Only thing though is you need to get the articles removed from the main topic post-haste, I guess this would be done via a supplementary nomination that actually would see articles removed, not added (new ground being broken there!) - rst20xx (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

see proposal, and no, I was not planing for this. The idea came during this nomination. Nergaal (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Overlapping is not forbidden by the Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. In fact the suggestion #4 alludes to splitting. Nergaal (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It deals with splitting, yes, but big overlaps, no. You're right, the criteria doesn't cover large overlaps, though if you think about it it's quite easy to construct examples of where you could get ridiculous overlaps that clearly wouldn't be on. So I'm not sure if this would be a valid oppose. Well at any rate, I'd like to see you decide how to proceed on the splits before I'll support, and while you're not sure what you're doing, I feel I have to oppose - rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment made me think of the following comparison: Ceres is a part of dwarf planet topic vs Ceres is a part of Solar System topic. Which argument sounds stronger? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset) The former. Okay, let me represent my argument because I think I've done a poor job. The 80% overlap annoys me, but people are right, it's not a valid oppose. However, the rules above state that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination". This does not seem to have happened, as otherwise, the conversation here would have been resolved.

What you're trying to do is to remove the moons/dwarf planets from the main topic in favour of these subtopics, and this is a move I'd support. But I'd rather see you do the removals first, or at the same time, as I feel that if you had come to consensus properly before bringing these noms then you WOULD be doing this first/at the same time. So therefore, I oppose until the removal candidate is done, as in the meantime I don't feel consensus has been properly reached on the future of this topic, and therefore on whether these noms are the best way to go - rst20xx (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying anything. I just think that these (dwarf planets and galilean moons) are valid topics. The problem emerged during the nom that they overlap with another topic and then I realized that it would make sense to go the way I've just said. As for the rules: I've been talking with serendipious for a long time about the dwarf planets topic, while the galilean moons idea is taken actually from the topic:SS talkpage. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support fulfills WP:FT? and is nicely self-contained. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 00:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support I'd say drop the two definitions, but I will support this as is. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutral I don't think the 2 planet definition articles belong here because this topic is about dwarf planets, not planets. If you did a separate featured topic for planets, then they would be fine there, but the dwarf planet article does a good job of explaining the distinction between a planet and dwarf planet, as well as explaining the 2006 decision. If you removed the 2 definition articles I would support. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with not adding the Definition one, but I still think that the 2006 one should be here... Nergaal (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I still think the dwarf planet article explains the 2006 distinction between a planet and a dwarf planet well enough to make the 2006 definition page unnecessary, but I have changed my position to neutral. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Question What happens if some users agree only on part of the topic? The topic gets failed, or it is promoted only with the agreed part? Nergaal (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What's happened in the past is that the nominator has withdrawn the part of the nom causing trouble and then the rest has passed - rst20xx (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how do I withdraw the definition of planet. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just cross it out, and then put a note in down here to say you've done so. It'll be up to Arctic Gnome to decide whether this invalidates any existing votes, and he'll work out whether to then promote or close based on the end discussion - rst20xx (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Dwarf planets/addition1

Seasons of 30 Rock

Main page	Articles
Seasons of 30 Rock	30 Rock (season 1) - 30 Rock (season 2)

I have submitted this for featured topic because alot of work has gone into these articles to get them to featured list status and I believe all three articles, as a collection, meet the criteria for featured topic. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, though I would like to note that the topic will be in a retention period starting October 30 (1.5 months away) for three months to get a series 3 article made and looked at, and again for 3 months after the series finishes to get the article up to FL. As the season has not started, the article does not exist and is only a section in the main article; therefore, the topic as it stands right now meets all criteria. --PresN (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support and PresN is right too. Also, I cannot see anything that could be added - rst20xx (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• When the new season starts, I will make sure to make an article for it. I'd make one now, but little is known about it right now. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Meets featured topic criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - All of them are featured, so it meets the featured topic criteria. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 19:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - In this case, I'd have to oppose because we know there will be a third season (at least a partial one), and that page will be created. At that point, we'd have a season page that wasn't FL yet, and per the criteria we would have to delist this as a featured topic until that season became FL. Then, if 30 Rock continues, we'd have to re-discuss, re-promote, and re-demote continually until all the seasons pages had been created and promoted to FL status. I mean, unlike with episode articles, we already know that there will be a season page for season three (and any subsequent seasons that air). It won't be as easy as promoting it to FL as soon as the season starts. We won't be able to at least get it partially ready until the third seasons ends, and then we'd have to get in all the the appropriate ratings, awards, and reception info in place. By then, we'd know if there was going to be a fourth seasons, in which case we'd be right back where we started in the waiting room. To point out, if there were no more seasons going to air, I would certainly support this topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a spectacularly invalid oppose. The way it works Bignole is that when the season 3 page is created, it will have 3 months to go through a peer review, and then added to the topic, where it will sit as an audited article of limited subject matter until the season ends, at which point it will have 3 months to get featured. PresN actually spelt this out above!!! rst20xx (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First, is there a reason you are yelling at me? Second, my point is not just the season three article, but the fact that the show doesn't appear to show signs that it is going to get cancelled, in which case we'd be repeating the same thing every time. I've not seen a featured topic that was going to be in clear expansion for some time. Unlike where they may never be an article on a topic, here we have clear evidence of future articles going to occur (at least one). It seems odd that a featured topic that has to be in limbo for so long because of the constant additional pages that keep having to be popped up as the series goes into its new seasons. In other words, the topic would be in retention for as long as it took to get the third season to FL status, in which case the retention would happen again right away with a fourth season most likely. Hence, why I think it should wait until it is clear how many seasons there will be to avoid this constantly hassle of being in "limbo" until it is all caught up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

...There are already two "Seasons of" featured topics, as well as several videogame topics - that's why I'm yelling at you! Yes, such topics will be in retention for up to six months a year (TV seasons are annual), which is a bit of a hassle, but this is a fairer way of doing things than saying "you can't have a FT until 6 years time when the show has finished", and Jamie jca assured us above that he would meet any retention criteria - rst20xx (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my opinion still stands - I think it should wait till at least the season three article is FL status, to see where the future of the show is. As, the season won't start for 1.5 months, but since seasons don't end until May of 2009, it couldn't be FL status until at least June 2009. The reason being is that it could not even convincingly claim comprehensiveness with the season still on going. Now, that being said, your gross incivility (which I have noticed other editors have commented about on other pages) has forced me to leave this discussion altogether. Maybe one day you'll learn a little more tact and address your fellow Wikipedians with a bit more respect. Good day, sir.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, you're right, I'm a little stressed about that one other discussion you're referring to, which is only taking place in the first place due to incivility on the part of another editor. However, you still don't seem to me to understand that, contrary to what you say, the season 3 article will be included while the season is ongoing, as an audited article of inherent instability, and hence the topic will be comprehensive from as soon after the date of the creation of the season 3 article as is reasonably possible. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of Lost for another example of this - rst20xx (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a "yelling" match with anyone, but I have to agree with Rst20xx in that the existence of a third season is not in itself enough to fail this nomination. The grace period for updating the topic will last at least until after the end of the third season so that editors can actually write the article about it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. - Per PresN (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - everything appears to work. Zginder 2008-08-19T13:41Z (UTC)
• Support per PresN and rst20xx. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support and "the show doesn't appear to show signs that it is going to get cancelled" (Bignole) is not entirely true.  ;) –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of 30 Rock/addition1

Period 1 elements

Main page	Articles
Period 1 element	Hydrogen · Helium

Nominators: Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, Mav, Nergaal & Gary King

Note: this FTC was created while a FARC was going on helium, but since then has passed. Nergaal (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. It's short, but I suppose it's the first step in getting the other periods featured. By the way, I don't see this listed at the featured topic candidates list. Is there a reason for that? Xnux the Echidna 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support and let me clear up what happened Xnux. It seems that Gary King Nergaal created the FTC's subpage, and put up links to this FTC from the talk pages of the articles involved, but didn't put the FTC up at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates while the Helium FARC was ongoing. So whether it had truly started yet as Nergaal says above, I'm not completely sure, though I don't think what happened was really acceptable because while I think in this particular case it's fine, and I'm sure there were absolutely no bad intentions, I think doing this kind of thing could potentially manipulate the vote. Because, in a sense it's almost like running a secret FTC first, which, while we can see that it didn't have any negative impact here, in general is a bad thing to do, because by effectively manipulating the type of users who are likely to see the FTC during the semi-secret stage, you could potentially manipulate the outcome of the vote, under the principle (I forget where it is but it's in the rules somewhere) that the person or people who vote first are likely to have a large impact on all subsequent votes. As I said, that clearly hasn't happened in this case, but in general I'm not happy with the secret stage of this, and would rather users wait until they are ready to bring the nom to FTC before creating its subpage, or certainly before linking the subpage from the talk pages of the articles involved. Anyway, on to the topic itself - meets criteria, etc etc, support - rst20xx (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The first vote appeared w/o the page being submitted. Check the history. In short I created the page, but seeing the comments at the FTC:Noble gases with the FARC on helium I did not submit the page after creating it. Nergaal (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote. I know full well the page wasn't submitted, and was instead expressing that I find the fact that it was created and listed on the talk pages of the articles involved well before being listed here somewhat troubling - rst20xx (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support now we get the first article in two topics without being the lead in either. Zginder 2008-08-05T15:04Z (UTC)
• Support - Short, sweet, and Featured Topic ready. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Judgesurreal. igordebraga ≠ 01:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nothing wrong. I would like it to be larger...but that's pretty much how large the scope could possibly reach. --haha169 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Meets the criteria. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Very elementary; meets the criteria. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - and "very elementary"?!? groan - rst20xx (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Smallville (season 1)

Main page	Articles
Smallville (season 1)	Pilot (Smallville) - Tempest (Smallville)

• I am nominating the Smallville season 1 for featured topic. Before there are any arguments for "oppose" on the grounds that there are "gaps", I will explain that there are only these two individual episode articles on the mainspace. If you view the season 1 article you will find that the remaining episodes all have their information there, as they were not notable enough to warrant a separate page of their own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am going to go out on a limb here and support. I take the example of album topics to say that if a item in a series is not notable enough to have an article. Than it does not need to be in the topic. Zginder 2008-07-28T13:04Z (UTC)
• Support - All episode articles are listed with the season article, and there are an appropriate number of FA's and GA's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - personally I would rather see all the episodes having their own articles, as this way these episodes will have more information on them available on WP than with them merged into the season 1 article, but that's just my view on the whole TV episodes headache, and given the current situation on that, I feel the topic meets the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually they won't, because this is all the information. The probability is low that any additional professional reviews are going to come out for these episodes. The ones that are on the season article fail individual notability. Not every show is The Simpsons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I meant things like plot summary, but nevermind, I accept that they fail the notability rules as they stand, hence my support - rst20xx (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Even if the episodes are not relevand enough, I can't believe that there isn't more to say about them than 5 lines of text. If the episodes are not relevand enough it means that they are unlikely to reach a GA-class status, but there must be a solution to this: (1) either get articles about each of them to be B-class and PRed or (2) create an article entitled Plot in Smallville and add way more information about the plot there. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but articles about the plot of the show are not really recommended. Regardless, if someone wants to know about an episode's plot, and this may be a new idea but stop me if you've heard it before, "Go watch the show". Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching a show. Guess what, not every show is The Simpsons and has dozens of independent sources discussing every last episode. Not every episode is notable enough to have an article of its own (please see notability requirements). Obviously, all of the episode information fit coherently together to get the season one article to featured status, so splitting them off just so someone can have some minute detail about an episode isn't justification (at least not to me). Sorry you're opposition is to questioning why these episode don't have articles, and not something that is actually wrong with these specific featured topic-hopeful.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support having these articles under the topic. I think that per WP:PLOT, the season article does an excellent job of providing concise plot summaries of each episode. Obviously, the first and the last episodes have drawn more coverage, so they stand alone well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Meets featured topic criteria. The pages do an excellent job of focusing on relevant, encyclopedic information, and concern about lack of plot information is unfounded. Having individual episode articles just for the sake of it, when all available info is already covered at the season 1 article, would be innappropiate.  Paul  730 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This topic barely meet the criteria, but it is too borderline for me (three articles, two of which are featured, somewhat inconsistent in article splitting). –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please explain how it doesn't meet the criteria, as all the articles in the topic are present, and 2/3rds of them are featured. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this fails 1d. I feel 3a allows for articles on other episodes in the season, and whilst I do not favour only WP:PLOT it would be possible to have an article with short well constructed sections on reception and production. Perhaps more obviously I think that there is a gap with information on the DVD missing which could possibly be incorporated into the season 1 article. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the DVDs? I have them all. All DVD information that is real world (and not simply some interactive that expands plot background) IS in the season 1 article. All information production wise for each episode that does not have its own article (whether from the DVD, the season 1 companion book, or a couple of third-party sources that were found) IS in the season 1 article. There are no other reviews for episodes in this season. I don't know why it is that hard to believe that not every television show is reviewed on a weekly basis. Sorry, but there is no way to create a "reception" section for an episode article that doesn't exist. There are no reviews. If you can find them, please do because I've been searching since before I every decided to create that season page (by create I mean rewrite the whole thing to look the way it does, as it was "literally" created before I joined Wikipedia). Also, 1d says, " There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together. " The key to that is "not cherry pick only the best articles". I didn't cherry pick, I have every single article related to season 1 listed. There are no other articles, and no other episode meets the notability guideline. If you want to change that guideline, be my guest.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • On the subject of DVDs, I think what Rambo's Revenge meant was that you could have a section akin to this. That kind of section is quite common actually (for example, see Lost, The Simpsons, The OC...) - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • For the DVD's I did mean, as Rst20xx correctly interpreted, a section like those examples listed above. Also "there are no reviews"! Here is a page I found on my first search with one for every episode - [1] Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • • To address the DVD remark, Wikipedia is not Amazon and I don't know why people started listing everything that the DVD box sets contained. Since when did Wikipedia start promoting DVD features? Exactly what encyclopedic value does knowing what a DVD contains actually provide? We aren't here so readers can go, "Hey, Show X has 5 commentaries and I love commentaries...I better go buy that DVD set." Please explain what actual encyclopedic value such info has (please don't provide a vague "to be comprehensive", because being comprehensive doesn't mean to indiscriminately provided every minute, trivial aspect of a topic in an article), and I will seriously think about including such a thing in the season article. I disagreed with them being in the other articles, because I think they do nothing for the article be take up space with indiscriminate info about the box set. It wasn't like that stuff was recognized by third-party sources as being the "wow" factor for the DVD or something. It wasn't like Fight Club's DVD box cover which had thematical representations tied directly to the film itself.
          • As for the reviews, please look at the site you provided closely. The professionalness of "TV Without Pity" ranks up there with "BuddyTV" and "TV Squad", which is to say that it isn't a professional review site. Second, those aren't reviews so much as they are merely elongated plot summaries with OmarG's personal opinion about each scene (They're even categorized as "Recaps" and not "Reviews"). He spends his time restating dialogue and then mocking it (even when he gives the episode a grade of "A"). I mean, seriously? What television reviewer do you know (beside the one I'm speaking of) that spends 17 pages on a single episode, recounting every detail of the plot. He's not even analyzing the episode, he's just providing a completely shot-for-shot recap of the show, with little quips here and there about what is happening in the scene: "Clark zips over and dives on top of Zoe (for once, he's on top of a woman)." Also, a single "review" (and I use that term extremely litely) is not significant coverage, even when he spends 17 pages recounting the plot. I'm not trying to deny these episodes a page because I don't want them to have one, I'm trying to show you how, when you weed out all that crap on the web, there are not reliable sources from respectable critics on these episodes. I've seen so many episode articles get created and rushed to FAC with reviews from completely unprofessional sources. We have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and anyone can get something published. You have to ask yourself, would you accept news information from this site? Would the community accept news information from this site, or would they say that it is an unreliable source of information because of it's lack of "history of accuracy and editorial oversight"? If it isn't the best source for news, it probably isn't the best source for reviews either.
          • It's funny that I interpreted "Television Without Pity" as mocking the show, because it's own Wiki page actually says the same thing, "Television Without Pity (often abbreviated TWoP) is a website that provides detailed recaps of select television dramas, situation comedies and reality TV shows, often by mocking them."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't think listing DVD contents is inappropriate, certainly not advertising (not sure how you made that claim, seeing as how it's all factual) and seemingly not overkill (I for one would find it useful and I imagine many others would too), otherwise we wouldn't have all these featured seasons with such sections - rst20xx (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Actually, it's only something that has recently been done. It wasn't a normal practice. It's done to bloat the page with more information (Info that is not necessary in understanding the topic). Notice how featured film articles don't have a listing of all the DVD specs. Why, all of a sudden, did the TV community feel that they needed to bloat articles with DVD specs? They serve no purpose. Amazon has the DVD specs taken care of quite nicely. There isn't even consistent practice of such displays: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I disagree with the DVD information not being encyclopedic, one of the examples you have given [5] has detailed information about each DVD on the individual season pages, whilst your argument of what doesn't exist in other articles isn't what we are discussing. Please note I didn't say that one source was enough for a reception section, I was challenging your comment that "there are no reviews". Also note that TWoP has been used in successful WP:FA's [12], [13] but any problem with the source is something to raise at WP:RS not here. Also trying to second guess my replies using WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not something I appreciate, as an encyclopedia is defined as a "comprehensive written compendium". I have no problem in recognising that your contributions to proposed articles are valuable and that individually they are rightly FA/GA's, but in my reasonable opinion I still don't feel they come together sufficiently well to be a featured topic. If you wish to discuss any broader comments I have made I suggest we do so at my talk page, as this discussion should be kept on assessing the topic under the given criteria. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - meets all the criteria. Making articles on non-notable episodes just for the sake of this topic is not the way to go. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quite simply, this doesn't need its own topic. These two episodes would be better integrated into a more general Smallville featured topic. See the Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow featured topic: the list of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow isn't a subtopic; rather, the character articles are in the same topic as the character list. These two Smallville articles really don't deserve a separate topic. Xnux the Echidna 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize that what "deserves" its own topic, and what meets the criteria were two seperate things. I also didn't realize that what "deserves" its own topic supercedes what meets the criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • See the Featured topic recommendations: it says that "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each." I believe that this is an excessive subdivision of articles, as one topic would work much better.
      • Ah, but you're making this opinion based on the idea that there will be several small sub-topics. At the moment, I can guarantee that there won't be a topic for season 2. I don't see multiple episodes split for any of the remaining seasons (maybe 1 episode per season, but that seems a stretch based on what I've been finding). As for a "Smallville" topic, I think a "Smallville seasons" or something similar might be better, but none are anywhere near that point in time. I would assume that once that time comes a "Smallville seasons" topic would overwrite any individual topics in existence (as I don't think you can have a featured topic within a featured topic, though I could be wrong).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
        • No, you misinterpreted me. I think that two topics would suffice: Smallville and seasons of Smallville (yes, you can have a featured topic within a featured topic; see Seasons of Lost, it has Lost (season 4) "within" it). However, these two episodes of Smallville would be better suited to a seasons of Smallville topic (which links to list of Smallville episodes anyway) because it would avoid an excessive amount of subtopics. I'm sorry, but I don't really see a compelling reason why these two episodes are deserving of their own topic. By the way, I don't mind that there won't be subtopics for the other Smallville seasons because, as you said, there would only be about one episode per season anyway (which would be better integrated into a seasons of Smallville topic anyway). Xnux the Echidna 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think this is a valid oppose Xnux. While I agree with what you're saying about how this topic should ultimately be folded into a Seasons topic, your oppose for this reason is based on faulty logic, as the seasons topic DOESN'T EXIST YET. When it gains sufficient quality and is promoted, THEN this topic can be folded into that one. In the meantime, this topic is entitled to exist on its own.

          Let's look back at the recommendation: "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each" The options here, with the current quality of the articles, are either one featured topic, or none. NOT one or several, which is the situation that this recommendation is designed to deal with - rst20xx (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

          • Topics can be a specific part of an overall media. See Naruto manga chapters, which is part of the bigger Naruto franchise. And for the Aria of Sorrow FT, I included everything in the topic because it was all at GA. I could have just put in List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow and it would have been fine. Now, if I wanted a "Characters of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow" FT, then I could push either Soma Cruz or Alucard (Castlevania) to FA, and that would be its own topic. I also would not need to create articles on the other characters, as they are not notable, which applies here - creating non-notable episode articles for the sake of the topic is not appropriate. So long as you define the scope properly, then these topics that cover specific parts of a general media franchise are fine. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd like to highlight the three reasons people levelled against this topic:

1. There should be a DVD section in the Smallville (season 1) article - while I would support the inclusion of such a section myself, I'm not sure how valid this oppose is, as it's more a problem with the article than the topic
2. That this would constitute oversplitting of a topic, and should instead be part of a larger topic - I don't think this is a valid oppose at all, because while I agree that when a larger topic is ready, this should be merged into it, as it stands there is no larger topic
3. That while the Smallville (season 1) article gives sufficient depth for an overview of Smallville season 1, there is not enough depth in these three articles for a Smallville season 1 topic, as some individual episodes are not covered in enough depth - I see the point here, though this is a difficult issue to address, as the other episodes have been deemed not notable enough to merit their own articles. I think Bignole needs to think long and hard about how to get round this problem if he wants to get this topic through FTC

I'm considering closing this nomination as I don't see this topic gaining consensus for promotion now. Are discussions ongoing between Bignole and Rambo's Revenge that might effect this? - rst20xx (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't understand the "doesn't give sufficient depth". Could you elaborate a bit more on what this is supposed to mean? As for Rambo and I, based on our discussions on our talk pages, it would appear that Rambo no long has a problem with the episodes not having their own article ,based on this comment. But, that is up to Rambo to reiterate where he stands. Our discussions has boiled down to how can we provide some additional coverage of those episodes, that don't meet the requirements for their own article, in the season 1 article. I'll let Rambo speak for himself. I'm also curious as to why you would say it doesn't have consensus for promotion, when, even you, agreed that two of those opinions to oppose aren't valid reasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I think the third one debatably is. And I think 3 opposes have been along these lines (one of which is Rambo's). Anyway, I thought the sufficient depth thing was pretty clear, what exactly are you confused about? But OK, you've (remarkably easily) convinced me closing seems like a bad idea. Let's wait and see what Rambo says, as it stands we have 6 supports and 4 opposes, which is too close for me, but if he changes his mind then (considering I don't think Xnux's oppose is all that valid) I'd be willing to see that as 7-2 and consensus - rst20xx (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - per the reasoning of the above supports. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. I have considered this topic carefully and discussed possible gaps in more detail with Bignole. The main thing (from my oppose) was that not having individual episodes neglects information other than WP:PLOT. I now agree that all these things are/can be covered within the topic. My neutrility comes from the fact that these won't all get fixed overnight, and some things are currently in Smallville (TV series), a GA luckily, so I don't think the topic stands alone well, but I am confident Bignole can and will resolve as many of these issues as possible.
  • The ratings are in the process of being added to episodes and I would add production codes to be comprehensive/encyclopaedic.[14]
  • Try to mention any notable cast appearances from people not in the pilot. Kelly Brook's four episode arc springs to mind.[15]
  • Tollin/Robbins Productions & Warner Bros. should probably be mentioned as producers
  • The only other things are to get references consist, so for citeweb use "first=" and "last=" fields to give "Surname, Forname" like the book ref and to remove bold links to satisfy WP:BOLDTITLE.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • As far as production codes go, TV.com (which is part of EPguides.com) is considered as reliable as IMDb. Production codes for most shows are difficult to accurately attain. I've also seen the codes as 1.01, 1.02, etc. Where are you wanting to add Tollin/Robbins and Warner Bros. exactly? They aren't the "producers", as that is a specific title for a person. They are merely the production companies involved. I don't recall too many articles that list all of the production companies involved in a show. I'm also not sure about the boldface. Are you asking to remove the boldface from the episode titles in the table? Or, are you referring to the lead section? The only thing I can find closely talking about the lead in relation to the season 1 article is: "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, or List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be in boldface". If that's the case, then "season one" is recited verbatum in the body of the article (many times), so it would be bolded.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I just used epguide as it listed them all at once, they are listed individually here, Ep 1, Ep 2, etc. The production companies would go in the production section of the season, and seem to fairly standard practice in featured seasons ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). As for WP:BOLDTITLE "Do not link words in the bold title" i.e. the word smallville in the lead
• Do you see a problem with those production numbers? There is one number here, and a completely different number here. The second number, though from a more reliable source, has no actual value (neither does the other). It doesn't tell the reader anything they need to know. If it's whether they filmed the episode in one order or a different one, well that is covered in the production section. It seems to be a useless bit of information about the episodes, and one that is difficult to verify.
• As far as Tollin Robbins goes, where in the production would you like that. It seems to be an obscure statement about what companies fund the show, which is probably good for the general Smallville page, but not so much for the specific season (or even episode) articles. As far as those other pages go, you're comparing a list page to an article, which is formatted different, and contains different info. If you look at those season lists, they are doing just that, listing everything they can about the show (often repeating info each season) in prose form.
• I fixed the link to Smallville that was being bolded [21].
• I just noticed your Kelly Brook comment. There isn't a casting section (it's covered on the main page, as well as the pilot, and the Characters of Smallville), so I don't know what you would do with Kelly Brook. Just like "listing" actors in a section (which has no real value), just listing "notable guest stars" has no real value. Her name is in the plot section (which, btw, you made me realize that the plot section never resolved her final appearance on the show...and I just took care of it), and she isn't covered in any reliable, third party sources (not even any primary sources like the companion novels either) beyond a "Kelly Brook portrays Victoria Hardwick" statement. Otherwise, she would have been given a section at Characters of Smallville, instead of a name listing in the list at the bottom of said page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problems with the numbers, check again they are the same. I am well aware that the cast and production companies are covered elsewhere. My point is that they are an important part of the season and as it stands would not be covered within the season topic. A featured topic needs to be "covering a subject comprehensively." Also I have made the refs consistent. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I see the number now. I still stick to the same belief that it is a useless number. As for the company, how is it an important part of the season itself? It's an important part of the show, but not to the season itself. Also, being comprehensive does not mean including everything, regardless of how miniscule or non-related it is to the topic. Tollin Robbins and WB are companies that provide money, it is the people that work for them that actually decide things for the show; anyone important enough to know in that regard is already noted. Back to the cast part; important part of the season? Eh, she was a bit player in 4 episodes. She was never heard from again, and she really did nothing to develop anything in the show. She is mentioned in the plot section. Apart from that, that's all there is. You cannot (and should not) create an entire section to just list actors names that one deems "notable to the season", just because there isn't any real world information about their roles on the show. That's placing undue weight on their performance, which obviously wasn't notable enough to get recognized by reliable sources independent of the subject. As for the refs, I don't use "first, last" dividers because they take up more space than simply using "author" and placing their names in the "last, first" position. The same with the "authorlink". Why add three sections when you can accomplish all of it with a single section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think we should leave this open just a little longer, so this conversation has a chance to conclude - rst20xx (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think what Rambo and I are discussing is probably better for the season 1 article talk page. His concerns are more for article content, than whether this should be a featured topic. The concerns he has wouldn't cause the season 1 page to lose featured article status, because they (currently) consist of including a particular production code, and mentioning Tollin Robbins and "notable guest stars" in some fashion. The page is already comprehensive; Rambo's concerns are more on whether the page could be expanded slightly further than it is. At least, that is what I gather from his remarks, as he hasn't pointed out any expansive changes to the page. Regardless, I still think it's something we should continue on the talk page, as it appears to have no bearing on whether the topic is featured or not. Rambo?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to state that rst20xx is 110% wrong in saying that this is too close, which in actual fact, is total rubbish. There are four opposes, but which are valid. Firstly, thedemonhog's objection is total crap - he says "this topic barely meets the criteria". He bases this on the fact there are only three articles - so what? This meets the criteria. The featured topics on Christ Illusion, Confederate government of Kentucky, etc. - the list goes on and on. Xnux's objection is total crap as well - when I nominated Christ Illusion, you had people trying to say I should only nominate Slayer. Erm, no. There is no rule you should nominate articles as part of a more general topic, so as I said, yet another bullshit objection. As concerns the other two objections, they're questionable. These two opposers have not proven in any shape or form that every episode is notable enough to warrant an article. Every song on a FT nominated album isn't expected to have an article, and the same logic applies here. By my count, there are no valid opposes whatsoever, and six supports. Too close? No, not in any sense of the phrase Before drawing conclusions, it'd be great if the person who promotes / doesn't (ie. rst20xx) actually checks whether the objections adhere to the FT criteria - this is what FAC does, and FTC isn't any different. The rules aren't made up as people go along. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• LuciferMorgan, please reread the conversation. I think it's fairly evident from my last comment that I intended to close with promote once Bignole and Rambo agree on it (Also, there's 7 supports). And further, the one before implied that if Rambo changed his mind, I would close with promote, which he then did. However I think Bignole's suggestion that the conversation is moved to the talk page is best, so I suggest you continue here...

Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

State touring routes in Warren County, New York

Main page	Articles
List of highways in Warren County, New York	New York State Route 8 - New York State Route 9L - New York State Route 9N - New York State Route 28 - New York State Route 28N - New York State Route 32 - New York State Route 32B - New York State Route 149 - New York State Route 254 - New York State Route 418

previous FTC (closed July 22, 2008)

Ok, let's try this again. I'm back from vacation (in this county), and upgraded some of the articles with good pics. Now that there's a good consensus on what to use in it, this should be a lot easier.Mitch32^(UP) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak support - As per previous nom, I'd prefer to see national routes included as well, as part of a larger topic, but feel this topic meets the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Support per above. I think all highways in the county would make a better topic, but this definitely meets criteria as is. -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sure is an odd topic, but it meets the criteria. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as I did on the previos nomination. Zginder 2008-08-01T16:37Z (UTC)
• Support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This topic is very good. I also agree with Kéiryn, maybe we can add on all articles in the county later. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/State touring routes in Warren County, New York/addition1

Noble gases

Main page	Articles
Noble gas	Helium - Neon - Argon - Krypton - Xenon - Radon - Ununoctium

Note: the FARC on helium has closed with keep. Nergaal (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This nomination is supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements (i.e. user:mav, user:Cryptic C62, other past members) and various members (user:Gary King, user:Itub) have helped besides me, including some outside the project. I think it is an important topic, and should be well put together. Also, the main article is currently undergoing a FAC, and one that will be successful, the other articles will be improved further and submitted to FAC too. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination Why am I not mentioned here (since this was taken from my own "Goals" page...)? :| Anyways, I put a lot of work into Noble gas, helped it get to Good Article status, and it is currently at FAC. Radon just got to Good Article status, so this should be all set to go. Gary King (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also a FARC for helium, but at a quick look it doesn't look like it concerns with major issues. Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Err, I disagree. Verifiability is a pretty major concern. The Helium FAR should preclude this FTC from happening, especially since Helium was never given GA status which it could fall back on now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until the processes for helium and noble gas are over. I expect that both will pass, but why's the hurry? --Itub (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - it doesn't matter what happens with Noble gas as the topic will meet the criteria whatever happens there, but you guys should have waited until Helium's FARC is over - rst20xx (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, how will this meet the criteria regardless? If Helium is not FA, it will be made a B-class, so the topic will not be ready until it is improved to GA status... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I said it doesn't matter what happens with Noble gas. It definitely matters what happens with Helium! Which is why I opposed. Re-read what I wrote, it's in response to what Itub wrote above me - rst20xx (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Helium FAR is being worked on. It can sometimes take up to three months for an article to go through FAR, and I don't think this topic's nominators want to wait that long. Gary King (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of what the nominators want to do - it's a matter of the criteria. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nomination at this point was premature: WP:FT? says: "To avoid wasting time, the topic should not have any active Good article nominations, Good article reassessments, Featured article reviews, Featured article removal candidates, Featured list candidates, or Featured list removal candidates when nominated for featured topic, and should only have Featured article candidates if the result does not affect whether the topic meets the featured topic criteria. Please have all required processes done before nominating." Let's just wait. --Itub (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This cannot be passed with an active FARC, so our choices are to keep this nomination open until the FARC is over, or to close this and re-nominate it later. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The issues in the FARC should be close to be done, which means the FARC should close fairly soon. I think keeping this FTC open for a bit more is better. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that at the very least, the FARC is getting a lot more attention than most are, partly due to this FTC :) Gary King (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support on condition that issues with Helium are resolved, and it passes the FAR. A very nice, tight set of articles. -- Reaper X 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - If Helium remains FA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support and while I'd like it to remain an FA, I still think these should be a featured topic if it only remains a GA... gren グレン 09:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support per Judgesurreal and Reaper_X. Also, Grenavitar, when an article is demoted from FA, it gets automatically rated B-class, not GA. --haha169 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support per Judgesurreal, Reaper_X, and Haha169. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support per the above. Good to see a bunch of vital articles in good shape. igordebraga ≠ 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support even if Helium is delisted as FA They're all related per criteria one. It meets criteria two, and as for criteria 3, even if Helium were to be delisted, 3/8(the other articles are the 3) is 37.5%, more than the 20% threshold. Obviously per the last sentence, it would still have 2 FAs. Now if one of the GAs got delisted, then THAT would be a problem. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If Helium is delisted, it becomes listed as B-class, not GA-class. --haha169 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Note, not quite. Since the new assessment system, FARC'd articles are now left unassessed, as the Bot can't determine if they should go to B or C class. By the way, I'm very troubled that Featured topics come up with articles at FARC, as that could encourage driveby supports on the FARC. It seems to me that nominations for articles at FARC should be removed until the FAR closes. 14:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe so, but it could pass GA in about 2.5 seconds. Plasticup ^T/C 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Main topic is featured and even if He is FARCd it seems more than good enough to quickly pass a GAN. I'd like to see more FA stars in this series though. --mav (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support now that the helium FAR has been closed as Keep. --Itub (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - well done on the FARC - rst20xx (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - let this be closed a unanimous support. Zginder 2008-08-05T14:59Z (UTC)
• Comment - What image will be used? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There are three candidates: the TFA nomination seems to support the XeF4 one which I don't think is truly relevant; another one would be the electronic stucture which is wrong but used in intro chem books; the last one is the neon tube one, which although showes the ionised gas, at least shows what is probably the best known use of noble gases. I would go for te latter one.Nergaal (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - The only issue that arose during this FTC was with the Helium FAR, but as this has now passed, the topic can be promoted. I too would go for the third image - rst20xx (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost (season 4)

Main page	Articles
Lost (season 4)	The Beginning of the End (Lost) – Confirmed Dead – The Economist (Lost) – Eggtown – The Constant – The Other Woman (Lost) – Ji Yeon – Meet Kevin Johnson – The Shape of Things to Come (Lost) – Something Nice Back Home – Cabin Fever (Lost) – There's No Place Like Home (Lost)

Special thanks to Sceptre (writer of "The Economist", "Ji Yeon" and "Cabin Fever"; primary writer of "Meet Kevin Johnson"; secondary writer of "Confirmed Dead"), Jackieboy87 (primary writer of "There's No Place Like Home"; secondary writer of Lost: season 4), Cornucopia (secondary writer of Lost: season 4) and 97198 (copyeditor of "The Beginning of the End", "Confirmed Dead" and "Eggtown"). 4/13 = 30.8%; twelve episode (including triple-length finale twelfth episode of writers strike-shortened season) articles + season list page; from Lost WikiProject, which covers the television show Lost. Note to promoter: Please use this image. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work, I've been watching the articles flourish as I was watching the season. I just hope it won't stop the project from working on getting the GAs to FAs, but I doubt it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great (and speedy!) work from all those involved. Nothing wrong that I can see. —97198 talk 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Meets requirements and criteria. Anyway, this is annoying me: Can you put a space between the GA and FA icons and the article's name? --haha169 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2008-07-23T17:24Z (UTC)
• Support great slew of articles (and the most impressive, they all reached GA status quickly after each episode release). Also, the only vote in the Season FLC was mine... igordebraga ≠
• Support. Buen trabajo. By the way, will you have to add a ^(subtopic) link to Seasons of Lost? Xnux the Echidna 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I believe so. I think Arctic.Gnome will do that when this is promoted - no need to worry. :) --haha169 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Brilliance, damn fast work! rst20xx (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)