Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/July 2009

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

State highways in Essex County, New York

State highways in Essex County, New York

14 articles

New York State Route 3

New York State Route 8

New York State Route 9N

New York State Route 22

New York State Route 28N

New York State Route 73

New York State Route 74

New York State Route 86

New York State Route 185

New York State Route 192

New York State Route 373

New York State Route 431

New York State Route 910K

Yay! 12-13 months of work have finally finally paid off. Here's the 3rd in the series of NY Touring Routes in the county of Essex, New York. This project has been in the works for a very long time and has a lesser overlap with the other two topics:Hamilton and Warren. The only overlaps are NY 28N & 8 (which is in Warren and Hamilton) and NY 9N (which is in Warren only). The interesting part is that while this topic was in the works, the New York State Department of Transportation added a new route in Essex County, NY Route 185. Anyway,, there are 5 featured items and 8 good articles, so it meets that piece of the topic criteria. Also NY 73, although set as a Good Article, passed my WikiProject's A-class review and is A-class.

Note: The FLC promotion occurred after GimmeBot ran on 0000 UTC July 5, so the article has not been update it, but this addition to the Goings-on page proves that it has reached Featured List. Anyway, all comments are welcomed and thanks a lot to Rst20xx, who set up the topic thing for 3 topics. :) - Mitch/HC32 15:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - 1/3 of the articles are featured content, so it meets that criteria. However, I am a little concerned about the the relevance of the main article (List of highways in Essex County, New York) to the topic. This topic is supposed to cover state highways only, but the list also mentions Interstate, U.S., and county routes. Dough4872 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We'ze have precedent - see the Warren topic - Mitch/HC32 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Support - My concern has been addressed. Dough4872 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Even if there are other items in the topic, we can expand it later to include Interstates and U.S. routes. –CG 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not particularly fond of the county-by-county lists, but this topic meets the criteria, so I can't complain. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I don't really like the precedent of just including the state routes and not including the US/Interstate ones. Sorry, I just think it's oversplitting - rst20xx (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  Actually maybe it's worth talking about this a little bit more now. Looking at List of Interstate Highways in New York and List of U.S. Routes in New York, you could actually make topics out of both of these. And then it would seem natural to exclude the US/Interstate routes from these county topics and that would remove a lot of overlap problems. Does that make sense? rst20xx (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It make sense, but that also means Warren, which you said needs the other routes, will probably never get them. Every time I split out Routes 911E/912Q, they get merged again. Also, as I have said, Hamilton has neither of those to warrant a problem. Also, why are you opposing now, if you want to talk about this?Mitch/HC32 12:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I only worked out that might be a good idea after I weak opposed. Anyway, oppose struck! rst20xx (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll see what I can do, as those route levels are not my cup of tea. Thank you though.Mitch/HC32 23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - So NY8 and NY192 are the two routes with articles that formerly went through Essex but no longer do? rst20xx (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

8 and 192 are weird. The alignment of 8 is now 9N, 9N/22, and 185. The alignment of 192 is now a county route, but most of 192 was in Franklin County, mostly 86 in Franklin County and CR 55. It is CR 81 in Essex.Mitch/HC32 23:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question cansomebody clearly explain what is the difference between a state touring route, a state reference route, and an interstate? And also, why an article focusing on all of these three (and more) deserves to be the lead for only one of them? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Different levels of highways done by the New York State Department of Transportation & United States Department of Transportation for NY. And, the list is a summary, also because the precedents, Warren and Hamilton Counties, follow the same process.Mitch/HC32 17:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think precedents are good examples (because they have not have had unanimous votes). I am asking if this topic is very similar to having "Planets in the Solar System" topic in which the main article is Solar System and contains the 8 planets. Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, and even if there was, its barely close - and where the solar system is 8, this numbers over 300 - 900.Mitch/HC32 15:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to give my general opinion on this type of topic. I agree with Nergaal that citing precedent is not always good. I think these county topics should try and be as general as possible and include as many non-county highways as possible, both current and former. Clearly focussing on just state touring routes then disagrees with this desire. Though running contrary to this general principle, there is a strong argument to be made (as above) that the US and Interstate routes should be excluded and instead be placed in 2 topics covering the whole of these types of road across New York - this stops articles appearing in topics many times.

On the other hand, looking at state reference routes, back when the first of these topics was promoted, I think we got it wrong here. We decided not to include them at all because some of them were having notability problems - they weren't meriting stand-alone articles. If you look at the lengths of the state reference routes it is clear to see why - they're all under a mile. However I think instead of including none, we should have included those that have managed to get articles, and left it at that. So here this would mean adding Blue Ridge Road and that's it. (We would also then want to add Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway to the Warren topic.) I seem to recall that I for one took a somewhat "all or nothing" attitude when Warren was promoted and I guess as I've learned more about the road system and general fringe-notability issues on Wikipedia (which you see A LOT of around here, over time), I've changed my mind, so sorry about that, but does that make sense? Then I feel we could generalise the name of these topics to "State highways in..." which is certainly better.

Also this topic includes all the former routes, but I don't think the Warren topic does, and I think this should be changed - or am I wrong? I find this a little confusing and it would be helpful to add former routes to the tables in the leads, a la the Marquette County, Michigan topic, which is excellent in this regard - rst20xx (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Warren has 32B, and will have 9M as soon as I FTC supplement that one, both of which are decommissioned. In the regards of Michigan, this is totally different standards because of different states. I've wanted Prospect in Warren since the beginning, and I don't mind BRR here. Essex has three other decommissioned routes, but all of which have been supplanted by something else (427 & 86A are both part of 73, 195 is part of 9N). I do care though that if you oppose me over this, I will be ticked. I can fix things, but not everything is necessary.Mitch/HC32 16:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Decommissioned routes are in. Shall I go ahead and add BRR to the topic?Mitch/HC32 17:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't worry I'm not going to oppose, I'm just trying to talk it out and see what is general consensus but it appears there is much agreement between you and I at least so in fact I will support. I only compared to Michigan when it came to former routes and I see you've added them to the Essex table now - looks good, but I think you need to add a column stating when a route became decommissioned. As the decommissioned routes have been supplanted, I think that having just redirects is fine as they are covered in the articles on the new configurations (as is the case with Michigan). I would be happy to see you add BRR but I think feedback from others on this would be good - rst20xx (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Done for the decommissioned routes, but I don't think a new column that would be 3/4 empty is necessary.Mitch/HC32 17:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten to add 192 to the table - rst20xx (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.Mitch/HC32 17:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And one final thing (sorry to drip these out). Where should New York State Route 347 (mid-1930–1950s) redirect to? rst20xx (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I don't know why that's an exact problem though - Mitch/HC32 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Great work, Mitch. It was a (God-awful) pleasure to help a little bit. Durova²⁷⁸ 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - no-one has come forward in the last 2 days to say that they oppose Blue Ridge Road being added so I think we can add it. Also this means the topic can be renamed to "State highways in Essex County, New York" - rst20xx (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All the changes are made.Mitch/HC32 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support, nice work. Theleftorium 19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - before I promote this, there appears to be a minor edit war going on as to whether Blue Ridge Road should be piped to say "New York State Route 910K", i.e. the portion of the road that is a state highway. While 910K only forms a tiny portion of the Blue Ridge Road, I would be inclined to pipe as being the only portion that is a state highway it is the only portion relevant to this topic, and the reason for the article's inclusion in this topic. What does everyone else think? rst20xx (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say then Prospect for Warren would be [[Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway|New York State Route 917A]] - I don't mind now, but I would prefer to use actual names of the articles.Mitch/HC32 15:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway could IMO be either because the entirety of the route there is also New York State Route 917A, but I don't mind which of the two names that article is included under - rst20xx (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The only portions of the roads that actually fit under the topic scope are the new york state routes, which is the reason I think the article titles should appear as the new york state routes in the topic box. I also think that it just looks much cleaner for all the articles to appear in the same format in the topic box. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that setting on 910K here would be the most amicable solution - rst20xx (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - Mitch gains his 4th featured topic (and 5th topic full stop!), and we get our first two articles to appear in 3 topics - rst20xx (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  PS feel free to start a supplementary nom for Prospect ;) rst20xx (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter

Jupiter

12 articles

Atmosphere

Magnetosphere

Moons

Galilean moons

Io

Europa

Ganymede

Callisto

Rings

Trojans

Exploration

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

Major contributors: Ruslik0, Serendipodous, Nergaal, RJH, Volcanopele

This is intended as a featured topic, and as a subtopic to the Solar System FT. Also, it is intended to replace the Galilean moons subtopic. Serendi^podous 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't Galilean moons still have to be part of the topic? Otherwise, support. ceranthor 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why. Moons of Jupiter covers them and they are all already in the topic anyway. Serendi^podous 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The one option would be to strip down the 4 moons from here and add the Galilean moons article itself instead; but I am not sure if that is actually better. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Yet another beautiful FT from the Solar System WP! I just want to see that last one featured too! Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Object. First of all, amazing work on these articles. However, I think the 4 moon articles (Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto) should be removed from the topic. As there is already the Galilean moons topic, the "overly overlap" provision in the topic criteria would seem to apply here. Also, there is the Moons of Jupiter article that is already in this topic. All the moons of Jupiter are already covered there, so separate articles for the 4 Galilean moons are not needed in this topic. Also, the Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 article seems out of place in the topic and is already covered by the Exploration of Jupiter article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, this topic is meant to replace the Galilean moons topic, so there is no overlap. The "Moons of Jupiter" article lists all 63 of Jupiter's moons; however, most of Jupiter's moons are too small to be of any interest. All the fifty-nine smaller moons combined are less than one five-thousandth the mass of the smallest of the Galilean moons. The Galilean moons are massive, dynamic objects, as important to the Solar System as any planets. They are integral parts of the Jovian system, just as the planets are of the Solar System. Shoemaker Levy I can take or leave, but it is part of Jupiter now. Serendi^podous 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ok so I missed that part. So as part of this nomination you're also proposing to eliminate the Galilean moons topic. I guess that's acceptable. But I do think the Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 article should be out. This is a general topic on Jupiter, and an article on a comet that no longer exists and whose only association with Jupiter is a collision seems to be too specific, especially since it's covered in another article already in the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Struck. Serendi^podous 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - really sorry, but I think you need to include Jupiter in fiction. From a scientific point of view, this topic is very comprehensive, and all the editors involved have done fantastic work, but from an artistic point of view, you are missing this sole key article - rst20xx (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is like asking United States Naval Gunfire Support debate to be a part of the Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleships topic. They are both fine articles to be included, but aren't truly a notable part of the topic which should prevent the topic from being comprehensive. Furthermore, Jupiter in fiction is an article that is never going to be truly complete/featurable as it is impractical to list all the occurences there. And one more thing: that article is almost a collection of trivia. Nergaal (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean we have to get Solar System in fiction into the Solar System FT? Or Asteroid belt in fiction into the asteroids FT? Serendi^podous 11:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Nergaal, United States Naval Gunfire Support debate does not solely or directly relate to the Iowa class of battleship, and hence is not as relevant IMO as Jupiter in fiction is to a Jupiter FT. I realise that Jupiter in fiction can never list every occurrence of Jupiter in fiction, but it shouldn't - see Cultural depictions of dinosaurs for probably the closest comparison GA to what I think this article should be. And finally, yes, I realise the article is currently just a collection of trivia (prime example of a failure of this), but this just reflects how bad a state it currently is in, not what it could become. In response to Serendipodous, yes, I think those 2 articles should be in those 2 topics. Again, I'd point towards Cultural depictions of dinosaurs as the best example of an existing article along these lines which shows what is possible - rst20xx (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, correction, I don't think Asteroid belt in fiction should be in the Asteroid belt topic because this link actually redirects to a more general article on Asteroids in fiction! If you were to make an Asteroids FT, then that would need to include Asteroids in fiction, along with Asteroid belt maybe, and a number of other articles. If you look back at the Asteroid belt FT nom, you'll see that there was discussion along similar lines for a number of other articles - rst20xx (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is asking too much. This is a scientific topic with a scientific subject matter. And you even say above that from a scientific point of view this topic is very comprehensive. Requiring a non-scientific article be included in this scientific topic seems inappropriate to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

But the topic's name is "Jupiter". You say "scientific" several times, but nowhere does the topic say "science". I will grant you that the authors of this topic likely have a scientific mindset, which makes it harder for them to write such a non-scientific article, but this is NOT an argument against the need to include such an article, as (if true) it is an observation on the authors and not on the content - rst20xx (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to chime in that Jupiter in Fiction is not necessary for the FT. The article topic is not about fiction, but about Jupiter itself. In other words, the oppose, IMO, lacks merit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Err so if the article is about Jupiter then surely it should be included...? Unless you meant that the topic is about Jupiter, in which case, I point out that the fiction is about Jupiter, by definition! rst20xx (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Could the fiction article be included? Sure, it could, but to be honest I think the topic is better without the article. The character and substance of the fiction article is tangibly different than the other "scientific" articles (yes there's that word again). I know you're focused on criterion 1.e, but I would say that including the fiction article in the topic would border on violating criterion 1.b. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree, all the articles are entirely on the subject of Jupiter, which is the name of the topic. Maybe the problem is that as it stands, Jupiter in fiction is a mess of low-brow trivia, but if it was reworked into an article along the lines of Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, starting from ancient mythology and working forwards, then it would fit in better - rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Redacted, did mean topic. But as for fiction, I see it as more of a fluff piece, not a serious piece contributing to the over all topic of Jupiter. (Note fluff <> necessary mean bad or poorly written, but rather a different tenor that this topic.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As above, if the article was reworked to be along the lines of Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, starting from ancient mythology and working forwards, then it would serve as a serious piece looking at the human significance of the planet, not the current low-brow trivia list it currently is - rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead article itself says that Human culture is part of the subject. Who are we to argue with a FA. Jupiter in fiction is obviously part of Human culture. Criterion 1e says that all articles within the subject must be covered by an article in the topic that is not the lead article. I conclude that we lack a GA on the subject of Jupiter in human culture. This article to be written should include Jupiter in fiction. It seems also that the subject Jupiter in fiction is missing in the lead article itself. This category includes 62 articles. --Ettrig (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:Jupiter in fiction. It seems to me that what those of you who are arguing for its inclusion want is not an article about Jupiter in fiction but one that encompasses the planet's impact on human culture, from the Babylonians on. Such an article would not only include fiction (which would be only a small part of it) but also religion, astrology, poetry and philosophy. That's fair enough. But that article does not exist, and it could never be fashioned out of Jupiter in fiction, which is just a random list of fictional citations. You are asking us to create a new article from scratch. That we can do, but I don't think it's fair to deny an FT just because an article you want in it doesn't exist. Serendi^podous 07:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1e is clear. If there are articles on a sub-subject, those articles are to be covered by an article that is part of the featured topic list and is not the lead article. There are 62 articles about Jupiter in fiction. Creating an overview article is explicitly mentioned as a proper solution for such a case. It has been argued several times above, that Jupiter in fiction is too bad to be included. This argument is an explicit attempt to violate criterion 1d. --Ettrig (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the logic. There are dozens of articles under the category, "Jupiter crossing asteroids", does that mean that Jupiter-crossing asteroids should be included as well? And what about Jupiter family comets? Or Jupiter in mythology? Serendi^podous 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Serendipodous, you are right that "Jupiter in fiction" is not what we want to see included at all, and I think the references to it are misleading. This is entirely my fault and I appologise. We want a more general article on Jupiter in human culture or cultural impact of Jupiter. But Ettrig is right that just because an article doesn't exist, that doesn't effect in any way whether it should be included - the question is then also whether the article should exist, and no-one has argued here that it shouldn't. And indeed, if you read Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Overview topics, it states that it may in some circumstances be necessary to create articles for a topic. As for Jupiter-crossing asteroids, that would certainly be a good addition, though I didn't argue for its inclusion because in my opinion asteroids that happen to have an orbit that crosses Jupiter's are not very relevant to Jupiter the subject, and hence this is a less notable subject. Whereas the impact of Jupiter on human culture is very relevant to Jupiter for us, human beings - rst20xx (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1e says that if an article is about a sub-subject it must be either included in the FT list or covered by an overview article that is included in the FT list. Jupiter in human culture is a significant sub-subject of Jupiter. This can be seen in article Jupiter. Many other articles in Wikipedia are about Jupiter in human culture, e.g. Jupiter in fiction and Jupiter (novel). Is anybody challenging the statement that these two articles are about Jupiter in human culture? Now criterion 1e gives us two options, bring all the articles about Jupiter in human culture up to FA or GA or create one overview article about Jupiter in human culture. If none of this is done, the list of articles on the Jupiter featured topic is incomplete. The formulation of criterion 1e is a bit complex, but still clear. --Ettrig (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The pertinent section in Jupiter has changed from Human culture to Ancient mythology. Removes the basis for my argument that Jupiter in fiction needs to be included. A remaining article to discuss in this context is Jupiter (mythology). But the intro to this article does not mention the planet Jupiter at all. So if the change of section heading in Jupiter is to stay, I have no objections to this FT candidate. --Ettrig (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Even though i think Rst20xx is correct about Jupiter in fiction is needed, i really feel that this topic deserves promoting anyway. Is there any way to find a more specific title that would only cover scientific articles for this? Or should the guidelines be changes? As i read them, the guidelines say that if an "in Fiction" article exists, it should be included (probably better as an "in popular culture", then can have a section on its importance in religion/astronomy.) Based on the precedent of the Solar system topic, i give my weak support here (if we are going to be constant and delist the solar system topic, this would be a weak oppose). I would also think Galilean moons should be included: the use of summary style and sub-articles does not mean the topic should not include parent-sub-article combinations if articles for them exist.YobMod 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you think that the Galilean moons article should be listed here, and the Galileans kept in their subtopic? Serendi^podous 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually i meant this topic should completely subsume the moons one, including its main article. I don't see why merging the topic means that the Galilean moons article should not get included anywhere - it clearly serves a purpose (or was it only created to head the moon topic?) and is within the scope of the topic. Articles with different levels of detail can be very useful, and would make this topic more flexible for readers (even if tall the info is included already).YobMod 14:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. With the 4 individual moons articles and the Moons of Jupiter article in the topic, the Galilean moons article would be very redundant. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yobmod. If this is going to consume the Galilean moons topic, then I think it would be better to consume all of it - rst20xx (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I support the topic as it stands, without J in Fiction. I do not feel that it is required, though it is a possible addition. I would prefer if you included the Galilean moons article in this topic and left the G moons subtopic as it is, but I am willing to support either way. --PresN 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think the articles fit well and I don't really see a problem with the list. 12 articles is definitely more than enough so we don't need every little thing that could possibly be thrown in. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Fiction is not needed, it would change the nature of the topic. I do, however, like the idea of adding the Gallean Moons, I say that as a person unfamiliar with the concept prior to reading this (although I remember learning about it years ago---when it was breaking news?) While there would be some overlap in content with other articles, I think Gallean Moons is a solid enough concept for inclusion on its own.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• A consensus seems to be emerging to add Galilean moons, so I placed it in the template. Serendi^podous 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - the topic as it stands is comprehensive - Jupiter in fiction could be a nice addition, but it is not needed at this point—Chris! _ct 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - "....in fiction" definitely isn't needed IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• NOTE: one of the articles on this list is currently at GAR.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'll leave the FTC open until the GAR is resolved - rst20xx (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  The GAR was closed as a keep.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• So. Is this close as promote? Or is Jupiter in culture a deal-breaker? Because if it is, then this should be closed, as such an article would take weeks, if not months, to create. Serendi^podous 08:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I've just been a bit slow. I believe this has sufficient consensus - rst20xx (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - and I will merge the Galilean moons topic into this one - rst20xx (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Slipknot discography

previous FTC

Slipknot discography

10 articles

Slipknot

Iowa

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

All Hope Is Gone

9.0: Live

Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.

Welcome to Our Neighborhood

Disasterpieces

Voliminal: Inside the Nine

Major contributors: Rezter, Blackngold29, Rtiztik, Dude527, Gary King, me

4th time the charm. Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - you did it! Welcome to Our Neighborhood doubled in length to reach GA at last. Slipknot Demo was merged into Slipknot (album) which is fair enough, probably the right place for it. As this topic includes all albums, EPs, videos, demos and non-album singles, I think that it has earned the right to become the first called "discography" - rst20xx (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  Also if you can get them up to scratch you could possibly add Music made in tribute of Slipknot and Behind The Player: Paul Gray - rst20xx (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work you guys. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Relucant support - I was going to nominate the topic myself. :( —Terrence and Phillip 04:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Well done. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

MNM

MNM

4 articles

John Hennigan

Adam Birch

Melina Perez

Credit: MNM, Adam Birch, John Hennigan = ThinkBlue and NiciVampireHeart; Melina Perez = Nikki311

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) and I are nominating the topic MNM as a Good Topic. MNM was a professional wrestling faction in WWE, comprised of John Hennigan, Adam Birch and Melina Perez, known by their ring names Johnny Nitro, Joey Mercury and Melina respectively. All four articles in the topic are of Good article status. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - rst20xx (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support--WillC 16:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support —Terrence and Phillip 08:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Truco ₅₀₃ 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support, they're all individually good, so they're collectively good as well. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ionian Revolt

Ionian Revolt

3 articles

Siege of Naxos

Battle of Lade

I am nominating this as a good topic. It is intended as a sister topic to First Persian invasion of Greece and Second Persian invasion of Greece. There are only three articles, but between them these articles cover all the aspects of the campaign.

In the last nomination I had, there was a protracted debate about whether biographical articles needed to be included in the topic to make it complete. For this topic, I will repeat in advance the argument that biographies of the military commanders of this campaign will add little to the reader's understanding of the topic. This is mostly because it would be impossible to write a meaningful biography of any one of them, since so little is known of them. Furthermore, I note that two further military campaign topics have been promoted since then (Boston Campaign and Canadian campaign of 1775), without including any biographical articles. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - OK so to make this topic, I think you merged in Siege of Sardis (498 BC) and Battle of Ephesus (498 BC) to create this topic. (The rest of the section redirects in {{Campaignbox Greco-Persian Wars}} never had articles behind them.) Were neither of these battles notable enough to merit separate articles?

That is basically what I did. There had, at some point in the past, been a massive proliferation of articles on ancient battles which were essentially non-notable/only known from a single line in an ancient source. I have been methodically removing these where possible, and folding them into larger articles. IMHO, Sardis and Ephesus were not notable enought to require their own articles. For instance, the sum of historical knowledge on Ephesus is Herodotus's two sentences: "It chanced that they found the Ionians no longer at Sardis, but following on their tracks, they caught them at Ephesus. There the Ionians stood arrayed to meet them, but were utterly routed in the battle." I don't think that dragging this out into a whole article is really a good use of anyone's time. Ditto Sardis, which wasn't even a siege as such. I'm not just trying to cherrypick by eliminating articles.

OK, I just like to ask. I can see that the bulk of both articles pre-merge (if you can call it the "bulk"?) was the background and aftermath sections which was just basically context - rst20xx (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I'm not going to start this debate again because I'm fine with these topics not including individual participants, but to be fair the other battles topics that have been promoted are much more recent so it is likely the participants are notable for more than just their participation, or are notable for participation in several conflicts, unlike here, where they are only notable for this - rst20xx (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair observation. I'm not suggesting that, for instance, George Washington should be included in Boston Campaign. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - rst20xx (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Good work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Seems comprehensive and all articles are good quality.YobMod 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Theleftorium 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 7)

The Simpsons (season 7)

26 articles

"Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part Two)"

"Radioactive Man"

"Home Sweet Homediddly-
Dum-Doodily"

"Bart Sells His Soul"

"Lisa the Vegetarian"

"Treehouse of Horror VI"

"King-Size Homer"

"Mother Simpson"

"Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming"

"The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular"

"Marge Be Not Proud"

"Team Homer"

"Two Bad Neighbors"

"Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield"

"Bart the Fink"

"Lisa the Iconoclast"

"Homer the Smithers"

"The Day the Violence Died"

"A Fish Called Selma"

"Bart on the Road"

"22 Short Films About Springfield"

"Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in 'The Curse of the Flying Hellfish'"

"Much Apu About Nothing"

"Homerpalooza"

"Summer of 4 Ft. 2"

Co-nominators: From Season 7 Topic Drive: TheLeftorium, Scorpion0422, Gran2, Cirt, Gary King, Nergaal, Maitch, ImperatorExercitus.

Good topic nomination, every article is a GA (except the main one, which is a FL). One step closer in Scorpion0422's evil plan to turn this site into Homerpedia... TheLeftorium 09:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - and with seasons 2 and 5 almost done, I think Homerpedia is a distinct possibility ;) I think you all should work on the "Seasons" topic, because it would look so so cool to have millions of ^(subtopic) links in one topic - rst20xx (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looked at the entries, looks good. Hekerui (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Keep up the good work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The Flash ^{talk} 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support of course. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support meets the good topic criteria. :) Alex Douglas (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support, without a doubt. —Terrence and Phillip 14:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - here goes nothing... rst20xx (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Music of the Final Fantasy series

Music of the Final Fantasy series

18 articles

Final Fantasy I and II

Final Fantasy III

Final Fantasy IV

Final Fantasy V

Final Fantasy VI

Final Fantasy VII series

Final Fantasy VIII

Final Fantasy IX

Final Fantasy X

Final Fantasy X-2

Final Fantasy XI

Final Fantasy XII

Final Fantasy Tactics series

Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series

Chocobo series

Final Fantasy compilation albums

Final Fantasy concerts

I'm nominating this as a good topic as I think it meets the criteria. Over the past year I've gotten every single article up there to GA/FL with the exception of FF8. The topic includes the music articles on all of the main series Final Fantasy games, as well as the spinoff series that have their own music/discography articles, which are linked together in a template. --PresN 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support impressive! igordebraga ≠ 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - fantastic work, I really appreciate how you've even got the spinoff series discographies up to scratch as well. However I do not think this topic has quite earned the moniker "Music of the Final Fantasy series", as it is lacking articles on concert tours such as Tour de Japon, Distant Worlds: Music from Final Fantasy and Dear Friends -Music from Final Fantasy-. However I think it would be acceptable to get around this by rescoping the topic by piping the lead to "Discographies of the Final Fantasy series" - rst20xx (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  Do the tours really add anything to the subject of the music itself however?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think so, yes. Certainly they are covered with their own section in the lead article - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  Alright, I can see where you're coming from. I'd prefer to leave it at "Music of FF", but I'm okay if we change the scope to "Discographies of FF". I'll go ahead and move the nom page and stuff. --PresN 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  Support - very well done, a labour of love and a really useful collection of information - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  If I got, say, a "Final Fantasy Concerts" page (combining the concert articles you state above) up to GA+ and added it to the topic, would you support renaming the topic back to "Music of"? --PresN 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think the three articles could probably be expanded to GAs individually, but with that said, my answer is still yes - rst20xx (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well rounded and thorough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support With it's current title of "Discographies of the Final Fantasy series", because it meets the featured topic criteria. Alex Douglas (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I think Rst20xx brought up a good point. Since the main article covers concerts, it makes sense to include them in topic. I'm not certain that simply renaming the scope really solves that though. I've always felt the lead should be the major defining point to the scope. PresN, do you think Final Fantasy concerts could reach GA? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

• Yes, and I'm working on it- hopefully I'll get it up to nominating status in a week or two. Note the 70 or so edits on it since I created the page a week/week and a half ago. I disagree that renaming the scope does not solve the problem, though I hope to make the point moot soon. --PresN 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral: (Leaning towards support) PresN, I'm confident you will improve the article to GA standards; you've done spectacular work on the whole topic. So long as you are working on it, I see no real problem, only technicalities which I believe should be acknowledged. I hope you understand my neutral stance, but I don't feel I should fully support the topic without the concert article and full music scope. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
  • Support: With the concert article now GA and the scope matching the main article, I see no reason to withhold support. I think this is one of the better video game topics we have now. Excellent work PresN. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC))
• Support as either discography topic (as now), or even better as the more general topic - note that the concerts article is currently at GAN, so waiting to see the outcome there may be best.YobMod 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be okay with that, except that the current backlog (top to bottom) of the "Music" section of GAN is ~1.5 months - that may be a bit long to keep this on hold. --PresN 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• While generally it is advised against, I think given the circumstances it would be a good idea to hold off and wait and see how the GAN goes before promoting the topic. It would be easier this way. If you like we could hide the nomination until the GAN passes, effectively putting it on hold for the time being, or we can leave it here so other people have a chance to look it over in the meantime - rst20xx (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't really care one way or another. Hopefully it will get reviewed soon. --PresN 13:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Final Fantasy concerts has passed GA; I've added it to the nomination and renamed the topic back to "Music of the Final Fantasy series". I think it should be good to go now. --PresN 16:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  Looking at the end result, I think you were definitely right to merge the articles :) rst20xx (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Music of the Final Fantasy series/addition1
2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Music of the Final Fantasy series/addition2
3. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Music of the Final Fantasy series/addition3
4. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Music of the Final Fantasy series/addition4
5. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Music of the Final Fantasy series/addition5
6. Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Music of the Final Fantasy series/addition6

Canadian campaign of 1775

Canadian campaign of 1775

10 articles

Capture of Fort Ticonderoga

Siege of Fort St. Jean

Battle of Longue-Pointe

Arnold Expedition

Battle of Quebec

Battle of Saint-Pierre

Battle of the Cedars

Battle of Trois-Rivières

Battle of Valcour Island

I believe this grouping qualifies as a Good Topic. All of the elements are described in the main article, and are contained in {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Canada}}. (Note that the campaignbox contains one more entry than shown here; the extra entry redirects into Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.)

Thanks for your consideration. Magic♪piano 23:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Slightly unrelated comment: I understand why Crown Point is not its own article and not on this nom. But what makes it so important to have its own link in the campaignbox? —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Good question. I believe that there was at one time a separate article for the Crown Point action that was merged into the Ticonderoga article. I've been cleaning up other campaign boxes, maybe I'll take care of this one too... Magic♪piano 14:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Everything looks ok to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note can the title of the topic be changed? Right now it sounds as if Canada fought the campaign. Try something like "American 1775 campaign in Canada". Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think this makes a huge amount of sense. Canada as an independent political entity did not exist yet. Canada did in effect fight this campain, under Britain - rst20xx (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "Canada" in 1775 referred to what was at the time the Province of Quebec (1763-1791), which included the territory known until 1763 as Canada, New France. Most of the historical work on this campaign refers to it as "Canada". (This is elaborated at more length in Invasion of Canada (1775).) Magic♪piano 00:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - so in summary, you merged Battle of Crown Point into Capture of Fort Ticonderoga (and indeed, there's now a section on Crown Point in the latter article) and Battle of Vaudreuil into Battle of the Cedars. However here the latter article mentions that "Crossing of the Ottawa River was made between Fort Anne and Quinze-Chênes, now Vaudreuil", but not the fact that there was any conflict occurring here. Would it be possible to mention this action? Apart from that, looks good - rst20xx (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean. As far as I could discern, the place now known as "Vaudreuil" was then primarily known as "Quinze-Chenes". There is a section entitled "Battle at Quinze-Chenes" in Battle of the Cedars. Are you saying there is insufficient clarity in the explanation, or are you saying that section should be titled "Battle at Vaudreuil" (which I believe to be historically incorrect)? (Or something else entirely?) Magic♪piano 00:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh yeah sorry I missed that, d'oh! I just searched for "Vaudreuil" and only found the sentence I copied above. OK, that's that explained! rst20xx (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - rst20xx (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)