Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/June 2010

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

2006 Pacific hurricane season

2006 Pacific hurricane season

19 articles

List of storms

Timeline

Tropical Storm Aletta

Tropical Depression Two-E

Hurricane Bud

Hurricane Carlotta

Hurricane Daniel

Tropical Storm Emilia

Tropical Storm Fabio

Hurricane Hector

Hurricane Ioke

Hurricane Ileana

Hurricane John

Hurricane Kristy

Hurricane Lane

Tropical Storm Norman

Hurricane Paul

Hurricane Sergio

Featured topic nom, five years in the making! I'll be sure to get two more featured before September, but it meets the criteria right now, so I'm nominating it. Hope y'all like it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, a fun little factoid, pending the passage of the topic, Hurricane Ioke will be part of three FT's, which I believe would be a first. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - very well done! It's good when you guys get one of the bigger ones done. Which season next? :) rst20xx (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  Actually I do have a slight issue with this and I guess other seasons. {{2006 Pacific hurricane season buttons}} doesn't contain links to the timeline or list of storms, and this template doesn't appear on the former of those two lists - rst20xx (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  Also, what about 2006 Central Pacific cyclone? It is not recognised by either of the official Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers for the eastern north Pacific, and so is not an official tropical or subtropical cyclone of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season. However - it was in the Pacific, the sources seem to suggest it was in fact a tropical, subtropical, or extratropical cyclone, and it has its own section in the 2006 Pacific hurricane season article - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  (sorry for taking so long to get back to this issue) About the template, I brought it up to other WPTC members. I agree that they should be included, and once I get approval (seeing how the template is so widely used), I'll add them in. With regards to the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone, I did not include it because it was not an official tropical cyclone. I made the 2006 Pacific hurricane season article, and included that storm, but I don't necessarily think it should be part of the topic since it's not an official storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  OK, the timeline and storms listing is now included. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  • • Generally they are kept to only the storms but i am looking for a way to other articles to the list.Jason Rees (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support Do I need to say anything? Rst20xx the 1989 Pacific hurricane season will be next. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

• Not unless I get my season done first ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support An entire season for a FT is an amazing feat! Well done. —Terrence and Phillip 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Jason Rees (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support nothing to be said really Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Yueof theNorth 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, meets all the criteria. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment why has the nomination yet to close. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• I believe 2006 Central Pacific cyclone does need to be included. For all intents and purposes, it is part of the 2006 EPAC season; it's included in the relevant category and discussed in the main article. Juliancolton (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Any other opinions on the necessity of the Central Pacific cyclone? Of course it 'can' be included, but whether or not it 'needs' to be seems to be both ways. It's not in the list of 2006 storms, but it is in the category, so it's tough to determine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  From that article: "Hence, this system is not an official tropical or subtropical cyclone of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season." So I'm inclined to say no. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Then it should not be included in this topic's category and main article. If we include it as part of Wikipedia's series of articles on the 2006 season, there should be no reason to deny it inclusion within the FT. Juliancolton (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  It's included in the same way that Christmas 1994 nor'easter is included in the 1994 AHS article. Due to the possibility, it's interesting that it's included, but I don't think it should have to be included. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  And if I ever nominated the 1994 season for FT, I'd include the nor'easter without a second thought. It's inconsistent to say it's not part of the season, but include it in the season articles, but not include it in the FT nomination. If the CP cyclone article were a GA or better, would you list it as part of this topic? Juliancolton (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  I wouldn't automatically, and especially not on the first nomination. For the 1998 PHS season, I didn't/wouldn't include the October 1998 Central Texas floods, which is mentioned in the season article, and could arguably be part of the timeline if the timelines included information other than what's in the BT. I really think it's optional whether or not to include the loosely related articles to the season. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Remove it from the category and I'll agree. Until then, it's part of the topic, and therefore I feel compelled to oppose on the grounds that this topic neglects a relevant article. Juliancolton (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, whoops, I forgot it was in the 2006 PHS category. No worries, I removed it. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Great, thanks. In that case I withdraw my objection and support promotion of the topic. Juliancolton (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

M-28

M-28 (Michigan highway)

4 articles

M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)

U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan)

M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan)

I'm nominating M-28 as a topic. The lead article is about the "parent route", the longest state trunkline highway in Michigan that isn't a US Highway or an Interstate Highway. M-28 has had 3 business loops associated with it over its history since 1919. The loop in the Ishpeming–Negaunee area is still extant, while the other two have been decommissioned and removed from the state trunkline system in Michigan. The loop in Marquette is listed under the BUS US 41 title because that was the designation used for most of that loop's history, but for a period in the 1970s, it was concurrently designated BUS US 41/BUS M-28. As such, the shown redirect does exist. The final loop is the one from Newberry, which existed in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Two of the business loop articles are GAs, the lead article and the current business loop are an FAs. The GAs are rated at A-Class by the associated WikiProject's A-Class Review process. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - for exactly the same reason this topic failed the first time you nominated it - with 4 opposes and no supports - a fact that you seem to gloss over completely. To repeat what Nergaal said there: "per large overlap with existing topic; 3 of the 4 articles are already part of another topic and the remaining article is LESS than 3k of text". I'm a bit confused to see this back here - rst20xx (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  Same reason I nominated it before: The other FT is based on geography (Marquette County) this one is based on parent (M-28) and its children (the business loops). If you don't like the overlap, then let's remove the county-based FT. The county-based classification scheme is not well received at the parent project, while this relationship scheme is much better received. 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  As I recall, they aren't too well-received here, either. I'd vote for removal of the county topic in favor of this one, which seems like it wouldn't have such an overlap problem between topics. --PresN 23:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the question then, is which of the two topics are preferable. If the other was removed I'd have no problem supporting this one. However I do feel that firstly that one should be removed first, and secondly I would probably favour keeping that one over this as I feel it is a more comprehensive topic. PresN and Imzadi1979 prefer this one. This one will be an FT after September and the other won't. Finally there are a few small problems with the presentation of this topic - is it called M-28 or M-28 (Michigan highway)? There should be no redirect link in the topic box - rst20xx (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll Support this one as opposed to the other one. FT/GTs by highway should have a higher priority than by county. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, well that makes it 3 to 1 in favour of this topic over the other. But you need to get the other one removed before this one can be promoted. This one can remain on hold whilst the FTRC takes place - rst20xx (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I would be willing to support this topic if the one for Marquette County was delisted, otherwise, I will have to oppose for the same overlap reason as in the first FTC. Dough4872 14:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comments

1. The FTRC has been opened on the county topic.
2. The county topic would remain featured after September 1. (Five of the ten articles hold featured status already.)
3. The redirect in the topic box is only intended for nomination purposes.

Imzadi 1979 → 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support pending the removal of the Marquette County topic. See that topic's removal candidate page for my rationale. – TMF 22:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Any further concerns rst? The other topic has since been demoted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem like it after re-reading; he said he's support this when the other one was delisted, and now it has been. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bayern class battleships

Bayern-class battleship

3 articles

SMS Bayern

SMS Baden

This is last class of German dreadnoughts built during World War I. The last two ships were not completed and didn't do anything important (unlike Tosa, for example) and so articles are not warranted. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks good (though we don't list the ships without articles) - rst20xx (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure; didn't want to appear to be cherry-picking articles or anything. Parsecboy (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • What do you think of The Bushranger's idea below? Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support -are those articles redirects to the class article? If so, maybe they could be mentioned using something like File:Symbol redirect vote.svg like the M-28 FT candiate uses. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, they're redirects to the class article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  As stated in that nom, "The redirect in the topic box is only intended for nomination purposes." It's not going to be there come the actual thing. Actually I'm going to remove it, it's causing confusion - rst20xx (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm, I'd include them, if only to ensure it is complete. (maybe link them to Bayern class battleship#Construction or just as text, with no symbols or with the .svg image linked above?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• My question is whether or not those that are redirects can feasibly be turned into articles. Is that possible or is there not sufficient information? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it's simply not possible. There's construction information, and that's it. They weren't used for any experiments as Tosa was. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright. In that case there isn't really a debate on the redirects; they shouldn't be included on the topic list, which they aren't. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Deutschland class battleships

Deutschland-class battleship

6 articles

SMS Deutschland

SMS Hannover

SMS Pommern

SMS Schlesien

SMS Schleswig-Holstein

Germany's last group of five pre-dreadnought battleships, all six articles have been assessed as Good Articles. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too many of the same topics Switching to support after I woke up. Buggie111 (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with caffeine. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 07:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Usual high class work by Parsecboy. - DSachan (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Not a topic I know anything about, but nothing to fault Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My World

My World

5 articles

"One Time"

"Favorite Girl"

"One Less Lonely Girl"

"Love Me"

I am nominating this as a topic because I have worked really, really hard on these pages for these pages for months dating back to the end of last year. All of the articles have been carefully reviewed and made GA's, now I believe collectively they can be a GA topic. Candyo32 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support - as this is supposedly the first half of a two-part album I'm a bit unsure as to whether both halves should be covered in one topic. The big problem with doing that would be that there is no obvious lead article. So I guess I weakly support doing the halves separately. Also as the My World Tour hasn't happened yet I guess it'd be more appropriately found in a topic on the second half - rst20xx (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well mostly albums have only been referred to as "two-part" by the artist. Media generally has separated them as two distinct albums. Candyo32 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Crystal Clear x3 05:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but My World Tour is needed. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Support per Rst. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)