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

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Ready (Trey Songz album)

Ready

7 articles

"I Need a Girl"

"Successful"

"LOL Smiley Face"

"I Invented Sex"

"Say Aah"

"Neighbors Know My Name"

Now that all articles pertaining to the album are GA-status, I believe Ready can now be a good topic, all being transformed from start-class articles. The GTC proposal contains five singles and an album track from the set. Candyo32 08:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support More good work from Candyo. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hold up. Non-free content is not allowed here. Is there a picture of Trey Songz that you can use instead? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I removed the non-free image. Otherwise, I see no problems. Ucucha 12:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Zginder 2010-10-20T16:56Z (UTC)
• Support - Everything checks out. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum

Imperial War Museum

5 articles

Churchill War Rooms

HMS Belfast

Imperial War Museum Duxford

Imperial War Museum North

Main contributor: IxK85

I think this is a well defined topic. Nergaal (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Should Duxford Aerodrome and possibly Parachute Regiment and Airborne Forces Museum be included in this topic? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary since they are each covered under the other articles. To clarify the issue, the topic could be named "Imperial War Museum network" instead. Nergaal (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also say not; Duxford Aerodrome is about the (mostly wartime) history of the airfield, not the museum as such, and the Para and ABF Museum is organisationally separate to the Imperial War Museum. --IxK85 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Needs a book. Ucucha 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support As a regular contributor to each of the five IWM articles, I think the topic meets the criteria.--IxK85 (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support The museum and its main constituent locations are a complete topic. Zginder 2010-10-20T17:28Z (UTC)
• Support Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Océan class ironclads

Océan-class ironclad

4 articles

Océan

Marengo

Suffren

This GTC concerns a class of three French ironclads built in the late 1860s. They spent the bulk of their careers in the Mediterranean and their most notable act was the bombardment of Sfax when the French occupied Tunisia in 1881.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ucucha 22:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support looks good! Nergaal (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

John Ericsson class monitors

John Ericsson-class monitor

6 articles

HMS John Ericsson

HMS Thordön

HMS Tirfing

HMS Loke

HNoMS Mjølner

This GTC covers five monitors built for the Swedish and Norwegian Navies during the 1860s. They were designed with the help of John Ericsson, the Swedish-born inventor who had designed the original USS Monitor for the US Navy. The ships were generally kept in reserve, commissioned only briefly during the year, if at all. The last ships weren't sold off until after World War I and most were converted to barges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ucucha 22:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support looks good! Nergaal (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Gangut class battleships

Gangut-class battleship

5 articles

Gangut

Sevastopol

Petropavlovsk

Poltava

The GTC covers the first class of Russian dreadnoughts. They were built for service in the Baltic Sea and delivered during World War I. They had a quiet war, but joined the Soviets during the February 1917 Revolution and fought in the Russian Civil War. One ship was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet in 1930 and another was badly damaged by fire when it was mothballed, so that only two ships were assigned to the Baltic Fleet when the Winter War of 1939 began. The ships could do little as the ice began to form not long after the start of the war. They were trapped in Leningrad after the Germans invaded in 1941 and one had its bow blown off, but was refloated and used as a floating battery. The one ship in the Black Sea provided fire support during the early stages of the Siege of Sevastopol, but was withdrawn from combat in early 1942 as it was too valuable to risk.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Man, you are on a roll. Support. Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Been saving them up for the Cup. There are still a few more to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 07:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. Buggie111 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

La Galissonnière class ironclads

La Galissonnière-class ironclad

4 articles

La Galissonnière

Triomphante

Victorieuse

This GTC concerns the three successors to the Alma-class ironclads. They mainly served overseas and fought in the French colonial wars in Vietnam and China.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support looks good. Nergaal (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Ucucha 03:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alma class ironclads

Alma-class ironclad

8 articles

Alma

Jeanne d'Arc

Thétis

Armide

Montcalm

Atalante

Reine Blanche

This GTC concerns a class of seven French armored corvettes, designed as second-class ironclads suitable for foreign deployments. Despite this several participated in the ineffectual French attempt to blockade the Prussian coast during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, but a number of ships participated in French colonial advantures in Tunisia, Vietnam, and China during the 1880s.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ucucha 03:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I like the sound of Soul class ironclads. Buggie111 (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support looks good. Nergaal (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)

Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)

3 articles

Flag of Japan

Kimigayo

Good topic The issue about the national symbols is very touchy in Japan, especially with the national flag and the national anthem. There is not a lot of English language material about both symbols and also about the law that was created in 1999 to make these symbols official. While there are many symbols of Japan, the flag and anthem are the most known (and heated) and only were discussed in this law. Flag of Japan is an FA, Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan) and Kimigayo are GA's. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please create a book. Otherwise looks fine. Ucucha 13:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • How can I create a book? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Book created as of 10-12-10. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Support. Ucucha 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see a problem with this topic (other than an awkward name). For creating a book, click on the red book link on the top left corner of the template. Nergaal (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The name is the translation of the legislation title. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ekaterina II class battleships

Ekaterina II-class battleships

5 articles

Ekaterina II

Sinop

Chesma

Georgii Pobedonosets

This GTC comprises the first pre-dreadnought battleships built for the Imperial Russian Navy. They served in the Black Sea, but were generally relegated to second-line service by the First World War and the oldest two were used as targets shortly before the war began. Neither of the two survivors saw combat during the war. One ship was towed away when the Whites evacuated the Crimea in 1920 and was not scrapped until the 1930s, but the remaining ship was scrapped by the Soviets a decade earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars

Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars

15 articles

Ionian Revolt

Siege of Naxos (499 BC)

Battle of Lade

First Persian invasion of Greece

Siege of Eretria

Battle of Marathon

Second Persian invasion of Greece

Battle of Thermopylae

Battle of Artemisium

Battle of Salamis

Battle of Plataea

Battle of Mycale

Wars of the Delian League

Battle of the Eurymedon

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Ionian Revolt

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/First Persian invasion of Greece

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Second Persian invasion of Greece

Yes, I know I am not the major contributor, but this is not a nomination proposal, but a merge proposal. There are three topics nominated this year ( that encompass most of this. But as listed above, these topics appear to be fine as merged. Since "The Invincibles" topic, it appears to be a significant movement towards merging together small topics into broader, well defined topic. The advantage of this proposal is that the last battle is also included, together with the main article. What do people think? Nergaal (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that to be complete, a topic on the Wars should also include articles on the major generals, like Leonidas I, and sources, like the Histories. Ucucha 06:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Struck my oppose; I won't support until a subject expert has approved the topic. Ucucha 13:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, a book is needed that covers the entire proposed topic. Ucucha 13:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nergaal (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ucucha. You might could construct a topic around "Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars", (You'd likely need an FL) but as nominated, I must oppose. Courcelles 07:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, I've renamed it as suggested. As for the FL, I don't really see that appropriate. There would be some 10 entries in a table that would be well included in the main article; to me that sounds like a content fork and should not stand as a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This format is similar to that in other current topics - specifically Classes of supernovae, Physical geography of Somerset, and Towns in Trafford - which use the main article to define a slightly narrower topic that that of the central article. Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The topic can be later expanded to include other major personalities in the wars, at which point the title can be switched to the overview topic. Nergaal (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Still oppose. This format necessitates either a list or a timeline to be added. Courcelles 01:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can anybody give their opinion about merging or not these topics? Nergaal (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• 1 oppose, 1 neutral, 1 nom after a month. Anybody else care to give their input? Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I feel that the piping is fine, and I see that the original nominator of the three topics wanted to put them all together originally but didn't because they were told that they needed the biographies. --PresN 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I hope one day that I will get all the rest of the work done, and this can just be a "Greco-Persian Wars" super-topic. For the time-being though, I think that the "Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars" super-topic is fine.  M.F.B.T.  ^{Yes, Minister?} 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: MFBT is the original nominator of the topics currently proposed for merger. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I too think the piping is fine. The main article already outlines the entire battle in prose form, thus a timeline is not required imo.—Chris!_c/t 22:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. The lone oppose left seems not to be an issue for anyone else, and has also been countered. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Evstafi class battleships

Evstafi class battleships

3 articles

Evstafi

Ioann Zlatoust

These two ships were the most modern battleships in the Russian Black Sea Fleet at the start of World War I. They successfully engaged the much larger and more powerful battlecruiser Yavuz on several occasions during the first year of the war without significant damage to themselves. They were relegated to second-line duties when the Russian dreadnoughts began to enter service at the end of 1915 and sold for scrap by the Soviets as hopelessly obsolete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ucucha 23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 04:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support and pointing out that a topic on Battle of Cape Sarych might only need two more GAN on ships to be complete. Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting idea, although there were a bunch of Russian destroyers and the like that never fired a shot. But I suppose it could be limited to the major ships as they were the only ones that fired. I'll have to keep it in mind for the future.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I can work on Potemkin with you, if you want. Buggie111 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support More High Quality work by Sturm. Buggie111 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note: Ucucha has promoted this review but not notated that here. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mogador class destroyers

Mogador class destroyers

3 articles

Mogador

Volta

Often referred to as super-destroyers in English-language works, these ships were nearly the size of light cruisers. Built just before World War II, neither ship fired a shell at Axis ships during the war, but both were present when the British attacked at Mers-el-Kebir in July 1940, hoping to destroy the French ships there lest they get turned over to the Germans by the Vichy government. Both ships eventually sought refuge in Toulon where they were scuttled by the French to prevent them from falling into German hands. All three articles are GA class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ucucha 01:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 22:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note: Ucucha has promoted this review but not notated that here.

Imperatritsa Mariya class battleships

Imperatritsa Mariya-class battleship

4 articles

Imperatritsa Mariya

Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya

Imperator Aleksandr III

This GTC concerns three Russian dreadnoughts reasserted Russian naval superiority in the Black Sea during World War I after it had been lost by the introduction of the ex-German battlecruiser Yavuz into the Black Sea when the war began. The first ship was destroyed by a magazine fire a year after commissioning and the second ship was scuttled in 1918 to prevent her from being turned over to the Germans according to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The last ship saw four different changes of ownership before the British turned her over to the Whites during the Russian Civil War. She led the evacuation from the Crimea in 1920 and took refuge in the French North African port of Bizerte. She was eventually scrapped by the French to pay her docking fees, but her guns were removed and eventually saw service with Finland and Germany in World War II. All articles are GAs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

• Support. Ucucha 18:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Courcelles 19:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 06:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Да! Buggie111 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note: Ucucha has promoted this review but not notated that here. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirov class cruisers

Kirov-class cruiser

7 articles

Kirov

Voroshilov

Maxim Gorky

Molotov

Kaganovich

Kalinin

The largest Soviet warships completed until after World War II, four of the ships fought in the war while the other two were still building in the Far East. Two were trapped by the Germans during the Siege of Leningrad while the other two transported troops and supplies during the Sieges of Odessa and Sevastopol. Only a couple ships were fully modernized in the 1950s while the others were relegated to roles as training and missile test ships before being scrapped.

While there are plenty of photos on Commons, the vast majority lack proper sourcing so their licenses are suspect. The only two real copyright-free images are a Soviet stamp (at [1]) and this photo of a model of the ship. Neither is ideal, but its probably worth discussing which is better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. But are they the Kirov-class cruisers or the Kirov class cruisers? I see both spellings on this page and in the lead article. Ucucha 19:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The stamp image seems to have lower EV; the current one seems better. Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nice work there Sturm. Buggie111 (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Courcelles 22:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support But of course. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Good luck with the Cup! Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed with consensus to promote. Ucucha 23:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wittelsbach class battleships

Wittelsbach-class battleship

6 articles

SMS Wittelsbach

SMS Wettin

SMS Zähringen

SMS Schwaben

SMS Mecklenburg

The third class of German pre-dreadnoughts, and the first built under the naval expansion program of Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz. All articles have passed GA reviews. This and the Braunschweig nomination currently up will complete the German pre-dreadnought series, leaving only the WWI-era Helgoland, Kaiser, and König class and the handful of WWII-era ship articles to be completed before this monster is finally finished. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nergaal (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 07:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Ucucha 00:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Courcelles 22:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Braunschweig class battleships

Braunschweig-class battleship

6 articles

SMS Braunschweig

SMS Elsass

SMS Hessen

SMS Preussen

SMS Lothringen

The second to last class of German pre-dreadnoughts—all articles have passed GA reviews. This and the Wittelsbach nomination currently up will complete the German pre-dreadnought series, leaving only the WWI-era Helgoland, Kaiser, and König class and the handful of WWII-era ship articles to be completed before this monster is finally finished. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nergaal (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 07:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Ucucha 00:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Courcelles 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Kongō class battlecruisers

Kongō-class battlecruiser

5 articles

Kongō

Hiei

Haruna

Kirishima

Yet another WP:OMT topic centered around the class of four battlecruisers/fast-battleships of the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Second World War. Haruna is FA, while the class article and Kirishima have both passed WP:MILHIST A-Class Reviews as well. I'm planning to upgrade this eventually to a Featured Topic, and possibly incorporate it into a later FT concerning all of Japan's battlecruisers throughout history if the sufficient article-work can be done, much as Parsecboy did with the individual battlecruisers of Germany into one large "Battlecruisers of Germany" Featured Topic. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as long as a book is created. Nergaal (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, please create a book. I'm sure there are good examples in the other battleship FTs and GTs. Ucucha 03:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Ucucha 11:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nice work, Cam. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Feels good man. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Courcelles 22:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed with a consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Like a Virgin

Like a Virgin

9 articles

"Like a Virgin"

"Material Girl"

"Angel"

"Into the Groove"

"Dress You Up"

"Love Don't Live Here Anymore"

The Virgin Tour

Live – The Virgin Tour

I believe these eight articles are comprehensive and together denotes one of the best bunch in Wikipedia. They are about American recording artist (legend) Madonna's second studio album Like a Virgin, the singles released from the album, and the supporting tour and its subsequent live video release. So with the consensus of my fellow editors, I would like to promote this topic to a good topic. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)\
• Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Bluesatellite (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - and the Madonna topics keep coming, impressive! igordebraga ≠ 05:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, Very nice. -- œ^™ 03:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. After looking carefully at Love Don't Live Here Anymore it became clear (to me at least) that that song should also be GANed and included here. The song itself appears to be the more popular with the Madonna version that the original was. Madonna released it as a single and made a video for it. Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Madonna released "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" as a single from Something to Remember, not Like a Virgin. There is no relation between the two, save being the same named song. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" appeared on Like a Virgin. It doesn't matter when it was released as a single. Therefore it fails criterion 1.d. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Criterion 1d states about gaps in the topic. However, it is important that you understand that "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" is a single from Something To Remember and not from Like a Virgin. Therefore it is suitable for the GTC of Soemthing to Remember. One article in two topics doesnot make any sense. "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" is an album track from Like a Virgin which has no relation to the "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" article which is a remix of the original Rose Royce song. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC) So, to clarify, are they two different songs, coincidentally with the same name? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I think Legolas is saying that they are two different recordings of the same song, the version that was a single in the 90s being a wholly different recording to the one on this album, although I might have misunderstood. That begs the more general question, if an album happens to include a cover of a song which has a WP article, would it automatically need to be included in a topic on that album? For example, would a topic on "Version" need to include all twelve songs that have WP articles, even though less than half were released as singles.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC) The Something to Remember single is a remix of the Like a Virgin track. Therefore "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" belongs in this GT and any future Something to Remember GT. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Please see the GTC of Madonna (album) here where it was decided that The Virgin Tour is more appropriate to be included in the Like a Virgin GTC, although the tour supported the Madonna album, since it coincides more with the LAV era. Similar for the LDLHA song. It is a single from Soemthing to Remember, not from this one. Another example I can show you is Britney Spears' album Blackout and Circus. Both of them has the same song "Radar", but the song was released as a single from Circus. Hence it mentions only the labum name as Circus in the infobox of the song article. Moreover, as I have pointed out before, the version released by Madonna is a remix of teh Rose Royce song, and the one in Like a Virgin is a cover, both are infinitely different. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC) I'll change to neutral, as I'm still not convinced. While it may be a single from StR, it is still a song from LaV. If either Blackout or Circus were to be sent to FTC, "Radar" would need to be a GA, as it appears on both albums. Lastly, I don't really understand what the difference between the remix and the cover. From the "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" article, the LaV version is a cover, and the StR version is the LaV song remixed. I don't really see how the remixing of the song excludes it from this topic. Anyway, it was released in Japan in 1986, therefore it was a single then, too. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC) I do understand the points you are trying to make. You will be glad to know that I am making LDLHA a GA, just will take another day. That should solve all the problems. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Support now. Looks good. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – I have nominated "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" for GA. It will be done soon I hope. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Love Don't Live Here Anymore" is a GA now and added to the topic. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, although that GA promotion was surprisingly fast. Nergaal (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed with a consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Like a Virgin/addition1

Rivadavia class battleships

Rivadavia-class battleships

3 articles

Rivadavia

Moreno

Another WP:OMT series which includes the class article and the ships of the class. The main article just passed FAC, while Rivadavia is a GA and Moreno is rated both GA and Milhist A-class. I'm planning to upgrade this to a FT after adding a few more refs to Moreno and rewriting Rivadavia with information from Livermore's "Battleship Diplomacy in South America" and Schenia's Latin America: A Naval History and Latin America's Wars. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 06:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Ucucha 11:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I look forward to seeing those green circles turn into gold stars. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Aren't they bronze? Ucucha 11:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Eh, whatever :p Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support You managed to get Moreno to an A? Wow. Buggie111 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support though I'd liek to see it held, and have this promoted as a FT if Moreno passes its FAC. Courcelles 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, there is precedent for holding a nomination open while there was an open FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I would agree with this, but support GT or FT promotion either way. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 20:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Bahamut, whether this is an FTC or GTC in the end. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Moreno just passed FAC Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Meets criteria completely. CrowzRSA 23:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Will close tomorrow now that FAC's done (insert joke about now I'm not sure if there's enough support yet here) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there a review for FTC closes? This one had quite a lot of opposition. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

2003 Atlantic hurricane season

Removal of two articles from a current topic

2003 Atlantic hurricane season

21 articles

List of storms

Timeline

Tropical Storm Ana

Tropical Storm Bill

Hurricane Claudette

Hurricane Danny

Tropical Depression Seven

Hurricane Erika

Tropical Depression Nine

Hurricane Fabian

Tropical Storm Grace

Tropical Storm Henri

Hurricane Isabel ^(subtopic)

Hurricane Juan

Hurricane Kate

Tropical Storm Larry

Tropical Storm Mindy

Tropical Storm Nicholas

Tropical Storm Odette

Tropical Storm Peter

This is just a formalism: the season was promoted with 21 articles but two of the storm articles were merged into the season article. Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. --PresN 19:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to remove articles and promote from GT to FT. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Brill Tramway

Brill Tramway

8 articles

Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway

Quainton Road railway station

Waddesdon Road railway station

Westcott railway station

Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station

Wood Siding railway station

Brill railway station

Nominating for Featured Topic. Seven of the eight articles are FAs, and the remaining one is a GA; this set covers every article we have on the topic or are ever likely to have. (The locomotives primarily used by the line were one-off designs, which are never going to warrant their own articles.) – iridescent 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does "Church Siding" not have an article when all the others do? Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Church Siding was a very short-lived station (1871–94), which consisted solely of a piled-earth "platform" with no buildings or facilities of any kind. It was officially a station because it met the formal criteria of appearing in a published timetable; however, it was listed mainly because it was where wagons would be attached/detached to/from the trains for haulage down the siding by rope. The short paragraph at Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway#Church Siding literally says everything that has ever been written on it; since it would have to be included in the infrastructure article anyway, I see no point in creating a cut-and-paste permastub which will just be a content fork. – iridescent 20:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no connecting template; see criteria 1.c. Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

All of these are already in {{Metropolitan line navbox}}, which would need to be on all of these in any case. I see no point at all in making a second connecting template which will virtually duplicate the first. This does already meed 1(c); in that {{Metropolitan line navbox}} serves as a connecting template and they share a common category. – iridescent 20:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not notice it, but that reveals the problem that the way the template is now is not very useful from the point of view of wp:FT?. I am not sure how {{Brill Tramway RDT}} would not do a better job at it anyways (i.e. replace the big navbox in the stations with the "infobox" one); it clearly aids to the understanding of the subject more than an overly-complicated one. Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these route templates belong on station articles. I deleted a Northern line one from a bunch of stations on that line recently because they functionally duplicate the succession boxes, cause slower downloads and mess up page formatting.--DavidCane (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Support A long labour on Iridescent's part comes to a deserved end.--DavidCane (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Meets all the criteria, though reading through eight articles on trains in a row was a little mindbending! Courcelles 23:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that an earthen bank where trains occasionally stop doesn't need its own article, and I created a book for the topic. Though the topic formally meets the criterion that requires articles to be linked with a navbox, I do think it's a good idea to link the articles more clearly—not sure how though. Ucucha 00:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's no obvious way to do it (although I could rearrange the Metropolitan Line navbox somewhat to group them together). I'm vehemently opposed to including the route diagram templates because of the precedent it sets; the Brill Tramway was one of London Transport's shortest lines and the RDT is just about at a manageable size, but as we get into towns it would mean station articles having to include monstrosities like {{District Line}}, which are not only longer than most of the articles but slow pageload time down horrendously. The RDT duplicates information already given in the succession boxes, so there's no gain from adding them. – iridescent 00:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• My own view on RDTs is that those covering a whole line primarily belong on the article which covers the whole line; and RDTs on station articles should ideally cover the surrounding area, but not go too far. Area RDTs are good for junction stations, to show the layout of the various routes; as such, Quainton Road, with three routes at one end and one at the other, is a suitable candidate. Such station-area RDT would show the junction station, plus, for each physical (not operator's) route, one or two (possibly three) stations past the point of divergence, in order to establish context. This RDT may then be placed on each station article to which it links.
• Example 1 (bad): Stevenage railway station. This has three separate RDTs, one for each operator; one of these shows the whole line from Kings Cross to Inverness, whilst another is by default uncollapsed so dominates part of the article.
• Example 2 (good): Oxford railway station. This does not have RDTs for the different services (FGW with four routes; Cross Country with two and Chiltern with one); instead there is a single one, {{Oxford area RDT}}, which ignores operators and considers only relative positions of main features. This RDT is displayed in collapsed state, and when expanded is not overly large.
• So, Brill Tramway and Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway could have {{Brill Tramway RDT}}, which covers the line itself, and Quainton Road railway station can have something like this, which may also be placed on Waddesdon Road railway station because that specific station is linked from that RDT. However, Westcott railway station, Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station, Wood Siding railway station and Brill railway station don't need RDTs. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• While that is all quite reasonable, surely there are other ways to link the articles in this topic than using those big RDTs. (But note that I am supporting; this is just a suggestion for possible further improvement.) Ucucha 20:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I much prefer the combination of station-either-side succession boxes on the intermediate stations, and "true" maps (such as the one at the top of Brill Tramway). To me, they're far more informative—I understand RDT design, and even I have difficulty following them. There is literally no information in {{Brill Tramway RDT}} that isn't more clearly illustrated in File:Brill tramway system diagram.png – iridescent 20:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think Ucucha misunderstands me. I'm not arguing for big RDTs in all eight articles - I'm suggesting two small RDTs. One will have coverage area restricted to the tramway itself, excluding the rest of the Met (the existing {{Brill Tramway RDT}} fits that bill), which would be placed on the two main articles; the other would be a new RDT restricted to the environs of Quainton Road, to be placed on just two of the station articles. Four station articles will have no RDT at all, the existing succ boxes being perfectly adequate for a linear situation. The two RDTs don't need to be expanded by default, either: |collapse=<includeonly>yes</includeonly><noinclude>no</noinclude> can be put in the {{Railway line header}} of the RDT template.
• Whilst there is indeed no information in {{Brill Tramway RDT}} that isn't also in File:Brill tramway system diagram.png, the RDT has the advantage that it is clickable. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I realized that Wikipedia:Featured topics/Ring Line (Oslo) is quite similar to this one so unless there is some way to make the linking template less hidden, this topic is fine the way it is. One small note: try to order the articles in a more natural fashion, not just alphabetically. Nergaal (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Open to suggestions; do you think it works better with "Infrastructure" first, then the stations alphebetically, or should the stations be in order of succession (which might look odd to someone who doesn't know why they're in that order)? – iridescent 01:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Generally the order is not alphabetical: for example the Solar System has Sun, Mercury, venus, etc. So succession seems more natural, and infrastructure would be either the first or the last. Nergaal (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've put them in succession order; it's probably the most obvious. – iridescent 01:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support excellent series, well done. Bencherlite^Talk 05:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed with a consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)