Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/2015 log

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

[edit]

Minas Geraes-class battleships

[edit]

The following two topics are 100% included into an overview topic, therefore I don't see the point of having the additional rather obscure mini-topics:

edit | discuss
Rivadavia-class battleship
Featured topic
3 articles
ARA Rivadavia
ARA Moreno


edit | discuss
Minas Geraes-class battleship
Featured topic
3 articles
Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes
Brazilian battleship São Paulo


The overview topic is:

edit | discuss
South American dreadnought race
Featured topic
5 articles
Minas Geraes-class battleship (subtopic)
Brazilian battleship Rio de Janeiro
Rivadavia-class battleship (subtopic)
Almirante Latorre-class battleship (subtopic)

As a further argument, the "Almirante Latorre-class battleship" does not exist. Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - 100% overlap with parent topic for both subtopics. --PresN 05:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/South American dreadnought race/archive1. In the past 3 years the view has changed quite a bit. Ed, you should be very well aware of the super-topics that have been created under the mil-hist umbrella which in essence are quite similar to this issue here. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Former_featured_topics#Former_topics_that_have_been_merged_into_other_topics and you will see that 95% of the cases there are ship MINI-topics that have been superseeded by broader topics. The actual reason I proposed this nom was when I saw the numbers at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Main Page appearances. If you check them you will see that the Rivada views are quite below the broader topic. Other than for bragging rights I am not sure what would be the point of keeping topics separate, especially when the Latorre ships don't have their own separate topic. Also, if you read at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_criteria you will see a recommendation established a very long time ago: "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic." I am not sure how 100% does not fall under the "overly" quantifier. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Delist - yeah, better just leave the bigger one. (I don't even need to keep the link to FFT given the rationale is fully detailed up there) 02:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as is From where I sit, these three all cover different aspects, therefore they should be treated separately, not merged. Keeping them as they are would be in the best interest of everyone involved. Also, this serves as a preemptive measure since I am sure that if this is delisted sooner or later someone will renominate them figuring that they are different enough that they should be there own FT. By keeping them now we can negate having to do the Texas Two Step later. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an ill-informed nomination. A class of warships is a distinct thing, and so its a suitable topic for a stand-alone FT. The naval race was another thing again, and also justifies a FT. It's not like having multiple FTs is a bad thing. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, basically per Nick-D. Also, there are no quality issues raised with any of the articles involved, so therefore there is no reason to delist a FT. If a FA that was part of a FT were to be delisted, then wouldn't that have the effect of delisting the FT at the same time? Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the point of keeping these subtopics is so that when the end project is complete, they can be included without adding additional articles to what will be a large topic. And the comparison to the former GTs isn't exactly apt, since those are primarily topics that have since been rolled into national topics (which will be the building blocks for the final FT) - there aren't national topics these two can be rolled into. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81, Mjroots, and Parsecboy: Yo fan boys, can you actually cite policies for your views instead of turning this nomination into a popularity contest? Have any of you even glanced at wp:FT? ?. It looks like none of you even bothered to read the paragraph I wrote. I don't think this project is going to heat in any positive direction if one of the larger wikiprojects will decide to change consensus with complete disregard to existing policies with a call to arms on their talkpage whenever somebody feels insecure. Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with WP:NPA. Are we clear?
As to your substantial comments, the fact that we disagree does not mean I have not read your comments. If anything, it seems you have not read what I wrote, which substantially refuted your argument (in other words, there is a reason to keep the topics separate - this was addressed here, for instance). Oh, and I don't see anyone from either side of the discussion citing policies either. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy:@Nick-D: Having a current topic because of some possible issues with a future topic (that may or may not get to be nominated in the next 5 years) is (should) not be relevant here. Those issues should be addressed WHEN that nomination is brought up not before. EVEN THEN I see little weight for your point since you can still have a major topic where say all the 10+ entires subtopics are actual subtopics, and the smaller ones (Turkey and below) would not get separate subtopics and instead would be fully present in the broader topic. EVEN if this were not enough, your point does not stand when you see that NOBODY bothered to nominate "Almirante Latorre-class battleship" as a separate subtopic (by your rationale that topic would have to be separated also). EVEN if linking only 10+ topics is not accepted in that nomination, you could STILL link a continental subtopic instead of 3 national ones (I see no reason why South American dreadnought race would not be equivalent/on par to say Austria-Hungary). As for policy: "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic." Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also. Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read WP:FT, and it seems that my comments were generally correct. If an article is demoted, then there is a period of time allowed to bring it back up to scratch before the topic is also demoted. The fact stands that all articles in the topics are FAs, so I see no reason why the topic should be delisted. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: - I've said all I'm going to say on the actual proposal. Your continued arguing with those who do not share your opinion smells strongly of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a feature which also infests some AfD discussions. I suggest that you allow editors to state their opinions, and an independent admin close the discussion in the fullness of time. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Featured_topic_criteria#Recommendations there is a bullet point stating "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic.". The only reason this has not been made into FT? #4 is because there is a vague definition as to what constitutes "overly". I am pretty sure wherever you want to draw the line at, 100% does fall on the overly side. Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those recommendations are just that: recommendations. As for me, I draw the line at IAR, and since I perceive that the recommendations and rules as you are interpreting them prevent us from improving the encyclopedia, I am choosing to ignore them for the betterment of the project as a whole. There is no harm in co-existence, so that is the path I choose to follow here. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are aware of FL? #3b. Do you see any parallels between this recommendation and FL?#3b ? With the negligible number of users providing any significant input the wp:FT project will die before any consistent discussion will happen about this recommendation becoming an actual rule. Nergaal (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we drop the Almirante Latorre class point? Just because I was stupid enough to forget to nominate the class doesn't mean that it should disqualify the worthy arguments above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't already clear, I oppose separating these topics. They're different nationalities and therefore have an explicit purpose until the WP:Featured topics/Battleships of the world (or WP:Featured topics/Dreadnoughts of the world?) topic is nominated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Disclaimer: I was a co-nom on one of these articles. (OTOH, I've never associated myself with this featured topic, and my argument concerns all FTs, not just this one.) We can't consult a reliable source on what a "Featured Topic" is supposed to be; it's determined entirely by convention and practice on Wikipedia, and for many years, all the articles in a non-trivial ship class (along with the parent article) have constituted a featured topic. That's really the only argument that counts here; various recent and inconsistent notions of what featured topics should or shouldn't don't trump established practice. For better or worse, that's how Wikipedia works. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate idea: Why not keep the dreadnought race topic, but pull out all the overlapping articles? I.e. have the two battleship-class articles, plus create one for Almirante Latorre, and make the dreadnought race topic look like this:

edit | discuss
South American dreadnought race
Featured topic
5 articles
Minas Geraes-class battleship(subtopic)
Brazilian battleship Rio de Janeiro
Rivadavia-class battleship(subtopic)
Almirante Latorre-class battleship(subtopic)

Cuts out the 100% overlap, without losing any articles. --PresN 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like quite a reasonable compromise to me. Parsecboy (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like how it looks (is there a better way than superscripting it?) but overall I agree with Parsec. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging PresN and GamerPro64. I don't really like how this looks, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a great idea of how to make it better. Any thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit | discuss
South American dreadnought race
Featured topic
5 articles
Minas Geraes-class battleship (subtopic)
Brazilian battleship Rio de Janeiro
Rivadavia-class battleship (subtopic)
Almirante Latorre-class battleship (subtopic)

Having it look like this could work. Just using two columns instead of three. GamerPro64 19:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two columns looks better. As far as the superscript goes, that's the standard way to indicate a subtopic exists; while it's possible to come up with a better-looking way, that would be outside the scope of this nomination and should be brought up at the FT/FTC talk page. I did add in a space between the article and suptopic indicator, since that's the standard formatting. --PresN 01:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted

[edit]

Saffron

[edit]
edit | discuss
Saffron
3 articles
Trade and use
History

An interesting thing about this topic, whose articles Saffron and its Trade and use page were recently demoted from Featured Article status, is that this was the first topic to become a Featured Topic. All the way back in April 2006. But now times has changed and its a end of an era for the topic. GamerPro64 17:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot studio albums

[edit]
edit | discuss
Slipknot studio albums
5 articles
Slipknot
Iowa
Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)
All Hope Is Gone

I am nominating this topic for removal as it has passed its retention period for .5: The Gray Chapter, which has not achieved at least GA status three months after the album's release, so the topic is no longer complete, thus failing criteria 1(d).--十八 04:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist This is the function of the retention list is it not? Mattximus (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perfect example why the retention criteria should be extended to something like 6 months. The band is going on tour now, and presumably sales are going to change noticeably. I put the article for GAN to see what others think. Nergaal (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that the retention period is too short- I suspect, depending on the topic, it could realistically vary from a few weeks up to a few years, depending on the topic. However, the article falls short of GA standards- to name just two problems, the development/recording information is very light, the reception section is just a list of quotes. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unless the GAN passes before this discussion closes, which could likely happen. I know the retention period is in question, but that shouldn't override current rules. You can always renominate later.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So .5: The Gray Chapter failed its GAN. Coupled with the fact this GTRC has been going on since January, this nomination is Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted. - GamerPro64 14:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upsilon Andromedae

[edit]
edit | discuss
Upsilon Andromedae
4 articles
Upsilon Andromedae b
Upsilon Andromedae c
Upsilon Andromedae d

Nominating for GTR due to its failure of criteria 3.b. Like the other GTRCs involving Astronomy, this time around, Upsilon Andromedae e is not up to GA status, meaning the topic is not up to date. GamerPro64 05:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She Has a Name

[edit]
edit | discuss
She Has a Name
3 articles
2012 tour
[[:]]

With the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name being the article nominated be redirected to the main article, the topic fails criteria 1.a which says that there has to be at least three articles or lists in a topic. GamerPro64 21:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_removal_candidates/2015_log&oldid=1000267458"