Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/September 2010

Neverwinter Nights 2

Neverwinter Nights 2

4 articles

Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer

Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir

Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate

Articles comprosing the topic are sufficiently well sourced, no major issues with the articles. It meets most, if not all, the Featured Topic criteria. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:38pm • 11:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is already a good topic; it can't be a featured topic until at least two (more if the topic is expanded) articles are featured. Ucucha 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose suggest withdrawal - meeting "most" FT criteria is not enough, it has to meet all of them, one of which is that at least 50% of the content must be featured, which clearly isn't the case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Quick close? Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Moved nom from FTC to GTC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It is already a GT. I'll leave it to FD to explain why this should be a featured topic while none of the components are featured. Ucucha 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh; in that case I'm not sure why it's at FTC then. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The nominator probably did not understand the criteria well. Quickclose? Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I suppose so. We might wait for a response by FD, but he's been active elsewhere and hasn't posted here again. Ucucha 03:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Ah my mistake, I didn't fully read the criteria. Sorry about that! —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:36pm • 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with no consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

Victoria Cross

Featured topic

13 articles

Recipients by campaign

Crimean War

Indian Mutiny

New Zealand Land Wars

Zulu War

Second Afghan War

Second Boer War

First World War

Second World War

For Australia

For Canada

For New Zealand

Another merge proposal. It appears artificial to have two separate topics on the same subject. Nergaal (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• This seems reasonable enough, although I would like to hear the opinions of some contributors. Ucucha 06:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to clarify: this would be a merge of these two topics

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Victoria Cross

Nergaal (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the Wikipedia:Featured topics/Victoria Cross topic is about four different awards with the same name. While the Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign covers awards of the British medal by campaign. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jim Sweeney -MBK₀₀₄ 05:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• My thanks to Jim for letting me know about this. My position hasn't changed since the nomination for the campaign recipients. My arguments there still hold I think. Woody (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jim and Woody. Although related, they are distinct and seperate branches of the topic. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose—the current structure, with two separate topics, works much better. While the topics are named similarly, they are distinct, separate topics. –Grondemar 01:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - for this to be properly merged, you'd need to write FLs for the Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders who won the VC. Otherwise you have a big gap. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1. List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients and List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients are FLs, the New Zealanders one was previously demoted as FL (by me) as the definitions of nationality for Commonwealth forces is so fluid. (see FLRC. Woody (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Close with no consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

4 articles

John Beilein

Manny Harris

DeShawn Sims

I am nominating this for good topic. It is the same type of nomination as Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. It includes the team, the coach and all notable players.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• What are we considering here? The lead article appears to be the same as the other topic. Courcelles 02:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I apologize, I copied the other {{Featured topic box}} and forgot to change that article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Who determines what players are notable? Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Basically, we go by standard application of WP:N to athletes, that is expressed in WP:ATHLETE. My interpretation has been to create articles for players who have exhibited sufficient excellence to expect them to become professional players. I generally support creation of All-conference players and deletion of players who have not been all-conference and show no signs of being expected to be all-conference based on their current play.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose all of the 3 articles (not the title) overlap with the other topic. A topic with 75% overlap and is borderline cherry-picking the least, should not qualify any recognition. There should be a bigger topic like "Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team in Beilein era" or something like that instead. Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to be suggesting a step backwards. The main articles are natural progression toward the goal of having individual season articles for each team's season. It is coincidence that teams in successive seasons have the same players and coaches. The seasons should not be merged because WP:WPCBB is attempting to progress toward individual season articles. Once we have appropriate main aritcles then we evaluate whether the appropriate articles are included to fill out the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • What I am saying is that a natural progression for this sort of topic is this:

• main article: Wolverines since 2007 (will have to be switched to Wolverines from 2007 until {x} when the coach will be sacked:
• the coach article
• seasons while he was a coach: 2007-8, 2008-9, 2009-10, 2010-1, and so on
• notable players while he was a coach: until now there seem to be about 3

This is the natural progression because instead of having huge overlaps between topics, there is a one, centralized, era-based topic, which will have under 10 articles in it. What you seem to want to make instead, is four topics encompassing 8 articles. Nergaal (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that WP:WPCBB does not want all the seasons under a coache merged. They want individual season articles. It may not seem natural to you, but that is what WP:WPCBB wants.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have requested that some CBB regulars come by and explain their opinions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on this as a Featured Topic (I don't really follow Wikipedia accolades criteria), but I'll chime in on the structure of the season article from a WP:CBB perspective. I would strongly disagree with grouping a team's seasons into decades or "coaching eras" as each season brings different games, results, stories, etc. Is there some overlap of the players each year? Sure, but it's still a different season of 35-40 games with different dynamics, etc. If there is overlap in the article leads, etc, it seems like that can be corrected via rewrite. There are 138 seasons of the Chicago Cubs and nearly as many planned for Everton FC. Help me understand why it would be different for college basketball? I don't think every team deserves yearly season pages, but those in the big conferences do, if someone is willing to create them. Rikster2 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am talking from a topical perspective. I don't care about the articles on every seasons, but if topics are going to be created, they could exist separately only if there is sufficient lack of overlap. From the perspective of topics, if there is a strong overlap (which is the case here, since asides from the main article, all the other ones are shared 100%) it is suggestive that the only way is to merge these pseudo-topics into a well-defined, non-repetitive central topic. Nergaal (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If I am understanding your objection, you now understand that from the perspective of the encyclopedia it is preferable to have both a 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and a 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team article, but you feel that in terms of analyzing the topic a third article Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team in Beilein era should be created even though it is not serving a desirable encyclopedic purpose from the perspective of the encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I am just saying that creating another topic with the only difference the "08-09" instead of "09-10" is serving an even less of a desirable purpose from the perspective of the encyclopedia. Nergaal (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Suppose a movie and its sequel both had the same stars could both not be featured topics? The main article is different.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that Harris and Sims are the only players from this team who currently satisfy WP:N, however Assistant Coach Jerry Dunn has an article and should be included in this topic (and similar topics for previous seasons in which he was involved). Possibly Crisler Arena should be also. cmadler (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I asked about the arena at WT:FTQ, IIRC, and the answer was that the arena would be a part of a Michigan Wolverines men's basketball topic but not a part of each season. Dunn's article existed at the time of the previous topic and I believe the feeling was that college basketball assistant coaches are not notable for being assistant coaches and thus his notability arises from his previous role as a head coach. You will find that most assistant coaches only have more than stub articles if they were notable head coaches or notable players.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I agree that college basketball assistant coaches may not be notable as such, but that doesn't make him any less a part of this or the other topic. I think those are separate issues. cmadler (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • This team had 2 notable players, 7 other major contributors, some guys who barely saw action, a coach and assistant coaches. In terms of this seasons topic, the 9 major contributors and the coach are the story. There is nothing that any of the other guys or assistant coaches really add to this topic. It is likely that in future seasons some of the other 7 players will be notable members of the team. I would support expanding the topic for them. I am not so sure about the other guys or the assistant coaches. They are not really a part of this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Let me offer a couple different examples to try to clarify my point. Consider a topic for Kentucky Wildcats football from the mid-1960s (I'm being deliberately vague because I don't know the exact years for this example, but given the exact years, it could be a single season). Pat Riley played on that team, and he should be included in that topic, even though it's not the reason for his notability. I don't know if he ever started, if he was a backup, or what, but he was part of the team (hence part of the topic) and has an article, so he should be included. Or, considering the current case, suppose that (to pick a random player) in 20 years Zack Gibson is a US Senator. He wouldn't be notable as a player on the 09-10 Wolverines team, but he should still be part of the topic, because he's part of the team. cmadler (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I would agree that Zach Gibson should be added to this topic if he becomes notable. He is one of the nine major contributors to this team and a part of the topic. There is a strong possibility that he might be a pro player since you can't teach height. He is to this team what Eric Riley was to the Fab Five. Like I said above, I would be willing to add any of the 7 major currently non-notable contributors to this topic because I can probably fill in the article with content related to this topic. The thing about Dunn is that his article would be predominately about another topic (his years as head coach with Penn State) with no significant content for this topic. Gibson had a major role on this team and if he becomes a pro player that someone wants to create an article for he should be added to this topic. Not so sure about the scrubs who do not have content for this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
          • An example of a person related to the team that should not be included in a topic, IMO. Suppose this topic were 1988–89 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, Dave Balza who was the student manager of the team (according to this) should not be required for the topic. Neither should a trainer, ballboy or usher who goes on to be a notable person. Balza would add no encyclopedic content to the topic although he may have encyclopedic content for his own life.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, I can't say much more than that I disagree with that. I think Dunn should be a part of this topic, and I think Balza should be a part of the topic on the 1988-89 team. I think I've made my opinion clear on that matter. cmadler (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Support I dont think think objection above is an issue. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Per above. Overlapping and the main article lacks detail anyhow. Nothing on the aftermarth, team tactics. You can't tell a sotry just by looking at tables. Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Close with no consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Family Guy (season 5)

Family Guy (season 5)

19 articles

"Stewie Loves Lois"

"Mother Tucker"

"Hell Comes to Quahog"

"Saving Private Brian"

"Whistle While Your Wife Works"

"Prick Up Your Ears"

"Chick Cancer"

"Barely Legal"

"Road to Rupert"

"Peter's Two Dads"

"The Tan Aquatic with Steve Zissou"

"Airport '07"

"Bill and Peter's Bogus Journey"

"No Meals on Wheels"

"Boys Do Cry"

"No Chris Left Behind"

"It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One"

"Meet the Quagmires"

The topic covers all of the episodes produced and aired during the fifth season of the animated comedy series Family Guy. I would like to promote this topic to good topic, as I believe it meets all of the criteria. Gage (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Fails criteria #3 ("Each article is of high quality, including the referencing."). Sorry, but the first few ones I took a look at are in a serious need of a copyedit. I've requested reassessments of the first two articles I looked at due to their poor quality. Ωphois 09:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Ophois review. JJ98 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support actually. I went through the articles and at a first glance, they don't appear to me as seriously failing the GA criteria. Only Chick Cancer appears to need some touchups. For this and since this is a GTC (and probably a FT in probably forever) I don't mind this being a GT. Plus, some older Simpsons seasons or older similar topics are not in better shape. Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, while there may be the odd hiccup with some of the episodes, the articles in this topic have seen some improvement over the past couple of weeks, and I feel it might be ready. -- Matthew RD 17:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Nergaal and Matthew...the articles all look good. CTJF83 chat 06:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The articles are written in an unencyclopedic style which encourages primary source material and pop culture ahead of encyclopedic content, scholarship and analysis from independent reliable secondary sources. FT Candidates should be supporting the five pillars, not undermining them. I could easily quote the poor prose and sourcing in these articles if necessary, but do not wish to cause unnecessary embarrassment to those supporting the articles in this topic. Flaws can be found in many of them. Geometry guy 23:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Hell Comes to Quahog" has been delisted as a good article. Ωphois 22:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose because, with one article no longer a GA, it simply no longer meets the criteria. Drop me a line if the article manages to get back to GA while this remains open -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Closing as failed; withdrawn nomination. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)