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

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

World Series of Poker Europe

World Series of Poker Europe

3 articles

2007 World Series of Poker Europe

2008 World Series of Poker Europe

I am nominating the WSOPE for featured topic. This topic includes two lists which are both featured list and an article that is GA.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - this looks good, though I do have a few questions/comments before I support. Firstly, you need a free image for the topic. I would recommend an image of one of the players. Secondly, I imagine some list of players might be merited after this tournament has run for a few more years. Not at this stage but just putting that out there. Thirdly this is somewhat tangental but I am a bit confused as to why the word "results" is included in the two article names. I would think the more general name without "results" would be better, and if the reason the word is included is because the individual tournament articles are lacking in descriptive text then it might be worth beefing the descriptive text up a bit - rst20xx (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question about the results... it's there because that is the standard for the WSOP articles where we have an article on the 2009 World Series of Poker AND the 2009 World Series of Poker results... originally, the WSOPE articles just started out as lists without the elaborate lead and no corresponding annual tournament. But I do think you are right that the name should be changed. Let me check with the people at the FL group, I know that sometimes changing names of feature content can cause problems, so I want to let them know that it doesn't screw things up! After the tournament has run for a few more years, we probably would create some lists. Right now, we've included the WSOPE main event champions on the WSOP Main Event Champions article (Which is also FL) but as of yet, there haven't been enough events to have lists of players/winners. Added image of Annette Obrestad, the first WSOPE Main Event Champion---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Names changed

• Support - thanks! rst20xx (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Annette was too dark (and unknown) decided a poker hand would be better.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Meets all criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Rather small topic, but it appears to meet the criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

State highways in Marquette County, Michigan

State highways in Marquette County, Michigan

10 articles

• M-28
  
• BUS M-28
  
• M-35

• US 41
  
• BUS US 41
  
• M-94
  

• M-95
  
• M-553
  
• M-554

This topic has been in the works for a while, and eligible for FT consideration since the list was FLC-ed. I waited until now though to nominate it because the newest FA has just passed. The topic includes all of the state trunkline highways in Marquette County, Michigan. The three longest are currently at FA level, the business loops (which are state-maintained in Michigan) are GAs rated as A-Class by WP:USRD through the project A-Class Review. The remainder are GAs I will likely be working towards taking to FAC by the end of 2010. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - 4 FCs/10 total = 40% Featured Content. This is a great topic, Imzadi. –CG 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - 40% of the articles are Featured Content (more than the minimum 33% required per WP:WIAFT) and it covers every aspect of the topic broadly. Dough4872 (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The FL criteria have changed a lot since the lead article was promoted. The lead article should undergo a FLR before this nomination is closed (my opinion is that it does not fulfill the criteria anymore, and creating a topic based on this would be pointless). Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - like Nergaal, I am disinclined to support anything that is on WP:FLT. I realise that WP:FLT is in no way official, and this topic, as it stands, meets all the FT criteria, but what's the point if the lead article may not meet the FL criteria, and hence may just get demoted soon? Give it a run through FLR and see if it comes out the other side - rst20xx (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Query — If I am to understand correctly, it's being specific to one county that raises the flag on the FL at the heart of this proposed topic. There are two current FTs that are similar in New York for Hamilton County and Warren County at 6 and 11 articles apiece, respectively. The FLs at the heart of those topics aren't listed unlike this topic's list. What would the suggested geographic breakdown for highways in Michigan be then? There are 13 current Interstates, 13 current US Highways and 136 other current states trunklines. A FT topic based on 162 articles plus the necessary lead articles would be considered ungainly by many. I opposed the FT and FL for Amenia, NY because it was based on a census-defined place, but county boundaries are relatively fixed. The next level up from the county would be either of Michigan's two peninsulas. Please advise, since I can delay on a FT and redefine the FL to encompass all of the Upper Peninsula if needed, but Marquette County is the state's largest county, and would have the largest number of highway designations outside of the Lower Peninsula's metro areas. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  "The FLs at the heart of those topics aren't listed unlike this topic's list" - actually that's not true; notice that List of state highways in Hamilton County, New York is on WP:FLT but List of highways in Warren County, New York isn't. If I were to take a guess as to why, I would say it would be because the latter isn't just restricted to the state highways, but also includes the county highways, whereas the former is considered to fail 3.b. because of the splitting off of List of county routes in Hamilton County, New York. So it actually has nothing to do with generalising these lists across the whole state, but just with generalising them across a county. I can see the logic in this, and indeed if you reworked the lead article of this topic to include county routes, then I would hope that would solve the problem. It'd make for a much more useful list IMO.

Note also that despite the Warren list including county routes, the Warren topic does not include county routes in the actual topic, because as you say, to do so would make the topic too large. It's generally accepted that you can pick out a part of a lead list in this way - see also the "albums" topics which have "discography" main articles but don't include EPs, singles, etc.

So yeah. Add the county routes and that should fix the problem - rst20xx (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• As mentioned in the list, all roadways in Michigan that are not state trunklines or city streets are county roads. Since this is the largest county in the state of Michigan, the list of county-maintained roads would be enormous and dwarf the rest of the list. As an example, Heritage Drive is a county road, lettered as county road JAB. Midway Drive is CR 502. Both are sections of roadway formerly part of US 41 before the 4-lane divided highway was built in the 1960s. A listing of county roads was not included in this list, because as the article title says, it is a "List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan" and the list does discuss the other classifications of roadways in the county. Townships in Michigan haven't maintained or designated roadways since the passage of the McNitt Act in 1932, unlike where in New York, townships do maintain roadways. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Argh sorry I completely missed that, you Americans and your non-unified systems :@ Exactly how many county routes are there then? Is it possible to work out a figure? rst20xx (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• A conservative estimate would be at least 200. Remember that it isn't just the longer roads that carry numbers, but the streets in Marquette Township (which can be indistinguishable from the streets in the City of Marquette) plus the streets in the unincorporated communities of Big Bay, Champion, Gwinn, K.I. Sawyer, Republic and Skandia. I can request a copy of the county land atlas and plat book to see what I could do, but honestly it's going to be a large number to add. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm honestly I think that that is doable. Warren has 82 and yet the whole article is still only 27K. The thumbnail images are absolutely tiny - rst20xx (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Butting in about the Hamilton list - I can try fixing up Hamilton when it comes to County Routes, but Hamilton doesn't have any reference routes, interstates and or US Federal Highways. Just those 6 routes plus the 24 county routes.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 20:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support - Obviously meets the criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — after some consideration, I'm retracting and reformulating my previous comments here. I have an interlibrary loan request to get an atlas of Marquette County that would list the various roads, but I feel compelled to make a further point. County roads are not state highways. You're comparing two different systems at work here. One is maintained by fuel tax revenues and administered as a state wide system. State highways have minimum design criteria, they get priority for snow plowing and other maintenance. County roads don't even have to be paved! They encompass logging trails, gravel roads, and what would be streets if the municipality were granted a charter and made a city. There is a reason that they aren't state highways. The defined scope of the list is state highways, not "all roadways in the county". Incidentally, this county is larger than the state of Rhode Island. It's almost as large as Delaware. When I said 200 county roads, I was being very conservative. It's quite likely 5 times that. I won't worry about the thumbnails, only the numbered CRs would have shields, the rest are signed with blade signs like city streets. We would be including roadways that in New York are township roads or city streets. You can't compare Michigan's systems with New York's once you get outside of the definition of state highway. For that reason, I will oppose any attempts to force county roads into a list of state highways... the two systems are mutually exclusive. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  OK, well it would be good to know what exactly we're dealing with here (the logic surely goes that having two lists instead of one is a fail of 3.b, and 200 county roads is doable for one list... but 1000 certainly isn't), but at any rate this is largely a debate about the quality of the lead article and not the quality of the topic, and as such this isn't exactly the place to be having it (partial culpability to me here, sorry about that). The only thing relevant here is whether the lead article is going to get FLRed. I think in order to garner more supports you need to try and get the lead article off the WP:FLT list, and that may well mean starting an FLR on it and having this debate there, which IS the place for it - rst20xx (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The topic currently meets the criteria. If it doesn't at some point in the future, then it can be reviewed. And even if the lead list loses featured status because it's not long enough, it could still be audited due to having limited subject matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE the main article has been submitted for FLRC; see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan/archive1. This topic nomination will probably be suspended until the FLRC is closed. Nergaal (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the status of this nomination now that the FLRC was closed as a keep? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with that close. I thought we were waiting for you to receive the library book so we could determine exactly how many county highways there are. If there were a lot I would have happily voted keep. If there were sufficiently few, I (and maybe others) would have voted delist, saying that the article should be remodelled to include a section on them like List of state highways in Hamilton County, New York, List of highways in Warren County, New York or List of highways in Essex County, New York. But now we got no answer, which is the one thing I didn't expect - rst20xx (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I stopped by the library today. The interlibrary loan request is still pending. It seems that MeLCat (Michigan eLibrary Catalog) requests involving similar distances between libraries can take 3–4 weeks. It's only been around 2 weeks since that request was made. On another note though, quite a few editors expressed opinions that the list met the criteria to be featured in the first place. It could very well be that any FLRC would expire in the time it will take to get the book from a library that's 7.5 hours away. I'm unsure what you'd have any of us do next. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd like to wait until the book arrives. After all, there is no deadline - rst20xx (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Does that really have any bearing on this nomination? It seems like that's a matter for FL not FT. This nomination has already been held up by a featured list review, which is now complete. I think this topic should pass, and if the main list gets demoted at some point in the future then the appropriate action can be taken here. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, like originally argued, it is better to make sure a topic is not going to immediately run into trouble before promoting it. As per this discussion, IMO the FLRC did not resolve anything re: 3b. It might be a good idea to hide this nomination though until the book arrives - rst20xx (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just got the book today. I counted the roads from the index which covers 3 pages. The count of roads under the jurisdiction of the Marquette County Road Commission is 1,059. This should resolve the remaining issue from the FLRC and allow this FTC to continue unimpeded. I can scan the index if desired. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot that the index doesn't include the numbered county roads, just the named or lettered ones. I'll have to go page by page through the atlas to tally things like CR 480, CR 581 and cross-check to make sure that things like CR 551 (Cherry Creek Road) isn't listed in the index under the street name. In other words, the number is over a thousand roads. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Full support - that resolves that problem! There is no way that many roads can be added to the list so as far as I am concerned I do not see the list ever being delisted for failing 3b. Sorry that this held up the nomination for so long but it's all been resolved well in the end - rst20xx (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - despite Nergaal's outstanding oppose, I believe the 5 supports, and the fact that Nergaal opposed stating that the lead should undergo an FLR (which it now has, and it passed), mean that this topic has consensus to be promoted. If you could get M-15 (Michigan highway) and M-45 (Michigan highway) up to scratch then the four former routes could be added too - rst20xx (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  Actually scrap that, the two excluded routes were renamed, not decommissioned, and they are in the topic under their new names. D'oh... rst20xx (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Towns in Trafford

There are five towns in the metropolitan borough of Trafford: Altrincham, Partington, Urmston, Sale, and Stretford. All have been assessed as being at least GA, (Altrincham, Sale, and Stretford are FAs, and with Trafford 67% of the articles within the topic are FAs). As such, these articles meet the Featured Topic criteria of being comprehensive in their topic (towns in Trafford). The lead article, Trafford, covers the subject of the borough all of these towns are in and summarises the topic. Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Towns in Trafford

6 articles

Altrincham

Stretford

Partington

Urmston

Sale

• Support - very good. I do not think the lead is a perfect fit to the scope of the topic but I think the scope is a very natural one and cannot find a more appropriate lead. As a comment though, really nitpicky here but I think it should be "Towns of Trafford" rather than "Towns in Trafford" - rst20xx (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  Err any feedback on this? I don't mind either way but would appreciate a response - rst20xx (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not sure which it should be really. The towns are all within Trafford so "in" makes sense to me. Nev1 (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  "In" makes more sense to me as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  OK "Towns in Trafford" it is then ;) rst20xx (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, excellent work. If only we had such high-quality geography articles! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• It was a long hard struggle Julian, particularly with Sale, so thanks for your support. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support --PresN 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Han Dynasty

Self-nom: I believe this group of articles meet the Featured Topic criteria. Two out of six are Featured Articles (i.e. Han Dynasty and Economy of the Han Dynasty), so that meets the 33% rule. The articles Government, History, Science and technology, and Society and culture are all currently Good Articles. Government of the Han Dynasty is a current featured article candidate, but the outcome of its candidacy for FA status will not affect these articles' candidacy for FT status (according to Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria). Besides, it's already got four supports! Lol. I hope you guys approve; this will be my second Chinese dynasty featured topic after Song Dynasty. Like the Song Dynasty FT, this one also has a cool template at the bottom!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE! Government of the Han Dynasty is now a featured article!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE! Holy rusted metal, batman! List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty is now a featured list!

Han Dynasty

7 articles

Economy

Government

History

Science and technology

Society and culture

Emperors

• Support - All very well-written and researched articles clearly linked under the topic. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the support.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I strongly believe that List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty should be included too. Nergaal (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your concern, but I would like to be consistent with the other featured topic on a Chinese dynasty here. If the Han emperor list article was absolutely essential for this topic, then the Song Dynasty featured topic should have never passed, since there is, after all, a List of Song Emperors. Is there a specific reason why you think it is an obvious gap for this topic?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty up to FL status may take a while as well. If you absolutely insist on the idea (which I hope you don't), I could begin research with this book at my local university library: Chronicle of the Chinese emperors: the reign-by-reign record of the rulers of Imperial China (1998), by Ann Paludan. I hope her book (or some other source I can find online) includes information and the exact Chinese characters for all the personal names, posthumous names, and era names in that article. Otherwise, it will never be featured.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Paludan's book seems to be the only useful one at my library in regards to citing sources for List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty. I just checked JSTOR a moment ago and there are absolutely no helpful journal articles online in their database. It's the only scholarly online database with relevant history articles that I have access to.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. This IS a very nice topic, and I congratulate you for getting it together, but I think the emperors consists a fairly noticeable part of the topic. Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty is now a Featured List candidate.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - like Nergaal, I think List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty needs including. I also thing that the current Song Dynasty topic is lacking in exactly the same way, and have been considering raising my concerns for a while - I'm sorry I didn't do so before you nominated this topic. When the Song Dynasty topic was promoted, it was on the understanding that List of Song Emperors would be added to the topic as soon as possible. Well a year and a half later and that clearly didn't happen. I think it should happen and hence I oppose here, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could use Paludan's source to cite both the list articles for Han and Song, but that's not going to cut it. A featured list needs more than one source, as you know. And there really isn't anything else available to me (do you know of any useful sources? I sure don't). Plus, I have to state the question one more time: why is a List of Emperors an obvious gap? I've yet to hear a convincing argument for this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There are FLs with only one source for the whole list. And along with the sources used to write a lead, it should have n problem passing on that basis. I agree that the Lists of emperors should be included as FLs, or they should have been merged into the List of Chinese monarchs, which seems to redundantly cover the sub-tables completely. YobMod 12:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At 128 KB pre-sourcing, List of Chinese monarchs is too big and more realistically needs splitting down into the (often already existent) articles on the rulers of each dynasty. (Ironically both List of Chinese monarchs and List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty transclude {{Han emperors}} and are hence near-identical on the Han Dynasty) I find it impossible to believe that there are no sources out there for this stuff, otherwise how were not only the list but also all the individual emperor articles written in the first place? Maybe these articles aren't sourced but this is not stuff people are going to make up so sources are surely out there - rst20xx (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? You can use only one source? Hmm. I assumed that would be unacceptable, since I figured someone would complain if I used only one source for my article List of Chinese inventions, which is featured. Fair enough. Sometime this weekend I will go to the library and pick up Paludan's book. I hope List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty passes very quickly, otherwise it will sabotage this featured topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I checked out Paludan's book from my library, and intend to cite it in List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty as well as List of Song Emperors. I will first submit the former article as a Featured List Candidate, followed by the latter. This may take a while, so hold on to your bootstraps, people. Over and out.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  Nice. You could also try asking Nat Krause for what source(s) (s)he used when (s)he originally wrote the Han list - rst20xx (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My first guess would be the online Book of Han and Book of Later Han (in Chinese, no English translations yet), but I could be wrong. I've only been speaking and writing Chinese for three years now, so I'm not entirely fluent yet.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is now a candidate. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty/archive1. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Things are moving much slower than I had hoped for. So far there is only one support (and no oppositions) for List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty as a featured list candidate. I'm not sure how long this is going to take, but I should hope that it doesn't last longer than a week's time to get more supports and a pass for the list article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So far it has three supports! Things are looking better. Plus, according to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, any candidate list has to wait at least 10 days before the administrators in charge consider passing or failing it based on supports and oppositions.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now the list article has five supports. It will certainly pass, and then I can add it to this topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is now day number 8 of List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty's candidacy for FL status. It now has six supports. It will pass in just two more days. Then, I can add it to this topic. I can't wait!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's day # 10; the list article could pass its nomination any moment now! It now has 8 supports and is well on its way to being added to this topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• VICTORY It passed! List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty is now a featured list!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - congratulations! I am now happy to endorse this topic - rst20xx (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comment I know I should have brought this up at the FLC, but is "Emperor of the Han Dynasty" an official title? If not, it should be "List of emperors of the Han Dynasty". C.f. List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire for what I mean. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, never thought of it that way, but yes you could capitalize "Emperor of the Han Dynasty", because it is in fact a title. For example, Han Wudi is a regnal title derived from huangdi, the Chinese word for emperor, only here we are specifying that it is a Han emperor, and the "huang" part is dropped.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification. I support. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - good work by Pericles of Athens —Chris! _ct 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support and tweaked the emperors entry a bit. Nergaal (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their support!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Closing as consensus to promoteYobMod 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Phantom Power

Good topic nomination. Lead album Phantom Power, its two singles, "Golden Retriever" and "Hello Sunshine", plus Slow Life, an EP whose lead track is drawn from the album, and Phantom Phorce, a remix album consisting of tracks from Phantom Power are all good articles. Cavie78 (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Phantom Power

5 articles

"Golden Retriever"

Slow Life

"Hello Sunshine"

Phantom Phorce

• Support - a very good topic. I really appreciate you including the EP and remix album, that's what I like to see :) rst20xx (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent work, especially on Phantom Power. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - the last of 8 closes in a row :O but after a day of work, that's the backlog flushed - rst20xx (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons main cast members

The Simpsons main cast members

7 articles

Dan Castellaneta

Julie Kavner

Nancy Cartwright

Yeardley Smith

Hank Azaria

Harry Shearer

Co-nominators: Scorpion0422, Gran2 and Theleftorium.

This is a topic for all of the main cast members of The Simpsons (please note that Hank Azaria and Harry Shearer may make it to FA some day, so the topic could be switched to FT, if promoted). I know some users may say that we are just selecting the cast members and not including the minor ones, but these six are undisputedly the only main cast members. They have been credited on every episode (well, except Azaria, who became a main cast member in season 2), and the Fox promotional website only includes those six [1][2]. Anyway, enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Keep it up. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - I am a bit uneasy with the scope reduction from the regular cast to the main cast, especially when adding the rest of the regular cast (both former and current) would only add a further 11 articles to bring the total to 18, which is not too big for a topic. However these 6 certainly do form the main cast of the show, and as such, while I feel this topic needlessly scope narrows, I also feel that it has a well defined scope, and hence I vote neutral - 21:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question The nominator makes a good argument about why these cast members are more important than any others. However, I wonder whether there were any cast members who were very important in the early series but would not be credited now. One name that immediately comes to mind is Phil Hartman, who played key characters on the show but would not now be featured on the website due to the actor's death. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I suppose the simple answer to your question is: no. But, there were some minor changes in the first few seasons. For example, in a couple very early episodes, several now recurring characters were voiced by Christopher Collins. However, Collins was never given anything more than an "also starring" credit. This is similar to Phil Hartman. He was a regular voice for seven seasons, but he was never credited as anything more than a guest star. However, if Hartman is considered a main cast member, why not Tress MacNeille or Pamela Hayden, who are the most common non-main cast members, or even Maggie Roswell, Russi Taylor or Marcia Wallace, who (similar to Hartman) voice at least one regular character? The simplest thing is to stick with the credited main cast, and those six are the only ones. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support yet another step on turning this into Homerpedia... igordebraga ≠ 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose List of cast members of The Simpsons was promoted in 07 back when standards were very different. It does not meet current standards, and the lead is in violation of WP:LEAD. These problems should really be addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess subtlety isn't one of your strong suits, is it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I take it that you didn't bother to read the requirements first? The list clearly doesn't meet FL standards for content, and there is a huge MoS violation with the Lead. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Then nominate it for removal, and give me some better things to go on than "doesn't meet FL standards for content". I'm assuming that the "huge MoS violation with the Lead" you speak of is the ammount of non-summarizing text and references? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
        • That would be "5 Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." Normally, FL comply with this by having detailed information in the list itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually, that's not always true because sometimes such information doesn't really have a place in any of the defined sections, and there is no need for an entire section for a small paragraph. Now, could you please give me some guidance so I will know exactly what you think needs fixing? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
            • WP:LEAD is 100% clear that there cannot be any original information in a lead. You could create a section called "history" or "background" at the top of the list and then summarize in the lead (i.e. move the current lead down into that new section). Now, your page is 23k, so, according to Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, you should only have two paragraphs in the lead. I am sure that you can easily summarize it into two paragraphs. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
              • So you're strong opposing solely because the lead is a little long... And yet, this isn't important enough for you to nominate the list for removal, just important enough for you to oppose this. I'd also like to point out that #length is just a suggestion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
                • If you want, I can put up the list for removal. However, the result in either case would be for you to do the above. Hell, I could do the above in 10-15 minutes. Why don't you just divert your efforts into improving your page instead of fighting against any changes? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • I'm not fighting changes, I'm trying to get you to be more specific. I've moved one paragraph into a section, anything else? You also have to remember that this is a list, not an article, so not everything in WP:LEAD applies. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • • This is the specifics to leads in lists, which doesn't contradict anything in WP:LEAD about the lead only being a summary of content and specified to a certain size. The content at the top of the list is not specific to explaining the list, so it would have to go into its own section and then summarized in the lead (i.e. salaries and other such things). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There, I have moved most of the content out of the lead. Does it meet your standards? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You have to admit, the page looks -a lot- better than what it did, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, make sure to remove one of the first two sentences in Background. There is a redundancy. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well as the original 'writer' of the list, I wouldn't really say it looks "a lot" better ;) but it is certainly an improvement. For the record I never really liked the list that much and didn't really expect it to pass when it did. Gran² 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Would love to see this become a FT.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Question: Is there a reason behind the order in which they appear in the box above? I would have expected them to be alphabetized, but if there is another rationale for the order, I'm open to that. This question isn't enough to get me to oppose, but I want to make sure there is a reason for the oder of cast members.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • It's the order that they are listed in the end credits. It's very minor though, and can be switched to alphabetical order. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'm fine with that, as long as there is a rational reason for the order... when I saw that it wasn't alphabetical, credit order was my guess. I do like, whether it is a coincidence or design, the fact that the FA is in the center top row. Helps it to stand out.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    • It is probably better if this explanatory note is actually written in the article right before the table. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - topic number 7 for WP:DOH, with number 8 currently nominated as well! rst20xx (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ring Line

Ring Line

4 articles

Nydalen

Storo

Sinsen

I am nominating the Ring Line of the Oslo Metro as a good article topic because I feel it meets the criteria. The line consists of three stations, which are the only features along the line with articles. Self-nom by Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - topic is complete—Chris! _ct 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I am not really familiar with train line articles on the Wiki but am slightly confused by {{Ring Line}}. What are all the other stops in that diagram and how do they relate to the Ring Line? rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  ...nevermind, I'm being silly. It seems that the 3 stations listed form the Ring Line and then the ring in the name is formed by the fact that the trains go on from there in a loop. Is it standard practice for templates like {{Ring Line}} to show other train lines? It might be worth stating at the top of the template what stops belong to what lines because as it stands I think the template is confusing. Anyway, support - rst20xx (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  Although actually the articles for the other stations suggest further involvement in the Ring Line... I think some clarification is needed throughout, I'm somewhat confused - rst20xx (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry to flip-flop so much but I'm changing my vote because I think my concerns about the inconsistencies in the family of articles need addressing - rst20xx (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  Part of this confusion may have arisen because the Ring Line only connects to branches (the Grorud and Sognsvann Lines), that together with the Common Tunnel create a ring. Only the actual 5 km connection is called the Ring Line (making up about a third of the full circle). I have now rearranged the maps, so the map in the infobox only shows the Ring Line, while the old map has been moved to the service section to show how the trains running on the Ring Line connect to the Common Tunnel and other lines. I have also copyedited some of the other station articles on the Songsvann and Grorud Line to make it clear that they are not part of the Ring Line. This misleading information was probably added by editors in good faith, beliving that any station that makes up the circle is on the Ring Line.

  The Oslo Metro has a somewhat different naming scheme than many other metros: There are ten (named) lines, and each station is located only on one line. The Ring Line is by far the shortest and smallest of these. There are six services, 1 through 6, that operate on at least two lines plus the Common Tunnel. Therefore, a line is not the same as a service (unlike, for instance, the London Underground or the Paris Metro). Put another way, if all ten lines and all stations were brought up to GA, then each line could be a topic, and each station would be in only one topic, even though some stations are served by multiple services (train numbers). Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  OK, that's very helpful, thanks, but what about Carl Berners plass and Ullevål stadion? These two stations appear to be at the end of the Ring Line, connecting it with other lines, and indeed Carl Berners plass currently states this to be the case - rst20xx (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  Ullevål stadion and Carl Berners plass are located on the Sognsvann and Grorud Line, respectively. In both cases, the lines split north of (i.e. after) the stations, and they are therefore only on the one line. On the Sognsvann Line, the split happens just before reaching Berg (the next station), while I don't know the length on the Grorud Line. For instance, there were no modifications of either station when the new line was built. I have made all the line maps like this, showing the final station that is not on the line (see for instance Kolsås Line which contains one closed plus the current first station on the Røa Line). If other people find this very confusing, I can change it, but I felt that it helps orient the reader (of course, I know all this stuff, so how am I to know what the reader thinks). Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  OK I think this change helps, it's somewhat clearer now. Support reinstated above, sorry to flip-flop so much - rst20xx (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would support but I am getting confused by the two maps present in the main article. Why are all the other stations listed in the same way as the 3 stations if they are not part of the line? Can their relationship to the present line be made more clear in the present lead article templates??? Nergaal (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  I think the important point here is that unlike in other metro systems, in the Oslo Metro, lines run into other lines. So in most networks you'll have one service on each line, here you have many services each travelling along multiple lines. I think the fact that the whole diagram forms a ring which is also the name of this one line (which is only part of the ring in the diagram) and also, the descriptions of the stations are interleaved, only further confuses matters. Anyway, I have inserted a small portion of text in the bottom of the second diagram which is the best I can do to explain things - rst20xx (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But why aren't the three stations bolded, or the rest italicised, or some different color to easily differentiate from the other lines? Nergaal (talk)

I just realised Arsenikk hasn't edited since May 24! Well I bolded the appropriate station names for him - rst20xx (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nergaal, does the bolding sufficiently address your concerns? I would like to promote this topic, in spite of Arsenikk's continued absense!, but want to make sure you're happy first - rst20xx (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it looks ok now. Nergaal (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support. The improvment was done to which image? The "routemap" in the infobox iswas still confusing (i bolded the stations now). Other than that that these articles make up a distinct topic and are all good quality, so should be a GT.YobMod 11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  Oh sorry I bolded the stations in the second and not the first routemap. Good change - rst20xx (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

O'Brien class destroyers

O'Brien class destroyers

7 articles

O'Brien

Nicholson

Winslow

McDougal

Cushing

Ericsson

I believe that this topic meets all of the criteria to become a Good Topic. This is about a one of the United States Navy's classes of destroyers built prior to World War I. The class article is the main article and includes summaries of the articles covering all six ships of the class. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nergaal (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - keep 'em coming! rst20xx (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support --PresN 15:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is a no brainer. - DSachan (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - yet another topic for Bellhalla ;) rst20xx (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn

Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn

3 articles

Norton Priory

Halton Castle

I consider that the articles satisfy the criteria for a Good Topic. They cover all the listed buildings in the town of Runcorn. Two of these are listed Grade I and both are GAs. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I reformated your nomination into a box and picked an image for now; hope you don't mind. I would have thought that the list should be the lead, not Runcorn (which I don't think should be in the topic, as it's outside its scope). I'm also wondering whether there's "cherry-picking" here: I know that the two articles are the two Grade I buildings (top grade of buildings of special architectural, historical or cultural significance, for non-UK editors), but many of the other 57 listed buildings mentioned in the list have articles that aren't included here. Perhaps the title of the topic should be "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn" - or is that incompatible with the much wider scope of the list? Bencherlite^Talk 10:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the template, and the image - which is fine. This is my first nomination for a GT so perhaps I have not "got" the criteria yet. I included Runcorn to give some context to the topic, but I take your point. The cherries picked themselves, as it were. There are only two Grade I listed buildings in the town and none of the articles on the other buildings come anywhere near GA (yet). Anyway I would be happy with your suggestion to leave Runcorn out, make the list the lead, and change the title to the above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the topic as listed is clearly incomplete. Nergaal (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: while the overall topic looks much better now, I still oppose because to me this seems a somewhat forced topic and also one that has an extremely awkward name. Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - IMO Bencherlite is right on all counts. Criteria 1.b) says that "The articles have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope." This topic firstly runs into some trouble here in that the scope of the lead article (Runcorn) does not match the scope of the topic (Listed buildings in Runcorn). Changing the lead article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn (and removing Runcorn entirely) would alleviate this problem, but then the topic would secondly run afoul of criteria 1.d), "A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." Sure, the grade 1 listed buildings are the most important of the listed buildings, but they are only 2 out of 59, and the scope of the topic as it stands is purportedly all the listed buildings. Therefore, the topic should include all the listed buildings that merit articles (which I suspect would be all of them?).
  Again, following Bencherlite's comment, one possible way round this problem would be to change the scope of the topic to "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn". If you also changed the lead article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn, then this would somewhat fit - the scope of the lead article would still be much bigger than the scope of the topic, but doing this kind of scope-narrowing on lists is not unprecedented - look at the "Albums" "topics, for example Powderfinger albums, which has a similar scope narrowing from its lead, Powderfinger discography, an article which obviously also covers singles, EPs, etc., to just covering the albums for the topic.
  If you make these changes I think I would probably stay neutral the topic, because to narrow down to just the 2 grade I listed buildings seems a larger and more arbitrary narrowing than to narrow down to just albums. But if you did otherwise I'm afraid I'd definitely oppose here - rst20xx (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  PS I lived in Lymm til I was 3 years old ;) rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would will support a topic as outlined by Bencherlite and Rst20xx. I think Grade one listing is qualitatively different enough to merit topics containing only those rather than all graded buildings in an area. I don't think the number of grade-1 buildings is a problem, as an album topic of only 2 albums would pass, and any such listed building topic has to be split somehow due to the number of articles (which some discographies cannot claim).YobMod 15:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks for your comments and advice. I have changed the title and deleted Runcorn (but how do you get rid of that "Column3" thing?). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's gone, just by leaving it as a blank parameter. Bencherlite^Talk 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support as amended. Yobmod makes a good point (in fact, more than one): Grade I buildings are a natural and non-arbitrary subset of listed buildings, and a list plus two articles is enough to qualify for a topic. It is comparable to limiting a discography topic to albums only, so there is precedent for this restriction of the topic to an appropriate sub-set of the lead article/list. Looking at the list, many of the lower-level listed buildings are never going to get their own article anyway, let alone one of GA status (e.g "Walls, piers and railings, St Paul's Health Centre, High Street"(!)). Bencherlite^Talk 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  (You sure? See current GANs Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive and Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard, both of which are NRHPs. Similarly I suspect all graded buildings (objects?) might be in with a shot! They must have some history to them in order to get listed! For example, the walls, piers and railings "originally formed the entrance to a Methodist chapel" so I suspect they would actually be lumped together in an article about that chapel! rst20xx (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

• Support - Actually I will support, I think Yobmod was right. The topic certainly needs to be split somehow and this is the best way to do it. (Also I have piped the lead to match the title, as is standard practice, hope you don't mind) - rst20xx (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone for advice, recommendations and amendments - all very much appreciated by a novice in this area. Incidentally does it now satisfy the criteria for FT rather than GT? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, because FTs require 2 featured items minimum, and this only has 1 - rst20xx (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Close as consensus to promote. Nergaal's concerns about this being a forced topic (ie cherry-picked) do not seem held by others since the re-name, and were the only concern. If we don't allow splitting based on grades, no graded-building topic could ever be featured, which would not be good for the project.YobMod 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Noting that as of now, this has become a featured topic due to 2 of 3 articles being featured in the topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul London and Brian Kendrick

Paul London and Brian Kendrick

4 articles

Paul London

Brian Kendrick

Ashley Massaro

NiciVampireHeart, Nikki311, and I are nominating Paul London and Brian Kendrick as a Good Topic. The group consisted of the tag team Paul London and Brian Kendrick, and their manager Ashley Massaro. The lead article (London and Kendrick), as well as the individual members' articles (Paul London, Brian Kendrick, and Ashley Massaro) are all Good articles. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Passes all the criteria.--WillC 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - topic is complete—Chris! _ct 06:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I can see a lot of this type of topic coming down the pipeline :S Keep it up! rst20xx (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support --PresN 15:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Closing as consensus to promoteYobMod 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tucker class destroyers

Tucker class destroyers

7 articles

Tucker

Conyngham

Porter

Wadsworth

Jacob Jones

Wainwright

I believe that this topic meets all of the criteria to become a Good Topic. This is about a one of the United States Navy's classes of destroyers built prior to World War I. The class article is the main article and includes summaries of the articles covering all six ships of the class. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - meets all the criteria. Man, I wish I could write articles like you can ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - topic is complete—Chris! _ct 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Destroyers defeating the submarines at the moment. - DSachan (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - good stuff - rst20xx (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Nice work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I am pleased that these old destroyers are getting some of the attention they deserve (even though I'm still a sucker for the battleships). -MBK₀₀₄ on the iPhone 01:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Closing as consensus to promoteYobMod 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

4 articles

John Beilein

Manny Harris

DeShawn Sims

I am nominating this topic because I feel it is a complete topic. There are only two notable players on the team by standard interpretation of notability. It is not uncommon for fanatical fans to create articles for most regular players (players in the regular rotation) or most starters for a college basketball team. However, I believe the standard for college athlete notability is approximately those players who might reasonably be expected to become professional athletes. In the Big Ten Conference and most "power conferences", I believe the borderline on notability is approximately those players who have been selected to the All-conference team. Only two Michigan players show up on lists of professional prospects. These two players and the coach make up the entirety of the list of subarticles at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nomination fails 3a. Could be nominated as a Good Topic, as it meets 3b. cmadler (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In case you did not notice, this is being nominated as a good topic. That is why it is listed at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates#Good_topic_nominations--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I followed your link from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team‎. There was no indication that it was a good topic nomination; having never previously participated in the good/featured topic process, it looked like a featured topic nomination. My previous comment is withdrawn; this appears to be a complete topic that meets the criteria: support. cmadler (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - nice work! Of course if any of the other players do go on to become notable, their articles will need adding to the topic at that time, but this is good as is - rst20xx (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - now that someone !voted - I wasn't sure if this topic is viable at first given that not all players are included—Chris! _ct 18:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Meets all criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lights and Sounds

Lights and Sounds

3 articles

"Lights and Sounds"

"Rough Landing, Holly"

Timmeh and I are nominating Lights and Sounds, which just so happens to be the fifth studio album by American pop punk band Yellowcard. Aside from the album, its two released singles are good articles. I believe it meets the GT criteria. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - rst20xx (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• support - Yup, all's good in Yellowcard-mania-land. ceranthor 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2009-05-18T12:57Z (UTC)
• Support - pile-on vote, can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would prefer a clearer name for the topic,i.e. "Lights and Sounds (album)". Nergaal (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote - Nergaal, I agree that the name is misleading, but this has to follow the precedent of the other albums. Maybe we should look into changing all of the album topic titles. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)