Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/September 2008

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Physical geography of Somerset

Main page	Articles
Geology of Somerset	Avon Gorge - Blackdown Hills - Cheddar Gorge - Chew Valley Lake- Exmoor - List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon - List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset - Mendip Hills - Quantock Hills - Somerset Levels

I would like to nominate "The Geography of Somerset" as a featured topic as it covers all the protected areas within the county. Exmoor is a National park and the Blackdown Hills, Mendip Hills and Quantock Hills are designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Chew Valley Lake and the Somerset Levels are the only two other Special Protection Areas within Somerset. These are supported by the Geology of Somerset and the two major Gorges Avon Gorge and Cheddar Gorge which are amongst the Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset and Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon (which covers part of the county). 4 articles and 2 lists are FA out of the 12 in total, with the rest being GA. I believe they represent comprehensive coverage of the topic. I nominated all of them to their current status, (except Cheddar Gorge and Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon which were nominated by User:SP-KP and Avon Gorge which was a GA in 2006 & I can't find the nominator) although I obviously acknowledge the contributions of other editors particularly User:TimTay, User:Pyrotec, User:Malleus Fatuorum and many others many of whom are members of WikiProject Somerset.— Rod ^talk 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for cherry-picking. Why are articles such as Mendip, Sedgemoor, Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset, South Somerset, Taunton Deane and West Somerset not included? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles you have selected are Unitary Authorities or district councils and not part of the physical geography - they are man made arbitrary divisions for local government purposes.— Rod ^talk 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're completely right, I misread the topic. Sorry about that. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - nice work. Though can you clarify why Avon Gorge and Cheddar Gorge are more notable than other articles excluded? You need to convince me that they should be included - rst20xx (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The gorges are the largest individual physical features which provide unique insights into the geology and ecology of the county - but could be removed if you feel this is vital?— Rod ^talk 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The main article is not appropriate for the topic. I would like to see Somerset removed and Geology of Somerset become the lead artilce. Zginder 2008-09-16T22:24Z (UTC)

  The main Somerset article provides context and demonstrates how the physical has influenced human behaviour (for thousands of years). If you really want the main article changed would I have to move the nomination template to the Geology of Somerset article?— Rod ^talk 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you were to make such a change, that would be what you'd have to do, yes - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Support I can not find another reason to oppose. Zginder 2008-09-18T03:23Z (UTC)

• Support. Oppose. Sorry, but I have to agree that the main article as it stands now is inappropriate for the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Main article changed In response to the comments by Zginder & Rreagan007, I have changed the main article for the topic to Geology of Somerset. I hope I've done all the right things to the template & talk pages - but I'm not sure.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you did it right - rst20xx (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support now main article has been changed. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - in light of the removal of the Somerset article, would this topic merit a rename to "Geology of Somerset"? rst20xx (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Several of the articles (eg Exmoor, Mendip Hills, Somerset Levels ... ) deal with ecology, human use and other issues, which are only partly defined by the geology - but I could live with the title change if everyone thought that was more appropriate.— Rod ^talk 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would actually like to see the name changed. "Physical geography" as it is being used here is basically just geology, and I don't see ecology or human uses is any better captured by "physical geography" than "geology." It is also best if the topic and the lead article are the same if possible. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with the nominator on this one, "phisical geography" captures the human uses better than "geology". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - there doesn't appear to be consensus for a further rename so I shall promote this as "Physical geography of Somerset" - rst20xx (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Physical geography of Somerset/addition1

Jesus College, Oxford

Main page	Articles
Jesus College, Oxford	Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) - List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford - List of Principals and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford - List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners of Jesus College, Oxford

Self-nom for Featured Topic status, with User:Casper Gutman having got the main article to GA status last year and approving this bid for FT status. I consider it meets the FT criteria and would welcome your views, especially positive ones... Bencherlite^Talk 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - you need to include Oxford Union, as all you guys seem to use it as the de facto college bar Support - just kidding... very, very nice work, now can you work on St Catz please? :P rst20xx (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but wouldn't the difficulty be that the notable alumni list would be too short to gain Featured status?! <runs away> Bencherlite^Talk 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that may be true, but I'm sure an article on the buildings would be able to instead :P rst20xx (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And the Arne Jacobsen cutlery ... Bencherlite^Talk 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-09-15T14:45Z (UTC)
• Well, I certainly support this, but as a major contributor to the main College article I'm not sure I'm supposed to count.... In any case, just wanted to register my support—and my awe at the immense amount of work Bencherlite must have put into the research for all those beautiful lists! Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 07:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Jesus College, Oxford/addition1 25 October 2008
2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Jesus College, Oxford/addition2 10 May 2009
3. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Jesus College, Oxford/addition3 1 July 2009

Aston Villa F.C.

Main page	Articles
Aston Villa F.C.	History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874–1961) - History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) - Villa Park - List of Aston Villa F.C. players - List of Aston Villa F.C. managers - Aston Villa F.C. seasons - Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records

I am nominating this for Featured topic as I believe it meets all the criteria, and it is complete. This follows in the wake of Gillingham F.C., York City F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C.. There is also Bodymoor Heath, Second City Derby and possibly Aston Villa F.C. Reserves and Academy but they are all peripheral to the main topic. Perhaps a future supplement. Thanks for your time. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously it would be preferable to have all of the articles at Featured status, but six out of eight articles being featured is enough. I can't see any obvious holes in the scope of this topic. Good work Woody! – PeeJay 21:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just to add that this should be a co-nomination, Everlast1910 (talk · contribs) worked with me on a majority of the articles, though he hasn't edited Wikipedia in about 4 months. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Fantastic set of articles, easily meets the criteria. Well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support BTW: should we have a second look at the 3(c) article is Gillingham F.C.? Zginder 2008-09-14T22:12Z (UTC)
• Comment - Do Aston Villa do a Player of the Year award? And I guess Aston Villa L.F.C. is another potential future addition, along with a few others. (And yes, there are actually 3 problems with the Gillingham topic, I've been planning to nom it for removal for quite a while) - rst20xx (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• The ladies team is an "affiliated team" and have little to do with Aston Villa, not least of all the first team which this topic is about. As with all teams there is a player of the year in various forms see the current list, but I don't know anywhere where this is studied in detail. I really don't think a list could be created about it, see its google hits for a understanding of why that is. I have two Villa books that go into a lot of detail into Villa, neither of them mention the player of the year awards in any detail whatsoever. Regards. Woody (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why are the individual player articles ont included? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Villa have probably had upwards of 1,000 players turn out for them in their 130+ year history. Surely you aren't saying that every single individual player, right down to the level of some guy who played once in 1897, would need to be included in the bundle to constitute "full coverage of the topic" or whatever the term is......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - you're right that the Player of the Year stuff is hard to find, but what you can find (e.g. 2008) I'd like to see worked into the topic somewhere. Also, List of Aston Villa F.C. players currently covers all players with 125+ appearances, and Featured Topics are very much a precedent-based thing - the bar is currently set at 100+ for this. These are minor complaints, but lead me to weak oppose, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I could work on the list of AVFC players, but the Player of the Year is an impossibility; it is simply not an area of study in sourcing (note not reliable sourcing, just sourcing of any kind). I have been all around Villa Park and haven't seen anything about it. The players of the year that do matter, see Aston Villa F.C.#Notable players. If other people consider the List of AVFC players a concern, then it can be worked on. It hasn't been seen as an issue though even through various discussions on FLRCs regarding season lists in general. See this FLRC for Arsenal, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Dispatches and Wikipedia_talk:NOTED_PLAYER#Arbitrary data for some background. I note, WRT to your observation about precedent that Gillingham is 50+. It all depends on the club; it meets the FLC criteria and it has been discussed at length before; the core topic is complete in my opinion. Woody (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:NOTED PLAYER#Arbitrary data just shows to me that Aston Villa is the only one with a bar higher than 100. I agree that this is more a concern for FLC, but I think this is also a concern for FTC as FTC is looking for notable gaps, and I feel this is a notable gap. Also notice that I said that you could only mention players of the year when it is sourceable (e.g. 2008). I suppose however this information would look out of place if it only appears for some years and not others, this could be worked around by deferring the information to the seasons articles, which would take it out of the scope of the proposed topic but would also mean it's there somewhere, available for a possible future subtopic - rst20xx (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say I would include it, even if I did have a complete and definitive list (which doesn't exist as far as I am aware). In 2 hours of searching through the internet and through 10 years worth of old programmes, I find little to no mention of it. It is simply not a topic of study, no matter how much you, or I, wish it to be. Randy seems to have reinvigorated it. Pushing it off to the seasons would seem appropriate, though that would involve creating those articles; the category is quite bare as I am dubious about the usefulness of them. If a definitive list of them was required for it then frankly that is exasperating to me. In terms of the players list, I can't remember anyone else deeming it to be a concern, and I certainly don't think it is a gap in the topic, though I would like further opinions. I have a book that I could update the list with, I am just uncertain as to whether it is a neccessity, or needed. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well OK, how many years can you find player of the year information on? rst20xx (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• 2007-2008 Gabriel Agbonlahor
• 2005-2006 Steven Davis
• 2001-2002? Paul Merson
• 2000-2001 Paul Merson
• 1996-1997 Dwight Yorke
• 1995-1996 Dwight Yorke
• It simply isn't notable for Villa, we don't have cups that some of the smaller clubs have such as York and Ipswich. Villa tend to concentrate on nationally recognised awards such as the PFA, which are included in the Villa main article. Woody (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, add a mention that Gabriel Agbonlahor was POTY to the (admittedly needing work) Aston Villa F.C. season 2007-08 article and I'll drop that half of my oppose - rst20xx (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Woody (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you - rst20xx (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• (<--Indent) Note, opened discussion at FOOTY. Woody (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support without the need for player of the year list or expansion of the players list to 100+. On the POTY, I accept what Woody says about it not being a major thing for Villa, and so the topic is complete without it; on the expansion of the list, unless the FL star is removed through FLRC, surely the existence of the star is enough for FT purposes. The FT criteria don't have (as I read them) an extra standard saying that the FT process can go behind the award of the FL star and say that the list should be improved. Bencherlite^Talk 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support as is, I feel the topic is complete as it stands -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support as is. ErikvDijk (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - good work - rst20xx (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Category 5 Pacific hurricanes

Main page	Articles
List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes	Hurricane Patsy (1959) - 1959 Mexico Hurricane - Hurricane Ava (1973) - Hurricane Emilia (1994) - Hurricane Gilma (1994) - Hurricane John (1994) – Hurricane Guillermo (1997) - Hurricane Linda (1997) - Hurricane Elida (2002) - Hurricane Hernan (2002) - Hurricane Kenna - Hurricane Ioke

I am nominating this topic for featured status because it meets all of the criteria. There are thirteen articles in this topic. Of them, four are of featured quality (one list and a the remainder articles). 4/13 is 0.3077 (rounded to four decimal places), which means that slightly more than 30% of the articles in this topic are of featured quality. They are linked together through {{Template:Category 5 Pacific hurricanes}}, as well as a common category. This is a self-nomination, as I have worked on some of the articles/list in this topic. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well done. Disclaimer: I wrote Hurricane Hernan (2002). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good job. Zginder 2008-09-13T00:12Z (UTC)
• Support looks good Jason Rees (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support due to good looking topic plus it fulfills the 25% percentage. Note, I'm supporting it as unbiased and not due to my imput (I wrote the article on Elida). Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support and as an additional comment, the overlapping articles with Wikipedia:Featured topics/Retired Pacific hurricanes are... Hurricane Ioke and Hurricane Kenna. This seems perfectly acceptable to me - rst20xx (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The more I think about it...why is Typhoon Paka not included? I know it reached Category 5 in the west Pacific, but it formed in the central Pacific. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason Paka is not included is because it was not a Category 5 Pacific hurricane; it was a Category 5 (Pacific) typhoon. The fact that it reached Category 5 intensity in the west Pacific is irrelevant because it was never that intensity in the east Pacific. The part of the lead starting with "Identical phenomena...." makes it clear what the scope of the list, and by implication, the topic, is. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Additionally, Paka is not included in the template that links all of the articles, for reasons Miss Madeline mentioned above. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, works for me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Comment, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC) The lead article, List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes needs a fair amount of cleanup (refs need to be formatted correctly, lead fleshed out, general copyedit etc.). I don't think it will affect the promotion of this topic, but this should be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added and reformatted references. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added other issues on the article talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have resolved those comments. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the rest of the comments on the talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support we need more hurricane-related featured topics -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Category 5 Pacific hurricanes/addition1
2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Category 5 Pacific hurricanes/addition2

Guadalcanal Campaign

previous FTC

Main page

Articles

Guadalcanal Campaign

Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo - Battle of Savo Island - Battle of the Tenaru - Battle of the Eastern Solomons - Battle of Edson's Ridge - Actions along the Matanikau - Battle of Cape Esperance - Battle for Henderson Field - Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands - Matanikau Offensive - Koli Point action - Carlson's patrol - Naval Battle of Guadalcanal - Battle of Tassafaronga - Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse - Battle of Rennell Island - Operation Ke

The main article as well as all 17 sub-articles in the campaign box are now at Featured level. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. A comprehensive, consistent and coordinated series of articles on this campaign. Cla68's work here has been stellar. Kablammo (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate Kablammo's frequent help during the two-year effort to build all of these articles. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Wow, what an accomplishment, make sure you have a free use image for the topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support That is truly amazing. An 18-article topic that's entirely featured? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very well done! --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work Gary King (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Nice. That represents a lot of work. Any thoughts about adding Cactus Air Force and Tokyo Express sometime as supplemental? Gimmetrow 02:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Cactus Air Force and Tokyo Express actually overlap with the Solomon Islands Campaign, so, I'll probably include them in that topic once it's ready, add them to this one, or both, if that's permissible. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Gimmetrow 00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Stellar work! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support as of August 28 As I suspected in the last nomination this was deliberately withheld until the last GA was made FA, this should not be allowed!!! This is why non-contributors need to be able to nominate. Zginder 2008-09-12T04:24Z (UTC)
• Support These are all outstanding articles. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nick provided a lot of valuable help during this effort that is much appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - truly amazing, will be up there as one of the best featured topics Wikipedia has. And as a comment, as Cactus Air Force and Tokyo Express overlap with both this and a potential larger Solomon Islands campaign, in my opinion it is certainly allowable for you to include them in both topics, as this would not present unreasonable levels of overlap - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Impressive! ErikvDijk (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support – this is quite a collection, its not every day you get to see 18 interlinked featured articles. -- Sabre (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent work. -- Qjuad (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - been following this for a while, a truly brilliant achievement.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely amazing achievement, excellent work. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support A fantastic effort. Seems a complete topic, all are FA, so meets the criteria as far as I can see. And to Zginder, I think this is a perfect example of why it should be main article contributors only, (or with their agreement of course). Regards. Woody (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• But the main contributor ignored the rules and would not let it be nominated until all the GA's were FA's. Zginder 2008-09-14T21:14Z (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with that. If an editor works on a series of articles, writes them, and builds them, why isn't he allowed to wait until he's reached his goal before letting someone nominate it or doing it himself? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• (E/C) No he didn't "let anyone" nominate it until he thought it was complete, which it now is according to him. The main contributor is usually the one with the most time and effort invested into the articles, and usually the one with a high knowledge of what makes the topic complete. It is only right that the original creator and developer, the one who has invested the most time in the topic. Anyway, not the place for it, bring up a comment at FTC (and remove the discussion from here), this is not the place for this. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Congratulations to Cla68! —WWoods (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support this is an exemplary piece of work, well done. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - WOW. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - an incredible effort on the part of Cla68. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - Jeez, promoting an 18-article FT is going to take me hours... I better get to work! rst20xx (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Main asteroid belt

Note this was a Featured Topic candidate - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

or Major asteroids in the main belt

or simply Asteroid belt

Major contributors: Serendipodous; RJHall; Deuar; Nergaal; Ruslik0; Urhixidur; Kwamikagami.

Slightly more than 50% of the entire mass of the belt is found in these 4 minor planets.[1] They are known among astronomers as the "big four".[2] Some sources indicate that the total mass of the three next most massive asteroids is about as much as the last in this list. These 4 are also the only probable candidates for achieving hydrostatic equilibrium. Nergaal (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am going to support. Zginder 2008-09-08T02:28Z (UTC)
• Support. - Meets the criteria, high percentage of featured content, nice work. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've taken a look at this topic, and I think that this topic should actually just be titled "Asteroid belt" instead of "Main asteroid belt." The topic would have all the major bodies of the asteroid belt as articles, and would therefore be comprehensive, as smaller asteroid belt objects are probably not noteworthy enough to warrant their own articles within the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically is "Main asteroid belt" but popularly is simply "Asteroid belt". Nergaal (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes I see. For the sake of simplicity I think it would be better for the topic to just be named "Asteroid belt" since that is the title of the lead article and is the term that is more commonly known. But either way I support the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - you have spent the time trying to convince us that this topic has no notable gaps in terms of main belt asteroids. You point out that the "Big Four" contain more than 50% of the mass of all the MBAs. Howvever, I don't think you've convinced me that there is a huge gap between the smallest of the big four, and its nearest competitors. Contrary to what you state above, according to this, the mass of the fifth and sixth biggest MBAs are 6.6 × 10¹⁹ kg and 6 × 10¹⁹ kg, respectively, whilst the fourth is only 9 × 10¹⁹ kg. So which is right, you, or the list?

...Conversely, as you successfully establish the concept of these four asteroids being the "big four", I'm not sure how much the weight gap matters (though I would still appreciate clarification). One thing you have not even attempted to address though is whether the topic has any notable gaps in terms of related articles. And what does matter to me is that I believe that List of notable main belt asteroids constitutes such a gap, and for this reason, I oppose - rst20xx (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - actually, I withdraw that, based on precedent. I didn't lobby to have List of plutoid candidates included in the Dwarf planets topic, nor articles such as Table of the largest objects in the Solar System included in the Solar System topic. I think all these things should have been included, but precedent dictates that they needn't be. I therefore change to neutral, and state that I would like to see you guys work on including such articles as future additions to all three topics - rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was looking at going for this topic I considered that page too. But soon I realized that half of that page is in fact related to asteroids in general (not only those in the main belt). I actually moved the page from List of notable asteroids to there, and after realizing the mistake I tried to undo the move but I couldn't (no deletion rights). Nergaal (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, in that case it shouldn't be included anyway :) Bring the page to WP:RM as an uncontroversial move, explain what you did and why it's wrong and it'll be moved back no problem - rst20xx (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support- I guess that the fact that only these four are close to hydrostatic equilibrium sets them appart from the next dozen or so. That would mean there is no gap ErikvDijk (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support now it's moved back. And call it "Main asteroid belt" please, common name is less of a worry here, rather go for unambiguity - rst20xx (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose — I would like to see List of notable asteroids included for completeness. I don't think that not having Table of the largest objects in the Solar System sets a precident because there is a clear divide between things like plants and regions versus smaller things; in this topic, however, the dividing line, though logical, is still an arbitrary line. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the List of notable asteroids contains tables of which half or more contain asteroids that are not in the main belt. I believe that the logical place for that list would be in a general "Asteroids" topic, where "Main asteroid belt" should be a subtopic, along with the other asteroid belts (i.e. Kuiper?). Nergaal (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if that article is unacceptable, I still feel that this topic is lacking information on the smaller asteroids. the lead article does a good job of describing the average characteristics of the average asteroid, but I would like to at least see the names of a few more of them. This might be nitpicking, though, so I'll change my vote to neutral. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - and sorry it took so long - rst20xx (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1997 Pacific hurricane season

Note that this was a Featured Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
1997 Pacific hurricane season	Hurricane Guillermo (1997) - Hurricane Linda (1997) - Hurricane Nora (1997) - Hurricane Pauline - Hurricane Rick (1997) - Typhoon Paka

This meets all of the criteria. All of the articles (there are no lists) are either featured or good. In the unlikely event someone decides to split off another new article I will work fast to make sure this topic still meets the criteria. These articles are all linked by {{template:1997 Pacific hurricane season buttons}} and are also in the common category, category:1997 Pacific hurricane season. (The remaining articles in that category are simply placeholder disambiguation pages and not in any sense subarticles of the main one). For those reasons, I have decided to nominate it. (This is a self-nom) Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria. It'd be nice to have some more FAs, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment in the main article, the timeline graph has no legend. Nergaal (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I added one. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - OK, this is going to be slightly complicated. I'm sorry, but following a vote, on September 1st the minimum FA requirement in 3.a)i) is due to go up to 25%. Hence, by the time this FTC is over, the topic will no longer meet the criteria. I realise now that the impending increase isn't mentioned in the criteria, only on talk pages, and so you probably didn't realise - I apologise for this, on reflection that's quite stupid of us, and I've just rectified it. (We're still working out what will happen to the topics that will stop meeting the criteria, they might not go into the usual retention, as...) It is also worth noting however that Good Topics have recently passed a straw poll, and we're currently working out the finer details of how to implement them. And while this proposed topic won't meet the featured topic criteria, it will meet the good topic criteria, so in theory it could pass as a good topic. Also it's worth noting that the plan is that when a good topic gets enough featured content to become a featured topic, it will do that automatically, without another nom required. But as I said, we haven't implemented good topics yet, and it may be another week, and obviously this can't pass as a good topic until this is finalised. (Arctic Gnome, as the promoting editor, do you think maybe this nomination should be put on hold, pending the implementation of good topics?) rst20xx (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I would recount it Rst20xx, because at 25%, they still meet the requirements. There are seven articles, 7 divided by 4 equals 1.75, rounded up is 2, and they have two. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Per Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support- it's currently at 28.5% FAs. --PresN (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support There is no problem with the current nom. Zginder 2008-08-30T06:29Z (UTC)
• Support - Oh yes... How very embarrassing for me... sorry everybody - rst20xx (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support I support after a question on nominators talk page about other hurricanes in the season that don't have articles that has now been fully resolved. 02blythed (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Passes FT criteria. ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - In my view it meets the critera of a featured topic Jason Rees (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Where is User:Hurricanehink? Are you nominating articles behind his back? :P --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hehehe. Well, I'm proud to say I didn't have any involvement with this one (except getting Paka featured). I had forgotten about this nomination, but, since I'm here, support to the max!. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd say an FA gives you at least some credit. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/1997 Pacific hurricane season/addition1
2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/1997 Pacific hurricane season/addition2

Galilean moons

Note that this was a Featured Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
Galilean moons	Io (moon) - Europa (moon) - Ganymede (moon) - Callisto (moon)

Major contributors to the articles involved: User:Ruslik0, User:Serendipodous, User:Marskell, User:Volcanopele, and a bit me; also a few other members of the WP:Solar System. Nergaal (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This topic is probably a first step for creating a Jupiter, or a Moons of Jupiter subtopic. Nergaal (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Definite support - as much as I would like to see Galilean moons a FA, we'll have to see where it goes. I should oppose for the only case that Nergaal will pass me in FTs. ;P - Mitch32^(UP) 17:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support although it would be preferable to see Galilean moons as an FA as well. It may be GA but there are some issues with it (e.g. the sortable table doesn't sort mass correctly and ought not to sort on the image, there are some MOS breaches, e.g. failure to use en-dash in page ranges) which ought to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Solved all noted examples except for the mass (not sure how to solve it). But if you have more specific comments/suggestions you are welcomed to list them on the talkpage of the article and I will try to solve them.

I've fixed the mass sorting using the {{sort}} template. And a caption fragment. I may need to re-review the article as I'm not currently convinced it's even GA quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ok... Just drop the comments onto the talkpage or somewhere and I will try to do solve them. Nergaal (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not trying be difficult, but at my first glance I just saw some basic errors. I'll add it to my to-do list! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - 4 of these articles are already in the Solar System FT. Am I not right in thinking that Galilean moons is a unique article, i.e. it could possibly be merged into the Solar System FT without creating any notable gaps? rst20xx (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the gaps, put I think there is a tendency to break up the SS rather than bulkying it up some more... Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Exceeds WP:WIAFT w/ 80% featured content in a tight topic. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Fulfills criteria. Better to keep separate from the SS FT as this is a cute bite-sized chunk and specific in itself. Cirt, how do you calculate that 83%? I see it as 4/5 are featured = 80%. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 00:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My mistake, must've been a typo. Cirt (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Just have to get the main article up to WP:FA soon!~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 01:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• oppose I am sorry but I do not like the idea of a ft that is basicly part of an other with 80% of the same articles. Zginder 2008-08-23T13:21Z (UTC)

Overlapping is allowed by the Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. Until opposite, this oppose is not supported by the criteria. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to closer if the above nom goes though, I support. Zginder 2008-08-27T21:03Z (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, but I definitely have to agree with Zginder here. This is just unnecessary flaunting. Circeus (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you guys even read the above discussions? The point in the future is to break-up the main topic into subtopics and this would be a first step. Nergaal (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As per aboce, this is not supported by the criteria.Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - You say above "I think there is a tendency to break up the SS rather than bulkying it up some more". Tendency based on what? What above discussions? I see no discussion that it'd be broken up, just you saying so. I think you should decide with the other SS editors whether you're going to break up the main topic before you bring this nom, based on the assumption that it will be broken up. And if you do decide with them that you want to break it up, then you need to actually do that in a way that at no stage creates notable gaps in the main topic, whilst at the same time doesn't result in the silly situation of having a period of time where one topic has 80% of its articles in another topic - rst20xx (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, some research seems to contend that you and Serendipidous have decided together you want to break it up. But I'm still uncomfortable about the 80% overlap, and you don't seem to have fully set out a clear plan as to how to do this. As an additional comment, I like Serendipidous' idea of having an FT for each planet, and if you went after the Jupiter FT then this could comfortably become part of that. Then you'd just have to move 2 other moons out of the SS FT temporarily to not have any notable gaps there whilst also maintaining no excessive overlap, if you follow - rst20xx (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  ...see my comments below, at the Dwarf Planets nom - rst20xx (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  Until the FT criteria does not state anything against the 80% overlapping, even though might be silly, it is allowed by the criteria. When the criteria change, then the issue could result in changes to the structure of the topics involved. And as I've stated already, this topic IS ultimately intended/bound to be a precursor of a Jupiter subtopic. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  similar to the other FTC, which argument sounds stronger: Europa is part of the topic Galilean moons vs Europa is part of the topic Solar System. Nergaal (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  ...See my arguments at the other nom - rst20xx (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I have to say that it does concern me that the solar system featured topic could theoretically be broken up into a multitude of different featured topics (e.g. planets, dwarf planets, terrestrial planets, jovian plants, etc.), but the problem is due to the fact that the solar system editors have done such an amazing job getting so many articles in the topic up to featured status. They should not be penalized for their hard work and success. Until the featured topic criteria is changed, new featured topics should be approved if they meet the criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - The Featured Topic criteria is abundantly clear on the requirements for a featured topic, and this topic meets all of them. If you want to alter the criteria, be my guest, but this is not the place to discuss it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Meets all requirements. Good work by all involved. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oh lord, we can't seem to not make a mess this month, can we. I'd like to see these two nominations dropped, and a new "super-nomination" brought forward, wherin the Solar System topic is broken up into Solar System, Galilean Moons, and Dwarf Planets. Kicks Triton to the curb, but adds Gallilean, dwarf planet, and 2006 definition of a planet, so a net win, no overlaps, no problems. What say you guys? Does that sound reasonable? You were hitting the end of the line on expanding the Solar System topic anyway, and this sets up a bunch of smaller topics you can work on. --PresN (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  Seconded - rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  To make it clear, Support if the topic is broken up, Oppose otherwise. --PresN (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This meets the current criteria, and there is nothing that says that the articles in a small topic can't also be in a larger topic. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support meets the criteria, nice set. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support if the eighth supplementary nom for the Solar System topic passes, Oppose otherwise - rst20xx (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• This nomination is on hold pending the outcome of WP:Featured topic candidates/Solar System/addition8. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote – All objections had to do with overlap, which is no longer as issue with the removal of the items in question from the Solar System topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani albums

Note that this was a Featured Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
Gwen Stefani discography	Love. Angel. Music. Baby. - The Sweet Escape

A short-but-sweet topic. It's the same format as the other discography featured topics, the Powderfinger discography and the Wilco discography. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support meets the requirements, nice job :) --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support with the additional comment that you're impressively close to being able to expand to add the singles - rst20xx (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2008-08-23T21:27Z (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Surprised hasn't been submitted until now. Gary King (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment by nom I should add a note that Love. Angel. Music. Baby. is itself a topic but I don't know the formatting. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 00:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's just a "WP:featured topics/love.angel.music.baby|(subtopic)" link in "super" tags, it'll get added if the topic passes. --PresN (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support I will always support it. No reason to oppose. Indianescence (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - wait, you didn't write any of these articles, did you? It clearly states above that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination." Did you make any attempt at this? rst20xx (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I came across them when having a look at the LAMB article (I like the album) and realised they met the criteria. I was a bit surprised they weren't already a featured topic so I was bold and nominated them. I've just left messages at a few of the creators of the articles; I'm a bit new to the procedure and didn't see that. My bad. Guilty as charged. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great! ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - not your babies, but it's a clear pass. --PresN (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. per Admrboltz (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support/Comment. Fortunately, Stefani's discography is neat enough that all of the singles can be placed into album subtopics. However, do you think it is necessary to include singles on which Stefani is a featured artist? ("South Side" and "Let Me Blow Ya Mind") There's also lesser-known, non-album of songs in Stefani's discography (like "Almost Blue", "What's Going On" and "Tears in Heaven"), but I don't know if they're notable enough to include on this topic or not. Anyways, I'll give my support at this point. Xnux the Echidna 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Maybe in time it can be changed to "Gwen Stefani discography" and include the singles, too? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, technically, this should be called discography already, as per the precedents set by the other similar FTs... right? rst20xx (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion 1d, the same criterion which should have failed the two cited examples in the nomination. Furthermore, I do not recognise the Powderfinger and Wilco discographies as FTs in any shape or form. A discography means every disc a group has issued - that means albums, EPs and singles. They're referenced in the actual discography articles, yet all but the albums are conveniently omitted from FT noms. Blatantly violating the criteria to let these topics pass is a clear attempt to bolster the amount of those featured. Rst20xx says "you're impressively close to being able to expand to add the singles" - let me remind everyone that no topic should be cherry picking articles, so if the singles are eligible, they should be added to the topic right now, and not at a later date when the singles conveniently measure up in terms of article quality. In that, I mean during the original nomination, not next week or next year. A similar statement to Rst20xx's was made in reference to the Wilco discography by PresN, who said "singles and EPs could be added to the topic, once at a sufficient quality level". This is clear cherry-picking, and supporters are even more or less admitting so in their statements. Such statements make a mockery of the entire process. If these are the sort of double standards that are prevalent, I certainly don't wish to be a part of this process. What's the point in having featured topic criteria if it's going to be ignored? LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think that album-only topics are allowed because singles are covered within the articles about the albums, so there is not gap by omitting them. If the topic was later expanded to include EPs and singles, it would be because the topic expanded its scope beyond albums, not because it had to fix cherry-picking. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. By calling it "Gwen Stefani albums", it is clear that it only consists her albums and not her EPs and singles. No cherry picking in my eyes. In time the topic may well be expanded to include EPs and singles, and then its name would be changed to "discography" Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I see that the discography page is listed as the main page; therefore, I expect to see in this nomination all articles that are listed at Gwen Stefani discography. Currently, there are some articles that are not part of this topic. As a result, some obvious gaps are created in this topic, which violates the featured topic criteria.--Crzycheetah 08:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  We seem to have to go through this time and time again. This type of topic does not violate the notability criteria, and does not constitute cherry-picking, due to their being levels of notability. The albums are more notable than the singles, therefore including just the albums means that all the top-level notability articles have been included - rst20xx (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • There are no levels of notability. it's either notable or not. If you think the singles are not notable, then you should nominate them at AfD.--Crzycheetah 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    • ...Obviously all the articles are notable enough to be Wikipedia articles, but equally obviously the albums are more notable from the singles - rst20xx (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

      • It's not obvious at all. How can one article be more notable? It is only obvious that all articles are equally notable.--Crzycheetah 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The discography has been nominated as the primary article, so therefore all the articles relating to that - namely albums, and singles - should be included. This is clear cherry-picking, irrelevant of what others say. If this is passed (which it will be, judging by the lax attitude of those who promote), it shows a clear inadequacy on the part of those who handle this process. Both opposes clearly follow the FT criteria, and cannot be ignored. LuciferMorgan (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A topic must be well defined, and all the articles in that definition be in the topic. The definition is albums of Gwen Stefani. This topic includes all the required articles. All music ever relished by Gwen Stefani would be a acceptable topic, but that is not what is being proposed. Zginder 2008-08-29T14:24Z (UTC)

You're absolutely right, "A topic must be well defined"! Here, in this nomination, the topic is not well defined at all. The name of the nomination is "Gwen Stefani albums" and the main page for the topic is "Gwen Stefani discography". This nomination clearly fails to define the topic!--Crzycheetah 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Echidna already stated this, but the discography is actually complete! All the singles are covered by the albums, and as a result this topic is complete because it contains: album1(this should become as subtopic with all the songs and some of the singles) + album 2(which should also be another subtopic which would include the rest of the singles and some more non-singles songs). My only worry is the quality of the FL, since it does not list all the songs on the albums. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am not 100% sure about the other two topics mentioned here, but if they do not include ALL the singles that are not within albums, then those are inclomplete; this one is not. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal. Just so you know, generally discographies do not give album track listings because it is a discography, not a songography. It lists releases. If someone wants to see tracklistings, they can easily click on the link for the release. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose — I'm torn on this one. Precedent does show that topics can be passed without singles and EPs. However, User:Crzycheetah brings up a good point: the discography article is being used as the main article for this, which suggests that the topic should include all discs by the artists. If the full-length albums were a field of study by themselves, wouldn't there be a "Gwen Stefani full-length albums" article to use as the main? There are other examples of main articles being more broad than their topics, but this example seems a bit too literal. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  The other two album topics use "discography" articles as their main articles, I don't see how this is any different from those - rst20xx (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  According to the criteria the topic is chosen and defined first then the lead article is chosen. If the lead was chosen first and then the topic build up around it I would oppose, but this is not so. Zginder 2008-08-31T18:43Z (UTC)

• Close as consensus to promote – As per consensus on WT:FT. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Guitar Hero

Note that this was a Featured Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

previous FTC (August 22, 2008)

Main page

Articles

Guitar Hero

Guitar Hero (video game) - Guitar Hero II - Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - Guitar Hero World Tour - Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - Guitar Hero: Metallica - Guitar Hero: On Tour - Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades - Guitar Hero III Mobile - List of songs in Guitar Hero - List of songs in Guitar Hero II - List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - List of songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith

All articles now have, at minimum, undergone a peer review; as previously noted World Tour (due in Oct), Decades (due by end of 08), and Metallica (due by March 09) are future games and thus cannot gain GA status until after their release, at which point I expect those helping with these to be able to get them to quality within 3 months, easily. --MASEM 02:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note, for lack of any better image, I believe that Image:Guitar-hero-controller.jpg this would work (reduced in size to the appropriate dimensions). --MASEM 01:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I wonder how legitimate that "free use" tag is. I would have thought that the company would retain the copyright over the distinctive image of their controller. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Given that the controller's shape is based on a Gibson SG guitar, and free images of that (and other Gibson guitars) exist at commons, as well as free images of controllers and game systems, I don't believe this as a problem; there is certainly trademark issues, but that does not interfere with free use of such images. --MASEM 12:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I did ask elsewhere on this just to confirm and yes, such images are free - US copyright law doesn't cover utilitarian objects such as game controllers and cars, and thus photos can be freely made; thus this image is sufficient to use here. --MASEM 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-08-27T02:55Z (UTC)
• Support-All related subjects are covered. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As I had noted in the last discussion for this topic, over 18% of the articles in the topic are of less than WP:GA-quality, but I have given this some additional thought and the topic most certainly meets the criteria at WP:WIAFT. In addition, I have confidence that Masem (talk · contribs) will work on those articles in the future in an effort to bring them up to WP:GA-quality as well. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, now the three that aren't GA/FA have been PR'ed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, and thanks for the hoop-jumping - rst20xx (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Personally, I'd like to see more of the featured content come from the game articles than the lists, but that's not part of the criteria. Pagrashtak 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't plan on resting on my laurels for getting other game articles to FA (they all likely can), but right now, VGs and FACs have a love-hate relationship and I don't want to put too many VG articles up on there. --MASEM 15:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to exist a 'cheap' trick to getting % of material as featured by adding FL that could otherwise form their own subtopic. Nergaal (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not every song list has been made a separate article; the split decision is based on size and style considerations (eg, it was originally on On Tour, but the length of On Tour made it unnecessary to do so). Thus, to try to extract one sub-topic FTC (the songlists from each game) from these is rather difficult. But as noted above, GA is not the endpoint for these articles, I expect to get a few more to FA in the next coming months. --MASEM 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Meets the criteria. I do not think that the song lists could be made into a subtopic as there would be no lead article, and not all the song lists have their own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support: All my concerns from the previous FTC are no longer present and I feel it meets FT criteria. Also, I'm sure Masem, who is quite capable of producing FAs, can get many more of these articles up to featured quality. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC))
• Support - Great! ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 19:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support' - yet another great video game FT. igordebraga ≠ 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted on 19:43 September 3, 2008.Mitch32^(UP) 20:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero/addition1
2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero/addition2
3. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero/addition3
4. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero/addition4

The Simpsons (season 1)

Every episode article from this season is of GA status and The Simpsons (season 1) is a FL. It fulfills all criteria for a Good Topic. TheLeftorium 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Co-nominators: Scorpion, Gran2, Brendan Moody, LAAFan and Maitch

• Support Looks good to me Gary King (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Works for me :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support I hope that even if the others at FT/GT continue to make it nearly impossible to make FT's you guys will continue to make GT's. Zginder 2008-09-16T22:28Z (UTC)
• Support - good work - rst20xx (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support This will complement the existing simpson GAs. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - time to go for the next GT! Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice work over at the Wikiproject! Don't stop trying to get an FT, guys. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Very well done indeed. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Redundant and reluctant support I dunno why, but after seeing the snowball supports, I want to object for some reason. But I can't.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work everyone. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814

Main page	Articles
Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814	Battle of Lissa (1811) - Action of 29 November 1811 - Action of 22 February 1812

An interesting if little known campaign of the Napoleonic Wars, this topic covers the overall campaign and all major actions. It has one FA and three GAs and thus seems to fulfill all criteria for a Good Topic.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-09-13T23:54Z (UTC)
• Support - a fine piece of work. One more FA and you have an FT, too :P As a comment, potential expansions would be to include the personnel or ships involved in the campaign - rst20xx (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• 'Support – all checks out by my eyes. Good stuff. -- Sabre (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814/addition1

StarCraft titles

Alrightly, StarCraft series just passed its GAN, so now seems like a good time to go for this new-fangled good topic thingy. StarCraft II, as it is unreleased and hence unstable, cannot currently pass GA, but it has been peer reviewed here. We've got this image available for the topic box's picture. -- Sabre (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom Also this should be StarCraft titles per the previous video game topics. Gary King (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great to see another video game topic here! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I think more information from Insurrection and Retribution could be added, such as information from the first paragraph of the Overview in Insurrection - rst20xx (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  There's not really anything further to add on Retribution and Insurrection that is compliant with reliable, secondary sources. What's in the StarCraft series article is all I could save. Believe me, I'd ideally like to have independent articles for them, but WP:V and WP:N prevent that as the sources just aren't available. Besides, the jist of the information in the overview paragraph of Insurrection is already there. In fact, looking through it, the only bit of information in the old articles that could be used is the fact that the two add-ons had full voice acting. -- Sabre (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  "Insurrection includes three new campaigns, comprising around 30 missions and over 100 new multiplayer maps. It was made using the standard Campaign Editor included with StarCraft and as such is unable to add new music, tilesets, cinematics or units like the complete expansion pack StarCraft: Brood War. However, it does include new heroes, factions and trigger sounds for briefings and key events within the campaigns." All of this sounds like important information to me, but none of it is in the StarCraft (series) article - rst20xx (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Again, all of which is covered in respect to the coverage's notability in the main article. Half of that was original research: I should know, I probably wrote it a few years back. I'm sorry, I really don't see the need to double the length of the paragraph to add some statistics that are already summarised and don't have the sources available to verify it. -- Sabre (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Oppose Sorry, I don't agree. I'm amazed that you claim you cannot even source the number of missions/multiplayer maps in a Starcraft expansion pack. Quick Google throws up a GameSpot review saying there are "30 missions along with over a hundred multiplayer maps" - so there's the source for that bit of information right there. And that took me all of about 2 seconds to find - rst20xx (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  And it's not like you even have a source for the number of missions in Starcraft either - rst20xx (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  You will find that that GameSpot review, which is already used in the article, is most likely the only reliable source covering Insurrection out there. Insurrection and Retribution received very little press and fan coverage, they are not even close to Brood War in terms of profile and notability. -- Sabre (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well OK then, you can at least still incorporate in the info from the GameSpot article! rst20xx (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've added the bit on the number of levels, and the bit saying "it does not include new content such as units and graphical terrain tilesets" is basically the same as saying "is unable to add new music, tilesets, cinematics or units". The bit on being constructed in the Campaign Editor (and by extension the bits on new heroes and trigger sounds) is straight original research by me a few years back from going through the levels in the Campaign Editor and seeing how they were made (I hadn't quite grasped the OR policy back then), I can't verify it no matter how true it might be. -- Sabre (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, I suppose that will do for me then. Thank you and support - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-09-12T23:58Z (UTC)
• Support All of the articles are well written, and were it not for the volatility the StarCraft II article will experience when the game is released, it too would easily be a GA. - Yohhans ^talk 17:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Reviewing StarCraft (series) was one of the more pleasurable moments of my life, finally something that wouldn't take more than 5 hours, as it was already too good. ;-) Good job, and I hope this passes. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiny comment In StarCraft, don't superscript the th in 26th per bullet 5(not sub-bullets) of WP:SEASON Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on the logic used in my Millennium Park GTC above it seems to me that StarCraft II article is a possible GA and should be required to prove otherwise. Is there something at Wikipedia:Peer review/StarCraft II/archive1 to indicate that this can not be a WP:GA. I don't think unreleased = unstable. I have created WP:GAs for three buildings under construction. See Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). See also Barack Obama, John McCain, etc. Even politicians with rapidly changing positions in life, can pass. Unstable means content dispute related instability. If the article is complete it is eligible for GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  <discussion moved to talk page>

• Comment I believe this issue applies to most of the current accepted game topics: the main series article really needs to explain the etymology of the name. Even it this topic, I believe that it is important for a reader to have that information available. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's nothing to really say on the series' name, I've certainly not come across anything in any sources I've seen, let alone reliable ones. Just seems like a case of "we need a spacey name for our product" "how about StarCraft?" "yeah ok". -- Sabre (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support — excellent work. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XII

Note this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
Final Fantasy XII	Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings - Characters of Final Fantasy XII - Discography of Final Fantasy XII - Ivalice

The work put into the articles related to Final Fantasy XII will finally be on display, and I am very proud to submit the great work of those at Final Fantasy Wikiproject as the first video game good topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Hooray, an article I made is going to be in a GT! --PresN (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Deckiller 20:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support: The topic looks to satisfy the quality and scope criteria, and would be a fine addition to the newly formed Good topics. Good job editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
• Neutral - the only possible addition I could find is Kiss Me Good-Bye. I am undecided whether this is notable enough to be a required inclusion - rst20xx (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I put all of the good, sourced info from Kiss Me Good-Bye into Discography of Final Fantasy XII, and I only left it alive to avoid stepping on anyone else's toes. So, if you feel it must be included in the topic, I will just kill the article and redirect. --PresN (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't support you doing that, as some information would be lost, such as track list and charts (sourced or not). And also as you said, you would definitely be stepping on people's toes. Anyway, I'll stick with neutral, so no need to kill it - rst20xx (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'd merge in the tracklist, that could be sourced to the album itself, but yeah, the charts would vanish, I couldn't find any sources for that. --PresN (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  You could try contacting the editor that originally added them. Though none of this gets round the toe-stepping - rst20xx (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  And look, this single surely must have been very notable in Japan, considering what it is. So it must surely merit its own article. It's just that, being as how we're all English, we can't understand the sources ourselves. But the future potential for growth is there, if some Japanese person comes along and starts editing, so I really oppose any merge - rst20xx (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Is "Kiss me Good-Bye" really essential to the topic? I view it more like a supplementary article that goes into a minute level of detail of FFXII. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

  I don't know. This is why I voted neutral and not oppose! rst20xx (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - complete topic. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - All that work on this topic is worth it! — Blue。 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Definitely well done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2008-09-13T05:13Z (UTC)

Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Final Fantasy XII/addition1

47 Ursae Majoris

Main page	Articles
47 Ursae Majoris	47 Ursae Majoris b · 47 Ursae Majoris c

All the articles have been promoted by the retired user Chaos syndrome

One of the first planetary systems to be discovered [3]. Nergaal (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - though what happened to 47 Ursae Majoris a? rst20xx (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the star is a (or A)- they name them in the order the objects are found, and since the star is largest, it tends to be a. The planets are not always in alphabetical order heading out from the star either- if they find an outer one first, it gets b, and is not renamed if they find one closer to the star. --PresN (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Ahhhh okay thanks - rst20xx (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Appears to meet criteria. Zginder 2008-09-11T16:46Z (UTC)
• Support - The topic seems well defined, and and meets the criteria. Nice to see more and more space related articles brought to the topics pages. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice job :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Upsilon Andromedae

All the articles have been promoted by the retired user Chaos syndrome

Again, one of the earlier systems.[4] Nergaal (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - a binary star, cool - rst20xx (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support --PresN (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - What is there to find against it. user:Zginder
• Support - Meets the criteria, good to see a short space topic acknowledged. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice job :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gliese 876

All the articles have been promoted by the retired user Chaos syndrome

I believe this system had the first Super-Earth.[5] Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - rst20xx (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support --PresN (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Zginder 2008-09-11T16:53Z (UTC)
• Support - Hurray for another space topic! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice job :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)