Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Galilean moons

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galilean moons

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note to closer if the above nom goes though, I support. Zginder 2008-08-27T21:03Z (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)[reply]
As per aboce, this is not supported by the criteria.Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ...see my comments below, at the Dwarf Planets nom - rst20xx (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ...See my arguments at the other nom - rst20xx (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support Meets all requirements. Good work by all involved. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Seconded - rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To make it clear, Support if the topic is broken up, Oppose otherwise. --PresN (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Galilean_moons&oldid=1259718484"