Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/August 2009

Derfflinger class battlecruisers

Derfflinger class battlecruisers

4 articles

SMS Derfflinger

SMS Lützow

SMS Hindenburg

All four articles have recently passed GA reviews; the three ship and class articles are all pretty comprehensive for this subject. Parsecboy (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets the criteria, but I really wish that there was a better picture... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree with Ed above, the photo does leave something to be desired, but that is the only nit I see. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, it's not the greatest photo. There is File:SMS Hindenburg ScapaFlow1919.jpg (which, despite its name is actually Derfflinger), but that's not all that great either. This one would be great, but the license isn't definitively sourced, so I don't think we can use it. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and in looking into this topic, I found this - very impressive plans! Now all you need to do is get SMS Goeben to GA, and that's the German battlecruisers complete ;) rst20xx (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finishing Goeben only gets a FT on the Moltke class since Parsec would need to write an all-encompassing article or list for the battlecruisers before making one large FT nom with multiple sub-topics. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually thinking of doing one for the I Scouting Group (see here), which would leave out Goeben since she was never assigned to the unit. Goeben would fit nicely in a FT that includes SMS Breslau, Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau, and an as of yet unwritten Mediterranean Division article that would tie it all together. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great job by Parsecboy. - DSachan (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great Mil. Hist. area article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Jedi Knight titles

Star Wars: Jedi Knight titles

6 articles

Star Wars: Dark Forces

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith

Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

Major contributors: Bill, UnaLaguna

The 5 games are included (Movie Battles might also make the list). Nergaal (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - firstly, I think this can only be called "titles", not "series", because it does not include all articles on the series - it's missing Kyle Katarn. But if that is fixed, I weak oppose anyway because I think when there is a scope narrowing to remove just one article (the last article!), that is, to me, cherrypicking. (Also I don't see any evidence you've tried to notify either of the major contributors. Appologies if I'm missing something but if you haven't I think that's incredibly rude) - rst20xx (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the character, although makes a good appearance in this series, it does not appear to me that it is limited to only this series; therefore I don't really think he is a "natural" part of the topic. Furthermore, I am not 100% sure he is actually that notable to have its own page (and I am not a deletitionist to go for deleting it). I left a notice for the major contributors to the topic; maybe they have a better opinion about this. Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He appeared in some books after appearing in the series. He is the protagonist of the series and was created for it. I don't see why his also appearing in some books detracts from that - rst20xx (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as titles - without Katarn, who was created for these games, you can't really call it 'series', but titles works fine for me. I don't see it as cherry-picking if it has a rational scope, even if there's another rational scope with one more article. I also don't see Movie Battles as necessary in the "titles" scope; I would however like to see it in a "series" scope. --Pres N 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good job. And Katarn and Movie Battles would fit better in a "Series" topic, indeed. igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some more feedback please? Nergaal (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It really does look like a good topic (no pun intended). GamerPro64 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid work Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True Blue

True Blue

6 articles

"Live to Tell"
"Papa Don't Preach"

"True Blue"
"Open Your Heart"

"La Isla Bonita"

Hi all. I believe the following 6 articles should be a Good Topic for Wikipedia. They are comprehensive, sleek organized and are similar in content and structure. All are good articles and are interrelated. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all looks good, can't see any gaps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. I'm particularly impressed with the amount of material in the singles articles - rst20xx (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. The leftorium 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets WP:FT? requirements. Very nice icon btw. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive amount of work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - congratulations on getting the first topic on a pre-2000s album - rst20xx (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Blackstone

5 articles

Blackstone Library

Union Stock Yards

Merle Reskin Theatre (formerly Blackstone Theatre)

Blackstone Hotel

I believe this topic is complete. Although the Blackstones funded Blackstone Halls at the Art Institute of Chicago and Lake Forest College, I can find no link between them and Blackstone Hall at the University of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the fifth article showing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, the box only has three columns. Woody (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this contains all articles related to Timothy Blackstone on the Wiki, so I support. I don't think you can put "(formerly Blackstone Theatre)" in the topic box though, you could pipe the link to say "Blackstone Theatre" or let users click through and find out the connection for themselves - rst20xx (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also actually I'm not sure Union Stock Yards deserves including any more than Alton Railroad does, his involvement seems to be equally substantial in both, the only difference is one's a GA and the other isn't. Maybe both articles should be excluded for now - rst20xx (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind was the distinction that he was the founding president of the USY.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm good point - rst20xx (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice work. The leftorium 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chough

3 articles

Red-billed Chough

Alpine Chough

I'm nominating this for Good Topic because it's a coherent set of three articles, the genus Pyrrhocorax and its only two species. Two GAs and an FA so far. if successful here, I'll work up Alpine Chough to FA and go for FT. This is my first attempt at GT, and the first from WP:BIRDS, so please be gentle with me! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very nice topic. One issue though, you need to fix the topic name. The title parameter should match the piped lead - so in this case you should either have title=Pyrrhocorax and lead= Pyrrhocorax, or you should have title=Chough and lead= Chough, depending upon which of the two names you'd rather go with. This is the first genus topic and I hope that many more will follow, so very well done on getting in there early! rst20xx (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for comment and support, topic name changed to Chough - I should have realised. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slight complication because "Chough" is used locally for the common name of the local species in some parts of the world. Would "Chough (genus)" or "Genus: Chough" be clearer? Snowman (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully looking at the topic box as a whole it should be apparent that the whole genus is being referred to in the lead's name. Further, the lead article, Chough, is not disambiguated to Chough (genus) or something so I don't see why it should need to be here. However if it's felt that the topic name should be made clearer then I think calling the topic "Pyrrhocorax" would be better than disambiguating Chough - rst20xx (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are two images permitted in the GAT template? Snowman (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, one only. You could glue multiple images together though, a la File:Radiohead.jpg. Though the current image already has both types of chough in it! rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting topic. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Chris! _ct 00:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (moral or otherwise as WP:Birds member :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very neat topic -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 01:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all above - I'm amazed at the speed of response here compared to GAN or FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox on articles:

I presume that the new navbox at the bottom of all tree pages should look like the GAT table too. At the moment Chough, Alpine Chough, and Red-billed Chough are on the same box and it looks like they are all species. Snowman (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the case. I copied the navbox from an existing GT/FT, so I assume that it's as it should be. The navbox isn't restricted to GT/FT, it can be used to link any related topics at any assessment level, and therefore isn't intended to mimic the FTbox format. It's just that at GT/FT, it's strongly suggested that a navbox is used to link the articles in the topic. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I think the navbox could be amended to be clearer. I looked at another navbox and the fist one I looked at had a better structure, see Age of Empires. I think that it is potentially misleading that the common names for the genus and species are in the same box and the genus is repeated (with the scientific name) as the heading as well. Folowing the "Age of Empires" style, the heading would be "Chough" wikilinked (or "Genus: Chough") and the box would containe "Species: Red-winged Chough, Alpine Chough". Or perhaps there should be an extra column on the left for the taxa. the navbox could help the reader navigate to the genus and species better. It is not clear which is the genus and which are the species. In some parts of the world "Chough" would be used for the common name of the local species". I think that the current navbox is not fit for purpose. Snowman (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, navbox rewritten to separate genus and species, also Pyrrhocorax added parenthetically to remove any possible ambiguity. please feel free to tweak further if you wish Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enormous improvements in navbox seen and I think that the new transcluded "chough navbox template" is neat. Snowman (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see many more coming. Any plan on the next GTC thus far? I suggest working on more GTCs rather than taking this to FTC. Great job Jimfbleak and all others involved. - DSachan (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. This is new ground for the project, but a few possibilities have been identified on the project page. This had the advantage of being a small genus, so relatively easy to work up. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Terrence and Phillip 23:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting articles. Well done! The leftorium 21:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (season 5)

Co-nominators: From Season 5 Topic Drive: Theleftorium, Scorpion0422, Maitch, Gran2, Cirt, Qst, Gary King, Ctjf83, ImperatorExercitus.

"A woman is a lot like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one! But you can't stop at one... you wanna drink another woman!" Anyway, this season GTC should meet the criteria. One small step for Wikipedia, one giant leap for Homerpedia. The leftorium 11:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support well done! -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'em comming Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - after 2 and 3 are done, what's the plan? 10? rst20xx (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, seasons 10–20 suck. The leftorium 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, what's your next step? —Terrence and Phillip 16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably character articles. And the seasons topic. The leftorium 17:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about a ToH topic? btw: season 20 is ok. Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support igordebraga ≠ 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: You know, if you try and get every single season a featured/good topic, you'd have yourselves the most amazing featured topic ever with the FL List of episodes. :P The Flash ^{talk} 17:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Holy crap that's a lot of GAs. Good job! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this topic has a lot of GAs, WP:DOH actually has a total of 200 GAs (and counting...) —Terrence and Phillip 19:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote - these ones always take a while to do, see you in an hour... rst20xx (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]