Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Naruto manga chapters

Naruto manga chapters

Main page	Articles
*List of Naruto* manga volumes**	List of Naruto chapters (Part I) - List of Naruto chapters (Part II)

With the main topic just recently achieving FL status, I believe this is ready for a FT nomination. These articles cover the chapters of the Naruto manga, sorted via their appropriate volumes. The two other pages were originally split off the main page due to size concerns, and each compose a significant part of the topic (two parts of the manga storyline). The main page links to the two sub-pages, as well as containing a list of the volumes that compose them. As such, with all three articles featured, I feel that this topic meets WP:WIAFT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm getting a little ahead of myself, possible image that can be used is here: Image:Kunai05.jpg. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems with it, the image looks good too. It looks to satisfy the FT criteria. I support it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Object - Too narrow. I could see a topic covering all Naruto media, but not just the manga chapters. Besides, ~~Naruto and~~ List of Naruto story arcs are glaring omissions.--SeizureDog 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Naruto media is gigantic. The topic's scope covers just the manga, which would be identical to a topic covering just the anime episodes (List of Naruto episodes being the main for List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2), List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 3-4), etc.). The main Naruto episode doesn't need to be included as it covers the entire franchise. I could ask why Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Lost doesn't have Lost (TV series) with that rationale. List of Naruto story arcs could perhaps be included, but I can't see it ever achieving FL status. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that List of Naruto media would be a more appropiate topic. By my count, thats about 14 lists, 5 of which are already FLs, hardly "gigantic". You note on Naruto is taken, but my point on List of Naruto story arcs still stands.--SeizureDog 23:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count 19: List of Naruto media, List of Naruto episodes (with the four season lists), List of Naruto manga volumes (with two accompanying lists), the four movies, List of Naruto OVAs, List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes (which cannot achieve FL status as it is ongoing), List of Naruto characters, Naruto Collectible Card Game, List of Naruto video games, and List of Naruto story arcs. A lot of them aren't lists and would require a hell of a lot of work to get to GA status. However, per the current scope, I've added List of Naruto story arcs per your suggestion. As it's likely never going to get FL status, would it be "audited" as per WP:WIAFT? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be reluctant to support without the addition of List of Naruto story arcs or some additional article as the criteria state that the topic must consist of at least three distinct articles. I'm not sure if List of Naruto chapters (Part I) and List of Naruto chapters (Part II) really qualify as being "distinct" from each other. Kaldari 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In storyline terms, they cover two very different parts of the manga. You could compare it to different seasons of the same TV series. Yes, the articles are quite similar, but the same can again be said of episode lists. Anyhow, List of Naruto story arcs has been added to the above nomination. As the possibility of it ever achieving FL status is slim, I guess it would be "audited". As I'm fairly new to the FT process, who would perform such an audit? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I realize this point is coming to a close, but I don't see how List of Naruto story arcs is an omission. The original scope of the suggested topic focused on the manga volumes/chapters. But the story arc focuses on the story as it applies to the manga and anime. I can see how the story arc could be a supplementary article to the topic, but not a necessity. As Sephiroth already stated, the two chapter lists are comparable to different seasons of a TV show. And the FT Seasons of Lost has shown that separate segments of a story in a single medium qualify as 3 or more distinct articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Support excluding the story arcs - Why is that included? Its not featured, its not even sourced, which means it could just be OR. I say dump it and feature the rest. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was placed per the above arguments towards the scope of the list, but per Guyinblack25, it really isn't a missing part of the topic. It wasn't part of the original nomination in any case. I've removed it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, now its all Featured, complete and comprehensive for its scope, and now looks like a good featured topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal, do you feel that the story arcs article is outside of the topic? Or are you saying to drop it because it's not featured? I'll remind you that cherry picking is not allowed.--SeizureDog (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the topic is called manga chapters, so they are all listed there without the story arcs included. I also suspect that the story arc article could be a big chunk of original research due to its total lack of referencing, so I'm cool with keeping it out. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel it is not required to be included, as it does not leave any holes in the information provided by the three lists. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think I will have to side with User:SeizureDog and give this a weak oppose. Of all the media associated with this franchise, choosing only these sections of it doesn't give a complete, unified topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topic was about the various media in the franchise, then I'd have to agree with you. However, this topic is meant to cover one aspect of the franchise, the manga. And as far as I can see there are no holes in the topic of the Naruto manga. It's similar to the Final Fantasy titles FT and the Final Fantasy VIII FT. There's a larger topic and then a smaller sub topic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Support I agree that this is a suitable topic and each list is very well-done. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - List of Naruto story arcs has recently been merged; thus eliminating it from being included in the topical scope. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all are perfect, well written articles filled with sufficient encyclopedic content. The Kunai pic idea sounds good too. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - definitely looks like a unified topic to me; nice to see it focused on the manga instead of the countless related media. Doceirias (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promote — There was some debate about whether this can be promoted without other media, but a large enough majority feel that it can be. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]