Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/December 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hardy Boyz[edit]

edit | discuss
Hardy Boyz
4 articles

Matt Hardy

Jeff Hardy

Amy Dumas

Main contributors: NiciVampireHeart, Nikki311, TJ Spyke, .mdk., and IMatthew

I am nominating the topic Hardy Boyz as a Good Topic. The group consisted of the real life brothers Jeff and Matt Hardy, and their long-term valet Amy Dumas, known by her ring name "Lita". The lead article (Hardy Boyz), as well as the three individual members' articles (Matt Hardy, Jeff Hardy, and Amy Dumas) are all current Good Articles. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? Do you mean a template at the bottom of the articles? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that is what I meant, thank you - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! :) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added one to Vince's Devils. Nikki♥311 21:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-20 class submarines[edit]

edit | discuss
U-20 class submarines
5 articles
SM U-20
SM U-21
SM U-22
SM U-23
Major contributor: Bellhalla

Meah... Nergaal (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-1 class submarines[edit]

edit | discuss
U-1 class submarine
3 articles
SM U-1
SM U-2
Major contributor: Bellhalla

First class. Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for all three noms - two things:
  1. Could you possibly merge {{U-1 class submarines}}, {{U-3 class submarines}}, {{U-5 class submarines}}, {{U-10 class submarines}}, {{U-20 class submarines}}, {{U-27 class submarines}} and {{U-43 class submarines}}? None are very big, and I think it would be more useful in facilitating easy navigation to have them all merged into one template.
  2. You need to find free-use images
- rst20xx (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} and the navy flag? Nergaal (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} to conform to standard WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST navigation box template style. But how about, instead, {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}}, a list of Austro-Hungarian submarine classes that is on each class article page. This keeps the individual submarine articles from being cluttered with two templates. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it decreases ease of navigation, because then the class pages don't link to the boat pages. Howsabout we simply merge the two templates by adding the classes from {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}} not currently in {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}, and then redirecting the former to the latter? (Flag looks good by the way) rst20xx (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Each class article still has its own class template. For example, if one is looking at the article on the U-1 class, one can switch to the individual submarines of the class via {{U-1 class submarines}} OR to other classes via {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}}. Having {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} attached to each page is a bit of overkill with such a large template (as it is currently structured), and adding all of the classes to it is a little silly in that several of the later classes, while documented and notable, never had any completed submarines, leaving large expanses of space in the template.
Further, the use of individual ship class templates, like {{U-1 class submarines}}, is a consensus approach for ship classes (per WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST) that is in wide use throughout Wikipedia. I see no compelling reason in this case to go counter to this established method. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the other option would be to have entries only for the submarines that were actully completed and used and remove all the other ones - and just mention the classes for those that were never built. Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was thinking of, Nergaal, and I think that is what should happen. I don't think the template would be too big if we do this. And the compelling reason would be that it is significantly more useful in easing navigation than having all the templates split up is. After all, the sole point of navigation templates is to act as aides to navigation - rst20xx (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. Weren't you, Nergaal, the one that added most of the incomplete submarines to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}? And now you want to remove them?
As far as an aid to navigation, how is the set up on, for example, SM U-20 (Austria-Hungary), not conducive to navigation? And how is that on U-20-class submarine not conducive? And why, exactly, should the WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST consensus methods for navigation be thrown out the window? I'm not trying to be contrarian or anything, I genuinely don't understand why… — Bellhalla (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not conducive if you want to jump from, e.g., SM U-2 (Austria-Hungary) to SM U-3 (Austria-Hungary). Further, try and think about the intent of the WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST consensus method - it's because, in general, following that consensus method gives templates which aren't excessively big, but still have a reasonable number of articles bound together by the template to help ease navigation. In this case, it seems to me that we can bind even more articles together in a template without having it become too big, and indeed some of the templates, if kept separate, are almost sillily small, eg {{U-3 class submarines}} - rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only expanded the list, and then realized that it it unnecessarly chlunky - take my edits as test versions. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw support for this nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What, because you're unhappy with {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}? rst20xx (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with consensus to promote with comment - I would still like to see the templates merged into the one Nergaal created, however this is no longer an issue for the GTC - rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-3 class submarines[edit]

edit | discuss
U-3 class submarine
3 articles
SM U-3
SM U-4
Major contributor: Bellhalla

Second class. Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw support for this nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - If the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-5 class submarines[edit]

edit | discuss
U-5 class submarine
4 articles
SM U-5
SM U-6
SM U-12
Major contributor: Bellhalla

Third class. Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw support for this nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - If the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can not find anything wrong with the topic and it is good to see others are not obsessed with getting the main contrib. support. Zginder 2008-12-16T15:43Z (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Venus![edit]

edit | discuss
Hey Venus!
4 articles

"Show Your Hand"

"Run-Away"

"The Gift That Keeps Giving"

Main contributor: Cavie78

Hey Venus! is an album by British alternative rock group Super Furry Animals. As well as the main album article all three singles from Hey Venus! are good articles.Cavie78 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vince's Devils[edit]

edit | discuss
Vince's Devils
4 articles

Candice Michelle

Lisa Marie Varon

Torrie Wilson

I am nominating the topic Vince's Devils as a Good Topic. The group was an all female alliance of wrestlers in World Wrestling Entertainment in 2005 and 2006. The lead article (Vince's Devils), as well as the three individual members' articles (Candice Michelle, Lisa Marie Varon, and Torrie Wilson) are all current Good Articles. Nikki♥311 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support iMatthew 20:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - GA main article, GA sub articles. Good work.--SRX 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Zginder 2008-12-04T03:51Z (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is like the Quietly Confident Quartet nom. The point of featured topics is to provide comprehensive coverage of the subject in question, and here, that seems to me to not be the case unless the article Vince McMahon is included - rst20xx (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with you. For the QFQ, the individual races are very related to the swimmers who swam them and what made them famous. Here, however, Vince McMahon had nothing to do with the group except that it was named after him (because he is chairman of the company). He was not part of the group, and his only mention in the article (besides being the namesake) is the one match he made, but that was part of his job at the time...he announced/decided at least most of the matches on Raw. That is like making a Good Topic about the Atlanta Braves and including an article on Native Americans (namesake) and the head of the National League. Nikki♥311 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm, maybe you're right, but would it not help if the article described the sequence of events that led to the team being named after him? rst20xx (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I can remember (and I haven't read anything differently when doing the research for the article) that they just kind of randomly began calling themselves that. I'll look again, though, and see if I can find anything more specific. Nikki♥311 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the Torrie Wilson article says "Vince McMahon soon begin referring to the team of Wilson, Victoria, and Candice as "Vince's Devils."" That's not in the main article, that Vince came up with the name - rst20xx (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It does say that, but I removed it because after some research, I believe it to be incorrect. I just watched every video on WWE.com with the girls in it and looked at every website that mentions the group. Torrie Wilson's official fansite says the girls renamed their alliance the night after New Year's Resolution and doesn't mention McMahon at all in relation to the rename. In all the videos I watched, Vince McMahon never once referred to the group as Vince's Devils (and curiously, the announcers never did either). I did, however, find a note about them flirting backstage with McMahon about a month after the group was renamed, so I added that, too. Nikki♥311 02:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, I'll strike my oppose, I'm left with the impression that Vince McMahon wasn't as integral as I first thought - rst20xx (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also disagree with Rst20xx, QCQ's problem was that the group was that the group was famous and solely notable as a group from a single race, which was not included in the topic. V'D is not closely related to Vince McMahon, it's just named after him. ----PresN 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man films[edit]

previous FTC

edit | discuss
Spider-Man films
4 articles
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man 3

Having the Batman and X-Men topics up made me think about this topic. I'm nominating this for good topic because it meets the criteria and should be given another chance. I have notified  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) who is a major contributor to some of the articles in the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock (season 2)[edit]

edit | discuss
30 Rock (season 2)
16 articles
"SeinfeldVision"
"Jack Gets in the Game"
"The Collection"
"Rosemary's Baby"
"Greenzo"
"Somebody to Love"
"Cougars"
"Secrets and Lies"
"Ludachristmas"
"Episode 210"
"MILF Island"
"Subway Hero"
"Succession"
"Sandwich Day"
"Cooter"

I'm nominating this for Good Topic. This will need to become a sub-topic of Seasons of 30 Rock aswell. These articles have been mostly written by myself and Cornucopia, so much thanks and credit goes to them. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X&Y[edit]

edit | discuss
X&Y
5 articles
"Speed of Sound"
"Fix You"
"Talk"
"The Hardest Part"
Contributors: ThinkBlue and Efe

X&Y is the third album by English alternative rock band Coldplay. Aside from the album, all its released singles are good articles. Note: "What If" and "White Shadows" were never official singles off the album. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question According to the lead there were five world wide singles and one regional single. Way do not last two not have an article? Zginder 2008-11-28T20:34Z (UTC)
The songs "What If" and "White Shadows" were not singles; radio stations played the songs, but the band never acknowledge them as "main" singles off the album. Also, there was a consensus to have the two songs redirect to the album. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parachutes[edit]

edit | discuss
Parachutes
5 articles
"Shiver"
"Yellow"
"Trouble"
"Don't Panic"
Contributors: Efe and ThinkBlue

Parachutes is the debut album by English alternative rock band Coldplay. Aside from the album, all its released singles are good articles. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Good_log/December_2008&oldid=1000209775"