Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Featured and Good topics in Wikipedia

This star symbolizes the featured topic candidates on Wikipedia.
GA icon symbolizing Good topic candidates on Wikipedia.
A featured topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles).

A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic.

This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the good and featured topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates.

Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured topic questions. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

The delegates—GamerPro64 and Juhachi—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived.

You may want to check previous archived nominations first:
Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Good content:

Good and featured topic tools:

Nomination procedure[edit]

To create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Saffron/archive1) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

Once the nomination page is created, remember to transclude it in the appropriate section below, to leave nomination templates on the talk pages of the articles nominated for the topic, and to create appropriate books (see Book:Jupiter for a good example). For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure.

Supporting and objecting[edit]

Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. Following the creation of the book, NoomBot will create a book report (see example) containing details about cleanup issues (only those that have been flagged with cleanup templates, so it may not pick up everything), and various tools to inspect external links or resolve disambiguation pages. It can be a good idea to check the report and inspect links to see if certain articles need some cleanup (doing this before the nomination is even better).

  • To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
  • If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' or '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

For a topic to be promoted to featured topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate.

Featured topic nominations[edit]

Union Films[edit]

8 articles
Featured article Union Films
Union Films logo.jpg
Good article Kedok Ketawa
Featured article Harta Berdarah
Good article Bajar dengan Djiwa
Featured article Asmara Moerni
Good article Wanita dan Satria
Featured article Soeara Berbisa
Good article Mega Mendoeng

Contributor(s): Crisco 1492

High quality articles, although admittedly a very obscure topic. Half FA, with one more on its way to FA from GA right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Considering that these films are considered lost, these articles are extremely complete, and the series of articles themselves is of course a complete set. (It's also a stable set, as the studio is long gone.) They're all standardized style, but many have unique gems of info. A nice side note: the set is wonderful at helping counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. (In the interest of disclosure, I did the GA reviews for four of these articles, two of which have since passed FAC, so this isn't the first time I've encountered the topic.) -- Zanimum (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for all of the reviews! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


3 articles
Good article Raphinae
Raphus and Pezophaps.jpg
Featured article Dodo
Featured article Rodrigues solitaire

Contributor(s): Reid,iain james, FunkMonk

The lead is a Good Article, and the two topics are both Featured. Raphines are extinct birds, and include the very well known Dodo. The only other raphine is the Rodrigues Solitaire, which has been found to be related to the Dodo since the early 1800s. The two birds were hunted to extinction one after another by human settlers, who also introduced carnivorous mammals like cats and pigs. --IJReid (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Spectacular work. Just address some red links on the Raphinae article (sentence- "and so placed Inepti in the order Rasores, as the sister family to Gallinacei, Epollicati, Columbini, and Crypturi." --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
All the images except to Epollicati have been fixed. I cannot find what the modern name for Epollicati is, so currently I cannot fix its redlink. WonderBoy1998, it this a problem or not? IJReid (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
A red link is definitely a problem since it just leads to a page that doesn't even exist. Why don't you just remove the link to Epollicati? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The point of a red link is also to encourage people to create articles when they encounter them. These examples seem to be obsolete taxa though, so could probably redirect to something. I and Ian can maybe figure out what they're referring to... FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk for replying for me, btw my name is Iain (misspelt often as Ian and once even Iaian). Turns out the link should be removed, which I did, because by definition, Epollicati paraphyletic. IJReid (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - What's with the redirects in the topic? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I just corrected the links. IJReid (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Much better. Articles all look solid to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Audie Murphy[edit]

5 articles
Featured article Audie Murphy
Audie Murphy.jpg
Featured list Honors and awards
Good article Military career
Good article Film career
Featured list Songwriting career

I am nominating Audie Murphy as a Good Featured Topic. He was a Medal of Honor recipient and one of the most decorated soldiers in the United States. He had a lengthy second career as a film actor. The lead article is currently GA, but is also FAC. He an important figure in American history. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment What about Discography of Audie Murphy? Criterion 1(d) states: "There are no obvious gaps (missing or low quality articles) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together."-- 21:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Clarify for me, please. This is my first time around with GT. The Discography is just a list-class split from the main article. Do I have to get that one GA also to put this up for GT? Actually, it can't be GA, because they don't do lists. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
A list-class article can be a Featured List, like Audie Murphy honors and awards. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you by chance looked at the discography? I don't know if it's something that could be FLC or not. What say you? — Maile (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
As long as Discography of Audie Murphy exists, presumably it should be included on a topic on Audie Murphy, as not doing so would be an example of cherry picking per the criterion I quoted above. I do think it is possible for the article to become a featured list with some work, however. Since the article is more of a song list than a traditional discography, take a look at WP:FL#Songs recorded by artists for some similar articles. I'm not sure if the article should be moved to List of songs written by Audie Murphy or not, though.-- 00:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The topic is neat but please have the discography part covered. Nergaal (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm working on the idea. I need time to think about this. There is such scant information available, pretty much what I've already listed in the references of the discography article. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that should suffice. Nergaal (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's good to know. I'll work on expanding the prose a bit. — Maile (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I have just nominated the discography for FLC. Thank you for nudging. — Maile (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
With that in mind, I'm going to put this nomination on hold. If the discography fails its FLC, this nomination will close as fail. GamerPro64 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
OK. Just a note that the main article of Audie Murphy was just promoted to FA status. — Maile (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────With that new detail, I am moving this to the FTC section. GamerPro64 15:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Because when I opened this, I wasn't aware it had to be. See discussion above. This FTC is on hold while the discography is at FLC. — Maile (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the discography is FL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Good topic nominations[edit]

Music of the Final Fantasy series (3rd supplementary nomination)[edit]

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Music of the Final Fantasy series for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. Music of Final Fantasy XIV
21 articles
Good article Music of the Final Fantasy series
Good article Final Fantasy I and II
Good article Final Fantasy III
Good article Final Fantasy IV
Good article Final Fantasy V
Good article Final Fantasy VI
Good article Final Fantasy VII series
Good article Final Fantasy VIII
Good article Final Fantasy IX
Good article Final Fantasy X
Good article Final Fantasy X-2
Good article Final Fantasy XI
Good article Final Fantasy XII
Good article Final Fantasy XIII
Good article Final Fantasy XIII-2
Good article Final Fantasy XIV
Good article Final Fantasy Tactics series
Good article Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series
Good article Chocobo series
Featured list Final Fantasy compilation albums
Good article Final Fantasy concerts

Following XIII (2010) and XIII-2 (2013), I have, this time along with @ProtoDrake, gotten Music of Final Fantasy XIV created and up to GA-class. As such, it needs to be tacked on to this topic as it's third supplemental nomination and 21st article. This should be the last update for quite some time; XIII-3 (sic) didn't get enough attention to get it's own music article, and XV is still who-knows-how far-off in the future from getting released at all, much less spawning a music article. --PresN 17:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

2003 Pacific typhoon season[edit]

13 articles
2003 Pacific typhoon season
2003 Pacific typhoon season summary.jpg
Good article Typhoon Kujira (2003)
Good article Tropical Storm Linfa (2003)
Good article Typhoon Soudelor (2003)
Good article Typhoon Imbudo
Good article Tropical Storm Koni
Good article Tropical Storm Morakot (2003)
Good article Typhoon Etau (2003)
Good article Typhoon Krovanh (2003)
Good article Typhoon Dujuan (2003)
Featured article Typhoon Maemi
Good article Typhoon Nepartak (2003)
Good article Typhoon Lupit (2003)

Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, TheAustinMan

The 2003 Pacific typhoon season, although producing a below average number of tropical cyclones, featured a plethora of storms striking anywhere from the Philippines to the Korean peninsula. This topic has been in the works for several months, and after lots of hard work, features 13 meticulously cited articles—12 good articles and one featured article—amounting to roughly 380,000 bytes of information providing what I believe to be the most comprehensive information on these storms. I hope you find this collection of articles covering the 2003 Pacific typhoon season a good read. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 04:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Retired Pacific hurricanes (3rd supplementary nomination)[edit]

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Retired Pacific hurricanes for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. Tropical Storm Hazel (1965) Good article
  2. Hurricane Fico Good article
  3. Hurricane Fefa (1991) Good article
  4. Hurricane Adolph (2001) Good article
  5. Hurricane Manuel Good article
14 articles
Featured article Retired Pacific hurricanes
Retired Pacific hurricane tracks.png
Good article Hurricane Adolph (2001)
Good article Tropical Storm Alma
Good article Hurricane Fefa (1991)
Good article Hurricane Fico
Good article Tropical Storm Hazel (1965)
Featured article Hurricane Iniki
Featured article Hurricane Ioke
Featured article Hurricane Ismael
Good article Hurricane Iwa
Featured article Hurricane Kenna
Good article Hurricane Manuel
Featured article Typhoon Paka
Good article Hurricane Pauline

Given that we now have a good source for all of the retired names (which, weirdly, we didn't have before), there is now a good list of what should be included in the topic for retired Pacific hurricane names. All of the storms with articles are good or better, so the topic is ready to be expanded. As a result of the five additional articles, the topic will have to be downgraded to a good topic, assuming it passes, as there aren't enough featured articles in the topic (for now). The image map will be fixed shortly, as I asked one of our reliable map editors to update it. If you don't notice it, then he's done his job already! I believe all articles are up to par, so I hope you are good with the expansion of this long-standing topic! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also, credit goes to User:Yellow Evan, who got Manuel up to GA status in the nick of time! So... not sure if your support counts YE :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Meh, nothing on the WP:FTC page suggest it does not count. I don't see why not. Unlike FAC's, there is little gray area with GT/FT's. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, props to User:Jason Rees for revamping the main page! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as my apologies for leaving you to nominate this and not me :P YE Pacific Hurricane 16:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a problem with the main article. Reference 1-3 and 28 are simply URLs with no other information (i.e. there's no title, publisher/work, date, etc.). Fix them and I will support.--12george1 (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Support--12george1 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support yay, a non-run-of-the-mill hurricanes topic. Nergaal (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks! We're working on some other interesting topics, but it might be some time before they're done. In the mean time, we'll probably get some more boring season GT's :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

1966 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

4 articles
Good article 1966 Atlantic hurricane season
1966 Atlantic hurricane season map.png
Good article Hurricane Alma
Good article Hurricane Faith
Good article Hurricane Inez

Contributor(s): 12george1, Hurricanehink

Here's another collection of awesome GAs from WikiProject Tropical cyclones! All articles passed in 2012 or later; so quality should not be an issue here. User:Hurricanehink will be a co-nominator with me. The 1966 Atlantic hurricane season featured some notable tropical cyclones. Alma had the earliest U.S. landfall for a hurricane since 1825, before reliable record even began. Faith probably tracked the farthest north and east for a hurricane in the Atlantic. It also had the longest track for a cyclone in this basin. Inez brought destruction to portion of the Lesser and Greater Antilles due to its strength and unusual path. Mexico also suffered severe damage. This is a WikiCup nomination, but I can only claim points for the main article. --12george1 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. The quality of Wikipedia's hurricane coverage is getting absurd—I wish our volcanism wikiproject was so active. ResMar 15:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Baseball's Sad Lexicon[edit]

4 articles
Good article Baseball's Sad Lexicon
Chicago Cubs team picture, 1906.jpg
Good article Frank Chance
Good article Johnny Evers
Good article Joe Tinker

Contributor(s): Muboshgu

Baseball's Sad Lexicon was a 1912 poem that immortalized the double play combination of "Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance". All three were inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. --– Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I really don't know. You've proposed a GT on the poem, so I sort of lean oppose without Franklin Pierce Adams (the poem's author) being included. Courcelles 19:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I hadn't thought about it like that. I was actually proposing it on the "Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance" grouping who were popularized with the poem, and admittedly gave no thought to improving FPA. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment A similar question was brought up at WP:FTQ#Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) where I, PresN (talk · contribs) and Nergaal (talk · contribs) all agreed that the artist (in that case Norman Rockwell) did not have to be included.-- 01:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
        • But the difference there is that you had an article on the series of paintings and then the four actual paintings. This isn't quite such a natural grouping, despite the famous line, as the three players' articles are largely independent of the poem. This isn't "parts of artistic work", this is "people closely associated with artistic work", which, IMO, needs to include the author -- or a new article created on the "Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance" combination more directly. I suspect this is one where opinions are going to vary widely, though. Courcelles 02:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I think actually this fits that Norman Rockwell example well. Many of the citations involved in the articles suggest that it was this poem that made these three teammates more famous and have a greater legacy than they would've had without the poem. That was where I was coming from with this GT nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that if the author were to be included, then the topic would have to be on his own work. I believe such a topic could exist where this one would be a subtopic. Nergaal (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Delegate Comment It has now been a month since the nomination was opened with no supports or opposes. If the nomination remains much longer without any activity or discussion, it may have to be closed as no consensus to promote. @Courcelles:, @Nergaal: Would you like to add any further comments? -- 05:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The artist shouldn't normally be included, but in this case is the author famous for anything else? Nergaal (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Franklin Pierce Adams was a notable newspaper columnist, but I don't believe he had any other works reach the level of this poem. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • In that case it is a bit tricky. In principle, if this topic could be included within an overview topic of the author, then everything would be fine. But if the guy is really not known for anything else, I think most people would be happy to have him included here instead. Nergaal (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as-is without the author. We have the poem, which is the subject of the topic, and the three people about whom the poem was written. That's a neat little group by itself and isn't missing anything, per WP:FT? ("a well-defined topical scope"). Sure, we could have the author; we could have the New York Evening Mail or the Chicago Cubs too. But we don't need them in order to have a "a well-defined topical scope". By way of further example, when we have a GT on an album, we want the album and the songs to be at GA status - we don't say that the band/the artist has to be at GA status too, because that's not part of the topic. BencherliteTalk 20:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been over a month since someone made a comment on his nomination. While there isn't any opposition to result in it getting closed, the lack of conversation is troubling. GamerPro64 23:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I am fine with passing this topic but I hope the author would at least consider adding the author into the topic in the future. Nergaal (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic removal candidates[edit]

Period 1 elements[edit]

Featured topic
3 articles
Good article Period 1 elements
Featured article Hydrogen
Featured article Helium

I am nominating this topic as it fails 1.a in the criteria. This is due to the lead topic being redirected to Period (periodic table). GamerPro64 18:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I second this delisting, mainly because the earlier page (having content) was not that a GA. Its quality was discussed at WP:ELEMENTS here (search for 'period 1 element' sub-threads). The removal of content (for redirect) was generally accepted by the involved editors. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconded, though I'd personally say that there was no content there in the first place that was relevant to period 1 and not H and He. The periods are not chemically similar and, I would argue, are not too suited to FTs – the groups would make great FTs (e.g. the FT Noble gas). The only places where horizontal similarities really become more important than vertical similarities are in the lanthanides and actinides. Double sharp (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Lol, if there was the same about of energy put into improving articles from such states instead of debating what is worth an article and/or topic or not, then such articles/topics could easily exist. Good luck with this attrition attitude within WP:ELEM. Nergaal (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If you cut out all the sections in those articles about the elements instead of the periods, you'll be left with very little that can very easily be merged into period (periodic table). This would include only the first three short sections and lede of your period 1 old revision. And I have been working on alkali metal and neptunium, among other things, both of which began in bad states. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good job, at this rate ([1] vs [2]) you will finish all the element articles in several lifetimes! And you won't even need any help from fellow contributors (unlike [3] vs [4]). Nergaal (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it's a slow pace. So why not help by working on articles that can be improved? If you want more GTs/FTs, sodium beckons, as do some transition metal groups. My own current goal is to simply have period 7 all green and blue by next year, as I'm not overly motivated by GT/FT as much as important articles like thorium, but you can work in any way that motivates you! But I don't see how you can write about periods. If you think you can, why not post a section outline somewhere, or some links to references? That would convince me. Double sharp (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
So, Nergaal, you propose to first skip the fact that there is nothing to say about a topic, and then improve that nothingness into an FA. You not only propose that, you also give an in-text demonstration of what you that means. -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: I concur. Let us bring the individual period articles back, shall we? Certainly if there are serious and lengthy academic treatises about group 10 elements, there certainly are references for period 1 elements. Do you have any sources for the latter? Parcly Taxel 23:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have checked. There aren't, and I suspect that's for the same reason I said earlier: the groups are far more homologous than the periods. Most texts I looked at subdivide the elements into chapters by groups and not periods, except for the lanthanides, actinides, and transactinides. Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, and the other ones (mostly popular books) went element by element in alphabetical or atomic-number order. Double sharp (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Now let me add this. "period 1 element" does not even suggest there is a period! It should have been named "List of period 1 elements", of course, to make clear that the Nergaal's want to describe individual elements, not their periodic relationship. Strange though that Nergaal never ever thought of this. Now if one ever wants to write an article about period 1, that would be a truly interesting new page (and an new page name). -DePiep (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's do that. Parcly Taxel 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so much energy spent on personal attacks and destroying whatever work has been done before. It's almost like I missed this constructive attitude when I bothered with the project. Nergaal (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I missed this constructive attitude - indeed: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You know how to read? Or that is too much for you? Nergaal (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Nergaal, you show a lot of chutspa (which not only means 'bravoure' but also 'lack of reason to do so'). You yourself did not contribute to the link you gave. Also that link left wproject Elements with contradicting and problematic outcome, as I predicted there in the process. But alas, we worked on it -- the better base being the earlier, then open talk section #Options of course. And let me point to this significant aspect. The page Other metal was proposed, prepared & made high grade by fellow ELEM editor Sandbh. After (1) preparing a publishable page themselves, (2) initiating and concluding a search for consensus, and then (3) implementing it. That's how wp works. (btw, click that link and see who contributed - and what. Hint: look for a nonpinged editor). Then months later (about June 1st) you come in creating havoc for days without articulating your point. And keep listening: today that same editor is working to get the article better & renamed (but not into 'poor'), a change against their own proposed and well concluded consensus. That's what I call loyalty to the wiki project, and to its discussion process. (Of course this issue I would not have raised, had you not these days shown that you still have this attitude. A bad day can happen, even 7 in a row doesn't beat my PB/PW. But ten weeks now?). To me, it also raises questions that you rely on & communicate with other editors off-page to state. All in all, I still don't get why you didn't/don't just go to a talkpage. Really, what is happening?, I ask. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
So you used a 1/2 kb prose to justify your own pow. You still choose to fill books of texts on talkpages instead of accepting clear cases of consensus that are 100% agains your own pow. Take your tag-team and continue jerking off together on other talkpages you choose so and stop bothering proving that your own view is opposite to mine. Nergaal (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
We were not even ignoring it. We were just waiting for Sandbh to get his replacement article in his sandbox ready – last I checked, his section for At was missing some references. Then we will move it. Surely you understand that it takes a lot of time to update every single PT on WP at once – I daresay I've had to do that several times before. And I would rather have a reasonably good article shell there. Double sharp (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: stop for a moment. What exactly do you want? I will be supporting you all the way through this, but I want your reasons for keeping the period articles. Parcly Taxel 06:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
And look at this consensus completely being ignored by people who just know they are right in doing attrition wars. Nergaal (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Shortcut: just start by improving Period_(periodic_table)#Period_1, sources and electron filling and periodicity, and all that's relevant. When substantiated (not just listing), it could fly out and make a stand-alone article. This times seven. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, not so much electron filling (that's more for electron configuration), but on periodicity I agree. Double sharp (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)