Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/September 2009
Good topic candidates: view - edit - history
Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games[edit]
I've been working on this featured topic for a little under two years now, and I think it meets all the requirements. More than a third of the articles are FAs (including one FL), and the remainder are GAs. I'm satisfied with my work, and I hope you will be too. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please leave a note on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support unless I am missing something major, I think this is a pretty neat topic. Nergaal (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support - this is a fantastic topic, it is always great when a topic of this size comes along. It has taken a lot of dedication on your part to get this topic to where it is today, and you fully deserve the promotion that I hope will result. The only minor issue I can find that needs addressing is that the section on the 2009 Orange Bowl in the lead article needs expanding with details of the match - I guess you last updated it before the match was played - rst20xx (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support It's pretty cool how you dedicated most of your Wikipedia time on 22 of these articles (that's how much I counted from your userpage). I might say, well done! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment In regard to the topic article, there needs to be consistency in the score boxes: They should all be positioned below the Main article links, not some above them. Also in the score boxes, they vary in order of teams: is it supposed to be the designated home team, which isn't mentioned elsewhere? I don't care which but pick winner on top, Virginia Tech on top, or make it clear that's the home team. The section on the most recent game, the 2009 Orange Bowl, needs to be expanded to be in line with the others in length. You also need consistency among the game articles. One thing I noticed was variable header titles. Pregame buildup or Pre-game buildup? Postgame effects, Post-game effects, or Aftereffects? Maybe the Wikiproject has a standard layout, otherwise, pick any one of them and stick with it. Rather than Notes sections, they should all be References sections. Great job overall! Reywas92Talk 00:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Looked like 1996 Orange Bowl (December) was the only one where the infobox was above the main template. The team order is defined in the template as home/visitor. I'd suggest talking to the template author if you think that should be made more clear. I've also gone through to standardize section titles and work on that length item in the parent article. Thanks for the comments! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and about the notes/references item, I use "Notes" because in articles like Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, I use book/video references that are cited frequently. That isn't so much the case in these articles since there's no book cites, but I prefer to keep a consistent style with myself, similar to the way I don't use citation templates. The naming convention comes from Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Notes and References. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - shouldn't the main article name be List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games? I am talking about the actual article.—Chris! ct 03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. It's been moved. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I've been waiting for this topic for a long time. Great job. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support That's pretty impressive. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Awesome work. Have to work quick if they do well this season though. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's one thing I was keeping an eye on. Since eight items are featured, and there'll be 24 items in the list after January, I shouldn't have to get another featured item until 2011. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work! -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Rawlings Gold Glove Award[edit]
I'm nominating this because all of the articles within the topic are featured. Two possible short articles that wouldn't have passed FL independently have actually been merged into the main team article, making this topic comprehensive and informative. It's also a sister topic to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Silver Slugger Award, both of which will eventually be daughter topics of the proposed "Awards in Major League Baseball" topic. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support - great topic. One suggestion, I think it would be worth linking to the sublists of winners in the key, a la Silver Slugger Award#Key - rst20xx (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Huge support KV5 logged a lot of work on these articles, including putting up with my notes for the pitcher article. :) Will be a great FT and eventual subtopic to List of MLB Awards. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support always love baseball nominations. Great job. --Admrboltz (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Another superb effort. Keep 'em coming! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Pretty cool how you racked up all those stats. Nice job! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Stunned Support Woowwwwww...well done... :O ResMar 22:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support good work -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Victoria Cross recipients by campaign[edit]
After some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:FTC#Victoria_Cross I think this is the best course of action for this topic. The master list for this is the campaign list. Given the technical restrictions and for page management larger lists are forked out but are essentially part of the main list, hence why I think this topic is the best way forward. I intend to eventually have this as a subtopic of the already featured Victoria Cross topic as envisaged at my sandbox. I think this is a complete and rounded topic that meets the FT criteria and I leave it to your consideration. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think I criticised pretty much every list in this topic and Woody worked tirelessly to fix each one up to standard. It's irrefutable that all lists are (recently) featured and I believe that the top-level list is significant enough to warrant a featured topic here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support I reviewed a fair amount of these lists. They are all representative of our best work. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great work by Woody. Have been waiting for this to come here for long time. - DSachan (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I, too, had the pleasure of reviewing some of these lists. This is an excellent, and complete, topic that satisfies the criteria. Well done, Woody! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not really sure which way to vote on this (oppose?), but as per the above-linked discussion, I think this topic should be included in the existing VC topic. The end result would only be 13 articles and topics go up to 30 articles before being considered too big (in fact if all the VC articles were combined into one topic that would only be 29 I think, including the 3 proposed A-Z articles in the sandbox). I realise it looks more impressive to have 2 topics instead of one but this is not in itself an argument to have them separate. It is more useful to have just one topic, and it is worth bearing in mind that the WP:FT page is already taller than the WP:FA page. Recommendations at WP:FT? state that "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each" so that seems to me to advocate a general policy of combining topics, assuming the end result is comprehensive, and isn't too big. In summary, I'd favour this:
- The topic will be somewhat comprehensive with just the 13 articles listed above in the sense that every single recipient will now be listed once - in excluding for the time being the other VC lists, all you're excluding is different ways of presenting the same data - rst20xx (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- For me this isn't about numbers, nor the "FT credits" as you seem to be implying (which is a fair enough assumption–alas inaccurate–we all have our own motivations). That the FT page is getting a bit big would suggest a redesign to me, not to reduce the number of FTCs. For me this is about the best presentation of these articles and I think the way envisaged at User:Woody/Sandboxes/Victoria Cross/BoxOne#6 is the best way forward. Personally I don't think this is excessive sub-division, I think it is the logical way forward given the way these lists have been constructed. Woody (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, OK, I didn't mean to imply your motives were to get more "FT credits", I didn't know where you were coming from, so was just covering that this wouldn't be a reason. For the reasons I stated above, I think the topics would be better merged, and further think they look better merged, but we'll have to see what others think - rst20xx (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- For me this isn't about numbers, nor the "FT credits" as you seem to be implying (which is a fair enough assumption–alas inaccurate–we all have our own motivations). That the FT page is getting a bit big would suggest a redesign to me, not to reduce the number of FTCs. For me this is about the best presentation of these articles and I think the way envisaged at User:Woody/Sandboxes/Victoria Cross/BoxOne#6 is the best way forward. Personally I don't think this is excessive sub-division, I think it is the logical way forward given the way these lists have been constructed. Woody (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with Woody's views on how the topics should be presented. -MBK004 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Woody's presentation -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 14:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Woody's version. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - I guess it is time to bring a supplementary nomination to the "Victoria Cross" topic - rst20xx (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Four Quartets[edit]
Good topic nomination. I am nominating these as they are the four parts of the Four Quartets series, published by T S Eliot. They follow the same format and are connected to each other through the main page. They will probably never become FA from lack of public domain images of the author or the works. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Nice work. I'm surprised, though, that you think that the lack of images would preclude the articles from reaching FA status. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I try not to nominate anything unless I believe it is of a superior standard in both content and aesthetics than any current encyclopedia out there. Since others own multiple images of Eliot that are pertinent, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to pushing for them to go through without at least an image of Eliot (sure, an image on Dante, Aquinas, the locations, etc, can be found, but the author is an important part and would be ignored). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of images, can you try to come up with a free image to use in the topic box? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- There are none. The images we have of Eliot have never been verified as actually free. Copyright applies to all other images of him. The work was produced less than 70 years after author's death so the title page is copyrighted. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well we've got to have something for the box so for now I've just inserted the illustration of Eliot that's on the commons. If you find something else you'd rather have there just change it later. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- There are none. The images we have of Eliot have never been verified as actually free. Copyright applies to all other images of him. The work was produced less than 70 years after author's death so the title page is copyrighted. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of images, can you try to come up with a free image to use in the topic box? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Support I suspected this was the plan when I saw the GAN queue a while ago! Have you considered creating a navbox to link these together? It could also link other works by Eliot - I suspect the "casual reader" of Wikipedia is more likely to be enticed to click on a poem/play name in a navbox than on a category. BencherliteTalk 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've been meaning to create an Eliot box for a while now but for some reason I never got around to it. I will do it later. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport - pending the creation of a suitable navbox - rst20xx (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Created and linked. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Definitely make a navbox. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice work. Theleftorium 19:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Nice job. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lovely work -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The Legacy[edit]
- Main contributors: ThinkBlue, NiciVampireHeart and Tony2Times
We are nominating the topic The Legacy (professional wrestling) as a Good Topic. The Legacy (professional wrestling) is a professional wrestling faction in WWE, comprised of Randy Orton, Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase, Jr.. All four articles in the topic are of Good article status. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) and ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow, pretty recent to get such quick coverage, nice job. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support: You all get these done too quick. I'm going to make a name for the both of you as a team.--WillC 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support but could you just call the topic "The Legacy"? I have looked through the other pages at The Legacy and none of them seem worthy of their own topic, further I think the wider topic box should make it clear to anyone looking at it that the professional wrestling team is the Legacy being referred to here - rst20xx (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)