Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Texas A&M University/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas A&M University[edit]

This topic has a significant quantity of FAs and, together should be considered as a Featured Topic. — BQZip01 — talk 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit | discuss
Texas A&M University
6 articles
History of Texas A&M University
Fightin' Texas Aggie Band
Aggie Bonfire
Lawrence Sullivan Ross
Traditions of Texas A&M University

Major contributors: BQZip01, Oldag07, Karanacs, & BlueAg09.

Support Clearly meets the criteria and has comprehensively addressed topics I never imagined could be more than an orphaned stub. Consistently exemplary work all around. If only we could bribe these editors away to work on other UNI articles! Madcoverboy (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to help should anyone request it...as long as it isn't that overglorified junior college in Austin :-) — BQZip01 — talk 08:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resp to the two above: No one is cherrypicking, but there are literally hundreds of articles under which you could discuss Texas A&M-related material. To include them all at an in-depth level would be a disservice to the University as most are "nice to know" information, but not essential to understanding the University as a whole. I could go into many other FTs and say that there are other articles under which those topics should be addressed (As an example, the 1998 Pacific Hurricane Season seems to be missing articles on the vast majority of its hurricanes while hurricane, an FA, is absent too. I would assume that is because they are already covered in the main article. The rest are expansions on the information in the main article...much like Texas A&M). To address each point individually:
Ok... once again I understand where you're coming from, but this isn't an FA process, but FT - a string of topics. Yes the main Texas A&M article talks about the campus, but in two paragraphs. I've read some of the other FTs before and they had a lot more to offer when it comes to the list of topics covered. Now, I'm not arguing that that you're wrong, just that it's still lacking supporting "sister-articles" to make it a decent FT. I'm going to hold by !vote so that it's fair and someone can explain this a little better. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 19:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, is the campus the primary sticking point with you? There are hundreds of nondescript buildings on campus. The work done inside them is notable. Most that aren't mentioned aren't particularly notable. — BQZip01 — talk 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood how very comprehensive existing topics are. Take your example of the hurricane season topics. No, they don't include articles on every single hurricane in the season, and they don't include Hurricane. But they DO include articles on every single hurricane in the season that is considered NOTABLE ENOUGH to have an article exist on it at all. And as for their not including Hurricane - topics don't include articles on things more notable than their main article, so for example, notice that I didn't call for you to include the article University, or even Texas A&M University System, the direct parent article to Texas A&M University.
The way topics are built is to start with a main article, and then add its subarticles, until a certain level of coverage deemed appropriate is met. I do not feel that the topic you have nominated above comes close to meeting this level of coverage. Many of the articles I mentioned, you said shouldn't be included because they are discussed in the main article, but this logic is backwards - their mentioning in the main article simply points to the importance of those articles to the topic, and the resultant fact that they are more important to include than articles that AREN'T mentioned!
How do you think that Texas A&M Aggies is not notable enough to be included, but Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is?!? That seems to me to be a classic example of cherrypicking, and I'm sorry to say that I feel it is one of many examples of cherrypicking to be found throughout this topic.
I am not suggesting by any means that you needed to include every single article to do with Texas A&M to get this topic promoted, but I think you should include the ones I named above, as they seem to me to be the direct subarticles to the main article. And this was a large number of articles, but this is a very large topic you are trying to take on. It is a fact that some topics are harder to get featured than others, and this may not seem fair, but if you think about it, the same is true for articles - some are harder to get featured than others there, too. If you try to take on a very large topic such as this, it will be very hard to get featured, but if you manage it, the results will be infinitely more impressive - rst20xx (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we disagree. My point is that "...they DO include articles on every [subject] that is considered NOTABLE ENOUGH to have an article exist on it at all." is not a criteria. I'm sure that every hurricane could at least have a stub article but no one has bothered to create them. Merely existing as an article doesn't mean it is essential to the topic. I'll concede the point that the athletics could be added, but again, I don't feel it is essential to the topic (an educational entity).
I added Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and Aggie Bonfire because they both fall under the umbrella. We could always remove them from the topic, but that doesn't really serve a decent purpose. If some random subtopic of one of the FTs gets FA, should we de-list the Topic because not all the other potential subtopics aren't FA or GA?
While I and others have gone into great length to have places to put such information, I don't feel those articles are necessarily within the realm of NEEDING to be included in the topic. If you want to get down to it, I'm sure we could mention many other articles that COULD be included within other FTs.
As I said before, the campus article isn't necessary and most of the information is already contained in the main article and the history. Galveston and Qatar are relatively minor sub-entities of the University. Athletics is already discussed in the main article to the extent necessary for a University. The remaining lists are already covered in the main article or other FAs and are merely different formats of the same information.
In short, I guess we agree to disagree. Best of luck to you in the future and a Happy New Year! — BQZip01 — talk 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm sorry, but this topic fails criterion 1(d) which clearly says "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." You don't even have the school's main athletics article Texas A&M Aggies included in the topic. If you don't see that as a huge gap in the topic then none of the other examples I could give will do any good. And saying that "it's covered in the main article so we don't need to include the article in the topic" isn't a valid argument. We've never allowed that to be a valid argument in any topic nomination (that I am aware of). Rreagan007 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Look, I didn't try to just stare at the request, looked a little bit and then !vote+abandon topic. I gave some honest time looking at what the defense has to comment, and I'm sorry but I'm still not convinced. Until the issues addressed very above are fixed, I cannot support a FT candidate that very blatantly cherry-picked topics to nominate for FT with obvious coverage gaps. Send me a message on my talk page when this fact changes. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zginder 2009-01-05T15:29Z (UTC)

  • Comment Since i am a major editor of this topic, I guess i have waited to make this comment on this page in respect for my fellow editors. But since Karanacs spoke, i guess now is a good time for me to speak. I tried to lead a WP:TAMU effort over a year ago. This was the plan was detailed on this pageWikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas A&M/FTopic. That being said, it was good to get feedback from all of y'all. This will be good motivation for all of us WP:TAMU in the future. That being said, I am still bogged down in the "real world" and on the Texas article, with is getting inching along painfully, to get much done elsewhere. Thanks for all your help. Gig em Oldag07 (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per missing pages that could be included in this topic: incomplete topic.--Truco 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator — BQZip01 — talk 17:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Texas_A%26M_University/archive1&oldid=1089086145"