Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Nominations: promote Lost season 4
rewritten to say that major contributors should be consulted before nominating
Line 8: Line 8:
This page is for the nomination of potential featured topics. Here we determine which topics are featured on Featured topics. '''A featured topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work.''' See [[Wikipedia:What is a featured topic?|"what is a featured topic?"]] for criteria. 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]].
This page is for the nomination of potential featured topics. Here we determine which topics are featured on Featured topics. '''A featured topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work.''' See [[Wikipedia:What is a featured topic?|"what is a featured topic?"]] for criteria. 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]].


If you nominate a topic, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a topic by listing it at [[Wikipedia:Peer review|Peer review]].
Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at [[Wikipedia:Peer review|Peer review]]. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not [http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ 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.


Consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived.
Consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived.

Revision as of 16:13, 2 August 2008

Featured Topics in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured 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).

This page is for the nomination of potential featured topics. Here we determine which topics are featured on Featured topics. A featured topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. See "what is a featured topic?" for criteria. 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 Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC 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.

Consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived.

Purge the cache to refresh this page
Shortcut

Featured content:

Good content:

Featured and good topic tools:

Nomination procedure

For how to nominate topics or how to add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure.

Supporting and objecting

Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • 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 '''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.

Nominations

Please add new nominations to the top.

Guitar Hero

Note that this was a Featured Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

previous FTC (August 22, 2008)

Main page Articles
Guitar Hero Guitar Hero (video game) - Guitar Hero II - Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - Guitar Hero World Tour - Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - Guitar Hero: Metallica - Guitar Hero: On Tour - Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades - Guitar Hero III Mobile - List of songs in Guitar Hero - List of songs in Guitar Hero II - List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - List of songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith

All articles now have, at minimum, undergone a peer review; as previously noted World Tour (due in Oct), Decades (due by end of 08), and Metallica (due by March 09) are future games and thus cannot gain GA status until after their release, at which point I expect those helping with these to be able to get them to quality within 3 months, easily. --MASEM 02:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, for lack of any better image, I believe that Image:Guitar-hero-controller.jpg this would work (reduced in size to the appropriate dimensions). --MASEM 01:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder how legitimate that "free use" tag is. I would have thought that the company would retain the copyright over the distinctive image of their controller. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the controller's shape is based on a Gibson SG guitar, and free images of that (and other Gibson guitars) exist at commons, as well as free images of controllers and game systems, I don't believe this as a problem; there is certainly trademark issues, but that does not interfere with free use of such images. --MASEM 12:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did ask elsewhere on this just to confirm and yes, such images are free - US copyright law doesn't cover utilitarian objects such as game controllers and cars, and thus photos can be freely made; thus this image is sufficient to use here. --MASEM 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary nominations

  1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero/addition1
  2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero/addition2
  3. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero/addition3
  4. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero/addition4

State touring routes in Warren County, New York

Main page Articles
List of highways in Warren County, New York New York State Route 8 - New York State Route 9L - New York State Route 9N - New York State Route 28 - New York State Route 28N - New York State Route 32 - New York State Route 32B - New York State Route 149 - New York State Route 254 - New York State Route 418

previous FTC (closed July 22, 2008)

Ok, let's try this again. I'm back from vacation (in this county), and upgraded some of the articles with good pics. Now that there's a good consensus on what to use in it, this should be a lot easier.Mitch32(UP) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - As per previous nom, I'd prefer to see national routes included as well, as part of a larger topic, but feel this topic meets the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I think all highways in the county would make a better topic, but this definitely meets criteria as is. -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary nominations

  1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/State touring routes in Warren County, New York/addition1

Smallville (season 1)

Main page Articles
Smallville (season 1) Pilot (Smallville) - Tempest (Smallville)
  • I am nominating the Smallville season 1 for featured topic. Before there are any arguments for "oppose" on the grounds that there are "gaps", I will explain that there are only these two individual episode articles on the mainspace. If you view the season 1 article you will find that the remaining episodes all have their information there, as they were not notable enough to warrant a separate page of their own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to go out on a limb here and support. I take the example of album topics to say that if a item in a series is not notable enough to have an article. Than it does not need to be in the topic. Zginder 2008-07-28T13:04Z (UTC)
  • Support - All episode articles are listed with the season article, and there are an appropriate number of FA's and GA's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - personally I would rather see all the episodes having their own articles, as this way these episodes will have more information on them available on WP than with them merged into the season 1 article, but that's just my view on the whole TV episodes headache, and given the current situation on that, I feel the topic meets the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Actually they won't, because this is all the information. The probability is low that any additional professional reviews are going to come out for these episodes. The ones that are on the season article fail individual notability. Not every show is The Simpsons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Even if the episodes are not relevand enough, I can't believe that there isn't more to say about them than 5 lines of text. If the episodes are not relevand enough it means that they are unlikely to reach a GA-class status, but there must be a solution to this: (1) either get articles about each of them to be B-class and PRed or (2) create an article entitled Plot in Smallville and add way more information about the plot there. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but articles about the plot of the show are not really recommended. Regardless, if someone wants to know about an episode's plot, and this may be a new idea but stop me if you've heard it before, "Go watch the show". Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching a show. Guess what, not every show is The Simpsons and has dozens of independent sources discussing every last episode. Not every episode is notable enough to have an article of its own (please see notability requirements). Obviously, all of the episode information fit coherently together to get the season one article to featured status, so splitting them off just so someone can have some minute detail about an episode isn't justification (at least not to me). Sorry you're opposition is to questioning why these episode don't have articles, and not something that is actually wrong with these specific featured topic-hopeful.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support having these articles under the topic. I think that per WP:PLOT, the season article does an excellent job of providing concise plot summaries of each episode. Obviously, the first and the last episodes have drawn more coverage, so they stand alone well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Meets featured topic criteria. The pages do an excellent job of focusing on relevant, encyclopedic information, and concern about lack of plot information is unfounded. Having individual episode articles just for the sake of it, when all available info is already covered at the season 1 article, would be innappropiate.  Paul  730 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This topic barely meet the criteria, but it is too borderline for me (three articles, two of which are featured, somewhat inconsistent in article splitting). –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think this fails 1d. I feel 3a allows for articles on other episodes in the season, and whilst I do not favour only WP:PLOT it would be possible to have an article with short well constructed sections on reception and production. Perhaps more obviously I think that there is a gap with information on the DVD missing which could possibly be incorporated into the season 1 article. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you seen the DVDs? I have them all. All DVD information that is real world (and not simply some interactive that expands plot background) IS in the season 1 article. All information production wise for each episode that does not have its own article (whether from the DVD, the season 1 companion book, or a couple of third-party sources that were found) IS in the season 1 article. There are no other reviews for episodes in this season. I don't know why it is that hard to believe that not every television show is reviewed on a weekly basis. Sorry, but there is no way to create a "reception" section for an episode article that doesn't exist. There are no reviews. If you can find them, please do because I've been searching since before I every decided to create that season page (by create I mean rewrite the whole thing to look the way it does, as it was "literally" created before I joined Wikipedia). Also, 1d 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. " The key to that is "not cherry pick only the best articles". I didn't cherry pick, I have every single article related to season 1 listed. There are no other articles, and no other episode meets the notability guideline. If you want to change that guideline, be my guest.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the subject of DVDs, I think what Rambo's Revenge meant was that you could have a section akin to this. That kind of section is quite common actually (for example, see Lost, The Simpsons, The OC...) - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the DVD's I did mean, as Rst20xx correctly interpreted, a section like those examples listed above. Also "there are no reviews"! Here is a page I found on my first search with one for every episode - [1] Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • To address the DVD remark, Wikipedia is not Amazon and I don't know why people started listing everything that the DVD box sets contained. Since when did Wikipedia start promoting DVD features? Exactly what encyclopedic value does knowing what a DVD contains actually provide? We aren't here so readers can go, "Hey, Show X has 5 commentaries and I love commentaries...I better go buy that DVD set." Please explain what actual encyclopedic value such info has (please don't provide a vague "to be comprehensive", because being comprehensive doesn't mean to indiscriminately provided every minute, trivial aspect of a topic in an article), and I will seriously think about including such a thing in the season article. I disagreed with them being in the other articles, because I think they do nothing for the article be take up space with indiscriminate info about the box set. It wasn't like that stuff was recognized by third-party sources as being the "wow" factor for the DVD or something. It wasn't like Fight Club's DVD box cover which had thematical representations tied directly to the film itself.
            • As for the reviews, please look at the site you provided closely. The professionalness of "TV Without Pity" ranks up there with "BuddyTV" and "TV Squad", which is to say that it isn't a professional review site. Second, those aren't reviews so much as they are merely elongated plot summaries with OmarG's personal opinion about each scene (They're even categorized as "Recaps" and not "Reviews"). He spends his time restating dialogue and then mocking it (even when he gives the episode a grade of "A"). I mean, seriously? What television reviewer do you know (beside the one I'm speaking of) that spends 17 pages on a single episode, recounting every detail of the plot. He's not even analyzing the episode, he's just providing a completely shot-for-shot recap of the show, with little quips here and there about what is happening in the scene: "Clark zips over and dives on top of Zoe (for once, he's on top of a woman)." Also, a single "review" (and I use that term extremely litely) is not significant coverage, even when he spends 17 pages recounting the plot. I'm not trying to deny these episodes a page because I don't want them to have one, I'm trying to show you how, when you weed out all that crap on the web, there are not reliable sources from respectable critics on these episodes. I've seen so many episode articles get created and rushed to FAC with reviews from completely unprofessional sources. We have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and anyone can get something published. You have to ask yourself, would you accept news information from this site? Would the community accept news information from this site, or would they say that it is an unreliable source of information because of it's lack of "history of accuracy and editorial oversight"? If it isn't the best source for news, it probably isn't the best source for reviews either.
            • It's funny that I interpreted "Television Without Pity" as mocking the show, because it's own Wiki page actually says the same thing, "Television Without Pity (often abbreviated TWoP) is a website that provides detailed recaps of select television dramas, situation comedies and reality TV shows, often by mocking them."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think listing DVD contents is inappropriate, certainly not advertising (not sure how you made that claim, seeing as how it's all factual) and seemingly not overkill (I for one would find it useful and I imagine many others would too), otherwise we wouldn't have all these featured seasons with such sections - rst20xx (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, it's only something that has recently been done. It wasn't a normal practice. It's done to bloat the page with more information (Info that is not necessary in understanding the topic). Notice how featured film articles don't have a listing of all the DVD specs. Why, all of a sudden, did the TV community feel that they needed to bloat articles with DVD specs? They serve no purpose. Amazon has the DVD specs taken care of quite nicely. There isn't even consistent practice of such displays: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I disagree with the DVD information not being encyclopedic, one of the examples you have given [5] has detailed information about each DVD on the individual season pages, whilst your argument of what doesn't exist in other articles isn't what we are discussing. Please note I didn't say that one source was enough for a reception section, I was challenging your comment that "there are no reviews". Also note that TWoP has been used in successful WP:FA's [12], [13] but any problem with the source is something to raise at WP:RS not here. Also trying to second guess my replies using WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not something I appreciate, as an encyclopedia is defined as a "comprehensive written compendium". I have no problem in recognising that your contributions to proposed articles are valuable and that individually they are rightly FA/GA's, but in my reasonable opinion I still don't feel they come together sufficiently well to be a featured topic. If you wish to discuss any broader comments I have made I suggest we do so at my talk page, as this discussion should be kept on assessing the topic under the given criteria. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets all the criteria. Making articles on non-notable episodes just for the sake of this topic is not the way to go. sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Quite simply, this doesn't need its own topic. These two episodes would be better integrated into a more general Smallville featured topic. See the Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow featured topic: the list of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow isn't a subtopic; rather, the character articles are in the same topic as the character list. These two Smallville articles really don't deserve a separate topic. Xnux the Echidna 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't realize that what "deserves" its own topic, and what meets the criteria were two seperate things. I also didn't realize that what "deserves" its own topic supercedes what meets the criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the Featured topic recommendations: it says that "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each." I believe that this is an excessive subdivision of articles, as one topic would work much better.
        • Ah, but you're making this opinion based on the idea that there will be several small sub-topics. At the moment, I can guarantee that there won't be a topic for season 2. I don't see multiple episodes split for any of the remaining seasons (maybe 1 episode per season, but that seems a stretch based on what I've been finding). As for a "Smallville" topic, I think a "Smallville seasons" or something similar might be better, but none are anywhere near that point in time. I would assume that once that time comes a "Smallville seasons" topic would overwrite any individual topics in existence (as I don't think you can have a featured topic within a featured topic, though I could be wrong).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you misinterpreted me. I think that two topics would suffice: Smallville and seasons of Smallville (yes, you can have a featured topic within a featured topic; see Seasons of Lost, it has Lost (season 4) "within" it). However, these two episodes of Smallville would be better suited to a seasons of Smallville topic (which links to list of Smallville episodes anyway) because it would avoid an excessive amount of subtopics. I'm sorry, but I don't really see a compelling reason why these two episodes are deserving of their own topic. By the way, I don't mind that there won't be subtopics for the other Smallville seasons because, as you said, there would only be about one episode per season anyway (which would be better integrated into a seasons of Smallville topic anyway). Xnux the Echidna 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think this is a valid oppose Xnux. While I agree with what you're saying about how this topic should ultimately be folded into a Seasons topic, your oppose for this reason is based on faulty logic, as the seasons topic DOESN'T EXIST YET. When it gains sufficient quality and is promoted, THEN this topic can be folded into that one. In the meantime, this topic is entitled to exist on its own.
            Let's look back at the recommendation: "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each" The options here, with the current quality of the articles, are either one featured topic, or none. NOT one or several, which is the situation that this recommendation is designed to deal with - rst20xx (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to highlight the three reasons people levelled against this topic:
  1. There should be a DVD section in the Smallville (season 1) article - while I would support the inclusion of such a section myself, I'm not sure how valid this oppose is, as it's more a problem with the article than the topic
  2. That this would constitute oversplitting of a topic, and should instead be part of a larger topic - I don't think this is a valid oppose at all, because while I agree that when a larger topic is ready, this should be merged into it, as it stands there is no larger topic
  3. That while the Smallville (season 1) article gives sufficient depth for an overview of Smallville season 1, there is not enough depth in these three articles for a Smallville season 1 topic, as some individual episodes are not covered in enough depth - I see the point here, though this is a difficult issue to address, as the other episodes have been deemed not notable enough to merit their own articles. I think Bignole needs to think long and hard about how to get round this problem if he wants to get this topic through FTC
I'm considering closing this nomination as I don't see this topic gaining consensus for promotion now. Are discussions ongoing between Bignole and Rambo's Revenge that might effect this? - rst20xx (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't understand the "doesn't give sufficient depth". Could you elaborate a bit more on what this is supposed to mean? As for Rambo and I, based on our discussions on our talk pages, it would appear that Rambo no long has a problem with the episodes not having their own article ,based on this comment. But, that is up to Rambo to reiterate where he stands. Our discussions has boiled down to how can we provide some additional coverage of those episodes, that don't meet the requirements for their own article, in the season 1 article. I'll let Rambo speak for himself. I'm also curious as to why you would say it doesn't have consensus for promotion, when, even you, agreed that two of those opinions to oppose aren't valid reasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think the third one debatably is. And I think 3 opposes have been along these lines (one of which is Rambo's). Anyway, I thought the sufficient depth thing was pretty clear, what exactly are you confused about? But OK, you've (remarkably easily) convinced me closing seems like a bad idea. Let's wait and see what Rambo says, as it stands we have 6 supports and 4 opposes, which is too close for me, but if he changes his mind then (considering I don't think Xnux's oppose is all that valid) I'd be willing to see that as 7-2 and consensus - rst20xx (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per the reasoning of the above supports. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I have considered this topic carefully and discussed possible gaps in more detail with Bignole. The main thing (from my oppose) was that not having individual episodes neglects information other than WP:PLOT. I now agree that all these things are/can be covered within the topic. My neutrility comes from the fact that these won't all get fixed overnight, and some things are currently in Smallville (TV series), a GA luckily, so I don't think the topic stands alone well, but I am confident Bignole can and will resolve as many of these issues as possible.
    • The ratings are in the process of being added to episodes and I would add production codes to be comprehensive/encyclopaedic.[14]
    • Try to mention any notable cast appearances from people not in the pilot. Kelly Brook's four episode arc springs to mind.[15]
    • Tollin/Robbins Productions & Warner Bros. should probably be mentioned as producers
    • The only other things are to get references consist, so for citeweb use "first=" and "last=" fields to give "Surname, Forname" like the book ref and to remove bold links to satisfy WP:BOLDTITLE.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as production codes go, TV.com (which is part of EPguides.com) is considered as reliable as IMDb. Production codes for most shows are difficult to accurately attain. I've also seen the codes as 1.01, 1.02, etc. Where are you wanting to add Tollin/Robbins and Warner Bros. exactly? They aren't the "producers", as that is a specific title for a person. They are merely the production companies involved. I don't recall too many articles that list all of the production companies involved in a show. I'm also not sure about the boldface. Are you asking to remove the boldface from the episode titles in the table? Or, are you referring to the lead section? The only thing I can find closely talking about the lead in relation to the season 1 article is: "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, or List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be in boldface". If that's the case, then "season one" is recited verbatum in the body of the article (many times), so it would be bolded.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just used epguide as it listed them all at once, they are listed individually here, Ep 1, Ep 2, etc. The production companies would go in the production section of the season, and seem to fairly standard practice in featured seasons ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). As for WP:BOLDTITLE "Do not link words in the bold title" i.e. the word smallville in the lead
  • Do you see a problem with those production numbers? There is one number here, and a completely different number here. The second number, though from a more reliable source, has no actual value (neither does the other). It doesn't tell the reader anything they need to know. If it's whether they filmed the episode in one order or a different one, well that is covered in the production section. It seems to be a useless bit of information about the episodes, and one that is difficult to verify.
  • As far as Tollin Robbins goes, where in the production would you like that. It seems to be an obscure statement about what companies fund the show, which is probably good for the general Smallville page, but not so much for the specific season (or even episode) articles. As far as those other pages go, you're comparing a list page to an article, which is formatted different, and contains different info. If you look at those season lists, they are doing just that, listing everything they can about the show (often repeating info each season) in prose form.
  • I fixed the link to Smallville that was being bolded [21].
  • I just noticed your Kelly Brook comment. There isn't a casting section (it's covered on the main page, as well as the pilot, and the Characters of Smallville), so I don't know what you would do with Kelly Brook. Just like "listing" actors in a section (which has no real value), just listing "notable guest stars" has no real value. Her name is in the plot section (which, btw, you made me realize that the plot section never resolved her final appearance on the show...and I just took care of it), and she isn't covered in any reliable, third party sources (not even any primary sources like the companion novels either) beyond a "Kelly Brook portrays Victoria Hardwick" statement. Otherwise, she would have been given a section at Characters of Smallville, instead of a name listing in the list at the bottom of said page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a problems with the numbers, check again they are the same. I am well aware that the cast and production companies are covered elsewhere. My point is that they are an important part of the season and as it stands would not be covered within the season topic. A featured topic needs to be "covering a subject comprehensively." Also I have made the refs consistent. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the number now. I still stick to the same belief that it is a useless number. As for the company, how is it an important part of the season itself? It's an important part of the show, but not to the season itself. Also, being comprehensive does not mean including everything, regardless of how miniscule or non-related it is to the topic. Tollin Robbins and WB are companies that provide money, it is the people that work for them that actually decide things for the show; anyone important enough to know in that regard is already noted. Back to the cast part; important part of the season? Eh, she was a bit player in 4 episodes. She was never heard from again, and she really did nothing to develop anything in the show. She is mentioned in the plot section. Apart from that, that's all there is. You cannot (and should not) create an entire section to just list actors names that one deems "notable to the season", just because there isn't any real world information about their roles on the show. That's placing undue weight on their performance, which obviously wasn't notable enough to get recognized by reliable sources independent of the subject. As for the refs, I don't use "first, last" dividers because they take up more space than simply using "author" and placing their names in the "last, first" position. The same with the "authorlink". Why add three sections when you can accomplish all of it with a single section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should leave this open just a little longer, so this conversation has a chance to conclude - rst20xx (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what Rambo and I are discussing is probably better for the season 1 article talk page. His concerns are more for article content, than whether this should be a featured topic. The concerns he has wouldn't cause the season 1 page to lose featured article status, because they (currently) consist of including a particular production code, and mentioning Tollin Robbins and "notable guest stars" in some fashion. The page is already comprehensive; Rambo's concerns are more on whether the page could be expanded slightly further than it is. At least, that is what I gather from his remarks, as he hasn't pointed out any expansive changes to the page. Regardless, I still think it's something we should continue on the talk page, as it appears to have no bearing on whether the topic is featured or not. Rambo?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that rst20xx is 110% wrong in saying that this is too close, which in actual fact, is total rubbish. There are four opposes, but which are valid. Firstly, thedemonhog's objection is total crap - he says "this topic barely meets the criteria". He bases this on the fact there are only three articles - so what? This meets the criteria. The featured topics on Christ Illusion, Confederate government of Kentucky, etc. - the list goes on and on. Xnux's objection is total crap as well - when I nominated Christ Illusion, you had people trying to say I should only nominate Slayer. Erm, no. There is no rule you should nominate articles as part of a more general topic, so as I said, yet another bullshit objection. As concerns the other two objections, they're questionable. These two opposers have not proven in any shape or form that every episode is notable enough to warrant an article. Every song on a FT nominated album isn't expected to have an article, and the same logic applies here. By my count, there are no valid opposes whatsoever, and six supports. Too close? No, not in any sense of the phrase Before drawing conclusions, it'd be great if the person who promotes / doesn't (ie. rst20xx) actually checks whether the objections adhere to the FT criteria - this is what FAC does, and FTC isn't any different. The rules aren't made up as people go along. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • LuciferMorgan, please reread the conversation. I think it's fairly evident from my last comment that I intended to close with promote once Bignole and Rambo agree on it (Also, there's 7 supports). And further, the one before implied that if Rambo changed his mind, I would close with promote, which he then did. However I think Bignole's suggestion that the conversation is moved to the talk page is best, so I suggest you continue here...

Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Florida Everglades

Main page Articles
Everglades Everglades National Park Indigenous people of the Everglades region Restoration of the Everglades
Draining and development of the Everglades Geography and ecology of the Everglades Marjory Stoneman Douglas

Great work, meets all criteria. Xenus (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan has been redirected to Restoration of the Everglades. Haste does not help accuracy. Please be careful. --Moni3 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone that redirect, restoring Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan to a separate article. The redirect created a circular content loop (was the main article for the article to which it was redirected). The decision on where this content belongs should likely be left to the article's primary contributors (Moni3) to make sure that the changes make sense; at the very least the article's primary contributors should have been consulted. Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: It was my goal to bring this topic to feature when it was ready. I do not believe it is at this time. Though Everglades is a GA, I believe it needs several copy edits, primarily by me. I've had some good suggestions from some very helpful editors to cut the article by at least 10%, and I have a cut version sitting in a sandbox. It needs to be read, edited, re-edited, ad nauseum. I started writing four of these articles in late April and have been inundated with Everglades information since then. I was hoping to distance myself from the material to give me some perspective to approach the many edits the Everglades article will require. I have not contributed to Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and if the majority of editors here feel it will need to be at least at GA, it's not an article I'm looking forward to expanding right now. Furthermore, information in Everglades National Park should be updated and that one also needs another copy edit. There is no rush to feature this topic, and I cannot be forced to do it under time pressure. This nomination is premature. It will be ready when it is ready. --Moni3 (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The primary contributor to ALL of these articles is User:Moni3, who has stated that she doesn't believe the topic is ready yet.[22] I think the nomination should be withdrawn immediately and the primary contributor should be consulted before a nomination is readied; after all, that person is likely the content and organization expert and would ideally know best whether the articles/topic are in the appropriate state for nomination. Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that anyone should be able to nominate any topic within reason. Allow editors to be bold and good will come. Zginder 2008-07-31T19:37Z (UTC)
I don't own these articles, clearly. And anyone who is familiar with the sources can work to improve them at any time. However, if someone nominates the topic who has never edited any of the articles and does not show any clear evidence that s/he is familiar with the references and issues of the articles, that is not an ideal situation. Regardless of the BOLD guideline, what is your opinion of the topic if the main article is not ready for FAC? I noticed you did not !vote. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not accuse anyone of ownership. Second, the criteria for a featured topic (possibly by design) does not require the nominator or anyone else to know more about the topic than what articles need to be included and which do not. Third, the lead article does not need to be a featured article, in fact, with many topics the real heart of the topic is the other articles and the lead article is just a summary style article that is of inferior quality to everything else. As for what I think of this topic, I have not voted because I have not decided what I think. The only problem I could see with this topic is what I mentioned above "Does Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan need to be included?" If someone makes a case that it does not, I may vote support, if no one does, I may vote oppose. A featured topic does not mean a finished or perfect topic and improvement is still encouraged. Zginder 2008-07-31T20:03Z (UTC)
First, I did not accuse you of accusing me of anything. I don't admit denying that I ever confirmed that. Secondly, err...the nominator doesn't have to know anything about the topic? For real? So... wait... Rarely has a statement on Wikipedia had me so at a loss. Really??? What purpose does that serve? If this is so, then let me be the first to suggest that should be changed. And lastly, there are precious few editors I've found are as seething, frothing, psychotic perfectionists as I am. In some cases, they are a bit more psychotically perfectionist than I. I rather thought featured content was a serendipitous pastime for me to engage in. Featured material requires perfectionism of the debilitating sort. To offer a topic because it's kinda ready will not do. Tolerating it will do even less. Is the object of featured content not to promote the very best the encyclopedia has to offer? Everglades is moons and stars beyond what it was before I got my grubby mits on it, but it is not the best it can be. When it is, and when the proper changes have been made to Everglades National Park, and a learned consensus can be given on the status of the CERP article, that will be the time to nominate the topic. --Moni3 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy oppose It really is poor form to submit someone else's work. Just because the articles are featured does not need they do not need any more work. The author is the best judge of this. Skomorokh 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If the primary contributor to these articles isn't happy, then I'm not happy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the opposes are doing fine as place-holders. Moni3 is aware now and I am sure this will succeed once she gives the word, after Everglades is FA. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when did we not promote something because of one persons overzealous interpretation of the criteria? Three editors have opposed because someone else opposed, who in turn opposed because one article is not a FA. Not all articles have to be FAs!!! There is a sensible reason to oppose the nomination, and I accept Rst20xx's oppose, but this is absurd. Can we discuss the merits of this nomination in good faith? Can we stop biting newcomers and again start praising BOLDNESS? Zginder 2008-08-01T01:30Z (UTC)


p.s. I am not criticizing Moni3. I am only criticizing his sympathizers. Zginder 2008-08-01T01:30Z (UTC)
Zginder makes a really good point. I was just bold. I was not familar with that "unwritten rule". If I was, of course I would contact her before the nomination. Are we going to discuss the articles or the nomination? Please don´t throw me into the lions. Xenus (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone bite newcomers here. I don't believe this opposition is absurd. On the one hand, the topic barely meets the criteria. I see those opposing as regular contributors to the FA process, who have brought their own articles to FA and know what it is like to go through that process. In fact, this is a facetious essay written by an FA regular on breaches of FA etiquette similar to what has transpired here. It is understandable that this has happened because the rules don't state that anything different should. These rules have been amended within the past several months at FAC, and Karanacs has started a discussion to change that, on the talk page for Featured Topics. I'm the only lion here, and not much of one at that. I hope, however, that I have several "really good points" that reflect why this topic is not ready. In fact, a topic not ready should be really the only point. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just recently begun stalking FTC, but it seems to me that there is a simple solution to this issue. Out of respect for the major contributor to all of the articles that make up the proposed topic, the nominator should withdraw this nomination. No matter our individual interpretation of the criteria, this is about common courtesy, for which there does not have to be a rule; it's common sense. I'm sure everyone would rather the nomination not fail needlessly, but either way I'm certain it will be back, with full support and much fawning and awe, in a few month's time. A withdrawal will save us the expended energy. María (habla conmigo) 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I didn't form the nomination, clearly. Douglas is a journalist whose life certainly was involved the Everglades, but is not core to the topic as the other issues are. Nor would I name the topic "Florida Everglades". Just "Everglades" should suffice. These things seemed immaterial to the entire nomination when I first learned of it. -Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I really try to avoid using the word "failed" at WP:FAC; this nomination hasn't so much "failed" as it was premature and should be withdrawn so it can be presented when it's fully completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to note that this discussion has apparently caused the nominator, Xenus, to leave. I think the entire nomination should be forgotten, and I think some apologies should be handed out. --Meldshal 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this hasn't been archived. Xenus announced its departure with trumpets on my talk page, blaming me for its decision. I think that was misguided and unfortunate. But I believe that I behaved quite civilly and I do not regret any of my statements in this discussion. If you're suggesting someone apologize to me, I don't believe I am due anything. I think this nomination should be archived. The sooner it's put away the better. --Moni3 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System (7th supplementary nomination)

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

  1. Makemake (dwarf planet)
Main page Articles
Solar System Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Ceres, Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Makemake, Kuiper belt, Eris, Scattered disc, Oort cloud, Formation and evolution of the Solar System

A new body has been declared a dwarf planet and its article has been made a GA. I give to you Makemake. Zginder 2008-07-24T02:14Z (UTC)

Cherrypicking or not, this topic's scope was decided months ago, and includes all dwarf planets. Makemake is a dwarf planet, and so, by definition, has to go into this topic. There really isn't a need to discuss this, as far as I'm concerned. The big seven moons were included in the topic because they were all larger than Pluto and Eris, and so were deemed worthy of inclusion if Pluto and Eris were. This topic expands its scope in incremental lots. First the planets and dwarf planets, then the minor planet populations, then the major moons, then formation. None of your listed articles are barred from possible future inclusion, but would need massive amounts of work done on them before they are ready.Serendipodous 06:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this topic purposely not including these articles? Also, when Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune become subtopics, will the moons listed here be included in their respective subtopics or not? Xnux the Echidna 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A topic's scope must be well defined, but that that does not mean that every single article about the topic be included. Almost every article on Wikipedia has to do with a topic in the solar system; however, I do not think that anyone would argue that we need ever BLP in this topic because that all of them live on Earth. Zginder 2008-07-25T13:50Z (UTC)
...That wasn't what I meant. Obviously, we aren't putting in every article where the Solar System is the setting. However, for some reason, we aren't putting articles that discuss the Solar System specifically. Why? Also, you didn't answer my question about later putting the large moons on different subtopics. Xnux the Echidna 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think of Featured Topics as sentences- with the idea being that if you can't write out the topic in a sentence without torturing it, you don't have a topic. This topic, therefore, is "Major bodies of the solar system, including the sun, planets, dwarf planets, and the large moons." (where there is a clear division between the large moons and the not-large moons). It's fairly well defined, and there's no rule that says that articles can't be non-head articles in more than one topic- after all, if I did a topic "largest cities in the US", it'd have NYC in there an article, and if I also did a "major cities of New York" topic, NYC would also be there, and still not as the head article. --PresN (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The opic is not, however, "Major bodies of the solar system including blahblahblah as well as the notable attributes of the solar system." It's a perfectly valid topic- it's just not this topic. --PresN (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this topic isn't excluding anything. But there are only a few of us and we are working flat out as it is. I was planning to include Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons and Planets beyond Neptune alongside Makemake in this expansion, but was beaten to the post before "...Beyond Neptune"'s FAC was finished. Serendipodous 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets beyond Neptune has reached FA. Do you think it could be added as well? I was also intending to include Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons in this expansion. Serendipodous 10:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Hopefully scattered disc will become an FA soon. But seriously, the only ones that do any work are Ruslik, Serendi, Marskell used to, and Ling who's new to it plus other people who i don't know as well... I do just a little bit of the work. I need to get on the job guys! --Meldshal (§peak to me) 14:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to all - Let's keep this nomination about the new dwarf planet. If you want to add other articles later, discuss it and do a separate nomination, because otherwise adding new articles at this point will just nullify all discussion to this point. Let's just add this new one, and those interested can formulate another addition later. Sound good? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I respectfully disagree Judge, I think we should start a new vote with the two other articles included immediately, this will be the fastest way to get all 3 articles into the topic and will result in the least work overall - rst20xx (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let us keep the nomination as it stands because, I for one might have some problems with the other two. Zginder 2008-07-31T12:25Z (UTC)
    • Clarification I do not know if I would support the addition of the two additional articles. I would need to do more research and a good argument would help. My point is that Makemake is an easy nomination and the other two are not. Zginder 2008-07-31T19:42Z (UTC)
      • OK, fine, that's fair enough then. I really didn't think my last post through, I think it's mainly because I'm slightly frustrated because the main contributors probably should have been the ones to nominate in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pretty much falls directly into the scope of the topic as much as any other article does. When overview topics have improved then I would support the continued expansion of the scope of this topic and also a spin off in the form of "Major bodies of the solar system". To do this now would be a little silly and repetitive in my opinion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with promotion - This supplementary nomination is for the addition of an article, a move which has got unanimous approval. The only oppose vote seems to have issue not with this addition, but with the topic as it currently stands, and any such opposition should not be brought here but instead by bringing the topic to WP:FTR - rst20xx (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noble gases

Main page Articles
Noble gas Helium - Neon - Argon - Krypton - Xenon - Radon - Ununoctium

Note: the FARC on helium has closed with keep. Nergaal (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements (i.e. user:mav, user:Cryptic C62, other past members) and various members (user:Gary King, user:Itub) have helped besides me, including some outside the project. I think it is an important topic, and should be well put together. Also, the main article is currently undergoing a FAC, and one that will be successful, the other articles will be improved further and submitted to FAC too. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination Why am I not mentioned here (since this was taken from my own "Goals" page...)? :| Anyways, I put a lot of work into Noble gas, helped it get to Good Article status, and it is currently at FAC. Radon just got to Good Article status, so this should be all set to go. Gary King (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a FARC for helium, but at a quick look it doesn't look like it concerns with major issues. Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I disagree. Verifiability is a pretty major concern. The Helium FAR should preclude this FTC from happening, especially since Helium was never given GA status which it could fall back on now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we wait until the processes for helium and noble gas are over. I expect that both will pass, but why's the hurry? --Itub (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it doesn't matter what happens with Noble gas as the topic will meet the criteria whatever happens there, but you guys should have waited until Helium's FARC is over - rst20xx (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, how will this meet the criteria regardless? If Helium is not FA, it will be made a B-class, so the topic will not be ready until it is improved to GA status... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said it doesn't matter what happens with Noble gas. It definitely matters what happens with Helium! Which is why I opposed. Re-read what I wrote, it's in response to what Itub wrote above me - rst20xx (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Helium FAR is being worked on. It can sometimes take up to three months for an article to go through FAR, and I don't think this topic's nominators want to wait that long. Gary King (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a matter of what the nominators want to do - it's a matter of the criteria. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination at this point was premature: WP:FT? says: "To avoid wasting time, the topic should not have any active Good article nominations, Good article reassessments, Featured article reviews, Featured article removal candidates, Featured list candidates, or Featured list removal candidates when nominated for featured topic, and should only have Featured article candidates if the result does not affect whether the topic meets the featured topic criteria. Please have all required processes done before nominating." Let's just wait. --Itub (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be passed with an active FARC, so our choices are to keep this nomination open until the FARC is over, or to close this and re-nominate it later. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issues in the FARC should be close to be done, which means the FARC should close fairly soon. I think keeping this FTC open for a bit more is better. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that at the very least, the FARC is getting a lot more attention than most are, partly due to this FTC :) Gary King (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are three candidates: the TFA nomination seems to support the XeF4 one which I don't think is truly relevant; another one would be the electronic stucture which is wrong but used in intro chem books; the last one is the neon tube one, which although showes the ionised gas, at least shows what is probably the best known use of noble gases. I would go for te latter one.Nergaal (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with consensus to promote - The only issue that arose during this FTC was with the Helium FAR, but as this has now passed, the topic can be promoted. I too would go for the third image - rst20xx (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal candidates

None at this time.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates&oldid=229424163"