Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Body Talk Pt. 2/archive1
3 articles
- Contributor(s): PancakeMistake
I'm nominating this for a good topic because I believe it meets the criteria. All the releases are good articles. --Pancake (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good job on the articles. Novice7 (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- support Zginder 2011-04-25T20:17Z (UTC)
- Oppose – Although the work is good, I think a good topic for the whole series would be better to have, including all the singles from the Body Talk series, as well as the album's itself. And the tour too. 3 articles isn't really much for a good topic. ℥nding·start 02:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- What would the lead article be? And what tour are you referring too. Opposing a topic because of the number of articles is odd – three is the minimum per WP:FT?. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Simply put, it would be much easier and efficient to have one for the whole series. Maybe excluding the tour, because it probably isn't ever going to become a GA. Tell me this isn't better than just having one of them being a good topic, and the other parts probably becoming one as well. I know not all of these are GAs yet, but since technically, really, they are all part of a series, it seems to be the best fit.
Example
Body Talk series
9 articles
- And I did not oppose of it because of the articles, I opposed of it because (I'm assuming) that more will be made when the other articles become to GA, so why not just merge them all? And also, just supporting a good topic just because it is "nice work" isn't a reason, either. ℥nding·start 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can see that these articles need some work; Body Talk (Robyn album) seems to me like a compilation album, not studio. Body Talk Pt. 3 would need to be included. Another approach would be to have the Body Talk series (compilation as lead, including Pts 1, 2 and 3) with the three parts as subtopics. If that were to happen, this would be fine. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- So Body Talk should be renamed a compilation album, and Body Talk Pt. 3 a studio album? Pancake (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- It should be not. Robyn called the album herself a studio album, and it was promoted as such. As for the alternate approach Adabow, I completely agree, but they should really all be put into one. And if there' a problem with Body Talk Pt. 3, I think it can easily be merged back into Body Talk. I'm planning on working on it.℥nding·start 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Errr, what? BT III is still an EP, but seeing as BT contains only songs from BT parts 1, 2 and 3 (no new songs), it is a compilation. The article has not been "promoted" at all. And E-S, how can you "completely agree", but think that "they should really all be put into one". I'll draw up an example below to make myself crystal clear (this is assuming all relevant articles are brought up to GA):
- It should be not. Robyn called the album herself a studio album, and it was promoted as such. As for the alternate approach Adabow, I completely agree, but they should really all be put into one. And if there' a problem with Body Talk Pt. 3, I think it can easily be merged back into Body Talk. I'm planning on working on it.℥nding·start 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- So Body Talk should be renamed a compilation album, and Body Talk Pt. 3 a studio album? Pancake (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can see that these articles need some work; Body Talk (Robyn album) seems to me like a compilation album, not studio. Body Talk Pt. 3 would need to be included. Another approach would be to have the Body Talk series (compilation as lead, including Pts 1, 2 and 3) with the three parts as subtopics. If that were to happen, this would be fine. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I did not oppose of it because of the articles, I opposed of it because (I'm assuming) that more will be made when the other articles become to GA, so why not just merge them all? And also, just supporting a good topic just because it is "nice work" isn't a reason, either. ℥nding·start 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Overhead topic
Body Talk series
9 articles
- Parts 1, 2 and 3 will each be eligible for their own subtopic, and thus what Pancake originally proposed is fine. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- If subtopics are allowed, I think that is a great idea. And Body Talk Pt. 3 was only released in select places. Body Talk is both a studio album and a compilation album. I can see if Body Talk Pt. 3 was released the same as the others, it would be, but it wasn't. ℥nding·start 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- You know what, thinking about it, this is kind of silly. "Indestructible" was a single from Body Talk, not Body Talk Pt. 2. I think my idea before is better, as I'm pretty sure you can't include two articles in the same good topic. ℥nding·start 02:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "you can't include two articles in the same good topic". Indestructible was included on both Pts 2 and 3 - just because it is a different version it does not lessen the fact that it is on both albums. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but it was a SINGLE from Body Talk, and I'm pretty sure you can't include two different articles in the same good topic. ℥nding·start 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- E-S, don't you mean "the same article in two different topics"? Pancake (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I mean. ℥nding·start 23:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- E-S, don't you mean "the same article in two different topics"? Pancake (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but it was a SINGLE from Body Talk, and I'm pretty sure you can't include two different articles in the same good topic. ℥nding·start 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "you can't include two articles in the same good topic". Indestructible was included on both Pts 2 and 3 - just because it is a different version it does not lessen the fact that it is on both albums. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- You know what, thinking about it, this is kind of silly. "Indestructible" was a single from Body Talk, not Body Talk Pt. 2. I think my idea before is better, as I'm pretty sure you can't include two articles in the same good topic. ℥nding·start 02:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- If subtopics are allowed, I think that is a great idea. And Body Talk Pt. 3 was only released in select places. Body Talk is both a studio album and a compilation album. I can see if Body Talk Pt. 3 was released the same as the others, it would be, but it wasn't. ℥nding·start 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Parts 1, 2 and 3 will each be eligible for their own subtopic, and thus what Pancake originally proposed is fine. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
E-S, I think you need to read WP:FT? and look through some already-promoted topics. There is absolutely no reason why an article cannot be in more than one topic or subtopics not be created. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still gonna have to oppose of this. Again, it seems quite silly for an article to an acoustic version of a song to be included in a featured topic, when the version is barely mentioned in the actual article at all, and was released as a single from a different album. I still stand at having them all under one, and having Body Talk as the main header. I would support the use of subtopics, but for the reason of one single being released under each, it just seems pointless, and they can easily be put into one topic. ℥nding·start 14:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's just Pt. 2 that is this small. Pt. 1 had one single, four promotional singles and a tour. Pancake (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- It does not matter to what extent a song is included on an album – it's still part of that album. At the In the Zone GT, I've Just Begun (Having My Fun) is included, even though it is only a bonus track on selected copies. Being an acoustic version does not at all lessen the fact that the song was included on Pt 2. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's just Pt. 2 that is this small. Pt. 1 had one single, four promotional singles and a tour. Pancake (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think "Indestructible" should be included, since the "Indestructible" article is almost entirely about the song on the album Body Talk, not the acoustic version on Body Talk Pt. 2 (which, as far as I can see, isn't notable on its own). With that article removed, the topic has only two articles left, too few for a GT. Ucucha 09:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The song is just as much a part of BTP2 as Hang With Me is. Another similar situation: Love Don't Live Here Anymore is part of the Like a Virgin GT. It does not matter what portion of the article is dedicated to the version on BTP2, but the article is still relevant. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- But that article has about as much text on the Madonna cover as on the original. The song that is part of BTP2 is the acoustic version that is barely mentioned, not the vocal version that is on another album. Ucucha 06:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- But the Madonna version was not released as a single from Like a Prayer, but a remix was released from Something to Remember. It is no different from here. Also (might not matter, but...) I think you are confusing "acoustic" with "instrumental". The acoustic version still contains vocals (I think), but the electro- or synth- production is replaced with acoustic instrumentation. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with no consensus to promote as good topic. - With three Supports and two Opposes, there isn't enough consensus to make this a topic. GamerPro64 19:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)