Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/July 2009

Slipknot discography[edit]

previous FTC

Slipknot discography

10 articles

Slipknot

Iowa

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

All Hope Is Gone

9.0: Live

Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.

Welcome to Our Neighborhood

Disasterpieces

Voliminal: Inside the Nine

Major contributors: Rezter, Blackngold29, Rtiztik, Dude527, Gary King, me

4th time the charm. Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - you did it! Welcome to Our Neighborhood doubled in length to reach GA at last. Slipknot Demo was merged into Slipknot (album) which is fair enough, probably the right place for it. As this topic includes all albums, EPs, videos, demos and non-album singles, I think that it has earned the right to become the first called "discography" - rst20xx (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you can get them up to scratch you could possibly add Music made in tribute of Slipknot and Behind The Player: Paul Gray - rst20xx (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work you guys. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relucant support - I was going to nominate the topic myself. :( —Terrence and Phillip 04:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MNM[edit]

MNM

4 articles

John Hennigan

Adam Birch

Melina Perez

Credit: MNM, Adam Birch, John Hennigan = ThinkBlue and NiciVampireHeart; Melina Perez = Nikki311

ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) and I are nominating the topic MNM as a Good Topic. MNM was a professional wrestling faction in WWE, comprised of John Hennigan, Adam Birch and Melina Perez, known by their ring names Johnny Nitro, Joey Mercury and Melina respectively. All four articles in the topic are of Good article status. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - rst20xx (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--WillC 16:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 08:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Truco ₅₀₃ 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, they're all individually good, so they're collectively good as well. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ionian Revolt[edit]

Ionian Revolt

3 articles

Siege of Naxos

Battle of Lade

I am nominating this as a good topic. It is intended as a sister topic to First Persian invasion of Greece and Second Persian invasion of Greece. There are only three articles, but between them these articles cover all the aspects of the campaign.

In the last nomination I had, there was a protracted debate about whether biographical articles needed to be included in the topic to make it complete. For this topic, I will repeat in advance the argument that biographies of the military commanders of this campaign will add little to the reader's understanding of the topic. This is mostly because it would be impossible to write a meaningful biography of any one of them, since so little is known of them. Furthermore, I note that two further military campaign topics have been promoted since then (Boston Campaign and Canadian campaign of 1775), without including any biographical articles. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK so to make this topic, I think you merged in Siege of Sardis (498 BC) and Battle of Ephesus (498 BC) to create this topic. (The rest of the section redirects in {{Campaignbox Greco-Persian Wars}} never had articles behind them.) Were neither of these battles notable enough to merit separate articles?

That is basically what I did. There had, at some point in the past, been a massive proliferation of articles on ancient battles which were essentially non-notable/only known from a single line in an ancient source. I have been methodically removing these where possible, and folding them into larger articles. IMHO, Sardis and Ephesus were not notable enought to require their own articles. For instance, the sum of historical knowledge on Ephesus is Herodotus's two sentences: "It chanced that they found the Ionians no longer at Sardis, but following on their tracks, they caught them at Ephesus. There the Ionians stood arrayed to meet them, but were utterly routed in the battle." I don't think that dragging this out into a whole article is really a good use of anyone's time. Ditto Sardis, which wasn't even a siege as such. I'm not just trying to cherrypick by eliminating articles.

OK, I just like to ask. I can see that the bulk of both articles pre-merge (if you can call it the "bulk"?) was the background and aftermath sections which was just basically context - rst20xx (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm not going to start this debate again because I'm fine with these topics not including individual participants, but to be fair the other battles topics that have been promoted are much more recent so it is likely the participants are notable for more than just their participation, or are notable for participation in several conflicts, unlike here, where they are only notable for this - rst20xx (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair observation. I'm not suggesting that, for instance, George Washington should be included in Boston Campaign. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - rst20xx (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems comprehensive and all articles are good quality.Yob Mod 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. The leftorium 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (season 7)[edit]

Co-nominators: From Season 7 Topic Drive: TheLeftorium, Scorpion0422, Gran2, Cirt, Gary King, Nergaal, Maitch, ImperatorExercitus.

Good topic nomination, every article is a GA (except the main one, which is a FL). One step closer in Scorpion0422's evil plan to turn this site into Homerpedia... TheLeft orium 09:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - and with seasons 2 and 5 almost done, I think Homerpedia is a distinct possibility ;) I think you all should work on the "Seasons" topic, because it would look so so cool to have millions of ^(subtopic) links in one topic - rst20xx (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looked at the entries, looks good. Hekerui (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Keep up the good work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Flash ^{talk} 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets the good topic criteria. :) Alex Douglas (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, without a doubt. —Terrence and Phillip 14:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - here goes nothing... rst20xx (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the Final Fantasy series[edit]

I'm nominating this as a good topic as I think it meets the criteria. Over the past year I've gotten every single article up there to GA/FL with the exception of FF8. The topic includes the music articles on all of the main series Final Fantasy games, as well as the spinoff series that have their own music/discography articles, which are linked together in a template. --Pres N 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support impressive! igordebraga ≠ 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fantastic work, I really appreciate how you've even got the spinoff series discographies up to scratch as well. However I do not think this topic has quite earned the moniker "Music of the Final Fantasy series", as it is lacking articles on concert tours such as Tour de Japon, Distant Worlds: Music from Final Fantasy and Dear Friends -Music from Final Fantasy-. However I think it would be acceptable to get around this by rescoping the topic by piping the lead to "Discographies of the Final Fantasy series" - rst20xx (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the tours really add anything to the subject of the music itself however?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes. Certainly they are covered with their own section in the lead article - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I can see where you're coming from. I'd prefer to leave it at "Music of FF", but I'm okay if we change the scope to "Discographies of FF". I'll go ahead and move the nom page and stuff. --Pres N 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very well done, a labour of love and a really useful collection of information - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I got, say, a "Final Fantasy Concerts" page (combining the concert articles you state above) up to GA+ and added it to the topic, would you support renaming the topic back to "Music of"? --Pres N 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the three articles could probably be expanded to GAs individually, but with that said, my answer is still yes - rst20xx (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well rounded and thorough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support With it's current title of "Discographies of the Final Fantasy series", because it meets the featured topic criteria. Alex Douglas (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think Rst20xx brought up a good point. Since the main article covers concerts, it makes sense to include them in topic. I'm not certain that simply renaming the scope really solves that though. I've always felt the lead should be the major defining point to the scope. PresN, do you think Final Fantasy concerts could reach GA? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, and I'm working on it- hopefully I'll get it up to nominating status in a week or two. Note the 70 or so edits on it since I created the page a week/week and a half ago. I disagree that renaming the scope does not solve the problem, though I hope to make the point moot soon. --Pres N 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: (Leaning towards support) PresN, I'm confident you will improve the article to GA standards; you've done spectacular work on the whole topic. So long as you are working on it, I see no real problem, only technicalities which I believe should be acknowledged. I hope you understand my neutral stance, but I don't feel I should fully support the topic without the concert article and full music scope. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Support: With the concert article now GA and the scope matching the main article, I see no reason to withhold support. I think this is one of the better video game topics we have now. Excellent work PresN. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Support as either discography topic (as now), or even better as the more general topic - note that the concerts article is currently at GAN, so waiting to see the outcome there may be best.Yob Mod 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with that, except that the current backlog (top to bottom) of the "Music" section of GAN is ~1.5 months - that may be a bit long to keep this on hold. --Pres N 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While generally it is advised against, I think given the circumstances it would be a good idea to hold off and wait and see how the GAN goes before promoting the topic. It would be easier this way. If you like we could hide the nomination until the GAN passes, effectively putting it on hold for the time being, or we can leave it here so other people have a chance to look it over in the meantime - rst20xx (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really care one way or another. Hopefully it will get reviewed soon. --Pres N 13:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy concerts has passed GA; I've added it to the nomination and renamed the topic back to "Music of the Final Fantasy series". I think it should be good to go now. --Pres N 16:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the end result, I think you were definitely right to merge the articles :) rst20xx (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary nominations[edit]

Canadian campaign of 1775[edit]

Canadian campaign of 1775

10 articles

Capture of Fort Ticonderoga

Siege of Fort St. Jean

Battle of Longue-Pointe

Arnold Expedition

Battle of Quebec

Battle of Saint-Pierre

Battle of the Cedars

Battle of Trois-Rivières

Battle of Valcour Island

I believe this grouping qualifies as a Good Topic. All of the elements are described in the main article, and are contained in {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Canada}}. (Note that the campaignbox contains one more entry than shown here; the extra entry redirects into Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.)

Thanks for your consideration. Magic♪piano 23:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly unrelated comment: I understand why Crown Point is not its own article and not on this nom. But what makes it so important to have its own link in the campaignbox? —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. I believe that there was at one time a separate article for the Crown Point action that was merged into the Ticonderoga article. I've been cleaning up other campaign boxes, maybe I'll take care of this one too... Magic♪piano 14:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything looks ok to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note can the title of the topic be changed? Right now it sounds as if Canada fought the campaign. Try something like "American 1775 campaign in Canada". Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this makes a huge amount of sense. Canada as an independent political entity did not exist yet. Canada did in effect fight this campain, under Britain - rst20xx (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Canada" in 1775 referred to what was at the time the Province of Quebec (1763-1791), which included the territory known until 1763 as Canada, New France. Most of the historical work on this campaign refers to it as "Canada". (This is elaborated at more length in Invasion of Canada (1775).) Magic♪piano 00:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so in summary, you merged Battle of Crown Point into Capture of Fort Ticonderoga (and indeed, there's now a section on Crown Point in the latter article) and Battle of Vaudreuil into Battle of the Cedars. However here the latter article mentions that "Crossing of the Ottawa River was made between Fort Anne and Quinze-Chênes, now Vaudreuil", but not the fact that there was any conflict occurring here. Would it be possible to mention this action? Apart from that, looks good - rst20xx (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. As far as I could discern, the place now known as "Vaudreuil" was then primarily known as "Quinze-Chenes". There is a section entitled "Battle at Quinze-Chenes" in Battle of the Cedars. Are you saying there is insufficient clarity in the explanation, or are you saying that section should be titled "Battle at Vaudreuil" (which I believe to be historically incorrect)? (Or something else entirely?) Magic♪piano 00:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah sorry I missed that, d'oh! I just searched for "Vaudreuil" and only found the sentence I copied above. OK, that's that explained! rst20xx (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - rst20xx (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]