Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Failed log/August 2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit2006
April 1 promoted 6 not promoted
October 0 promoted 1 not promoted
November 4 promoted 1 not promoted
December 1 promoted 2 not promoted 1 sup.
2007
January 2 promoted 7 not promoted
February 1 promoted 2 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
March 1 promoted 4 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
April 2 promoted 1 not promoted
May 2 promoted 4 not promoted 2 sup. 1 kept
June 3 promoted 2 not promoted
July 0 promoted 0 not promoted
August 1 promoted 0 not promoted
September 4 promoted 6 not promoted 1 sup.
October 4 promoted 1 not promoted
November 2 promoted 0 not promoted 2 sup.
December 3 promoted 1 not promoted
2008
January 3 promoted 0 not promoted 2 sup. 2 demoted
February 2 promoted 1 not promoted
March 4 promoted 2 not promoted 1 sup.
April 5 promoted 4 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept
May 5 promoted 1 not promoted 1 sup.
June 2 promoted 0 not promoted 1 sup. 2 demoted
July 3 promoted 4 not promoted 1 sup.
August 7 promoted 5 not promoted 2 sup.
September 10 FT, 7 GT 14 not promoted 3 sup.
October 2 FT, 7 GT 7 not promoted 3 sup. 1 kept
November 2 FT, 5 GT 3 not promoted 4 sup.
December 7 FT, 11 GT 5 not promoted 2 sup.
2009
January 2 FT, 4 GT 5 not promoted 2 sup.
February 7 FT, 6 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
March 2 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept
April 3 FT, 1 GT 3 not promoted 0 sup.
May 2 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
June 4 FT, 9 GT 2 not promoted 3 sup. 3 demoted
July 2 FT, 6 GT 5 not promoted 3 sup. 2 demoted
August 2 FT, 6 GT 2 not promoted 1 sup.
September 3 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 2 kept
October 3 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 2 kept, 6 demoted
November 1 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept
December 1 FT, 5 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup.
2010
January 1 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 2 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 3 sup. 2 kept, 2 demoted
March 5 FT, 4 GT 3 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 5 demoted
April 1 FT, 8 GT 3 not promoted 4 sup.
May 0 FT, 7 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup.
June 2 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
July 5 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 2 sup. 2 demoted
August 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup.
September 1 FT, 1 GT 4 not promoted 0 sup.
October 3 FT, 18 GT 4 not promoted 1 sup. 2 kept, 2 demoted
November 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 2 kept, 1 demoted
December 2 FT, 7 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
2011
January 2 FT, 5 GT 3 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
February 1 FT, 11 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
March 0 FT, 4 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
April 1 FT, 9 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
May 1 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
June 1 FT, 2 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 2 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
August 1 FT, 8 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
September 2 FT, 2 GT 2 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 4 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
December 1 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2012
January 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 11 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 2 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 6 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
May 1 FT, 5 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 0 FT, 14 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 4 demoted
August 2 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 2 kept, 0 demoted
October 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 2 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
2013
January 0 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 2 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
April 2 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 2 kept, 0 demoted
May 0 FT, 5 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 1 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
July 1 FT, 8 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 3 kept, 2 demoted
August 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 0 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
October 4 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 0 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2014
January 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
March 0 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
April 1 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
May 1 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
June 2 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
August 4 FT, 1 GT 2 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
September 1 FT, 5 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 1 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
November 1 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 0 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2015
January 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
February 0 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
March 1 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
May 2 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
August 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted

Gilbert and Sullivan[edit]

3 articles
Good article Gilbert and Sullivan
Glad to See You Together.png
Featured article W. S. Gilbert
Good article Arthur Sullivan


Main contributors: Ssilvers , Marc Shepherd, Shoemaker's Holiday ,

Gilbert and Sullivan were almost certainly the most important theatrical collaboration in Victorian England, and this topic will cover the core articles on them: W. S. Gilbert, Arthur Sullivan, and the summary of their collaboration, Gilbert and Sullivan, thus linking together their detailed biographies with the detailed summary of their collaboration.

W. S. Gilbert is an FA, the others are GAs. Future expansions to the topic might broaden the criteria to include their fourteen operas, two three of which are FAs already, or any new satellite articles or lists; however, this forms a coherent group.

Renomination after frankly ridiculous objections sank the last one - insistence on including random people who worked with them, and so on. This is clearly a coherent group of high-quality articles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Continued oppose - as per last time, the topic of "Gilbert and Sullivan" is not comprehensively covered by just "W. S. Gilbert" and "Arthur Sullivan", but also includes their works and other related articles. Let's take, as a good parallel (in slightly more established territory), "Simon and Garfunkel". If someone brought a topic containing the articles Simon & Garfunkel, Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, and nothing more, it wouldn't pass, because people will say the topic should contain Simon & Garfunkel discography and other related articles (something to cover awards and something to cover tours). This is no different. A topic on "Gilbert and Sullivan" should not just contain the three articles given above, but also other articles related to the collaboration, following on in the style laid out in the overview topics rules. Here I would identify that there should probably be some list of their plays (or else actually include them in this topic) - Savoy opera isn't a perfect fit but is closest to fitting the bill, or a new list could be created. Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan is also a top-level article on the pair's collaboration that should be included. Finally, the template {{Gilbert and Sullivan}} suggests that when it comes to the collaboration of Gilbert & Sullivan, there was actually a triumvirate involved, with Richard D'Oyly Carte being the third member - if this is correct, then this implies to me that that article should also be included. The name "Gilbert & Sullivan" misleadingly implies that the pair "Gilbert" and "Sullivan" constitute the whole, but when it comes to the topic "Gilbert & Sullivan" on Wikipedia, this is certainly not the case - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Richard D'OYly Carte had a substantially more minor role: he had no creative input, but served as the manager of various theatres for them. Gilbert did the writing and was what we'd now call director, Sullivan wrote the music and dealt with preparing the artists musically. D'Oyly Carte arranged theatres and such. We have excellent articles on these subjects. Furthermore, Simon & Garfunkel does not contain detailed descriptions of every single collaboration that the two did. Gilbert and Sullivan does. It is complete. All fourteen operas they collaborated on are listed and discussed, even the partial collaboration The Martyr of Antioch is covered (Gilbert had a minor role in revising the libretto) there's a chronological list, and... well, it really does seem that you're dismissing this out of hand without looking at the articles in question. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, I will point out tht other featured topics have been allowed to proceed with only the top-level topics in FA/GA condition. Period 1 elements was allowed to pass without Deuterium and Tritium - the important isotopes of Hydrogen. People did not argue that "The Simpsons main cast members" did not include the director as well. Nobel Laureates doesn't cover every Nobel laureate, and the fact that Nobel prize isn't an FA or GA didn't stop its promotion. Why is Gilbert and Sullivan coming up for so much attack? Is it because people here aren't familiar with the subject? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 02:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The rules state: "If you are considering nominating an overview topic, then you should ensure that every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic is also within the scope of a non-lead article that is included within the topic." With Period 1 elements, Deuterium and Tritium are covered in this manner by Hydrogen. With Nobel Laureates, every individual laureate is covered in this manner by one of the lists for the individual prizes. List of Nobel laureates is a subarticle of Nobel prize, not the other way around, and hence the latter doesn't need including in a topic about the former. In the case of Gilbert & Sullivan, the articles I mentioned are not covered in such a manner - rst20xx (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        • By your logic that the operas are covered in the lead article, and hence don't need to be covered elsewhere, why do we even need to include W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan? They're both covered in the lead article too! ...No, there needs to be some criteria on the minimum that needs covering in a topic outside the lead article. And hence we get the overview topics criteria, which says, "all of it, somewhere" - rst20xx (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nobody could possibly consider a featured topic about a famous artist/writer/composer that did not include a list (as opposed to the individual works) of the concerned artist's works. (e.g. A Steven Spielberg topic without Steven Spielberg filmography would be rightfully shot down with prejudice) Circeus (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you read the article Gilbert and Sullivan? Because you're asking for what that article is: A summary of all fourteen operas, with a bit of introduction and context. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I find the opposes unconvincing. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I could accept the main article making a list of works redundant, but the cultural influence article should still be included. It is a direct subarticle of the main article, and not a candidate for a viable subtopic.YobMod 08:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • And a very minor aspect of the subject, at best. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 09:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I hate to do this, especially since it's rare to see 'older' topics like this done so well, but I'm going to agree with Yobmod (though not the other opposes). In the G and S article, there are 3 articles referred to in summary style, and 1 conspicuously not: Gilbert, Sulivan, and Cultural influence; and the list of operas. The list of operas I'm okay with- they're not in their own article list article, but are fully covered in G&S, so I don't think you need to include all 12 in the topic nom. Gilbert and Sullivan are both in the nom. It's Cultural Influences that I have a problem with- you describe it as a 'minor aspect' of the topic, and while it's amusing that the starting line of the section/article is "In the past 125 years, Gilbert and Sullivan have pervasively influenced popular culture in the English-speaking world," the real problem is that it is clearly a major part of the topic, since it gets it's own large summary-style section in the main G&S article that is about as long as the Gilbert and Sullivan sections together. It should be included in the topic nomination. --PresN 20:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that section covers pretty much all the really encyclopedic material from the cultural influence article. The rest of it goes very listy. Frankly, the damn article was only created to try and get some way of cutting down the fancruft in the opera articles. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 189 FCs served 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Age of Empires series[edit]

4 articles
Featured article Age of Empires series
Aoe fuchs.png

Good article Age of Empires

Featured article Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings

Good article Age of Empires III


Main contributor: Giggy

Main contributor has 3 edits in more than 4 months. These are the main 3 games, as the other are just expansions. Nergaal (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - IMO you need to include all the other games. The expansions for one thing are considered part of the series proper - rst20xx (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The lead of the main article states that there are seven titles and three spin-offs, so this is obviously not comprehensive. Skinny87 (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - why shouldn't expansions be part of a subtopics on the individual games themselves? Nergaal (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    Most simply, each game only has one expansion and two articles is not enough for a topic - rst20xx (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    Oh sorry, III has 2 expansions, but at any rate, I feel that to subtopic here, when we are only dealing with 12 articles in total, is oversplitting - rst20xx (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - OK, you can leave Mythology and the DS games behind, but not the expansions - only one out of the four is GA, BTW. igordebraga 19:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think Age of Mythology needs to be considered, although I think the DS ones would (they are still branded Age of Empires). Either way this doesn't meet criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)