Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Failed log/March 2008

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, 3 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
August 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 2 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 0 FT, 0 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
2016
January 1 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
May 0 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
July 1 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
August 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
September 0 FT, 7 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
October 0 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 3 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 0 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 2 demoted
December 0 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2017
January 2 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 4 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
April 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
May 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 0 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 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

Final Fantasy titles (2nd supplementary nomination)[edit]

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Final Fantasy titles/archive1 for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. Good article Final Fantasy III (Nintendo DS)
  2. Good article Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings
  3. Good article Final Fantasy Adventure
  4. Good article Final Fantasy Chronicles
  5. Good article Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo Tales
  6. Featured article Final Fantasy Tactics
  7. Good article Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
Main page Articles
Featured article Final Fantasy Good article Final Fantasy, Good article Final Fantasy II, Demoted article Final Fantasy III, Featured article Final Fantasy IV, Good article Final Fantasy V, Featured article Final Fantasy VI, Featured article Final Fantasy VII, Featured article Final Fantasy VIII, Featured article Final Fantasy IX, Featured article Final Fantasy X, Featured article Final Fantasy X-2, Featured article Final Fantasy XI, Featured article Final Fantasy XII, Good article Final Fantasy Mystic Quest

These are six Final Fantasy Good Articles and one Final Fantasy Featured Article. They should be added to the Featured Topic. FightingStreet (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Mystic Quest is included, so I see no problem in adding these. The Prince (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Guy has a good point here. I think it would be appropriate to remove FFX-2 and Mystic Quest from this topic. These articles, along with the nominees, can later be placed in a spin-off FT or a main game FT, like FFVIII. The Prince (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support—brings back editing memories. — Deckiller 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose: While I'm all for expanding the VG topics, especially with articles that are of good quality like these, I think this topic's scope has become a bit clouded. At its core, there should be the 12 titles that make up the main game series. Anything past that is like a supplementary article. I believe that when adding in supplementary articles, there should not be any holes or gaps. There are several other titles that are spin-offs and/or sequels, but are currently not in the topic or addition. With the numerous spin-offs and sequels in the series, I think adding in the above articles is like cherry picking. I also think that having Final Fantasy X-2 and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest is also cherry picking the titles.
    Though this may be a bit extreme in my interpretation, I feel it best to keep things simple for a few reasons.
    1. The topic is currently 14 articles now, and if this trend continues, it'll bloat the topic.
    2. A line needs to be drawn on which titles outside of the main series can be added. If the spin-off games, then why not the spin-off movies/anime? If one sequel, then why not the rest like the Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII, or related games like Vagrant Story?
    3. Because of the above reason, I feel this does not meet Featured topic criteria 1d.
So sorry, though I agree that the articles are of good quality and they should be showcased, I don't think this is the proper way. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
What about just adding the DS remake and Chronicles, since they are direct remakes? — Deckiller 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Same thing, I'd like to, but I don't think it's within guidelines. What about the rest of the remakes? Like Final Fantasy Anthology, Final Fantasy Collection, and Final Fantasy I and II (compilations). (Guyinblack25 talk 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
According to your reasoning, Final Fantasy X-2 and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest should be removed from this topic? FightingStreet (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, yes. They are of high quality and I respect the work that went into them, but I don't see them fitting into the FT guidelines. I hate to be the one to push this point, but I think it is an important point that needs to be pushed. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Mmh, well, you're right. Moreover, I've just checked the Final Fantasy Mystic Quest article, and it doesn't even seem to be Good Article quality in fact, meaning it shouldn't be in an FT however we look at it. Seems like I opened a can of worms with this nomination... FightingStreet (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Nah, it was a can that should have been opened. In the end it'll help tighten up the quality of the topic. Now about Final Fantasy X-2 and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, I don't know if there is any process to remove specific articles from a topic. Does anybody know if there is anything in place for such a situation? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
The best way to do it would be through the supplementary nomination process. The nomination procedure for it should alert the right people and apply the most useful templates. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance complete the sequels, prequels, and sidestories. But I agree that Final Fantasy Mystic Quest should be not in the topic. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the various titles in the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII? Those are sequels and prequels too. And what about Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles? That is as much a sidestory as Tactics and Mystic Quest. The more I think about it the more I think the defining scope of what can be included is too blurred. I think the best solution is to keep it simple. If they need to be in a topic, the various other titles can be brought up in their own topics like FFVIII. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Very reluctant oppose - If it was going to be expanded, it would have to include Crystal Chronicles in the first place, but it is true that there seems to be little defining the scope of the topic if we add all these side games. The good news is that many of these articles, such as a Final Fantasy IX featured topic, are not that far off, so Guy's suggestion is very doable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying that some side games are more tied to the main series than others is arguably original research unless you can cite some kind of official grouping by the makers. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The Crystal Chronicles article does not even say the story is a sidestory, sequels, or prequels. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The only official website I've found is www.square-enix.com/na/title/ff/, and it doesn't mention any of the titles as being as side stories, just simply as Final Fantasy games. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment: Should Final Fantasy Fables:Chocobo Tales be included in this? I've played the game, and while it does carry a lot of Final Fantasy elements, it looks more worth as Chocobo Series title than a Final Fantasy title. In the Square Enix's FF site that Guyinblack linked to, Chocobo Tales isn't listed. I also think Crystal Chronicles should be included, but seeing that it's not even in GA status... oh well. — Blue 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, Final Fantasy Mystic Quest isn't listed in that site either... FightingStreet (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that's because it was released in 1992/1993 and they update the page to remove older titles. All of the games listed there are from 2000 onward. The Japanese equivalent page is more up to date and has the newer games on it, but less older games. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment: Final Fantasy III has lost its Good Article status. As per the criteria, the Featured Topic will be eligible for removal in three months from now (2008-06-10). I guess the topic will be nominated for removal before that date though, considering the arguments raised here about the spinoffs. FightingStreet (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose - With the latest being III, this FT is weakened, with there not being any definitive line on the articles that should be included. — Blue 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Close nomination as no consensus to add — Some users have discussed a redefinition of this topic's scope. If there is interest in such a change, it should be discussed on the topic's talk page and another suplimentary nomination made to add or remove articles. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form[edit]

Main page Articles
2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form Featured article200 (Stargate SG-1) - Good articleArmy of Ghosts - Featured articleDoomsday (Doctor Who) - Good articleDownloaded (Battlestar Galactica) - Good articleThe Girl in the Fireplace - Good articleSchool Reunion (Doctor Who)

I'm nominating this topic as all of the episode articles for the 2007 award have been promoted to GA/FA, the drive started by the concurrent FACs of 200 and Doomsday. While I am aware the lead article is not a FL, this is because of the lifetime of the award (five years). However, the layout is unconfusing, and it is adequately cited. Thanks, Will (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose I am sorry, but I have to oppose not only because the lead article is not a FL, but also because the lead describes a (larger) different topic. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so split off the 2007 portion from the list. It's still not going to make FL though, due to limited subject matter. David Fuchs (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The split off article might qualify for the special individual article audit clause. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Article has been split off. Will (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
switching to comment. In order for me to support a little more needs to be added to the lead article and it needs to be peer reviewed. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I think that this topic meets current criteria, but barely; I would bulk up the lead article as much as possible, because even if it gets a check mark it should have some content, and it has very little at the moment. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because the lead article is not GA or FA. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you read the criteria before you oppose? David Fuchs (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - per WP:WIAFT, not all aticles need to be GA/FA, especially if this isn't a reasonable request. In this case, giving FL status to the lead article would not be reasonable and could undermine the FL process, hence I give support for the current status of the topic. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - per above, not all articles have to be of good or featured content. Two FAs, one audited article, and the rest GAs are sufficient. I agree with Dihydrogen Monoxide that the main article is far too short for a featured list nomination, and with this in mind, the individual audit is necessary and sufficient. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hold off closing this nomination until the pear review is completed. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I don't think the lead article has a case for being an independent article by any stretch of the imagination. No reason for any year/award combination articles to ever exist. The minimal information there is is easily merged in other articles. Circeus (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: there are only short article, the informations aren't many. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose — This is either not a unified topic as per #1b or the lead article is not introductory and summary as per #2. This collection of episodes is a bit random, the only thing they have in common with each other is the fact that they were all nominated for the same award. I do think that there is potential in a featured topic structured like this, but the lead article would have to spend more time talking about the episodes themselves, describing what the 2007 nominees have in common with each other and how this batch of nominees is notable from other years' nominees. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as no consensus --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)