Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/October 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Lists of UEFA club competition winning clubs[edit]

Main page Articles
Featured article List of UEFA club competition winners Featured article List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners - Featured article List of UEFA Cup winners - Featured article List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners - Featured article List of UEFA Super Cup winners - Featured article List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winners

I feel this topic should become a featured topic because all the lists are of featured quality. The topic is in a similar vein to Lists of UEFA club competition winning managers which is a featured topic. All the lists are factually accurate up to date and are fully referenced. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these lists should be included as this topic deals with the clubs that have won UEFA competitions and it does lend itself to players or managers being included. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It does, or it doesn't? Anyway, the name of the topic implies to me that it covers all articles to do with winning UEFA club competitions (apart from those in subtopics, obviously) - rst20xx (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that should say doesn't sorry for confusing you, maybe if I change the title to List of UEFA club competition winning teams, but I still think it's unnecessary as primarily people will consider winners to concern the clubs and nothing else hence why the other list have managers and players in their titles. NapHit (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but it is possible to equally argue that e.g. List of UEFA club competition winning managers is of the same level of primacy as List of UEFA Cup winners, as they both need one qualification from List of UEFA club competition winners - one is to specify it down to managers, and the other to an individual tournament. Having said that, if you change the topic name to include "teams", then that would work for me - rst20xx (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Done NapHit (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, support - rst20xx (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It covers all bases. Zginder 2008-10-20T16:55Z (UTC)
  • Support - seems to meet all the criteria -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Kudos to NapHit for this massive undertaking. I look forward to seeing what his next project is. – PeeJay 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
My next project is List of men's major championship winning golfers, of which three lists are Featured, one is up for candidacy and one at peer review. Thanks for the kudos NapHit (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Dean[edit]

Main page Articles
Featured articleHurricane Dean Featured articleMeteorological history of Hurricane Dean - Good articleEffects of Hurricane Dean in the Lesser Antilles - Good articleEffects of Hurricane Dean in the Greater Antilles - Good articleEffects of Hurricane Dean in Mexico

I am nominating this topic for featured article status. The topic has been a labor of love, and I am very proud of what it has become. I look forward to your comments. Plasticup T/C 02:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Clearly meets the criteria. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job Plasticup. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, primarily because the lead article is an FA. The other ones don't need much to get a fully featured topic. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support non-controversial. Zginder 2008-09-30T03:01Z (UTC)
  • A few comments - firstly, can we get a navigational template for these articles? Secondly, it would look more uniform for the Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Greater Antilles article to have an {{Infobox Hurricane Impact}} template. Finally, I appreciate there were no deaths, but $97 million is a lot of money - can you briefly justify why the effects in Belize aren't notable enough to have their own article? I appreciate such an article would be difficult to source, but that doesn't mean it's not notable enough to exist - rst20xx (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if it is not notable enough for its own article, the destruction in Belize could be mentioned in the main article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a two paragraph section on Belize in the main article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The dollar figure for damage in Belize is much lower than the other sub-articles, and even then the damages weren't as "interesting", if you know what I mean. It was just crop damage. No deaths, few injuries, and minimal residential damage. I tried to write an article on it, but there is just nothing to write about. The two paragraphs that you see in the Impact section are all there is to say. Plasticup T/C 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not wild about the idea of a navigation template, but if you can convince me that it adds something to the articles then I'll add it. I imagine that it would look something like this:



Other wikis

Plasticup T/C 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It could look more like this, and then be placed at the bottom of the pages. It facilitates moving between the articles, especially moving from subarticle to subarticle - rst20xx (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In fact I'll write it myself - gimme 5 mins - rst20xx (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's actually quite nice. I'd love for you to make one. Thanks. Plasticup T/C 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There, I have written it and added it to the articles. See {{Deanseries}}. Now I shall vote - rst20xx (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh crap, I missed out on that last part and added another copy up at the top. Hmm. The {{Deanseries}} at the very bottom *below* the references doesn't seem too useful (though I know it's standard). Links up by the lede are better IMO. But is there a policy on this? — jdorje (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - the damage may be less than other articles here, but it's more than some in the Hurricane Isabel topic, for example Delaware, which saw no deaths and $40 million damage, and yet has a featured article written about it. However, I believe you when you say that the damage in Belize was all crop damage and the like, and hence I shall vote neutral, not oppose - rst20xx (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to badger you, but I'd just like to point out that the United States has more coverage of tropical cyclones than other countries do. Hence the Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware article and a lack of Effects of Hurricane Dean in Belize. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Notice, Julian, that I voted neutral, not oppose, so please don't badger me! And the fact that information is harder to find does not effect whether an article merits creation or not - it is whether enough information exists at all, in any language that decides this - rst20xx (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It is a problem that more information on Belize can't be added without worsening the main article. — jdorje (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
If there was more available I could certainly split it into a sub-article without affecting the main article, but take a look at Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware for a minute. You don't get this sort of damage reporting in third world countries: "powerful winds blew out the watchroom window. A group of eight volunteers quickly repaired the damage". No one writes about one broken window in Belize. Plasticup T/C 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand that and do agree it doesn't justify a separate article. Would Effects of Hurricane Dean in Mexico and Belize or Effects of Hurricane Dean in Central America be possible though? — jdorje (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Lumping Mexico with Belize is not a natural combination, so I'd object to that. Lumping Mexico in Central America to incorporate a Belize article would be a violation of WP:NPOV (see Americas (terminology)), so I'd oppose that even more strongly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I don't see the need. There is nothing more to say on the issue of Hurricane Dean in Belize, and what we have right now is easily contained within the main article. What would be the benefit of moving it into a sub-article? Plasticup T/C 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The benefit is limited. If, however, someone DID want to expand that section (if it became possible), you'd have to tell them not to unless they could make a full article out of it. If there were already an article it could fit into, then it could be expanded if information became available. Weren't there any effects or preparations in the rest of central america? That seems strange, even for a fairly small storm like Dean! — jdorje (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
"It might be needed in the future" is not a benefit. If it is needed in the future it can be created in the future. Plasticup T/C 01:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on my own nom. I really don't like the {{Dean links}} template that has been added to the lead. Not only is it a violation of WP:ACCESS, it is also ugly and redundant since the {{Deanseries}} template has already been included. Can I strip it out? Plasticup T/C 22:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess I should read WP:ACCESS. Indeed, I didn't even see the links at the bottom - I do feel however that having links near the top would be good... — jdorje (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we find a more attractive way to do it? Plasticup T/C 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hurricane Isabel actually uses two templates, with the equivalent of {{Deanseries}} at the bottom of every article, but also {{HurricaneIsabel}} at the top of all the articles aside from Hurricane Isabel itself (the theory being I guess that all the subarticles are linked at appropriate places in the text of the main article). We could change {{Dean links}} to look like {{HurricaneIsabel}}, though obviously the resultant template can't appear at the very top, because unlike the Hurricane Isabel subarticles, the Hurricane Dean subarticles have {{Infobox Hurricane History}} on them. So maybe this new template could appear just below {{Infobox Hurricane History}}, on all articles apart from Hurricane Dean? rst20xx (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I changed it some to match the (much larger) one used by Hurricane Katrina, which is somewhat similar to the Isabel one. We should probably pick a standard for formatting it and use that throughout all hurricane topics... — jdorje (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we please discuss changes here before implementing them in all five articles? Plasticup T/C 01:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
For starters, I think that the Katrina infobox is hideous. The only reason it exists is because the Katrina topic cannot be navigated without a guide. This series is much smaller, and links to all of the sub-articles are prominently displayed in the text. Furthermore this box, in Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean‎, creates an unavoidable text squeeze in the first section. Plasticup T/C 02:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
We could model it after the Isabel one instead but it's not much different. I don't see why one topic (Isabel) would be given a navbox while the other isn't. Though perhaps the navbox text could be worked into the bottom of the infobox? As for meteohistory, the high ratio of graphics to text there is a problem. I moved some images around but perhaps it could be done better. — jdorje (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
"Isabel does it" is not a satisfying argument. Why does this series need another navigation template, and is that box worth sacrificing aesthetics or the current infobox? There are only five articles here, all clearly linked from the main article, and all sharing a common navigation template. Plasticup T/C 04:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It should only have one nav template, somewhere near the top where it can be found, and it should be consistent with the other nav template designs used within the wikiproject. See WP:NAV. Also, I was thinking it could maybe be stuck inside the infobox the way season articles do - like this as an quick design example. — jdorje (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that looks good! The code makes my head explode, but I really like having it all condensed into one box. Yes, that is great. Plasticup T/C 05:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that instead of putting all that code on the pages itself, you create a new template that's an adaption of {{Infobox Hurricane History}} but with the extra stuff at the bottom - rst20xx (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; I was thinking of creating {{Infobox Hurricane Series}}. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes of course it should go into the infobox :). I just did a subst: and glued it together by hand for a demo. IMO it should go into the main infobox which already has provisions for what the various series articles need. — jdorje (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Update on the navbox situtation - jdorje has graciously incorporated a navigation template into the existing hurricane templates. I love it, and presumably he does too. As this change allows the same navigation to be implemented for all hurricane series, the discussion is moving to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Topic_navboxes, but input from Featured Topic experts is welcome there too. Plasticup T/C 03:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

55 Cancri[edit]

Main page Articles
Good article 55 Cancri Good article 55 Cancri b · Good article 55 Cancri c · Good article 55 Cancri d · Good article 55 Cancri e Good article 55 Cancri f
Major contributors: Chaos syndrome, BlueEarth, Nergaal

Soon the Solar System will have less planets than this one! Nergaal (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Zginder 2008-10-17T14:17Z (UTC)
  • Comment - can we get a little navbox down the bottom of each page? Actually, this comment applies to other extrasolar system GTs as well, sorry I forgot to suggest this sooner but it shouldn't take much work to do one for all of them - rst20xx (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
done Nergaal (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - rst20xx (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional comment - does BlueEarth know you've brought this nomination? rst20xx (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
probably not; is it necessary to drop him a notification? Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do so, yes - rst20xx (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support good work --Admrboltz (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Meets criteria. Good articles, good navbox. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - it appears BlueEarth has no input, so I'll support - rst20xx (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


previous FTC

Main page Articles
Good articleConfessions Good article"Yeah!" - Good article"Burn" - Good article"Confessions Part II" - Good article"My Boo" - Good article"Caught Up"

This is the third album of Usher and its five released singles. The album was successfullu as its singles. All are in good status. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - impressive work to be sure, but while looking into this nom I came across Ride (song). While the song was never on the album (or never officially released for that matter!), I still feel that as it is related to the album, it should be included in the topic, or else the topic is not comprehensive. Having said that, it seems to me that this song is probably not notable to have its own article, in which case you can get the article AfDed. But until the status of this article is resolved, I feel I must oppose - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I solely worked on this series and nothing in the sources this song was mentioned. It was only a leaked track and I feel it will be AfDed. --Efe (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
      • There are no reliable sources so, if this get deleted, its hard to mention it in the article. Also, because of no significance, it would look like a trivia. --Efe (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • If it is AfDed, then I will support, but until that time, I shall oppose - rst20xx (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
          • No problem. --Efe (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Congrats you should be proud of yourself that you deleted a perfectly good article for the propose of this GT. Zginder 2008-10-28T13:42Z (UTC)
              • I wasn't the one that nominated it, nor did I vote for it. I think your comment suggests a lack of faith in the AfD process, not in my actions - rst20xx (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support–I do not feel that Ride should be part of the topic even if it was a FA. Zginder 2008-10-23T17:09Z (UTC)
  • Support Topic is complete. I don't think Ride (song) should even have an article and will take it to AfD. If you want to recover it, it will be thataway. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support While I think it would be perfectly fine if Ride (song) were included in the topic, I don't think it is required for the topic to be complete. On a broader note, I think this is a bad road we have started going down, killing off perfectly good articles so they won't have to be included in a topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Ride was redirected, so I now feel I can support - rst20xx (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A Rush of Blood to the Head[edit]

Main page Articles
Good articleA Rush of Blood to the Head Good article"In My Place" - Good article"The Scientist" - Good article"Clocks" - Good article"God Put a Smile upon Your Face"

The box contains the album and all of the singles released from it. Efe (talk · contribs) and myself have worked hard to bring the articles to GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support This follows the model of other FTs. Zginder 2008-10-07T16:23Z (UTC)
  • Support - straightforward - rst20xx (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent work! --TheLeftorium 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support igordebraga 14:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I don't understand why these use AmE dates. There is a strong national tie and should use BrE date per MoS especially as that this is what the original contributor used [1][2][3][4]. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think its fine since its all consistent throughout. --Efe (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • You make a good point, but this isn't really the place to have that debate and it shouldn't stop the topic from being promoted. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I know, "conditional" was the wrong word, I meant Support with comment really. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok that's fine. I was just making sure. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as consensus to promote -- (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean films[edit]

previous FTC

Main page Articles
Good article Pirates of the Caribbean film series Good article Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl · Good article Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest · Good article Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Last nomination was halted due to "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination.". Well, I nominated all four articles to GA, and after all but Curse of the Black Pearl were put on hold, I did all the work needed to pass in three of them. So, can this be a Good Topic now? igordebraga 14:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support I do not even consider that a rule. It is not one of the criteria and therefore is not actionable, it is rather a way to prevent articles that are worthy from being promoted if the contributors do not like FT's/GT's. Zginder 2008-10-12T17:28Z (UTC)
  • Support - I agree, it is a purely obstructive idea, and should be opposed if used again. Good job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Well I disagree, I do think it is a valid oppose, but I support this topic, nice work - rst20xx (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - good job --Admrboltz (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - No problems. Gran2 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --TheLeftorium 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Millennium Park[edit]

Main page Articles
Good article Millennium Park Good article Crown Fountain - Good article Cloud Gate - Good article Jay Pritzker Pavilion - Good article McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink - Good article BP Pedestrian Bridge - Good article Lurie Garden - Good article Harris Theater (Chicago) - Good article Wrigley Square - Good article Exelon Pavilions - Good article McDonald's Cycle Center - Good article Boeing Galleries - Good article Chase Promenade - Good article AT&T Plaza

While Torsodog (talk · contribs) and I continue to pursue WP:FACs for several at the items in hopes of qualifying it for WP:FT, we bring it here to WP:GTC. Currently, both Chase Promenade and AT&T Plaza are at WP:PR. Neither has much notable subject matter to add.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Articles have to complete PRs before than can be considered audited for quality. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose and as a comment, you're right, I hadn't even noticed the peer reviews for the articles to do with Slipknot weren't finished. I shall go and switch my vote to oppose for that one, too. And as a comment, I personally will oppose the inclusion of any Audited article of limited subject matter-articles until they've been nominated for GA, and failed solely due to inherent shortness. i.e., I want a very literal demonstration that these articles cannot pass GA - rst20xx (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You need to either get the two check marked articles to Good Article status or merge them, because they are not "unreleased items" or articles will a big potential for future growth. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess this should be considered On hold until the GACs/PRs have all finished, at which point the nom will effectively be able to start properly - rst20xx (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as GT now that all articles have passed GAC. To TonyTheTiger, don't worry, there are much shorter GAs, including New York State Route 164, one of my own. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - well done! And this whole exercise Tony also means that you have two more GAs to your name :) rst20xx (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Fantastic work, good job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great job getting those 2 articles to GA. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Zginder 2008-09-29T23:35Z (UTC)
  • Support – great work on these articles. —sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone close this - It has clearly passed, so load it up! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree. This has had five supports for ten days and six for eight days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - Things have been a bit slow around here lately and I appologise for that. However, promotions are meant to stay open for 10 days, and in this case, only yesterday was that limit effectively met - rst20xx (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Millennium Park/addition1
  2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Millennium Park/addition2

HD 217107[edit]

Main page Articles
Good articleHD 217107 Good articleHD 217107 b · Good articleHD 217107 c
All the articles have been promoted by the retired user Worldtraveller and probably together with the indef-blocked user Hurricane Devon.

For extrasolar planet systems! Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Key visual novels[edit]

Main page Articles
Good article Key (company) Good article Kanon - Good article Air (visual novel) - Good article Clannad (visual novel) - Good article Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume - Good article Tomoyo After: It's a Wonderful Life - Good article Little Busters! - Audited article of limited subject matter Rewrite (visual novel)

I am nominating this for a Good Topic as all of the articles are GA, except for the last one which underwent a peer review, and since the article is so short, I believe the quality concerns for Rewrite (visual novel) have been met per the criteria. The related category Category:Key games holds the seven game articles, and the Good Topic title is taken from this category. Unfortunately, a free-use image for use in the topic box (pending it's approval) is unavailable.-- 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - though maybe the topic should be called "Key visual novels" instead of "Key games"? The precedent set by the videogames topics is to use "titles" but I think this would be inappropriate here as Key has also made non-visual novel titles such as the animation, which are not included here - rst20xx (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    Well, Key has participated in overseeing the animation and other adaptations of their titles, but if we're talking about products produced, then "Key titles" would work just as fine.-- 03:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I still think "Key titles" implies somewhat that the anime should maybe be included too. "Key visual novels" has no such problem - rst20xx (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, that sounds good then.-- 19:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll change it then - rst20xx (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support — great work on all of these visual novel articles. Keep it up. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - No reason to keep it from being a good topic when all of the articles excluding Rewrite is a good article, though I'd suggest something else other than "Key games" be used instead. -- クラウド668 08:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment please change the name of the topic to something less confusing, say "Games released by Key". Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Question I am totally confused, the topic is called Key games, which sounds like POV to begin with, then the lead article is about a company, that according to its first sentence makes visual novels. Are they visual novels or games? Second the main artilce talks about a lot of things that have nothing to do with the other artilces. Why is this topic compleate? Zginder 2008-09-22T20:48Z (UTC)
  • A visual novel is a type of game. Reading the visual novel article might help :p sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While the main article also includes things like Key Sounds Label and Key Radio, it also covers all the pertinent information on the visual novels Key produces. The criteria states at point 2: The topic has an introductory and summary lead article or list which is exactly what Key (company) does.-- 03:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. While I'm a big proponent of having the lead article and the topic title being the same, this is a good example of where a topic works where the lead article and title of the topic are different. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Had some concerns earlier about the topic title, but they've already been addressed. --erachima talk 03:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I do not like the lead, but can live with it. Zginder 2008-10-02T16:00Z (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Video games developed by Key/addition1
  2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Video games developed by Key/addition2
  3. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Key video games/addition3