Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nomination procedure

For how to nominate topics or how to add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination Procedure.

[edit] Supporting and objecting

Please read all the articles of the nominated topic fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
If you oppose a nomination, write '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page).
- To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Consensus must be reached for a topic to be promoted to featured topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. As a general guide, new topics will remain on here for at least 14 days to allow for comment, and must have at least 4 support votes (although consensus and lack of major objections are also important) for promotion. Nominations to add items to an existing featured topic should remain here for at least 7 days.

If the topic is promoted:

Move the discussion to the featured topic log
Update the tallys on Template:Featured topic log
Make a topic box for at Wikipedia:Featured topics/boxes/ExampleTopicName using {{Featured topic box}}.
Add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages using [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/boxes/ExampleTopicName|ExampleTopicName]]
Add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on using [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/boxes/ExampleTopicName|ExampleTopicName]]
Add the topic to the random topic generator at Wikipedia:Featured content/Topics
Add the topic to the featured topics main page, using {{Wikipedia:Featured topics/boxes/ExampleTopicName}}
Update the total topic count on the featured topics main page
Add the {{Featuredtopicmain|ExampleTopicName}} template to the talk page of the main article of the topic and the {{Featuredtopic|ExampleTopicName}} template to the talk pages of member articles.

If the topic nomination fails:

Move the discussion to the failed log
Update the tallys on Template:Featured topic log
Replace the {{FTC|ExampleTopicName}} and {{FTCmain|ExampleTopicName}} templates in the talk pages of member articles with {{FTCfailed|ExampleTopicName}}

1 Nomination procedure
2 Supporting and objecting
3 Nominations

[edit] Nominations

Please add new nominations to the top.

[edit] Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

Main page(s)	Articles
Love. Angel. Music. Baby.	What You Waiting For? - Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) - Hollaback Girl - Cool (song) - Luxurious - Crash (song)

The box contains the album and all of the singles released from it. Hollaback Girl and Cool (song) are both featured articles, and Love. Angel. Music. Baby., What You Waiting For?, and Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) are all listed as good articles. Luxurious has been a good article candidate for two and a half weeks and still isn't even at the top of the list, so I didn't want to wait forever before nominating (on a related note, is anyone willing to review that article to see if it qualifies for GA?). Crash (song) is the only article that hasn't been nominated for GA status, and I believe "achieving such a class is impossible". As I stated at the article's peer review, it's not that far above the notability requirements, and there aren't enough references available to address all the major aspects. Mainly, there were no interviews about the song, no sheet music was released, and very few reviews mentioned the song, so there's not enough reference material to address the music and structure of the song. ShadowHalo 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Being the first musical nomination to Featured Topics there is no standard to go by, however I would argue that the artist should be part of a nominated set - in this case Gwen Stefani. Currently her article is rated as B-Class and failed a Good Article nomination quite recently. Witty lama 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would think it would be the reverse. For example, Chemical element would not be included if the Noble gas series were nominated, and Final Fantasy (series) shouldn't be included when the Final Fantasy VIII series is nominated. Really, the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. series is a subcategory of Gwen Stefani and her work. ShadowHalo 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  - I agree totally with your argument in the examples you have given. Nevertheless, I see an artistic work as more than merely a sub-category of its artist. The purpose of Featured Topics is to be able to present complete concept that is self contained. I don't believe that any analysis of an artistic work would be complete without also discussing its creator. You could legitemately say that you know about Timeline of Canadian elections even if you didn't know a lot about Canada, but you can't legitemately say that you know about Fallingwater if you don't know about Frank Lloyd Wright IMHO. Of course, if all of Gwen Stefani's albums were featured topics then you couldn't have her article as part of all of them but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Witty lama 02:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    - I don't see much information that would make the topic any more complete. For example, there are a few references to her appearance on "Let Me Blow Ya Mind", but Gwen Stefani doesn't (and shouldn't) give any more detail about the collaboration. There are also a couple references to her work with No Doubt, but the series provides enough background that including Gwen Stefani or No Doubt wouldn't add much to the topic. Pretty much, the Gwen Stefani article just summarizes the information from the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. series (per Wikipedia:Summary style) and then has for the most part irrelevant information about her other projects. ShadowHalo 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Right now we have no examples of a topic that contains within it a higher-level article that the main article, and Love. Angel. Music. Baby. is clearly a subtopic of Gwen Stefani. But I think User:Witty lama has a point. A study of an artistic work would not be complete without a fairly thorough study of the artist. I think FT's goal of "thoroughly covering all parts of that topic through several high-quality articles" takes priority over the convention we've built of having the main article be the highest-level article in the topic. However this goes, I think we will have to talk about making a slight modification to the FT criteria to explain what to do in future cases like this. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      - I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria to that effect. Witty lama 04:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    - I concur that a bio article is necessary for any complete discussion about an artists theme or works as a topic. Whereas, in a featured article about an album an internal link is sufficient, in a featured topic the artist is an integral part of the topic at hand. I would oppose this nomination without a GA Stefani article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Gwen Stefani should not be included in this nomination. How can the album be the main article with the artist as a sub article? That does not make any sense. Personally, I would have tried for main article FA before trying for FT. Jay32183 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aside from the discussion of Stefani herself, I do agree with Jay32183 that the top article should be an FA before promotion. Witty lama 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did put Love. Angel. Music. Baby. at FAC, but there were concerns about the tone of the article. I put in a request at WP:LoCE for a copyedit, but since nobody did a copyedit during the FAC, it has now been moved to the main list and it looks like it'll get a copyedit sometime in June since the top of the list is from January. I'm a little confused as to why the lead article would need to be FA when WP:WIAFT doesn't mention anything like that. ShadowHalo 11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  - This is true that having an FA main article is not one of the official criteria, but as the FT process is still quite new these criteria are still in formation. All of the current FTs have a FA top article (except the one on what is by far the single largest FT group). The smaller the size of the set of articles, the more necessary it is in my eyes that the percentage of FAs increases - especially the top article. This being one of the smaller sets, I think it is necessary.
Comment The main article seems to tell me what I need to know about her to understand the song.--Rmky87 14:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the main article being FA is not a requirement. I'm more concerned about the non-GAness of the last 2 articles, but I still need to think my vote over. --PresN 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Support- My support is conditional based on Luxurious getting GA'd, but I disagree that Crash is non-GAable, and I think you should nominate it anyways. --PresN 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've nominated Crash (song) at GAC then. I'm not sure how long FTCs usually last, but the GAC at the top is from March 18, so it could be a few weeks before it's reviewed. ShadowHalo 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - May I please ask why does "Crash" have the name Crash (song)? There are two other song articles called "Crash". I thought the convention is to name all songs with the artists' name (ie. Crash (Gwen Stefani song)) with Crash (song) being a dab page. Should this page be moved? RaNdOm26 06:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar System (supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Solar System for the archived discussion of the topic's successful nomination. The additional items are:

90377 Sedna

Main page(s)	Articles
Solar System	Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Eris, Sedna

I'm not sure where to post this, but 90377 Sedna is a GA class article and concerns a unique planetary object in the Solar System; I think it should be included in the Solar System featured topic. Serendipodous 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Where are the Sun and the Moon?--Rmky87 18:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; older version copied. Added Serendipodous 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Object This doesn't go here, as this topic only lists planets and dwarf planets. If we list this we'll have to add all of the other trans-neptunian objects to the list. Tarret 21:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that this topic is necessarily only for planets and dwarf planets. A while ago I nominated the asteroid belt and the Oort cloud. They didn't pass because the articles weren't good enough, but there was general consensus that those articles would be appropriate for the topic if they were better written. This topic is for any major feature of the solar system. What we have to decide is whether Sedna qualifies as a major feature by itself or whether only the trans-Neptunian objects as a collective count as a major feature. I don't know enough about this now, and I'll have to get back to you with my opinion on it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll support. If every trans-Neptunian object was GA or better, I'd be fine with including them. The Solar System does have a lot of parts, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Object for consistency- if Sedna gets declared a Dwarf Planet, then it needs to be added. If it isn't, which is where it stands now, then it should only be added if we add all of the other trans-neptunian objects. I'm all for adding articles to FTs, but we can't cherry-pick the good ones. This isn't the first time this has happened, if you remember- Enceladus (moon), a Featured Article, was nominated for inclusion but dropped, because we can't just throw it in and leave out the other moons of Saturn. (Or the other moons of the solar system as a whole, for that matter). When we add things to a featured topic, what we're doing is changing the definition of the topic. Right now it's "important bodies of the solar system, including the sun, planets, and dwarf planets, plus the moon". If we added Oort cloud and asteroid belt, we'd be changing the definition to "important bodies of the solar system, including the sun, planets, dwarf planets, and other major features, plus the moon". To add Sedna, we'd need to change it to "important bodies of the solar system, including the sun, planets, dwarf planets, and trans-neptunian objects, plus the moon". If we then only added in Sedna, we'd have the obvious gap of all of the trans-neptunian objects that are not Sedna. This definition problem is exactly why we only have 8 FTs at the moment- it's really hard to come up with a consistent definition of a topic that includes mostly or all good+ articles. --PresN 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - PresN is right, Enceladus (moon) set a precedent that only major features of the solar system can be included. This only includes the Sun, planets, and dwarf planets, with the Moon thrown in because of extreme historical significance. Regions like the asteroid belt could be added, but unless Sedna gets called a dwarf planet it just isn't significant on its own and would have to be part of a subtopic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Object - As per PresN and Artic Gnome. CheekyMonkey 11:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Isabel

Main page(s)

Articles

Hurricane Isabel

Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Canada - Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware - Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C. - Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England - Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New Jersey - Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina - Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Pennsylvania - Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Virginia - Effects of Hurricane Isabel in West Virginia

The lead article, Hurricane Isabel, is a great featured article. Other featured articles include the effects in Delaware, Maryland and Washington, D.C., and North Carolina. All others are good articles, with the exception of Virginia, which is a current GA nominee likely to pass. All great work by Hurricanehink. The FT box will look as such. PhoenixTwo 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Support as nominator. PhoenixTwo 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have rather waited and nominated myself until the effects in Virginia passed its GA nomination, due to the fact the topic is very personal in that I literally did 99% of the work in the entire topic. Support, nonetheless. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Update: Isabel effects in Virginia is a GA now. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the early nomination; I was waiting simply for the creation of the Virginia article. I didn't think its status would be a determining factor in the final result here. Once again, my apologies. PhoenixTwo 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Support here as well, any idea if any of the others are close to FA status? Hurricanehink, do you still plan on imporving these to FA? Dalf | Talk 09:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I plan on getting Isabel in Virginia to FA eventually, but other than that I don't plan on getting the others to FA status. They're all rather short, and though length is not a requirement in FA's, I know some people would get annoyed by having so many short tropical cyclone articles on FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Meh. We need all the ones we can get. Support, by the way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Hurricanehink seems to vomit GAs and these are obviously connected with no gap in the topic. Jay32183 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, Hurricanehink is way too good at writing storm articles... --PresN 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - This even covers the optional criteria for FTs of having the same layout between articles, well done. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Support — wow. — Deckill er 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose since this appears to be part of Wikipedia's pro-hurricane agenda. (If it isn't obvious, support.) ShadowHalo 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VIII

Main page(s)	Articles
Final Fantasy VIII	Characters of Final Fantasy VIII - Squall Leonhart - Rinoa Heartilly - Music of Final Fantasy VIII

I haven't played this game yet, but somehow not only the main article is featured, but all the others involved are GA, without a gap like in the removed FFX/X-2. Also, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is currently a FAC. igordebraga ≠ 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

- Comment - Chars of FF8 passed, bringing the topic to 2 FAs and 3 GAs. --PresN 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment How important is Chocobo World to this topic? It's not listed here.--Rmky87 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not very much at all; it is more significant to the Chocobo series.
  - Good to know. There have been too many noms with gaps.--Rmky87 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    - The only thing really close to a topic gap is a setting article, but the basics are summed up in the main article. If and when the setting article is finished and added, it will only enhance coverage slightly. — Deckill er 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Co-nom and Support — I've been beaten to the nom! :) Note: there is a chance that a World of Final Fantasy VIII article might come up within a few weeks, but it's up in the air and already covered succinctly in the main article. — Deckill er 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great set of articles, no qualms here. Darth griz⁹⁸ 00:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Co-nom and support as well. This time, I wasn't even beaten by Deck. Very full and high-quality set of articles. Axem Titanium 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Support- 2 FAs, 3 GAs. Excellent! Also, yes, Chocobo World, though in the template, is not significant enough to the topic to be in it- it's a separate game, unrelated to FF8, the only connection it had was that you could take items you found in that game and transfer them into FF8, if you happened to have the rare gameplayer that ran it. It would need to be in a Chocobo topic, but not an FF8 one. --PresN 05:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, good work. PhoenixTwo 03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that this topic is a lot smaller than the former FFX topic. Are the two characters with their own articles the only ones developed enough to do so? What about the setting of the game, is it too basic to have its own article? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the FFX characters are going to be merged into the general article to follow this formula. With so little out of universe information available for each invidual character, we've been merging a lot of characters into articles that cover the entire cast. FFX will follow suit pretty soon (also, X and X-2 are two games, which is why there are double character articles and a large setting article). As for the setting article for this game, the backstory is relatively brief, and the main article covers the main points enough that a lack of a setting article is not a major gap. — Deckill er 17:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why isn't Triple Triad listed? Kariteh 14:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a minigame, it doesn't have its own article. Sort of like why Gunblade is not included, because it's part of a general article on weapons and armor. — Deckill er 16:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - It would be nice to see the setting, plot, or gameplay become their own articles, but the main article does an adequate job of covering those topics so that a gap is not created. All articles are referenced, well written, and linked together. I see no reason not to promote this. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Support No gaps, more than one FA, nothing lower than GA, and all articles deserving of their rating by current standards. Jay32183 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Support nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Definitely one of the best series of video game articles. Well done everyone who worked on them. --Teggles 01:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment — Chocobo World is now a GA, so if anyone feels or felt that it belonged more in the FF8 topic than the Chocobo topic, perhaps we can add it. — Deckill er 04:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF? That should NOT be a GA. Somehow the standards are just getting lower and lower... --Teggles 04:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger; I'm surprised as well. But then again, it's better sourced than some of the early GAs, heh. I think it's a relative matter; in some projects, Chocobo World might be GA-worthy. — Deckill er 05:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add Chocobo World to the FF8 topic. If Chocobo World didn't belong in the topic as a normal article, there's no reason for it to be in the topic as a GA now. Kariteh 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_topic_candidates_c6d3.html"

Category: Wikipedia featured content