Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Addition log/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit2006
April 3 promoted 6 failed
October 4 promoted 2 failed
December 1 promoted 2 failed 1 added
2007
January 2 promoted 7 failed
February 1 promoted 2 failed 1 removed
March 1 promoted 4 failed 1 removed
April 2 promoted 1 failed
May 2 promoted 4 failed 2 added 1 kept
June 3 promoted 2 failed
July 0 promoted 0 failed
August 1 promoted 0 failed
September 4 promoted 6 failed 1 added
October 4 promoted 1 failed
November 2 promoted 0 failed 2 added
December 3 promoted 1 failed
2008
January 3 promoted 0 failed 2 added 2 removed
February 2 promoted 1 failed
March 4 promoted 2 failed 1 added
April 5 promoted 4 failed 1 kept
May 5 promoted 0 failed 1 added
June 0 promoted 0 failed 1 added 1 removed

Contents

[edit] Retired Pacific hurricanes (supplementary nomination)

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

  1. Hurricane Ioke Good article
  2. Typhoon Paka Good article


[[Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Featured article Retired Pacific hurricanes *|Topic discussion]]
8 articles
{{{lead}}}
Good article Hurricane Fefa
Good article Hurricane Fico
Featured article Hurricane Iniki
Good article Hurricane Ioke
Featured article Hurricane Ismael
Good article Hurricane Iwa
Featured article Hurricane Kenna
Good article Typhoon Paka
Good article Hurricane Pauline

Back in April, the names Ioke and Paka were retired, after their last usage in 2006 and 1997, respectively. As the main article is List of retired Pacific hurricane names, and Paka is a Pacific hurricane name (despite being called a typhoon in its article), it is included in this listing as well. Ioke is on FAC, so if anyone feels like commenting, that'd be awesome :) The topic still maintains the appropriate GA to FA ratio, and with Ioke hopefully passing it'd be even better. Since both are GA's, I hope there isn't any problems with this supplementary nomination. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Support Judgesurreal777 03:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Support PresN 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Skizzik 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Silver Sonic Shadow 03:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Support –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Jason Rees 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Both articles belong in the topic and both are GA's. Jay32183 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Pass — --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Hearts (supplementary nomination)

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

  1. Featured article List of Kingdom Hearts media
  2. Good article Universe of Kingdom Hearts
  3. Good article Characters of Kingdom Hearts
  4. Good article Organization XIII
  5. Good article Music of Kingdom Hearts
Main page Articles
Kingdom Hearts (series) Featured article Kingdom Hearts -Featured article Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories - Featured article Kingdom Hearts II

When I nominated and successfully promoted this topic, only the games were covered. With the recent promotion of the character articles to GA, all aspects in the series have good or featured status. OK, there are three games which don't even have release dates yet, but that's for another addition. igordebraga ≠ 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, even with four GAs, it manages >50% FA rate which is incredible. No contest here. Axem Titanium 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - The new articles have a clear similarity with each other, fall under the scope of the current Kingdom Hearts topic, and all are at least GA. As a contributor to the articles, I'd be very happy to see the topic expanded. :-) (Guyinblack25 talk 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Support - A tremendous accomplishment, to change in less than a year a topic void of any quality into a string of Stars and Green Circles, fantastic! Judgesurreal777 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, addition is consistent and meets all criteria. --PresN 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support – The "contains Japanese text" template might be useful. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The Japanese text template was added to articles with a decent amount of Japanese text. Thanks for the suggestion. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Support – Per above. DSachan 11:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support – No problems here. All criteria met. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pass — --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chrono (supplementary nomination)

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

  1. Final Fantasy Chronicles
Main page Articles
Good article Chrono (series) Featured article Chrono Trigger - Good article Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki - Good article Final Fantasy Chronicles - Featured article Chrono Cross - Good article Chrono Break

Final Fantasy Chronicles has recently achieved Good Article status. It's a compilation containing Final Fantasy IV and Chrono Trigger for the PlayStation. Should thus be part of the Chrono series Featured Topic. Kariteh 10:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - The article is GA, features Chrono Trigger, and was a well publicized release so it would be worth noting so we have all releases of the Chrono series here. Judgesurreal777 06:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support We could even merge the FF and Chrono topics now XD Circeus 01:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm ambivalent about the necessity of including the article, but I suppose it can't hurt. --PresN 04:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The lead section is too short. It also doesn't contain a "Reception" section. The Prince of Darkness 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This is beyond the point. We're not evaluating the quality of the article itself (that's what Good article review is for). We're evaluating whether the article is a proper addition under the Featured topic criteria, which, I'm afraid, says nothing about individual article coverages or lead sections. Circeus 21:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that; I thought it was a featured article nomination page for the Chrono series. The Prince of Darkness 09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm with PresN on this one. It isn't really necissary, but it's notable enough that we might as well include it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promote - This had been here for more than long enough and now has four supports. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VIII (supplementary nomination)

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

Articles already included:

Main page Articles
Featured article Final Fantasy VIII Featured article Characters of Final Fantasy VIII - Good article Squall Leonhart - Good article Rinoa Heartilly - Good article Music of Final Fantasy VIII

Self-nom. Hi everybody. Like I said in the original nomination, the only two holes are not major ones (Chocobo World and a setting article, which at the time did not exist anyway). Both of these articles have attained GA (although the former could probably use a bit more work). — Deckiller 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support It will complete this topic...Nice to see a video game topic not shot down by stupid requests. Judgesurreal777 21:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support igordebraga ≠ 22:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, This fills out the Final Fantasy VIII template nicely! The only thing left is "triple triad" but that seems to be of very minor importance to the game. Congrats on getting this done! Next stop..... FA. Witty Lama 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support fills up missing elements.Circeus 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, good addition. --PresN 02:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I thought, and I'm quoting you in the previous nomination, that "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." ? Kariteh 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That was rationale WRT the main nomination; that it wasn't large enough gap to oppose over. But now that there's additions being made, there's no reason not to include it. — Deckiller 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
True, I said that. I don't feel like it's a big enough relation to FF8 to be necessary. At the same time, I don't feel like it's so unrelated as to not be included in the topic if others want it to. I'm just not that bothered about it. In regards to Triple Triad, there was once an article by that name, which I merged into Minigames of Final Fantasy months and months ago. I don't think that it should be in the FF8 template in the first place, though removing it while the FT nom is up would be bad form, but I don't think that there's any reason to add a section of an article to the topic. --PresN 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'm not exactly sure what the procedure to adding the Triple Triad section of Minigames of Final Fantasy to a featured topic would be. Axem Titanium 02:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - This seems to meet all the requirements and adds to the overall topic nicely. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for World of Final Fantasy VIII, Oppose for Chocobo World. I would not consider the latter article's quality good enough for a Featured Topic. This vote won't influence anything, so there's no reason not to be honest. --Teggles 05:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What do you see as wrong with Chocobo World? It's GA class; do you see something specific that makes it not fit with the topic? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We also have to remember that GA-class is not FA minus one minor issue; it's a minimum standard of decent quality. Although I don't really care for the article myself, it's good enough not to exclude it. — Deckiller 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm with you; it isn't a great article, but it's good enough to be in the topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Since when are articles randomly added to topics just because they're "good enough" to? Regardless of the quality of the article, Chocobo World has very little to do with Final Fantasy VIII and much more to do with the Chocobo series. People have expressed concerns about that. Kariteh 11:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
          • If the article is GA, it meets the criterion of quality, but if it isn't really related to the FFVIII topic, that's a serious concern. Even though the topic looks like a pass, I'm going to suggest that we put the nomination on hold for a couple days to see if there is a separate consensus on Chocobo World's relation to the rest of the topic. I'm going to do a bit more reading on the topic to see what my vote is. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, and I was the one who used it as my argument as to why it wasn't included in the original topic nomination. But with featured topics, articles can be part of more than one topic. It is not a situation of "randomly" adding to a topic, because this article is still in the FF8 category, and still has some sort of importance to the game. Random would be adding an article like Monsters of Final Fantasy. — Deckiller 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't see how it would be such a tragedy to include Chocobo World to this FT. It is undeniably true that it has a certain level of connectivity with FFVIII. While I'm not sure that its exclusion was properly handled last time, that shouldn't make a difference to this FTC nom. Axem Titanium 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support — Relevant to topic. Pagrashtak 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promoted - Unanimous support for topic, one opposed for Chocobo World. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 May 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:

  1. Asteroid belt
  2. Kuiper belt
  3. Scattered disc
  4. Oort cloud
Main page Articles
Solar System Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Ceres, Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Kuiper belt, Eris, Scattered disc, Oort cloud

All three of these articles are now GA class, and deal with major features of the Solar System's geography. Serendipodous 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that these should be in the topic, but if we add them we have to also add the oort cloud, otherwise we would be creating an arbitrary gap. Add it to the nomination and you have my support. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Added; though Oort cloud is still only listed as start class. Serendipodous 08:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oort cloud is the weakest of the articles, yes, but it covers the most important information, is well written, and referenced. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I would submit that Solar wind could also be an appropriate topic. But it's not GA and the "Outer limits" section needs development. — RJH (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that solar wind could be merged with heliosphere and heliopause (both of which are relatively anaemic articles) and that the newly enhanced article might be suitable for inclusion, but I wasn't sure if it was possible to get enough people on board. Serendipodous 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, plus bow shock and heliosheath. Or all four of the outer boundary articles could be merged together as a forked article from the solar wind page. — RJH (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If we add Asteroid belt, Kuiper belt and Scattered disc, then Oort Cloud is essential. Therefore, I don't feel I can support the addition until Oort Cloud attains GA.--Pharos 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Uranus isn't a GA, but it's listed; I think that listing Oort cloud would be a good way of drawing attention to it. Serendipodous 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Articles can't be added to featured topic if they are hopeless of achieving such status themselves; certainly not for "attention". The category and "see also" links of various articles have to do that themselves. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oort cloud should be featured status, and I see no reason why it cannot be, given the proper attention. Serendipodous 20:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is, Oort cloud should be getting the proper attention (and improvements) before it is added to the FT. Adding an article that does not have FA or GA status is against criterion #6 at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. Uranus is grandfathered in for now because this topic was approved before the guidelines were clear, but no new additions of this sort should be permitted at this point. Unfortunately, though, if we're to add Kuiper belt etc. I think Oort cloud is a must-have, so we should hold off on this addition until that article reaches at least GA.--Pharos 02:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Give me a week. I'll see what I can do. Serendipodous 10:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
One week on, Oort cloud is now listed at WP:GAN. I agree with the above that if Oort cloud isn't up to scratch, then none of these should be added. Tompw (talk) (review) 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. Much to my surprise, it passed. Not a bad result for one day's work. So shall we close the deal? Also, I'd appreciate it if anyone with a better grasp than I of Scientese could go through the sources and make sure I haven't made any howlers. Thanks. Serendipodous 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promoted by Tompw 06:53, May 28, 2007 (UTC)