Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/January 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

[edit] Canadian election timelines

Main page Articles
Timeline of Canadian elections List of British Columbia general elections - List of Alberta general elections - List of Saskatchewan general elections - List of Manitoba general elections - List of Ontario general elections - List of Quebec general elections - List of New Brunswick general elections (post-Confederation) - List of Nova Scotia general elections (post-Confederation) - List of Prince Edward Island general elections (post-Confederation) - List of Newfoundland and Labrador general elections - List of Yukon general elections - List of Northwest Territories general elections - List of Nunavut general elections - Canadian federal election results since 1867
  1. Clear similarity between articles: layout is consistent across the lists. (NWT and Nunavut lists are different due to not having poltical parties). They are all members of Category:Canadian election timelines
  2. There are fifteen articles
  3. All articles are linked via Template:Canelections
  4. The articles cover federal elections, plus all the provinces and territories of Canada.
  5. Of the fifteen articles:
    • Eleven Twelve Fourteen are Featured Lists
    • The Nunavut article is A-Class, and won't become a FL as it only has two items).
  • The structure of the articles is similar, having the same section titles and order as much as is possible

Tompw (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I would like to see some more overall sources, but overall it looks pretty good. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    Most of the sources are from the library of parliament, which is a source straight from the horse's mouth. --Arctic Gnome 17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    Either that, or from the Elction authority for the province/territory in question. Quantity isn't everything :-) Tompw (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Solid topic, with solid articles. Jay32183 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment should the name of the Nova Scotia article be changed to be consistent with the NB and PEI ones? - Jord 18:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    Good point. Tompw (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    Done. --Arctic Gnome 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This is a group of excellent articles, all of which share the same format, and all of which are well-linked together. This is a textbook example of a featured topic of lists. --Arctic Gnome 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well done. CheekyMonkey 13:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Jord 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Would go excellent as a featured topic. Just wondering, why aren't the pre-Confederation lists included? Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Pre-Confederation material doesn't really count as Canadian, in the sense of not being part of the country of Canada. Tompw (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I would support the pre-Confederation lists if someone wanted to add them in a supplementary nomination; but as per Tompw, their absence from this topic is not a gap. --Arctic Gnome 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • With so much support, perhaps we can prematurely promote this one? — Deckiller 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's only two more days... what's the rush? Tompw (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retired Pacific hurricanes

Main page Articles
List of retired Pacific hurricane names Hurricane Fico - Hurricane Iwa - Hurricane Fefa - Hurricane Iniki - Hurricane Ismael - Hurricane Pauline - Hurricane Kenna

I've worked on this for the last month or two, and I think the above related articles are now collectively good enough to be Featured Topic status. One is an FA, four are GA's, and the last two have been nominated for GA. Support as nominator. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I was waiting for this, both because so many hurricane articles have been featured already and because you have this way of writing proper daughter articles instead of the junkyards we often see. Conditional support, the condition being that those GA candidates make GA.--Rmky87 18:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You got it. I'll do everything I can to get those two to GA status if the GA nominations don't pass. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Given that Hurricane Pauline was failed for being, "a bit short", I think you don't have far to go there (he never said how it was a bit short).--Rmky87 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • That was actually from a previous nomination. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
          • So, what was it this time?--Rmky87 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh, I just looked. Nevermind. But the prose has changed since then...--Rmky87 05:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A featured list plus solid articles makes a great featured topic. Should give more encouragement to bring hurricane artic_les to featured article status. Jay32183 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Fico and Fefa are included in the current list. However, its not certain whether these names were retired for being damaging the same way Iniki and Pauline were, or if they were were retired because they offended someone. For a brief discussion, see here. If the confusion over why these names is retired, or if they are stricken (for now) from the topic series, I'll reconsider. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Does it matter why they were retired? I thought the topic was Pacific hurricane names that were retired. The two names are retired even if it was for a different reason than the others. Jay32183 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) They are included because of the uncertainty. David Roth said he didn't know but thought it was due to offensive naming. However, we don't know. They are listed in several places as being a retired Pacific hurricane, such as the WMO. Retirement is generally considered the removal of a hurricane name, though not always for damage. See List of retired Pacific hurricanes - Fico and Fefa are the only two names that were removed that caused more than minor effects to land. The rest don't have articles. Omitting Fico and Fefa would be original research. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • But wouldn't including them also be original research because including them would imply that they were retired for being damaging, which we don't know. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • That is assuming that retirement means it was due to damage. Retirement could also mean just being removed, as demonstrated in this WMO document. Thus, including it is not original research. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Then I think there's one missing 2001 Adolph. Good kitty 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
            • There's no article on that, though. If there were an article, then yes, it would have been included. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is Good Kitty right about 2001 Adolph being retired? If so, this topic does not meet requirement #4: no obvious gaps and I will have to oppose. --Arctic Gnome 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't consider that an obvious gap. It depends on the usage of the term retirement. Some consider it only to be from damage, some consider it to be names that were merely removed. There is currently no consensus on that. I included Fico and Fefa because they caused damage. Of all of the other names that were removed, none, including Adolph, caused any damage. None of the others whose names were removed have articles, as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That sounds reasonable. You might consider changing the topic name to reflect the distinction. --Arctic Gnome 03:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Any suggestions? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I guess if "retired" is usually used differently than "removed" the current name is okay. How about if in the intro section of the main article you add a line about the difference between removed and retired names? --Arctic Gnome 22:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It doesn't look like to meets requirement #3: All articles in the series should be linked together. If you make a footer template to go on the bottom of each article, this will meet all the requirements. It doesn't have to be anything complicated, check out the one used in the baleen whales topic: {{Baleen whales}}. --Arctic Gnome 22:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good now. --Arctic Gnome 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've put a bit more thought into this and I'll have to hold back my support for a little bit longer. It looks like the only two other storms that have had their names retired are 2001 Adolph and 1987 Kunt. Both are not notable, so if there are no articles about them I don't see it as a gap. However, they should both be mentioned by name in the main article for the sake of completeness; and if Fico and Fifa are included in the tables despite being small, I think Adolph and Kunt should be too. --Arctic Gnome 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The thing is, Adolph and Knut (not Kunt ;) ) didn't affect land at all, meaning they were simply removed. The same goes with Hazel and Adele. That means they were not retired in the sense that they were removed because of damage, which is the general rule of thumbs of what retirement means. Fico and Fefa both caused damage, and thus we, nor the the officials know if they were removed for retirement or something else. They are included because of the uncertainty, while the others are not included because we know, with certainty, they were removed for reasons other than damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The text does say that Fico and Fifa are special cases, so I guess that's good enough. --Arctic Gnome 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above. — Deckiller 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with the conception that "retired" is different than "removed", which it is. Speaking of removed, Hurricane Israel was the same year as Adolph, and was "removed" as well. --PresN 02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Promote. --Arctic Gnome 18:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supplementary nominations

  1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Retired Pacific hurricanes/addition1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanehink (talk • contribs) 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)