Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/May 2008

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] The Orange Box

Main page Articles
Good article The Orange Box Featured article Half-Life 2 · Good article Half-Life 2: Episode One · Good article Half-Life 2: Episode Two · Featured article Portal (video game) · Good article Team Fortress 2

This is a clearly defined group of articles that are part of the The Orange Box bundle. No games are missing, and all games included belong in the bundle. Gary King (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support This looks good. The Orange Box is currently up as a FAC, so hopefully that goes through. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the immediate moment Comment: Per Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria (and as the guy who originally suggested this) this nomination should be withdrawn as both EP1 and The Orange Box are currently featured article candidates. It should be renominated once both have finished their FACs, regardless of which way they end. -- Sabre (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That's just a recommendation, not an actual criterion. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's still a recommendation I would suscribe to, as it is a valid point. We've got two FA's underway, its overkill to try to work on a FT at the same time. Once the FA's are done - whether they remain GA's or become FA's - then it should be renominated. I can't imagine that's going to be that long a time, both FA's have been active for a while. -- Sabre (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I would say the Episode One nomination will be up for about three more weeks. Gary King (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I added that recommendation because topics did not meet the criteria and were being nominated with the hope that they will sometime in the future. This topic status with the criteria will not change with these FACs. Zginder 2008-05-14T20:46Z (UTC)
    • In that case, I'll withdraw the oppose. I can't reasonably put in a support, as I'm a major contributor to two of the articles. -- Sabre (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support — Zginder 2008-05-14T20:46Z (UTC)
  • Support - Meets the criteria, so no "work" needs to be done to get this to standard.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- meets criteria, regardless of the outcome of content review. Another query, What is the proposed free image for use on the FT page? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We don't really have one. I shoved this onto the Orange Box talk page as a placeholder, it should do unless anyone comes up with something more suitable. I can make that image orange, but beyond that my ability to manipulate graphics like this is shockingly bad. -- Sabre (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That's the image I had in mind from the start. Gary King (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I did a quick mockup of a possibility as per Sabre's request; if you want to suggest changes, do so (the bottom of the box is a little rough, I know.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • ...and here's what it would look like in place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
          • It's sexy. I think it would get unanimous support, at least until something newer, better, and shinier comes along. Gary King (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Fine by me. I fixed the bottom and added some subtle shading, do with it as you will. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Excellent, that will do perfectly! Thanks David! -- Sabre (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Image not acceptable. Needs glare off box and lens flare. clicketyclickyaketyyak 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • What? That's not part of the criteria. bibliomaniac15 03:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think he's just being slightly sarcastic, he doesn't have a problem with the image. I think... -- Sabre (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
          • No, he's entirely right, it's not "next-gen" enough. I need to desaturate it and add some bloom as well :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Here are some (orange) boxes that are even shinier! Gary King (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and good luck with the FACs - rst20xx (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games

Main page Articles
ACC Championship GameGood article 2005 ACC Championship Game Featured article- 2006 ACC Championship Game Good article- 2007 ACC Championship Game Featured article- List of Atlantic Coast Conference football championsFeatured article

This FTC is the culmination of a project I've been working on for several months now: To create a featured topic encompassing the Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games. The topic includes the umbrella article about the championship game, the individual games that have been played so far, and a featured list of ACC football champions that, while not directly affiliated with the topic, could be construed as being part of it. To be on the safe side, I worked it up to featured status anyway.

Astute editors will note that there is also a 2008 ACC Championship Game article that is not a part of this topic. That is because that particular game has not been played yet, and the information contained within it is as yet incomplete. When the game has been played, the article and topic will be reviewed according to the procedures in the Retention subsection of the criteria.

This will be the first college football featured topic on Wikipedia, and indeed the first sports-related featured topic (as far as I can tell.) I'm trying to break new ground with this and set the stage for other college football featured topics as well. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this nomination, please feel free to ask them here or on my talk page. I eagerly await your comments and support. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support—I would like to point out that a number of soccer teams have featured topics. Zginder 2008-05-10T13:30Z (UTC)
  • Support - Yeah, there's 4 soccer ones and a hockey FT. First American Football FT, though. Good job on it all! --PresN (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - would it not make the most sense to include the 2008 article as an "audited article of limited subject matter", like season 4 of Lost or season 7 of Degrassi? - rst20xx (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    I do not know it might be important. Zginder 2008-05-10T17:36Z (UTC)
    If it really bugs you, I suppose we could do that. I'm fine waiting for the game to take place, though; there's not much I can say in the article that isn't already there, particularly since the season hasn't even started. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think you need to give it a peer review... then when the game occurs, bring it up to GA. This way seems better to me as IMO the topic just wouldn't be complete without it - rst20xx (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    I completely agree. Would you be willing to do the peer review, then? JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't have the knowledge of the MOS etc to do it, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support No problems here. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support No objections from me. And good to see that some sport other than soccer is getting an FT. Noble Story (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of Halo

Main page Articles
Characters of HaloGood article Master Chief (Halo)Featured article - CortanaFeatured article - Arbiter (Halo)Good article - GravemindGood article

All not marked above are GA (40% FA total). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It would fall under Factions of Halo if we were doing topics (along with Covenant (Halo)). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If those are not characters, they should be removed from Category:Halo characters then. Pagrashtak 18:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is Flood (Halo) listed in the article Characters of Halo? Kariteh (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Its used as a header supposed to include all characters of the faction, however the only real Flood character is the Gravemind. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I can not find convincing evidence that this does not meet the criteria. Can this be added to the exciting Halo topic though? Zginder 2008-04-19T21:18Z (UTC)
    If the Halo topic was expanded to include this, it would have to include a bunch of other stuff, because "games and characters" would be an artificial grouping. It would nice to one day have all the Halo-related stuff under one topic, but that's a long ways off. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye. WP:HALO has a scope of 55 articles, minus about 8-9 that are machinima-based and not really germane to the topic. But that's still 25+ articles that have to be promoted, so we have a ways to go. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Meets the criteria, great to see it arrive! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Like checking boxes next to the criteria. James086Talk | Email 08:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have clarified below as the Nicole issue was raised after my support. James086Talk | Email 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I see no problems. -- Sabre (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What about Nicole (Dead or Alive)? Quote her article "originating from the Halo fictional universe". Tis a very random article but... technically is she not a character of Halo? (Tis a GA anyway) - rst20xx (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Nicole is very unusual, in terms of fictional origin she is supposed to be from the Halo universe, but she never appeared on one of the games since her appearance was a collaboration between developers, anyways this is probably the topic where she belongs. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea too, she is a Halo character, even if loosely. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think she really fits because Nicole is only just a Halo character although I suppose it's not a bad idea to include her, especially considering there is substantial information on the character (enough for a GA). James086Talk | Email 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and added her to the topic, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Everything looks to be in check, and meets the criteria. We need more character articles like these (both in Video Games and Television), because most are abysmal. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nicole is from the video game Dead or Alive 4, not a video game of the Halo series. Counter-arguments would be based on in-universe considerations. Kariteh (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Your in-universe arguments are entering the extreme, if you disagree with the inclusion you could have said so before but opposing based on it is ridiculous. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
But it's true, she was created for another game series, she's not a character from the Halo series. If she were, she would have been mentioned in the Characters of Halo article and in the Template:Halo characters. Kariteh (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, however why wait until now to oppose the inclusion? this has been discussed for four days, if someone opposed it I wouldn't have included her. The main issue here is that if she isn't included then the article would be left stray, without a topic. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support She's in Category:Halo characters. Maybe she's not in the others because they can take in-universe considerations into account, but here I feel it's better to be inclusive - rst20xx (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Featured topics must have an "introductory and summary lead article". Characters of Halo doesn't fit this role if Nicole is included in the topic, since she isn't mentioned at all in the article. Moreover, the articles in the topic should all be "linked together, preferably using a template", yet Nicole isn't listed on Template:Halo characters. All these signs point to the fact that she's not a Halo characters. Kariteh (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well maybe she should be mentioned in those places then?
If she wasn't included in this FT, then I would feel I would have to oppose the topic on the grounds that "a topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together", and point that the Nicole article is lacking on the grounds that it isn't integrated into the other articles properly - rst20xx (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It would not be carry-picking, because it is a good article and could pass criterion 3 with or without it. Zginder 2008-05-03T13:41Z (UTC)
  • Oppose – I think that User:Kariteh brings up a good concern about Nicole (Dead or Alive) given that she is not mentioned in the lead article. Because the lead article is suppose to be a summery of the topic, each of the characters should at least have a mention in the lead. Furthermore, I cannot find a link to her article in the other pages, violating criterion 1(c). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Point of order Nicole was added after several editors had supported.[1] This page now gives the appearance that they support the topic with Nicole included, which is the case for some, but may not be the case for others. Pagrashtak 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There are not enough support votes after she was added, so as is this nomination will fail unless we get consensus to take her back out on the grounds that those who supported her being added misunderstood the FT criteria. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I misunderstood the criteria, rather I would say that Characters of Halo is inadequate in that it should mention Nicole - rst20xx (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
So, to clarify, your Support vote above is now an Oppose because Nicole has been omitted, is it? Kariteh (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, on reflection I think the points raised are good ones, in that the articles don't mention this character in any way. I still feel there is still a fault here, but now think that the fault is with the articles themselves for excluding this character, and not with the featured topic candidate, which is simply based around the articles. So if this character is to be included, she should be integrated with the articles first and THEN added to the topic. Hence I have brought up her potential inclusion in Characters of Halo over here - rst20xx (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support without Oppose with—per above Zginder 2008-05-08T21:55Z (UTC)
Meh, I'm removing the article just based on the drama that its causing, seriously people if you oppose the inclusion of a character comment on it when the matter is being discussed don't wait until the conversation has been going for a week and it has been included to do so. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support without Nicole, Oppose with Nicole per above. Kariteh (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support without Nicole, Conditional Support with Nicole. If there is a suitable section added to Characters of Halo then I would be willing to support Nicole's inclusion, however I still don't think she is a proper character like the others so I would prefer she wasn't included. James086Talk | Email 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support either way, but for the sake of completeness I think a paragraph or so discussing the Flood would be better than a simple mainarticle tag. Sceptre (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as consensus to promote — The consensus on the FT criteria seems to say that it should be promoted as it was originally nominated. Nevertheless, it might be possible to get consensus on including the Nicole character if the lead article and templates were rearranged. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Steady

Main page Articles
Featured articleRock Steady (album) Featured articleHey Baby (No Doubt song) - Good article Hella Good - Good article Underneath It All - Good article Running (No Doubt song)

I am nominating these group of articles for Featured Topic. The fact that these articles are bound together is that the main article is the album, and the rest of the four are the singles from the album. I have tried to follow the steps of Love.Angel.Music.Baby series. Number of Featured article is also sufficient, and the rest are Good Articles. I feel it meets the criteria. Thank you very much. And yes, the major credit for all this work goes to User:17Drew, who is unfortunately inactive on wikipedia since December last year. Hats off to him. Indianescence (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support I cannot find why it does not meet the criteria. Zginder 2008-04-20T21:20Z (UTC)
  • Support All well sourced and comprehensive. Well done. Spellcast (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I wonder why 17Drew left (so suddenly). –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That is a mega mystery. I thaught i would meet him when he comes back, but now i am leaving. I am here till a decision is made here. I hope that is soon. Real life is really catching up with me big time! Indianescence (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda titles

Main page Articles
Good article The Legend of Zelda (series) Good article The Legend of Zelda - Good article Zelda II: The Adventure of Link - Good article A Link to the Past - Good article Link's Awakening - Good article Ocarina of Time - Featured article Majora's Mask - Featured article Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages - Featured article The Wind Waker - Good article Four Swords Adventures - Good article The Minish Cap - Good article Twilight Princess - Good article Phantom Hourglass

I've worked alongside several other great editors, including but not limited to Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) for his help in improving articles to GA-class, and for Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) for improving articles to FA-class. After building quite a number of these articles to GA-class in order to reach the requirements for FT, I think I have to say that I've got more Zelda information in my head than I ever wanted to, even as a huge fan of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, and The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. Some of these games were so poorly received that I have never heard of them until I started this project. Anyways, I hope you like it! Gary King (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to co-nominate, as I worked on the three FAs in the topic and a couple of the older GAs. Thanks to Gary King for helping fill in the GAs, (quite a bit of work there, some of these articles were recently rather short) and to Judgesurreal, Deckiller, and everyone else who helped improve these articles. Pagrashtak 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - Gary has worked very hard to get these articles to GA status, and has brought many articles from rubbish to GA status. There are seven other Zelda game articles, but they are very much spinoff or side games, including a game about Tingle, a crossbow shooting game, two japan only slight changes from the original game and link to the past, the LCD and CDi games and a compilation disk. As they are side games, they should be added later when they are GA or merged, but these are the main series, like the Final Fantasy titles featured topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would also like to see this get FT, but I'd rather see some more FAs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It reaches the minimum requirements for WP:FT, though. Anyways, to each his own. Gary King (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) I've been on wikibreak for a while, so my apologies if I'm wrong about this. It was my understanding that we need 20% rounded up (or ceil(13/5)=3) FAs, which we have. What makes this a valid oppose under Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria? Pagrashtak 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep, I definitely checked the criteria before nominating, we do indeed have sufficient FAs for this to pass, at least under criterion 3. Criterion 1 is the criterion that I would imagine would be most debated here. Gary King (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks good. I'll try to help out wherever possible with that. Gary King (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment maybe it's my browser or something but I'm not seeing a FA star in from of wind waker. It's a blank spot for some reason - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I see it... try another browser? Gary King (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • But you see the other FA stars? Pagrashtak 19:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I see the others. I use Opera (web browser) which sometimes produces strange results. I do see the other stars, and I see all three of them with IE and Firefox. Anyways, Support. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
But why those games and not the compilation disk, and the two modified japan only versions of the original game and link to the past? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Majora's Mask was eventually renamed to be prepended with The Legend of Zelda:, which I guess means Nintendo intended on including it as part of the 'official' Legend of Zelda series. Gary King (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The compilation disk and the two modified Japan-only versions are ports and enhanced ports, not original games. As for the "The Legend of Zelda" label, Zelda II: Adventure of Link doesn't have it either, yet it's included in this Featured topic nomination. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
According to that article, it says in the lead: "and the second installment in The Legend of Zelda video game series." and "The Adventure of Link is a direct sequel to the original The Legend of Zelda" and a few other places in the article that explicitly state that it is part of The Legend of Zelda series, such as the infobox. Gary King (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would accept this as a unified topic if you could produce something published by Nintendo or a reputable publication that listed these games as the "official" series. Otherwise, we would be inventing criteria to decide which games are official and which aren't, which would be WP:OR. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Bam. Official site. Check the 'Games' list on the left. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec but I'll post it anyway) If you look at Nintendo's Zelda Universe site, you'll see a list of games there. That list is the same as this nomination, with the exception of Four Swords and Master Quest, which are covered in sections of A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, both included in this nomination. Pagrashtak 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yet if you look at another official Nintendo's Zelda Universe site, you'll see a similar list of games but with Link's Crossbow Training included. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Just a side note but that page appears to be marketed to the European crowd. Gary King (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
          • So from the perspective of an international encyclopedia, is a Japanese corporation being more honest when marketing to Americans or to Europeans? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The two sources is hard to reconcile. I was wondering whether Crossbow Training would try to work its way in. Something like Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland is clearly out-of-universe, like Link in Smash Brothers. Crossbow Training, however, looks like it might be trying to be in-universe. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I would suggest that is recentism on the case of Nintendo of Europe, driven by a desire to sell a current product. I don't know your level of familiarity with the subject, but Link's Crossbow Training is a pack-in game. One would say that Mario Kart Wii comes with the Wii Wheel accessory (and not the other way around), but one would say that the Wii Zapper comes with Link's CT packaged, if you catch my meaning. It's little more than a glorified tech demo. Anyone who is relatively acquainted with the subject would easily identify that Link's CT is not part of the main series. Pagrashtak 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I've never played Crossbow. Does it even have a story, like the other Zelda games? I blame Nintendo for making the game only to sell Wii Zappers, which I have yet to see the point to, and according to reviews, Crossbow isn't very good, too :) Gary King (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
              • (so many ec's!) I have, there is no story. The game has several levels, using settings and creatures from Twilight Princess. Targets and enemies pop up and you shoot them down for points. Each level is a minute or two long and you replay to try to get a higher score. I don't believe there are even ending credits. It's fairly transparent that Nintendo slapped on the Zelda franchise to sell more Wii Zappers. Pagrashtak 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Re: Pagrashtak. From what I've seen of it, that seems like a reasonable argument. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
              • To further that, IGN refers to Link's CT as a "demo": "a brand new peripheral and an accompanying demo that is far more interesting. Of course, we're referring to Link's Crossbow Training, which comes packaged with the Wii Zapper for only $19.99." Other comments: "incredibly short - about 10 quick and easy levels", "you will whiz right through Link's Crossbow Training in less than an hour", "It's a short, but nevertheless fun demo", and "I would definitely be keen on buying future demo games of this type on Wii if they were also priced for the bargain bins." (source) These comments all indicate a point of view from the review that this isn't a "real game". The reviewer, Matt Casamassina, frequently calls it a "demo" instead of a "game" and clearly isn't holding it up with the regular $50 games. That's not official, or from Nintendo, but I think the mainstream critic view is a valid point as well. Pagrashtak 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Indeed. The game is an embarrassment to the Zelda franchise :) Gary King (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As much as I hate video games, I have failed to find convincing evidence that this does not meet criterion 1 or any other criteria. Zginder 2008-04-18T20:03Z (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with whoever said that there should be more FAs. 3 just isn't that impressive. Epass (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Existing featured topics do not go much farther than the minimum requirements set out, either. I would suggest you bring this up at WP:FTC to try and change the existing standards. Gary King (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect Epass, I don't think you can object on that basis if it meets the Featured Topics minimum. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If it meets the minimum requirements, it's good enough for a pass. Though to be fair, those requirements have been creeping up, and this might not be good enough a couple years from now. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the requirements were ramped up or tweaked so that you could still have a 3-article topic with only 2 FAs. But, I'm playing by the rules here so I don't think this should be an issue with this particular FTC at this time :) Gary King (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Creeping up? This version from Sep 2007 requires 3 FAs for a size of 9, whereas the current criteria require ceil(9/5)=2. Sorry for getting off of the subject at hand—I would support a slight increase in the FA numbers required, but right now this topic meets the requirements. Pagrashtak 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The new numbering effects different sized differently. Topics of 9 or 10 articles did get a break, but before the new rules larger topics needed fewer than they need now. The Simpsons topics, for example now no longer have enough FAs to stay. It would have been nice to be a bit stricter on the 9 and 10 article topics, but we felt it was better to have a simple equation for all sizes. I imagine that one day we'll see a 1/4 minimum at least. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. A Link to the Past's article could use some more work, namely the Four Swords section of it. I'd also like to see both BS Zeldas get to GA first. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that should be brought up at a GA review. Gary King (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Even still, the two games I mentioned should be GA'd. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Link to the Past was made a GA just a few weeks ago. Has it really fallen back down already? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not the content that was there at the time. However, a new section was added that needs cleanup and references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets criteria IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. great job on turning those articles which needed help into GAs (even if some like LTTP and FSA are still underdeveloped). igordebraga ≠ 02:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I believe that since the FTC calls it "The Legend of Zelda titles", it must include any game with "The Legend of Zelda" in it (or a derivative of it). So this would include...
    1. BS Zelda
    2. BS Zelda LttP (not the real name, I realize)
    3. The Legend of Zelda Collector's Edition
    4. CD-i Zeldas (retconned, but important to the series' history)
    5. LCD Zelda games - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy titles require Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy IV the After: Tsuki no Kikan, Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII, Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII, Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings, Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions, Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Grimoire of the Rift, Final Fantasy Agito XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Final Fantasy Adventure, and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest then...? I'm just saying that if you really wanted to get as specific as possible, we could, but a lot of the existing Featured Topics would probably have to have their title renamed just so the topics they included were exactly what you would expect. Another example off the top of my head would be the discography topics, which should technically include all singles, as well, but they instead only include the albums, which I agree is fine. Gary King (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it should. As a matter of fact, WP:FT/Final Fantasy already includes Final Fantasy X-2 and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, even though those are spin-offs and the other spin-offs games are somehow excluded. If you look at the nomination way back in 2006, you'll see that only one person actually voted, which tells a lot about the legitimity of that topic... This problem was even explicitely brought up in the latest addition nomination. I'm thinking the only reason the FF titles topic hasn't been brought to review yet is because it's going to be forcibly reviewed in June anyway due to Final Fantasy III having lost its GA status. In any case, regarding The Legend of Zelda, I'm convinced now that Link's Crossbow Training doesn't have to be included, and I don't think the two BS Zelda and the Collector's Edition should be included as they're just ports. But what about the CD-i Zeldas and LCD games? The former are indeed important to the series' history, and the latter apparently do have a plot, unlike Link's Crossbow Training. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Just an off-topic, but it seems like Nintendo just dusted those games away and is trying to forget them? Gary King (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Nintendo ignores them. But does that changes the fact that these are Zelda games? Nintendo did give Philips a Zelda license in the first place, Philips didn't make illegal bootleg games. They simply created Zelda games without Nintendo's direct involvement but with their legal authorization... and didn't Flagship do the same thing with The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages and The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Philips and Flagship games are two very different cases. Nintendo actively sought out Flagship and Capcom to make Zelda games. Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto, the creator of the series, had significant involvement in their creation. Philips, on the other hand, made their games against Nintendo's wishes. Nintendo tried to back out of their agreement with Philips to create a CD-ROM addition for the SNES, but were unable to revoke their licensing deal. Philips created and released those games with no help from Nintendo. In fact, Nintendo was actively trying to prevent Philips from releasing those games. I suppose it's somewhat similar to the 1967 Casino Royale. It was made with the James Bond license, but the series creators did not approve or contribute. While it is technically a James Bond film, it is recognized that it is of a different class than what you would call the "official" James Bond films. If there were a James Bond featured topic that excluded the 1967 Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again, I would not object over those exclusions. Pagrashtak 14:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Pagrashtak, can you provide a source to back up your point? According to the director of the first two CD-i Zeldas (Dale DeSharone), "Nintendo's only input was we ran the design document and character sketches past them for their approval. They were mostly interested in the look of the Link and Zelda characters."[2]. While Nintendo didn't directly work these two CD-i Zeldas, apparently they did have creative input and potential influence in the project. I know they didn't participate in the development in practice (the rest of the interview in that link clears this up), but the developers did contact them and they could have participated if they wanted to. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
These were titles being developed for a rival console. It's common sense that Nintendo wouldn't want them released. I'm sure the developers would have loved to have input and design help from Nintendo, but Nintendo would have been crazy to aid a competitor like that. Would it put this matter to rest if we restricted the topic definition (in part) to those games published by Nintendo? Pagrashtak 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The FTC is Zelda titles, not Zelda series. The CD-i Zeldas are Zelda titles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that if this topic were changed to 'Zelda series', you would approve? Although, I think that would cause another world of hurt because some would argue that it should include everything related to the series, including character biographies such as Link and Princess Zelda. GaryKing (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. It should feature all Legend of Zelda titles. All that would entail is GAing four articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that two more FAs would be needed. Gary King (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that people are in so much of a rush that they want to get the FTC passed at the minimum quality allowed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really. The minimum is there for a reason. Nominating this to WP:FTC does not mean that we will stop working on these articles if and when this passes. On the contrary, we'd prefer to see all articles in this WP:FT as Featured Articles if and when it passes. It would also be pretty depressing if we worked on all of the articles to Featured status, and then the Featured Topic failed when we nominated it. Gary King (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it was your intention, ALttP, but that comes across as very insulting. The articles in this topic have steadily progressed in quality, and now meet the requirements for FA and GA status. If you feel it is inappropriate to nominate, then your problem lies with the FT criteria, not with this nomination. The rule for minimum quality has been set and we clearly pass on that point. I'm sorry you find it so shameful that I've created only three featured articles. I fully intend to continue working on the remaining GAs to ensure that this topic continues to rise in quality, whether this passes or not. Pagrashtak 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I said it because Gary said that a reason to not include those articles is because it'd make it harder to get a featured topic. That's not a good reason - under that logic, excluding any game that doesn't star Link, Zelda, and Ganon could be argued to make the topic featured more easily. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

← I said that 'some may argue', meaning that another scope would arguably expand the scope rather than limit it, therefore giving reason for even more arguments. Gary King (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If those games are added, then the FTC wouldn't succeed. In the time that it takes to GA them, two more FAs could easily be made. LttP was made longer, making it much easier to feature (after Four Swords' section is cleaned up). And OoT is another easily featurable article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Drawing from my experience so far in WP:FAC, it's a lot easier said than done. Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) has had better luck with Zelda articles and WP:FAC, so if he wants to give it a shot... Gary King (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I see no distinction between the omission of titles here and in the Final Fantasy topic. It would be nice if there were more FAs, but it meets the threshold per the featured topic criteria. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I change my oppose to a support. If the working definition of this topic is "Main Legend of Zelda titles published by Nintendo", then I see no reason it shouldn't be featured. When the other spin-off games become GAs or FAs, the definition of the topic can be enlarged to have them included, but even without them the current lineup and its definition are definitely okay (and I'm glad we discussed why, as the definition was much more blurry at the start of the nomination). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we could work together with this :) And certainly, when the other items reach GA or even FA class, we'd all be happy to submit additions to this topic. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • support Fits all the criterion for FT. This covers all the major games. I'm also in the middle of Twilight Princess =) M[[User talk:Mm40|m]] 40 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Although not as impressive as other Featured Topics the nomination does meet the acceptable criteria. Personally I think that Tingle's game, the CDi series, Link's Crossbow training and both BS Zelda games should eventually form a FT on their own, covering the numerous Zelda spin-offs. The LCD games could be included in yet another topic with the collector's edition if a article covering the series' merchandising is created. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I think it needs a bit expansion in some areas, since there are way too many images clogging a small portion of the text. Good references and reception sections! --haha169 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • To which article or articles do you refer? Pagrashtak 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I received a request to make my vote more clear. Therefore, I was requesting an expansion in Developement, but it seems good now. However, I think the Plot should be cut down a bit. The images are perfect now, good job. I've changed my vote from Weak Support to Support. --haha169 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I have no idea which article you are discussing. Pagrashtak 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Oh, I'm sorry. I'm talking about Twilight Princess. I thought that this was a TP FAC, not the entire series as a whole. --haha169 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
            • No problem. This is a featured topic nomination. You can see the criteria for featured topics at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. To be clear, should we consider your support struck, or would you like to weigh in on the topic? Pagrashtak 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
              • As a side note, I don't know how confusion managed to arise from this topic, considering it has several Zelda articles in it rather than only Twilight Princess :) Gary King (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Just replying to a comment from Gary King: I was discussing TP's FAC, and for one of my comments, I accidentally linked myself here. That's the reason for my oddly placed comment. As for my support, I believe you guys straightened things out nicely, but I'm not too familiar with topics to make a real vote. --haha169 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • Alright. I'm striking your support above so there's no confusion. Pagrashtak 20:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Format suggestion - I think the text in the template looks a little cluttered, so I went ahead and did a little test to try a new format by removing "The Legend of Zelda" from some of titles since based on the topic's name it should be obvious that we are talking about The Legend of Zelda here, (see here) to me that way the template looks cleaner and its easier to read, what do you think? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that FTs use piped links; it's that way so that less confusion is caused. Check existing FTs and I don't think any of them use piped names. Gary King (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, don't get me wrong, a FT template wouldn't use this format at all, those list the titles by columns, I was refering to a better readability here, in the nomination. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay; that seems like a pretty trivial thing, then. If you do go ahead and do it, it won't be very controversial considering this nomination will be here for only a few weeks, max. Gary King (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. I added {{Nowrap}}, as some of the GA/FA icons were getting separated from the accompanying articles. Pagrashtak 04:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I still would like to see the FS section of ALttP fixed up. I can clean up, but I'm too busy to check the sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in a GA review rather than here? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, because I'm not asking for it to be reviewed. The content had to be added to the article, and the article shouldn't be reviewed every time an article gets merged into it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, so the article talk page then, instead of a GA review. Pagrashtak 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There's already discussion there. This discussion is of relevance. It seems that you don't want anyone discussing anything negative about the articles here (since I've been brushed off by more than just one person for mentioning the quality of the articles by them telling me to take it to GA review instead of giving it a legitimate response). I can't say I'm satisfied by the responses to the comment, since they never show any interest in actually fixing the problem at hand. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You say above you're not seeking a GA review, which I interpret as meaning you believe the article should retain GA status. If the article is of GA quality, then there is no problem at the featured topic level. There are ten articles in this topic that are not featured, meaning you should be able to find something in each that could be improved. However, the featured topic nomination should not be cluttered with those ten discussions. You're free to discuss negative aspects of the articles here, but I would prefer you limit it to aspects that impact the featured topic nomination. Pagrashtak 04:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"It seems that you don't want anyone discussing anything negative about the articles": What's up with the constant assuming of bad faith? Keeping discussions about an article on the article's talk page is recommended because this way newcomers can notice the discussions more easily and participate more easily. This also prevents confusion and posting mistakes (like voting for Twilight Princess FA on a Zelda FT page, etc.). Remember, we're all here to improve the Zelda articles. Please don't constantly write or imply depreciative judgements.Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry if "whatever, take it to GA review" over something I don't want it to be removed for doesn't seem like they care to discuss it. It's related, the only reason people don't want to discuss it is because it might hurt the FTC. And no, it's not a perfect GA article at the moment, I just don't want it to be removed for something that was just added. And yeah, not all GAs are perfect, but this one I can verify is not perfect, because another article was merged into it that was barely B quality. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hyrule, Master Sword and Triforce, all three Start-class, are to be merged in The Legend of Zelda (series) too and I don't see anyone complaining about it here. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I mean, I'm only talking about one of the articles that was mentioned in the initial nomination, that's clearly not relevant! I guess [insert any given subject relevant or irrelevant to this discussion] is banned now. Since Hyrule, Triforce, and Master Sword are all The Legend of Zelda titles, they should be included in this FTC, according to you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as consensus to promote — Although there are three opposes votes, two of them worry that there are not enough FAs, but as this meets the minimum requirements, that is an issue with the criteria, not with this topic. The third oppose vote is concerned about a section of the Link to the Past article, but that section seems to now have references et cetera. As for the issue of whether unofficial games should be included, the consensus appears to be content with the official games according to the manufacturers as being a unified topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)