Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Addition log/2013

Hugo Awards (1st supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Hugo Awards for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

Hugo Award for Best Fancast

I created this topic a couple years ago; since then, another category has been created- that of Best Fancast, being the audiovisual variant of the Best Fanzine award that's been around for almost 60 years. The list isn't long enough to make it through FLC (and won't be until next years' nominations), but I got it peer reviewed so it can go ahead and get added to the topic. It's the exact same format as the other 15 lists, it's just... shorter. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 22:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Editors should note that the peer review didn't return any comments, but I believe this article is in sufficiently good shape for addition to the topic. Adabow (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate Comment Without any comments on the peer review, I am unsure if Hugo Award for Best Fancast would satisfy criterion 3.c. Perhaps you should attempt another peer review, or you could also nominate the article at WP:GAN. Another topic currently being nominated has its lead article as a GA because as a list it is too short for an FL.--十八 22:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that a short list is acceptable for GA; I would certainly fail it if I reviewed an article like it. I'll relist it at PR. --Pres N 17:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that at least for now the list could be resturctured as a short article with a short section for each year. Nergaal (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In six months or so, the nominations for the next year's awards will come out, and I'll be able to nominate it at FLC- that was the length Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story was when I nominated it. I'd rather not rewrite the whole thing, just to revert it back soon after. --Pres N 16:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the second peer review has now been closed, with comments addressed there. --Pres N 18:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed to add Hugo Award for Best Fancast to Topic - GamerPro64 22:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the Final Fantasy series (2nd supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Music of the Final Fantasy series for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

Music of Final Fantasy XIII-2

Final Fantasy XIII-2 has been out in the wild for a bit over a year now, and its music has hit my unofficial "2-album minimum" since then. I've now created an article for it, Music of Final Fantasy XIII-2, and gotten it to GA, so it should be added to the existing topic. Final Fantasy XIV, for those of you keeping track at home, is getting remade in-place and unofficially will not get any full albums until that's done; a music article for it is therefore nowhere in sight, so this topic won't need another update for a long time. --Pres N 02:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice to see such a topic continuing to keep its quality. igordebraga ≠ 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agreed, it is great to see an article set this size maintaining its quality, and existing articles being kept up to date while new ones are fashioned. Excellent work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of dead links according to the report.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. --Pres N 23:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nergaal (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed to add Music of Final Fantasy XIII-2 to Topic. - GamerPro64 15:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-season Atlantic hurricanes (1st supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Off-season Atlantic hurricanes for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

Tropical Storm Beryl (2012)

List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes

26 articles

1925 Florida tropical storm

Hurricane Able (1951)

1952 Groundhog Day tropical storm

Tropical Storm Alice (1953)

Hurricane Alice (December 1954)

Tropical Storm Arlene (1959)

Hurricane Alma (1970)

Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972)

1978 January subtropical storm

Tropical Storm Arlene (1981)

Hurricane Lili (1984)

Tropical Depression One (1988)

1992 April subtropical storm

Tropical Depression One (1993)

Hurricane Nicole (1998)

Hurricane Olga (2001)

Tropical Storm Ana (2003)

Tropical Storm Odette (2003)

Hurricane Epsilon

Tropical Storm Zeta

Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007)

Tropical Storm Olga (2007)

Tropical Storm Arthur (2008)

Tropical Depression One (2009)

Tropical Storm Beryl (2012)

Tropical Storm Beryl, which formed in May of last year, now is a good article, and should be added to the topic. Hope you enjoy it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose since we're doing this anyway, a few articles could theoretically get merged, such as 1978 January subtropical storm and 1992 April subtropical storm. Just pointing this out while we already have this supplementary nomination going. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments main list needs to be brought up to modern FL standards to prevent it (and hence, any potential good/featured topic) being delisted. To whit:

Tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes.
- How can this be done? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refs need to be placed correctly per WP:REF.
- What's wrong with its placement? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "winds. [1] " was in the list when I looked at it, for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - So is this fine now? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That instance has been fixed. Please check all others. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSNUM needs to be applied, e.g. "In addition, there were 6 storms" should be "six storms".
- Has been fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SS is a category in the table but not in the key. And doesn't appear on the Saffir-Simpson graphic either...
- I don't quite get this comment. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you see SS in the key? Do you see SS in table? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SSHS col doesn't sort correctly.
- It should be fine now. One of the storms was changed from a hurricane to a tropical storm, without the sorting thing being correct. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - I did, it should be fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pressure col doesn't sort correctly.
- Should be fixed now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"40" should sort less than "≥40"
- I disagree. The wind speeds were unknown. Same as below. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, why would "more than or equal to 40" sort less than "40", particularly if "C1" sorts lower than "more than or equal to C1"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - They should be sorted the same. They're given the same sorting number. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, greater or equal to should sort after equal to. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly for 75.
WP:YEAR needs to apply to year ranges in the same century.
- Do you mean, remove the 19 and 20 from 1955 and 2006? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths col doesn't sort correctly.
- Should be good now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale" needs to see WP:DASH and is overcapitalised.
- Disagreed about the capitalization. It's a proper name for a scale. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not according to our own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Someone outside the project moved it back in November, but I didn't know about it. The National Hurricane Center keeps it capitalized, so I moved it back. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - So would you also move Beaufort scale, Richter magnitude scale, Mercalli intensity scale, Fujita scale, TORRO scale etc etc etc? There's no real justification to capitalise either "hurricane" or "scale". Also, please note if you move pages "just like that", please update the pages in question so the subject is consistently capitalised throughout, and please ensure there are no double redirects. Also, please make sure all articles in this topic use the same style of nomenclature. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't think any of them are capitalized by the agency who invented them. Redirects were fixed. And sorry, what do you mean by that last comment, about same style of nomenclature? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What "agency" invented the Saffir–Simpson scale? I thought it was Saffir and Simpson, not an agency? It's not a trademarked name? It's not a proper noun? Why is "hurricane" and "scale" capitalised here? It's clearly incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The National Hurricane Center implemented it, and as seen in my earlier link, they keep it capitalized. I don't see why that is so incorrect. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you're missing the point. It's not about who's "implementing" it, it's about English grammar, and consistency with all other similar scales in the world. The word "hurricane" and the word "scale" are not proper nouns so there's no reason to capitalise them. The term "Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale" is not a marketed nor copyrighted term, so there's absolutely no reason to overcapitalised the word "hurricane" nor the word "scale" per all the other "scales" in the world. The NHC may misuse capitalisation, but that's their mistake. A common one it has to be said. Beyond saying the NHC said hurricane should be Hurricane and scale should be Scale, do you have any other good reason for your version of this? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I personally disagree in this case, given how the acronym is always SSHS (note none of the other scales, AFIAK, have fully capitalized initials). I also think it's inappropriate to discuss that when the only purpose of the nomination was adding Beryl to the list. I think a broader discussion is worth having, namely since the NHC also changed the name for SSHS recently to SSHWS. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you kidding me? Acronyms are most always capitalised. Or would you write in prose "As Far I As Know [sic]"?? That has nothing to do with how the actual words are written. Please note, I have already stated that these comments are currently considered inappropriate for FTC (which simply adds stuff together without re-checking any kind of quality) and all I wanted to do was to save you and the community time because now I'm aware of how weak the lead featured list is, I'd simply nominate it at FLRC for delisting. Thus the topic would collapse. Please. I'm trying to _help_ you here. If you don't want my help, that's fine, I'll just instigate the FLRC. We can do this here or there. Either way, if my comments aren't addressed, it'll destroy the entire featured topic. I'm sure you don't want that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry if I came across as uncivil. I do appreciate the help! I just disagree with you here, and I think a broader discussion could be in order for the article on here. I'm currently talking with someone who thinks the article should be outright merged to tropical cyclone scales, and there's the argument that it could be at Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. If you want to take up that discussion on the SSHS article, then I think that should be elsewhere. ~~I've asked further questions to your comments above, but I'm not sure if you've seen them.~~ Oops, didn't see you replied. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries, but I can't see, under any circumstance, why "hurricane" or "scale" should be capitalised. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieval dates should be consistently formatted.

- Done TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I understand the good topic concept just groups together pages with a "good article" or "featured article/list" tag, but when grouping them under a featured list which is way below our current standards, I think we should, at the very least, update the main article of the topic to ensure it's not delisted in the next few weeks for failing to meet current standards. Much better address these comments than go through WP:FLRC.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also have concerns over whether Tropical Storm Odette (2003) meets the GA standards now, the last 11 references are poorly formatted and need to be made consistent with those that are nicely dealt with beforehand. Also a shame that Template:Off-season Atlantic hurricanes fails WP:ACCESS by using just colours to distinguish between preseason/postseason etc... I also note that using things like {{Atlantic hurricane best track}} ends with inconsistent accessdate formats, which is probably okay for the plain GAs, but not for featured articles. That should also be fixed. Similarly, {{Hurdat}} seems to be putting different formats from most articles, fine for the average GA but not for featured stuff.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odette's refs should be good now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question on the "inflated" damage figures in the main featured list... where is the evidence for those figures please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Inflation template. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That should be explained in the lead. There's no clue for any reader how the inflated costs have been calculated whatsoever unless you look at the code. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that big of a deal, actually. It's just inflated values. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that values (or the way in which they're determined) in a featured list should be referenced? Wow. About time you tried another WP:FLC......!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IDK, I didn't think for a widely used Wikipedia template. However, that gets me to a broader question. Is the inflated number even worth having? Do you think it's preferable to have the original number? The hurricane project has generally gotten rid of inflated numbers. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note I've only just realised the topic is already featured. Well if the issues with the main article, the featured list List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes aren't resolved here, then I'll have to take it to WP:FLRC as right now, it's not meeting our expectations for a featured list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything is done, with the possible exception of your first comment about table access (and the template, which is discussed elsewhere). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, much improved, at a quick glance, the name column for the hurricanes does not sort correctly however. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That column is sorted by overall storms, in order. Is that allowed? BTW, thanks a lot for your review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I appreciate you addressing the concerns. The name column, I would expect to sort alphanumerically.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what should be the order between the numbered storms, the unnamed storms, and the named storms? And mind you, the numbered storms weren't really numbered as such. It's just the number they have in the database. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical order, as that is logically what the reader would expect. Unnamed could either sort as ZZZ i.e. last or as "Unnamed". Still also concerned over the use of that HURDAT template which (in this case) provides inconsistent accessdates. Can the template be updated to define the format of the accessdate? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I defined the sorting order for the naming column to be in the order of which one formed first, which makes sense since you dont have any other columns doing that job or putting the columns back in the original order.Jason Rees (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's because, for some reason, the list has the year in a different column from the dates. You could always use a hidden sort template, but I wouldn't recommend the "Year" is separated from the rest of the date. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support this nomination and I believe that it is fine the way it currently is.--12george1 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks all in order. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 01:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed to add Tropical Storm Beryl (2012) to Topic. - GamerPro64 16:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]