Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/July 2008

Guadalcanal Campaign

Main page

Articles

Guadalcanal Campaign

Actions along the Matanikau - Battle of Cape Esperance - Battle of Edson's Ridge- Battle for Henderson Field - Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse - Battle of Rennell Island - Battle of Savo Island - Battle of Tassafaronga - Battle of the Eastern Solomons - Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands - Battle of the Tenaru - Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo - Carlson's patrol - Koli Point action - Matanikau Offensive - Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

I love these. Burningjoker (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't Operation Ke also be here? Gary King (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Operation Ke isn't featured. I haven't finished it yet. I believe this nomination is premature. Once Ke and the main Guadalcanal Campaign article are completed and have passed FAC, I'll renominate it for featured topic. Cla68 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Having some GAs in a FT is allowed, but a start class is a big no-no. Zginder 2008-07-29T02:36Z (UTC)

• Oppose. The topic is not ready yet as I explained above. I've asked that it be withdrawn on this forum's talk page. If there's somewhere else that I need to make this request, please let me know. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just archive it in the Log. Circeus (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails

Main page	Articles
Nine Inch Nails	Trent Reznor - Nine Inch Nails discography - Nine Inch Nails live performances - List of Nine Inch Nails tours List of Nine Inch Nails live-band members - Tapeworm (band)

This FTC represents a ton of work over a long while, so here goes nothing! Included in the topic is every article related to NIN over a substantial time frame, namely articles which cover NIN-related topics that span many many years. Not included, therefore, are more specific articles, such as live-band members themselves, individual releases, etc. In other words, with the exception of Tapeworm, the included articles span the band's entire career from 1988 to the present. Tapeworm is included since it's activity (or lack thereof) spanned 9 years, multiple collaborators, and the like. Also, for the record, I've done my best to give an exhaustive copyedit to the articles promoted a while ago, so even the older stuff should still be up to par, at least one hopes. Anyways, any comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm curious to see what others think, since there hasn't been a topic like this yet. I like NIN and so I was hoping this would be all of their studio albums – which by the way, you should also do :) Gary King (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well I do usually try and blaze new trails! I considered including the albums (which still need alot of work, to be honest), but looking at the other music-related FTs (namely Powderfinger discography), I decided to do those seperately. I also decided to go along this path since (unlike Powderfinger), there's a ton of satellite articles beyond the scope of just the band and their discography. But I'm certainly up for suggestions. Drewcifer (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I still have to do a review of this specific topic and read its articles, but in principle a topic about an artiest including things like "list of members" and "discography" is fine for a topic; and the albums can be another topic with the discography list as the lead. The first things the jumped out at me about this topic is why only one person's article got to be in the topic (is he really that much more important than everyone else in the group?) and whether the lead article is comprehensive enough that the topic doesn't need articles like "history of" and "style of". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails is essentially a one-man band, with all other "members" serving as basically session musicians for live-performances. It's kind of a tricky situation language-wise, but I think it's explained pretty clearly in most of the articles. On the upside, one member certainly makes my job easier! As for the "history of" and "style of", those things are covered pretty well in the main article, with little room for expansion. Drewcifer (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I believe that this meets the criteria. Zginder 2008-07-08T20:54Z (UTC)
  • I that that this one would be a breeze. I will now say that all aspects of NIN that I can think of are covered in this topic, which therefore meets the criteria. Zginder 2008-07-09T20:45Z (UTC)

Thanks so much for you support and your clarification. Drewcifer (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. The only reason I think it is impossible for any band to become a Featured Topic is because there's simply too much that is pertinent to the subject. A Featured Topic is a "set of similar, interrelated articles that cover a specific topic". A band has many, many similar, interrelated articles. A Featured Topic on a band must include everything. All albums, singles, and related matters. Currently, this compilation targets the physical side of the band; i.e., Members, live performances, etc. NSR77 ^T_C 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is definitely an interesting interpretation of the criteria. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but it is a troubling prospect that "it is impossible for any band to become a Featured Topic". If that is indeed the case, then there is something seriously wrong with the criteria, in my opinion.

That said, I would like to challenge your assumption nonetheless. But please keep in mind I'm new to the FT-thing, so excuse my probable ignorance. First, I believe that since FT is an accumulative endeavor that judges a group rather than an individual article, and therefore offers nothing unique besides the grouping of articles based on quality and subject, that it is a pragmatic distinction, not one of inherent quality. Or, in simpler words, FT exists as a useful tool to group the best articles together in a logical group, not as a measure of quality otherwise. So really, the two most important distinctions are a) how the group is defined, and b) is such a group useful. And possibly c) is there something missing that would make it more useful? So, to put this FT to the test:

• How is the group defined? By NIN-related articles that span the groups entire career, or at least a very large portion of it
• Is it useful? Yes, since it links a number of very similar, closely-related articles
• Is there something missing that would make it more useful? Maybe. Would the inclusion of the single Burn (Nine Inch Nails song) give the reader a clearer understanding of NIN? Probably not. Howabout James Woolley. Again, probably not. What about Year Zero (album)? Maybe, though it's topic covers a very small blip in NIN-history (less than a year out of 20).

Second, I believe that the "is it useful?" is of much more importance than the "how is the group defined?" question. That is, we should not deprive Wikipedia of something useful based purely on semantics. I believe WP:IAR applies in spades here, but that's entirely based on the assumption that this FT would even have to ignore rules to be successful, which I don't believe is the case.

But like I mentioned above, if it is the case that it is impossible for a band to be a Featured Topic, there is something terribly wrong with the criteria. So perhaps the "rules" in this case need some work. I hate to turn this FTC into a "fight-the-system" situation, but that may be the case. Drewcifer (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of thing has come up in a FT discussion, so my opinion is neither right or wrong. I don't think it is impossible; perhaps too strong a language. More like improbable. It's just that a band is such an extensive topic of study. While you raise good points and I praise you for the good work you have done, I would like to see what some other's think. NSR77 ^T_C 00:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. The fact that this is something slightly new for FTC is actually a good thing, since it may be a good test of the process itself. I realize I may be rocking the boat on this one, so I welcome as many opinions as possible. Drewcifer (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't have much experience with FTs either but I think expecting all singles to be G/FA is too much to expect. If discography-based FTs (Wilco, Powderfinger) did not require singles, why does this one? indopug (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Those FTs were specifically titled ".... albums" not simply discography. If it were the entire discography then all singles would have been needed to be Featured, as well. NSR77 ^T_C 00:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Powderfinger albums was moved from there to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Powderfinger discography to maintain standard nomenclature with Wikipedia:Featured topics/Wilco discography. ([1]) indopug (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think this is in principle fine as a topic. In my view, while the potential scope of a FT is every article related to it (in this case, every NIN article), a subject can be sufficiently covered in a FT with no notable gaps (notable when looking at the subject overall) if, included within the FT, are the subject's main article and (roughly speaking) the main article's subarticles. Another useful concept I find myself thinking in terms of is levels of notability. NSR77, let's look at the current featured topics.

• There are a couple called "discography" which only include albums - no singles or EPs (yet). When looking at an overall discography, the most notable part is (typically) the albums, and hence including just the albums is enough to cover the topic with no major gaps. Using my rough conception from above, the albums are the subarticles of the discography article, and the singles form the subarticles of their respective albums. Hence, the singles and their parent album could form their own FT, or the singles (being within the scope of the discography article) could be added en masse to a discography FT at some point after the albums and EPs have been added.
• There is a Solar System FT. By your principle, a Solar System FT wouldn't be possible unless it included every single body in the Universe. I would see this as the potential scope of the FT, but not a necessity! The way the Solar System FT was built was to start off just including the most notable articles (the main article, 8 planets and 3 minor planets), then adding the next 2 most notable (the Sun and moon - though I would probably argue these should have been included from the start myself), then the next 4 (Asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, Oort cloud), then at this point they cleverly argued there is a very large gap in size between the 7 biggest moons and the rest so were able to add them and lastly they've added Formation and evolution of the Solar System. They can keep adding articles, so long as any additions don't create notable gaps (for example, at one point they tried to add Sedna, but this is no more notable than many other solar system bodies not yet included, so this failed).

So in summary, in my opinion the highest level of notability/coherence/no-gaps for NIN is of the scale of what has been proposed above. To expand on this FT, either other live band members or the albums could be added next, or record labels, or other related bands. Singles and EPs can be added after albums, but not before. But none of this expansion is required for the FT to meet criteria.

...As for my vote, I need to scan these articles and see if I think every article of the top level of notability has been included here before I can support this FTC, but I will do this when it's not 2 am :P rst20xx (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Indopug: despite the name change, both FTs were nominated as an albums topic. As for Solar Systems, they can't be used as a parallel example in this case. A band is nothing without it's albums and singles. A band without said albums and singles can't be called a band, really. That's what makes them popular and well known. The music they make. Neglecting to include it in a collection of articles that is supposed to define the topic does not make sense to me. NSR77 ^T_C 02:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Why were they allowed to change names then? If you feel so strongly about this name-change, shouldn't you nominate both topics for FT removal, or at least propose getting the names changed back? And besides, I believe a sufficient overview of the albums is given in the main NIN article, and that is all that is required at this stage. I've checked over the topic and feel that every article which I feel needs to be included is included, and hence I support - rst20xx (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your support and your insight so far; both are very much appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I agree with NSR. Doesn't contain the content required for a topic with this title. —Giggy 07:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral - I agree with NSR. The reason why all FT here are so specific, except for Solar System, since all articles fit criteria, is because very few topics are completely GA or FA, unless you can trim it down. Examples are Simpsons (season #), and Video Game Consoles (Seventh Generation). Find a more specific article within the band's scope, and re-nominate an FT based on that article. There are no FTs called "All Simpsons Episodes" or "All Video Game Consoles". --haha169 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think this is coming down to semantics, which I don't think is the point of FT. There's plenty of bona-fide FTs that aren't so strict in their definition. A few that pop out to me: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Confederate government of Kentucky (surely there's more than 2 people involved in that government), Wikipedia:Featured topics/Star Wars episodes (what about the characters, creators, video games, etc, etc), Wikipedia:Featured topics/Powderfinger discography (single, eps, etc), Wikipedia:Featured topics/Wilco discography (same). If I understand the criteria correctly, a topic doesn't have to be exhaustive, it just as to be well-defined, which I would argue this (and the current FTs mentioned above) is. Drewcifer (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There are only so many articles about the Kentucky Confederate government in the first place. You can't add non-existent articles into a topic! As for Star Wars episodes, it just says "episodes", not "Everything related to Star Wars". --haha169 (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good points. For the Kentucky FT, I admit to knowing next to nothing about the topic, but a quick search through the main page brought up Horatio F. Simrall, so there are indeed some articles (or at least one that I could find) that could fit within the FT's scope that aren't included, but don't necessarily need to be. As for the Star Wars topic, I noticed that the FT's page does indeed say "episodes" but the box thing does not. Might wanna check that out. But yeah, maybe those weren't the most rock-solid examples I could give, but hopefully you can still see my point. Drewcifer (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do. I'm really tired after my (finally promoted) FAC attempt, so I'll just switch to neutral. No more debating for me at the moment. :) --haha169 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion Can we call this topic something like "An overview of Nine Inch Nails", would that appease people at all? (There must be a better name than that... Drewcifer?) rst20xx (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think that it's ideal (at least the exact suggestion you've given), but I'm a reasonable person, so if this appeases everyone I'd be alright with it. Drewcifer (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - you don't need all the singles/other albums/etc. to be GA/FA since the discography is a FL and ditto for the remainder of the lists and their individual components. If the parent list to all the sub-articles is featured, then the child articles aren't necessary parts of the topic. As such, the topic is comprehensive. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think that you can have an FT of a very broad topic by including all the top-level sub articles for it, leaving open the possibility of sub-topics. That's more or less what the solar system topic is. For example, I think you could have an FT on France that included all of the top-importance articles like History of France, Politics of France, Geography of France, etcetera. The thousands of high, mid, and low importance articles would be put into subtopic FTs, such as a topic on all the Presidents of France. As Drewcifer points out, a top-level topic would be useful for study, even if it does not include sub-articles. That being said, maybe it would be wise to clarify the scope of this topic to explain why it does not contain articles about all albums. Drewcifer's idea about calling it 'an overview' could work, as would calling it 'a history'. Some other day, a discography FT could be made, of the albums could be added to this one while renaming it just 'Nine Inch Nails. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The overview thing was my idea! :@ :( :P But seriously, yes, I agree entirely with what Arctic Gnome just said - rst20xx (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's really farfetched. A Featured Topic of France has absolutely no connection with a Featured Topic of a band. NSR77 ^T_C 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it's a wonderful analogy. A fairly broad topic with alot mid-to-low-level articles associated with it. And although the topics of France, NIN, and the Solar System are miles away from each other, they all require a similar approach/interpretation of the criteria. Besides, the whole point of having pre-determined criteria is to apply them equally to a broad range of cases. So what works for France should work for NIN, and vice versa. Drewcifer (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• While this does constitue a lot of quality work, I'm going to have to say Oppose due to scope concerns. Comparing this proposed featured topic to the nearest equivalent I could find, the one devoted to writer Mary Wollstonecraft, it does come up short. The Mary Wollstonecraft FT lists all her major works, and I don't think it would be proper to promote a topic about an artists without including their major works. The discography doesn't cut it alone, because that's ultimately just a list of NIN records; there's no depth of coverage about the music itself, which is ultimately the crux of what makes NIN notable. The studio albums and the Broken EP at minimum should be included in a NIN feature topic. In contrast, I don't think Tapeworm needs to be included.WesleyDodds (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I (unsurprisingly) don't think this is a fair comparison, as the article Mary Wollstonecraft has no direct subarticles. If it did, then there could be scope for a topic just with Mary Wollstonecraft and her subarticles, but there aren't so there isn't. Instead we have a "Works of Mary Wollstonecraft" topic (I suspect that topic should be renamed actually), so it's more comparable to the discography topics. This is a new type of topic entirely - rst20xx (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So you think that a FT's title should change so that this nomination can pass? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Great work. I like to support, i really do. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Question to everyone Well, it seems straw-poll-wise, it's about 50/50, which doesn't exactly represent a consensus. So how would everyone feel about Rst20xx's suggestion of renaming the FT to something a little more focused, such as "Overview of Nine Inch Nails"? This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Thoughts? Drewcifer (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is more like 66-33 support but I would like to see 75%+ support before promoting. I do not have any objections to changing the name or removing Tapeworm (band). BTW: All this talk of names is symantics. Zginder 2008-07-16T20:52Z (UTC)
  • There's 3 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. The neutral, furthermore, was only caused by a user’s fatigue and wish to no longer debate, not changing of opinion. NSR77 ^T_C 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I count User:NSR77 and User:WesleyDodds as opposers and myself, User:Rst20xx, User:Sephiroth BCR, and User:Be Black Hole Sun as supporters. 66% support. Zginder 2008-07-17T02:28Z (UTC)

I'm all for trying to establish consensus, but it's missing the point to keep a running tally of opposes and supports. Let people come around to your point of view, instead of saying more people agree with you than disagree. The results of this won't be based on sheer numbers. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Giggy also opposes, albeit not blatantly stating it. I agree with Wesley here. This is a new situation to come up at FTC. So far I have not seen any convincing support arguments other than the fact that this should be featured. This idea should be featured. Some people aren't realizing that it is not at all comprehensive in terms of what a band really is. NSR77 ^T_C 03:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that vote-counting isn't all that helpful. I also agree somewhat that the main argument in support has been "it should be featured", which isn't really all that convincing. But to be fair, the opposing arguments have been pretty similar ("this shouldn't be featured"). Both arguments ultimately hinge on personal interpretations of the criteria, so it therefore seems unlikely of anyone convincing anyone of anything. I feel that this divide in mutually-exclusive opinions is ultimately a symptom of unclear criteria. When a discussion is as splintered as this one seems to be, I would first look to the criteria to see why it isn't an open and shut case. Namely, it seems like criteria 1d has some holes in it. Criteria should operate as a checklist, not an interpretive puzzle. But like NSR77 pointed out, this is a new situation, so this might be a good opportunity to strengthen the criteria. And ultimately, how we strengthen the criteria comes down if a topic like this should or shouldn't' be featured. We should mold the criteria to our idea of featured-level content, not the other way around. Sorry if this is turning things into a meta-argument, but that's just how I feel. Drewcifer (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What is a band? What do they do? First, a band is a group of people. That is why we have the articles of Trent Reznor the only real permanent band member and List of Nine Inch Nails live-band members. Second, a band makes music; this is manifested in two ways. One, they sell albums, this is way the topic has Nine Inch Nails discography. Two, a band performs live, hence Nine Inch Nails live performances and List of Nine Inch Nails tours. Tapeworm (band) is miscellanies and IMOHO could stay or go. Is a band anything else that I am missing? Therefore the topic has "no obvious gap" and nothing should be stopping the promotion. Zginder 2008-07-17T12:21Z (UTC)

The obvious gap is the laundry list of albums and singles that are neglected (which can quite obviously be upped to GA status, as per many other singles and albums articles). The NIN Discography simply covers chart positions, it does not adequately cover the history and information contained in, for example, Year Zero (album). All information in said article is not present in the main article, either, therefore leaving enormous sums of information out. NSR77 ^T_C 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The main article should provide a summary of this information, and in my opinion it does. I disagree with Drewcifer's analysis that arguments on both sides are weak, and would point to the arguments made by Arctic Gnome as well as my own arguments about levels of notability. As for whether the criteria is too vague, that's a whole different topic that I don't have time to get into right now, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I'm always impressed by most of the NIN articles, and since the nomination covers the basic subjects on music, the topic is valid. igordebraga ≠ 21:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• As the person who closes debates here, I can't say that this topic has consensus to promote, even if the votes are at 66%. I do think that this type of supertopic is within the FT guidelines but before this topic can be passed, we need to have a general debate about how we treat supertopics like "Solar System", "NIN", and "France" and whether such topics must include all levels of subarticles. I recomend that the nominator withdraws this nomination, and if the general debates comes out in their favour, they can renominate. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty reasonable solution. It doesn't seem like this is going to be resolved in the immediate future, so perhaps it would be best to first resolve the meta-issue at hand, especially since it may apply to other FTs beyond the scope of this isolated FTC. Keep me posted as to the progress of the discussion – in the meantime I'll withdraw the nomination. Drewcifer (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

State touring routes in Warren County, New York

Main page	Articles
List of highways in Warren County, New York	New York State Route 8 - New York State Route 9L - New York State Route 9N - New York State Route 28 - New York State Route 28N - New York State Route 32 - New York State Route 32B - New York State Route 149 - New York State Route 254 - New York State Route 418

I worked my dang head off on this Featured topic for about 5-7 months. The articles are all at GA or FA and is probably one of my best works to date. As a little background, this is all the highways maintained by New York State Department of Transportation and have touring route shields & reference markers (for prospect). This topic has 12 articles, 3 of them FAs, and 9 GAs.^Mitch32^contribs 13:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What about New York State Route 911E and New York State Route 912Q? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• 911E added to topic, 912Q merged to I-87.^Mitch32^contribs 14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Gary King (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Until New York State Route 911E New York State Route 32B passes GA or is audited. Then you'll have my full support. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn't see that one; I've added the B-icon so it's more clear. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Update - Can I have this postponed for a week. 911E is going to merged in for a new article on something else. If its possible this can be postponed, it would help.Mitch32 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The easiest way to do this would be to withdraw this nom and nominate it again when it is ready. Also, if you plan to choose a new article for the topic, then there is clearly no strictly-defined topic. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Can you justify the recent merging of New York State Route 911E and New York State Route 912Q into New York State Route 32B and Interstate 87 respectively? rst20xx (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• 911E and 912Q shouldn't have existed in the first place per notability guidelines, the best thing to do was to merge them. This is my fault and I surely regret it. Oppose this FTC if you wish, just please, give me a chance - I don't wanna see 5-7 months of work go out the window.Mitch32 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• These are roads that are maintained by the state but are unsigned as such. They are primarily remnants of realignments of other state roads and their history is tied to those other roads. Merging is a perfectly appropriate course of action here. --Polaron | Talk 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, though I'm not convinced you carried across as much information as you could have when you merged them in, in fact what you did was simply redirect them to the other articles. (And I don't see how any of this is sending 5-7 months' worth of work out the window :/) rst20xx (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What about U.S. Route 4 and U.S. Route 9W? Surely if we're to include some former routes, such as New York State Route 32B, we should include them all? (Well I guess the former should be included via the U.S. Route 4 in New York article, so that's one of the two dealt with) rst20xx (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We can, but you'd have to give me some time to work on it, along with a possible New York State Route 9M, but that along with New York State Route 9K (which is redundant to 9N), would be very hard to work an article for.

Addendum: We've decided after a discussion to remove 32B from the topic and just leave it for current routes, all fo which are GA or higher. This should be enough - (12 articles at 20% = 2.4 or 3 FAs).Mitch32 14:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Former routes probably don't need to be included at all. US 4, US 9, and NY 32B are already described in the history section of another current route. The roads used by the above former routes are still state highways although numbered differently now. --Polaron | Talk 14:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't this now mean 911E isn't dealt with by any of the articles currently in the topic? And I still don't think you've addressed my concerns that you just redirected 911E and 912Q, as opposed to merging them into other articles, anyway. (Though I'm contented with not including 4/9/32B and would say that that could be a possible future expansion should you choose to make it :P) rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

911E is discussed in New York State Route 254. 912Q is really just a long exit ramp, which probably shouldn't have its own article anyway. In any case, I agree that the merging wasn't quite done as well as it should have been and should be fixed. However, these two reference routes aren't really "routes" in the sense that one is supposed to follow them to go someplace and is only tangentially related to the topic in that they are roads maintained by the state. --Polaron | Talk 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, well if Mitchazenia fixes the merges then I'll support, but until then I Oppose - rst20xx (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it look better - there's more details of 911E and 912Q in the articles they were merged to.Mitch32 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you could also move the Major Intersections/Exit Lists section across, as well as the road infoboxes. But anyway, neither 32B nor 87 are part of the topics, so 911E and 912Q aren't covered by articles in the topic as it stands. Polaron pointed out that you could merge 911E into 254 instead of 32B. Also, I now realise that Interstate 87 should clearly be in the topic, but isn't! Not sure how I missed this before. Why is 87 not currently in the topic? It passes right through Warren! It's currently a B-class article, but if it's brought up to scratch and added, it would fix the problem for 912Q.

So in summary, if you add I-87 to the topic, move 911E stuff into 254, move 912Q stuff into an in-topic article and move more 911E/912Q stuff into their respective articles in general, then I'll support. - rst20xx (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The proposed topic is "State Highways in Warren County, New York". I-87 is an Interstate Highway. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also a state highway, since the state maintains it. --NE2 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh yes. Well that explains that. But my other two objections still stand! rst20xx (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

911E is merged into 254 now - but 912Q doesn't have another in-topic article to merge to.Mitch32 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well, I think technically for that reason I-87 should still have to be in the topic, but I don't want to be a complete prick over an exit ramp, so I'm gonna let it slide, just saying that I hope in the future you get I-87 up to GA and add it to a (slightly-modified-title) topic. Support - rst20xx (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Seems to meet the criteria, at least for a few minutes until you decide to mess with it again. ;) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good now. Gary King (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It's a little unclear what exactly the topic being nominated here is. If it's only the "touring routes" – that is, routes signed with shields – then U.S. Route 9 in New York should be removed (it is now), and it would be correct not to include the two reference routes (911E and 912Q). Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway should also be removed though. If it's all state-maintained highways, then U.S. and Interstate routes should be added back in, as should all of the reference routes in the county. If you're using List of highways in Warren County, New York as the main article for the topic, then that seems to support the latter interpretation. -- Kéiryn (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So the definition being used for this FT is those highways which pass through Warren, 1) are current and 2) are entirely in New York. So NY 32B (a B-class GA) is exluded for the first reason, US 9 (which is a GA) and I-87 (a B-class) are excluded for the second reason and US 4 (a GA) and US 9W (a Start-class) are excluded for both reasons. NY 912Q should be covered in the FT under the current definition, but is merged into I-87 and hence currently isn't. However, Mitch32 argues it's only an exit ramp. Clear? :P rst20xx (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no; I-87 is entirely in New York, but is part of the Interstate Highway System. The definition is apparently roads that are not numbered as part of a national system. --NE2 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so it is. Well that's a tweak to 2) then - rst20xx (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – So what is the final definition of this topic's scope? I'm a bit concerned about whether this is still a unified topic of study. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• At this point, for future ones, it'll only be state touring routes, aka ones in the style shown above by Keiryn. If there are anymore questions, please ask.Mitch32^(UP) 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But Kéiryn says that in that case Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway shouldn't be included, which it currently is...

(As an aside: note you could now add NY 32B if you wanted to! And then historic routes would be included too. But anyway...)

Let me ask a question. I continue to leave my support up for this topic as (912Q mess aside) I think it just meets the criteria, but do you really want to see a featured topic with such a messy definition go through, and one which feels so incomplete, as it doesn't have the non-national routes? (well that's my opinion anyway)

If I were you, I'd get I-87 and US 9W up to scratch ASAP, and then get NY 32B, US 9, I-87, US 4 and US 9W into this topic. THEN it'd be truly complete, and incredibly impressive work to boot - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Prospect, but if 87, 9W, 4, and 9 go in later, I will request Prospect come back. Anyway, if its started with the 9 articles that are left, it'll start as a precedent for the others that I am working on and will work on in the future, which can be seen on this sandbox. That'll give you an idea on what I am working on. My request is that it be promoted with future ones following just the SRs - if it would make any bonus, I can make 9W, 4 and 32B go into a former route topic - to better suit them. Is that possible.Mitch32^(UP) 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think including historic routes now would set any precedence - just call this topic "current and former state highways" and future topics "current". In fact I think you should also call this topic "state touring routes" not "state highways" - that'd be clearer.

And similarly, including national routes wouldn't set any precedence either IMO.

Still not very happy about the 912Q mess... rst20xx (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Renamed per discussion and I will include the others in a supplementary nomination when the time comes.Mitch32^(UP) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we add "Current" to the name to note that the former one isn't included at the moment? (Question: Why is that?) rst20xx (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we use this header, can't we readd NY 32B now? It has passed GA and now defines inclusion. Besides, its 1 route, as I said, 9K and 9M are not notable and lack info for an article.Mitch32^(UP) 01:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reset Yes, we can, but you haven't added it to the topic! In my last message, I was asking if you forgot to add 32B to the topic, which I think you missed; I take it you did forget then? As for me, I forgot about 9K and 9M's existence; if you want to add former routes, I think both need to be dealt with in-topic. So let's look at that then. Now, 9K is merged into 9N which is in-topic, so that's OK!, but I think you should technically add U.S. Route 9 in New York to the topic. Seems a bit strange, that, but US9 is what 9M is merged into, so you should add US9 not for the stuff about US9, but simply so 9M is covered in-topic, which I think is a perfectly justifiable move.

In other words Mitch32, I'm proposing you add something like

New York State Route 9K - New York State Route 9M - New York State Route 32B

to the current nomination, which sets a precedent for having an article twice in a topic, but I think this is fine if it isn't counted twice in the minimum number of articles/minimum number of FAs/percentage of FAs... is that OK by you, Arctic Gnome? - rst20xx (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

More thoughts :/ An example of where what I just suggested we do with 9N/9K could have been done with an existing FT is one of the hurricane season topics, where every hurricane/tropical storm has its own mention in the listing and they all link back to the main article. And this would have clearly been ridiculous. So maybe we should just include U.S. Route 9 in New York and be done with it? rst20xx (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I needed sleep :P - Anyway, I've added NY 9K/9M along with the new article additions of 32B and 9 back - if that seems to be fair, please tell me.Mitch32^(UP) 10:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the point I was trying to make is that US9 was only being added for the bit on it about 9M, ie for the redirect from 9M, ie not in its own right. And the alternative was that we include US9 but not 9K and 9M. Including both wasn't one of the two options I was trying to present, sorry :/ So I've removed 9 itself again for now - is that OK? rst20xx (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my error. Anyway, is there anything else?Mitch32^(UP) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this is absolutely fine for me now :) Thanks, and sorry this was such a messy process. Though I expect Arctic Gnome will have an opinion on the inclusion of 9M/9K as redirecting to other articles, which has never been done in a FT before, and may want to swap those two out and instead include US9 itself... but if this is what he'd rather do, this'd be fine by me, and I think also you Mitch? At any rate, I expect Arctic Gnome will give his opinion if/when he closes to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I appreciate your work at clarifying the scope of this topic, but I don't think that including rediredts or article sections is the way to go. The lead article should explain any subjects that don't need their own article. Check out the topic about the Featured topics/1998 Pacific hurricane season; in its lead article it has a paragraph on each storm that year and {{main}} tags for the three storms big enough to have their own articles. Your topic could be set up with a similar structure, but you could get away with just copying some information about redesignated routes to the lead article. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

...So in this case, that'd mean merging 9K and 9M into the main topic, right? That's sensible. Mitch? - rst20xx (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I think they have a sentence or two - I'd have to look up some details on 9M, not much exists behind it.Mitch32^(UP) 22:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

...Well oppose until this is done then - rst20xx (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.Mitch32^(UP) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This topic has changed enough that we're going to nead a new vote. When you're happy with your new setup, you should add a clear indicator in this discussion saying that the new vote starts from there. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly fine to restart the vote here. Go ahead and reset it.Mitch32^(UP) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay then... weak support - I'd prefer to see national routes included as well but feel this topic meets the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think it is fine. As a discloser, I have not followed this the whole time and did not see all of the combinations put forward, but as currently stated I think it is fine. Zginder 2008-07-12T14:16Z (UTC)
• Close as no consensus - While this does look like it was moving to a support, I think that this topic has changed scope too much for the casual voter to be able to keep track and for it to be clear who supported which version. I recomend a fresh nomination with the consensus version. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

Main page	Articles
Gilbert and Sullivan	W. S. Gilbert - Arthur Sullivan

Gilbert and Sullivan were almost certainly the most important theatrical collaboration in Victorian England, and this topic will cover the core articles on them: W. S. Gilbert, Arthur Sullivan, and the summary of their collaboration, Gilbert and Sullivan, thus linking together their detailed biographies with the detailed summary of their collaboration.

W. S. Gilbert is an FA, the others are GAs. (Arthur Sullivan is currently part of an FA drive.)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs 2 FAs minimum Gary King (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• SUSPENDED UNTIL SULLIVAN REACHES FA - SORRY! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• ...I think we can safely say this failed - rst20xx (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)