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

Hurricane Dennis in the United States

Note this was a Good Topic candidate - rst20xx (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
Hurricane Dennis	Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Florida - Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Alabama - Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Mississippi - Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Georgia

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Includes all the articles related to Hurricane Dennis and meets GA topic criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This storm caused more deaths in Haiti and Cuba than it did in America, and also caused a third of its fiscal damage in Cuba. And yet there are 4 articles about America and none about Haiti and Cuba. Can you explain to me why there shouldn't be articles on Haiti and Cuba? Because at the moment, this looks to me like a gap - rst20xx (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The topic is "Hurricane Dennis in the United States", which limits it to its impacts in the United States. I haven't gotten around to creating the Cuba and Haiti articles, but because they're much more difficult, I've put it off for now. I don't see what's wrong with having a topic cover one land region at a time. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - yes, sorry, you're absolutely right, I just didn't read the name of the proposed topic right. My mistake. In this case, I support - rst20xx (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice job :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral — This is bordering on cheery picking by scope reduction, but I suppose that looking at its impact on one country could be considered a complete field of study. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this is cherrypicking. Of the 89 deaths, only 15 were in the US. Sure the economic effects might have been bigger in the US, but relative to the economies in there I bet it was worse. The damages were 10 times bigger in Cuba than in Alabama but the latter gets and article. I truly believe there can exist a separate article encompassing all the Caribbeans, which would fill in the unbalance in the present proposal. Please, don't make wiki even more balanced towards the US than it already is. Nergaal (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • How is it cherry picking? The topic covers everything in its scope. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't consider this cherrypicking either. This is just defining the scope of a topic narrowly, which is allowed. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well if it's defined too narrowly, then it constitutes oversplitting and is not allowed, as the topic would be needlessly small - rst20xx (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
        • But, while the United States was spared the most severe effects, it suffered the most widespread, so the scope of the topic is not too small or tight. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Do you have a citation for that? To me, since there were more than 5 times the causalities in other parts than in US would look the other way. How can you say that 20% of the casualities were the most severe effects? Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
            • To rst20xx's point, oversplitting is a recommendation in the criteria, not a rule. I also read it as meaning you should not have multiple topics where 1 topic would be more appropriate. If someone were to later nominate a topic on Hurricane Dennis in the Caribbean then I would support combining the 2 topics into 1 based on the recommendation against oversplitting, but before that happens I don't think oversplitting applies here. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question: Why is there no article on Effects of Hurricane Dennis in the United States? I ask because this would be a much better main article for the topic Hurricane Dennis in the United States than the storm article? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern, but I feel such a page would be redudnant to both the subarticles and the main article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support, although I'd like to see the scope expanded to fit the main article in the near future. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support based on it meeting all the criteria and on my comments above. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment:Oppose: After scanning through the main article, the topic name/scope seems off. The main article is not just about "Hurricane Dennis in the United States" and is somewhat misleading. If those are all the sub articles to the main article, I think it should be titled simply "Hurricane Dennis". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

  If you read above, you'll see that there should be Caribbean articles too, Juliancolton just hasn't created them yet. Hence, if he were to change the name to remove "United States", then this topic would be incomplete - rst20xx (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  With the current status, I think the scope is too narrow/mismatched for the main article. Since the Caribbean impact section was smaller than the US section, I figured the information didn't exist for a separate article. If you plan on creating a Caribbean or Cuba and Haiti articles, then I'd say wait until those are done. But right now, the topic seems falls between a mismatched scope and incomplete. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

• Oppose I have been following this from the beginning, but have been trying to decide how to express me opinion. I agree with Guyinblank25. I could not have said it better myself. Zginder 2008-09-22T17:15Z (UTC)
• Close with no consensus to promote - this is a tricky one, to be sure, but while most people favour promotion I don't feel we can say there is consensus for it (the vote is currently at 5-3-1). You have a fantastic start, but it seems you need those Caribbean articles - rst20xx (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Founding of Microsoft

Main page	Articles
History of Microsoft	Microsoft · Bill Gates · Paul Allen

I think that this topic is complete, as it includes the history of the company, the company, and the two primary founders. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose - per the X-Men nom - rst20xx (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  I brought History of Microsoft and Paul Allen to GA; tried to get Bill Gates to FAC but failed. The primary contributor to Microsoft has not been on Wikipedia in over half a year. Gary King (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, that's good enough for me. Thanks - rst20xx (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question should Microsoft litigation be a part of the topic? Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  The topic is Founding, not History. Gary King (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Then the connection between the main article and the name of the topic is a bit loose. Nergaal (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but there isn't a more suitable main article. You can take a look at previous FTCs which changed their scope to make the articles in the topic acceptable. Gary King (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous FTC? That is usually linked in the new nomination. Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous FTCs – plural – meaning any in WP:FAL. Gary King (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

oppose: Ah ok. Then my opinion still remains that the connection between the main article and the actual top. Nergaal (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - hmm, I'm on the fence about whether this is a well defined enough scope. Also, I'm not sure whether the Microsoft article should be included - it's like including the band article in the discography topic. Though on the plus side, I can't spot any gaps in the scope - rst20xx (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Good point, since History of Microsoft already covers Microsoft. I guess I'll wait and see what consensus says. Gary King (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Scope is well defined in my opinion, covers the history of the company, the company itself, and the founders. It also meets the rest of the criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've had to give this one a lot of thought. This topic concerns me for a couple of reasons. First, the topic is "Founding of Microsoft" yet the lead article is "History of Microsoft." Now it's not required that the topic and main article are the same, but I think it's a good convention that has come about for very good reasons--mainly that it helps to focus the topic. This leads me to my second problem, that the topic seems very unfocused. The 2 main founders articles are present, but the article about the company and the history of the company just seem to be thrown together to try to create a topic when one doesn't really feel like it exists. I think this is a case where the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rreagan007. Zginder 2008-09-19T19:44Z (UTC)

  Would changing the scope or articles in some way alleviate these concerns? Gary King (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  Care to make some suggestions? rst20xx (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  What if Microsoft was removed? Gary King (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  Does someone who opposed want to comment? (I went neutral, but I suspect such a change wouldn't help) - rst20xx (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  I feel that at least Microsoft litigation needs to be included. Zginder 2008-09-21T19:32Z (UTC)

  It doesn't really have any mention of the founding of the company, nor should it. Gary King (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The first criterion of a topic is that "It is a set of similar, interrelated articles that cover a specific topic." If you drop the microsoft article, which definitely does not belong in the topic, then you would be left with 3 articles, none of which really focus at all on the topic of the "founding of microsoft." The history of microsoft article, which is the main article, has 2 paragraphs about it, and the Paul Allen article has only 1 paragraph about it. The articles just don't cover the topic comprehensively. I'm sorry but it's still an oppose from me. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  You don't need to make a point by opposing twice. I have unbolded your second oppose statement. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  Gary King you have the second most successful FTCs and you do not now how this works? If you define the topic as "The Founding of Microsoft" then you need to pick artilces that mostly talk about this. None of these do, nor does Microsoft litigation, true. If you wanted to have the topic the "History of Microsoft" then Microsoft should not be in the topic and Microsoft litigation and probably more should be. Zginder 2008-09-22T04:51Z (UTC)

  You're pretty much talking down to me now. My other FTCs were video game series and such, so they were perfectly structured; I was working on these articles and was eventually curious to know if it could be a possible topic. I guess not. Gary King (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to make a point by opposing twice. rst20xx asked if someone who opposed earlier would comment again about dropping microsoft from the topic, so I commented. I'm sorry if you felt I was trying to be flip about it, but I wasn't. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  I also did not intend to talk down to you, I was just shocked that a long time contributor was still confused. Maybe we need to clarify things a bit more? Also, I was trying to help you out. Zginder 2008-09-22T14:13Z (UTC)

• Close with no consensus to promote - I'm sorry, but I really don't think this is going to pass now. If you are unsure on whether a topic is unified enough to pass, then I suggest you use Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions - rst20xx (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Solar System (9th supplementary nomination)

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

1. Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons
2. Planets beyond Neptune

Main page	Articles
Solar System	Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Planets beyond Neptune, Dwarf planets, Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, Oort cloud, Formation and evolution

These articles mark the first step for this topic from specific bodies into broader, Solar System related topics. Now that the subtopics are underway, this article should focus on the Solar System entire. Serendi^podous 08:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose If this is supposed to focus on the "Solar System entire", why is List of Solar System objects not included? Pagrashtak 12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Um, because that's just a list of links? Serendi^podous 13:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Correct, a stand-alone list "usually consist[s] of links to articles in a particular subject area". I don't see how that makes it not a gap. I'm sorry, but I don't see why this topic should include Planets beyond Neptune but not Trans-Neptunian object, or why we have Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons but not Timeline of Solar System exploration. Perhaps if you stated the intended definition I could get a better handle on this. "Solar System entire" is clearly beyond the scope of what we have presented. Pagrashtak 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Get me a team of helpers willing to work 24-7, and I can get all those articles up to standard. As it stands I am only one person, working with (perhaps) six other people on this topic. Besides, if this topic were to be considered invalid until EVERY SINGLE Solar System-related article were ready for inclusion, it would contain more than a hundred entries. And where would we stop? If someone created an article called Sexual positions named after Solar System objects, would that need to be included too? By the way, as far as we know, there ARE no planets beyond Neptune. Planets beyond Neptune is a historical article dealing with Solar System exploration, not a article on an actual part of the Solar System. "Trans-Neptunian object" is covered by Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, and Oort cloud.Serendi^podous 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying that if a team working 24-7 had improved those article to FA you would have included them? I'll ask again—please state the intended topic definition so I can tell what's supposed to be included and what's not. Pagrashtak 16:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This was an attempt I made a while back to sketch out the scope of this topic and what it could eventually cover. Now the article's scope is expanding into subtopics. Really I don't see what the problem is. The whole point of the featured topics system is to get articles featured, and no topic's got more articles featured than this one. Serendi^podous 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I get the impression that you have selected these articles because they are featured, and not because they make a logical topic with no gaps. In other words, cherry picking. This is a violation of criterion 1d. The link you provide shows the "ultimate scope of this topic"—I don't care about that right now, I want to know the definition that includes exactly these nineteen articles and excludes all others. Pagrashtak 20:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support but I do think Pagrashtak has a point, and that the next thing you should work on is some lists, as they're starting to look like a gap to me. See also the Asteroid belt nom - rst20xx (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I think these 2 articles fit nicely into the topic and help to pull it together. I also agree that a list would be a nice addition to the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - per nom ErikvDijk (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The most important thing to consider in supplementary nominations is completeness of the topic with and without the additions. The current topic is complete. I see the article Planets beyond Neptune as an article to supplement the planet artilces, it answers the question "Are there more planets?". Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons does not make a gap at Timeline of Solar System exploration, because the former is about when objects became known, while the later is about attemts to know more. Zginder 2008-09-12T21:16Z (UTC)
• Support per nom. Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but somebody should go through Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons and add access dates to the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. You can strike the timeline. I've decided to make it part of a subtopic instead. Serendi^podous 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's probably for the best, as upon further searching I have found History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses, which is kind of a cross between the other two history articles and hence would have been a gap - rst20xx (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. That's a good idea for an article serendipodous! Just kidding! LOL Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I feel that Planets beyond Neptune would form a good addition to a possible History of Solar System science topic, but it's rather out of place in the main Solar System topic. Bluap (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Hmmm, maybe there should be two history subtopics, the formation and evolution history headed by Formation and evolution of the Solar System and the discovery and exploration history headed by Discovery and exploration of the Solar System - rst20xx (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support the article fits well into the topic, and even if in the future it might be moved into a subtopic, it should be here until then. Plus, who know when that topic might be ready? Nergaal (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I just split the main article off from Solar System, and before I do anything I have to get that article to FA status. Which is going to take a while. Serendi^podous 10:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the current plans here would see Planets beyond Neptune in a Discovery and exploration of the Solar System subtopic, and not in the main topic. In light of this, do you still want to go ahead with this addition? rst20xx (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Close it. God, this just keeps getting harder. Serendi^podous 07:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn following request by nominator - Sorry, lol - rst20xx (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2003 Pacific hurricane season

This was a Good Topic candidate - rst20xx (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
2003 Pacific hurricane season	Ignacio · Jimena · Marty

• This user did not create any of these articles.

--Elena85 | Talk to Me | Almost 2000 edits' 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support as GT Per criteria and precedent. Zginder 2008-09-20T21:12Z (UTC)
• Oppose per two reasons: (1) it has only one FA; (2) the nominator does not seem to have contributed at all and did not provide any proof of contacting any of the main contributors to the topic. Nergaal (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't meet the "minimum of two FAs" criteria. Gary King (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacks two FAs, and the nominator hasn't worked on any of the articles, or the main article for that matter. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nergaal, Gark King and Juliancolton - rst20xx (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oops, how do I withdraw the nominations?

--Elena85 | Talk to Me | Almost 2000 edits' 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)True this only has one FA/FL and should be a Good topic and not a Featured topic, but that is not a reason to oppose. Second, An oppose must be actionable and saying that the nominator has not edited these artilces is non-actionable. Zginder 2008-09-20T23:03Z (UTC)

  Not meeting the featured topic criteria was a reason to oppose, the last time I checked. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  We can promote it as a GT even though it was nominated as a FT. Why are people afraid to set president? Zginder 2008-09-20T23:07Z (UTC)

  If you mean precedent, then it is because we're just trying to follow the one which is already set. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  If people would use more common sense then a new precedent would be set. Precedent does not override common sense. Zginder 2008-09-20T23:12Z (UTC)

• If he is withdrawing I will nominate as a GT. Zginder 2008-09-20T23:04Z (UTC)

I believe the issue here should be to contact the main contributors. Say the FAC nominator? Or simply HurricaneLink (he definitely worked on at least one article). Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanehink worked on all but one, I believe. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The prove of a cabal is when two people suggest the same thing, but only the cabal member is listened to. Zginder 2008-09-20T23:32Z (UTC)

Man, since I'm nice, I have notified the main contributers:[1][2][3] here:[4][5][6]. This history is rather ambiguous and I'll leave it up to someone else. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regardless of the above, I feel the nomination must wait, as I don't think it will remain stable. The WPTC is in the midst of a reformatting for its season articles and sub-articles, and there is a very likely chance several new storm articles will be added. Elena should have asked in the first place. FWIW, I only worked on one. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have moved this to the Good Topics nominations, as this is where it should be. I have also placed the appropriate Good Topic candidacy templates on the talk pages of the articles involved - rst20xx (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, sorry, I now see the request to withdraw. In that case, Nomination withdrawn - rst20xx (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Quietly Confident Quartet

Note this was a Good Topic candidate - rst20xx (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
Quietly Confident Quartet	Mark Kerry - Peter Evans (swimmer) - Mark Tonelli - Neil Brooks

All are GAs; the main article is about the Australian 4x100m medley realy team at the 1980 Olympics. The other four are the four people in the team. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment come on, not even a single image in the entire topic??? Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I did get Daniel (talk · contribs) to get in correspondence with Tonelli, who is a public figure and journalist who is marketing himself and looking for work/gigs on his website, but he refused to reply. Nevertheless, some pictures of important locations in their lives have been added. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean those type of pictures. I find it hard to believe that IOC does not have any pictures that can be used to show the winning quartet. Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did give Tonelli a line to ask if he would share his personal photos of the Olympics with us but he didn't reply. The IOC won't even allow us to use their logo, so talking to them is a waste of time. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Impressive work, but I feel Swimming at the 1980 Summer Olympics - Men's 4 x 100 metre medley relay should probably be added. After all, it is the event that made them famous - rst20xx (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is a quartet... Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So? The quartet got famous as they won the 4 x 100. Therefore, the 4 x 100 should be included in the topic too - rst20xx (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose The lead article is not solely about the people,but also the event. Zginder 2008-09-11T17:00Z (UTC)
• Weak oppose the topic is neat but I'd like to see Swimming at the 1980 Summer Olympics - Men's 4 x 100 metre medley relay in there to complete the subject matter. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You know, renaming the topic to Quietly Confident Quartet members would be more sensible, and the 4X100 article could be added as part of a supp. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  This would be a blatant workaround to remove one article, and I would consider it oversplitting - rst20xx (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Edward VIII abdication crisis

This was a Featured Topic nomination - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
Edward VIII abdication crisis	Edward VIII of the United Kingdom - Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

I think this is a complete topic that satisfies all of the FT criteria. I have informed DrKiernan, the main contributor to these articles, of this FT nomination. DrKiernan has informed me that he is busy, and gave me his permission to nominate this topic. I am sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to be able to address any objections that may arise. Regards. BomBom (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral — Although these three articles are the most important ones related to the topic, I wonder whether the absences of some of the lower importance articles constitutes a gap. Looking at Category:Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis, there seem to be a couple more article with critical information, such as His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I was going to say much the same thing, I feel that excluding His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 and Succession to the Throne Act 1937 constitutes a notable gap - rst20xx (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support The acts of parliament are not that important to the topic. As I understand it, they were passed for the perpose of achieving what is stated in the lead article. Zginder 2008-09-01T17:34Z (UTC)
• Weak oppose See also: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_candidates#Potential Featured Topic. I would possibly include His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, and also George VI of the United Kingdom. I don't think the individual Commonwealth Realms legal documents are actually a significant hole in the topic. They were legal formalities, if you want to include them, you need to include every single individual act that each Commonwealth Realm had to pass to ratify George VI as King. We don't need every single article in {{Edward VIII abdication crisis}} to be FA/GA etc, though they could be supplementary in the future. Woody (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  I don't there were bills for Commonwealth Realms other than the UK and Canada. I remember reading somewhere that those are the only two whose privy counsels have power over the line of succession. All of the Commonwealth other than Canada are included in the UK act. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  The Bill says that "Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand" had to assent to the Bill under the 1931 Statuate. It doesn't seem that they passed Acts through Parliament, other than Canada. So, I strike that part from my comment. Woody (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think the non-inclusion of the legal documents in the topic constitutes a gap. The article about His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 doesn't contain any information that isn't already included in the fifth section of the main article about the Edward VIII abdication crisis. The reason for which there is a separate article for the Act is that someone simply decided to create it. Moreover, I think it's impossible to make the article about the Act attain GA or FA status because, simply put, there is nothing more that can be put in it. Any expansion of the article will probably lead to the addition of information about the context in which the act was passed, which means paraphrasing the main article about the crisis itself. As for the Canadian Act, it's not a core part of the topic in any way, since it was legally unnecessary (Canada had already consented to the British Act under the terms of the Statute of Westminster 1931) and was solely passed to highlight Canada's equality with Britain. The Irish act is not of major importance either with regard to the abdication crisis itself. It would be of fundamental importance if the topic were about Irish constitutional law or the issue of who was the Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. BomBom (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The article about His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 doesn't contain any information that isn't already included in the fifth section of the main article about the Edward VIII abdication crisis. The reason for which there is a separate article for the Act is that someone simply decided to create it... Any expansion of the article will probably lead to the addition of information about the context in which the act was passed, which means paraphrasing the main article about the crisis itself." If this is completely true, and you are sure that it always will be (as any other stuff that could be added would indeed be paraphrasing the main article), then it seems to me that this article (and the other two?) are needless, in which case they could be merged into the main article (I'm trying hard here not to encourage the practise of merging for the FT, which I'd generally oppose, but your assertions suggest that in this case, no information would be lost). But if you are to merge them in, you need to do so before the FT, not after - rst20xx (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with no consensus to promote - sorry this took so long to close, as you can see, things have been a bit hectic round here lately - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot discography

Note that this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

previous FTC

Major contributors: user:Rezter, user:Blackngold29, user:Rtiztik, user:Dude527, several IPs

could not check for 9.0 & voliminal due to the ":"

The two audited articles were too short for Good article status so they have been peer reviewed instead. Gary King (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - this is the first time there have been audited articles, as opposed to audited lists, which makes me quite uneasy, but the reason they both failed GA is all spelled out on the talk pages, and it was due to shortness, so, what can you do? Nothing - rst20xx (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I think that the Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood need to be made Good articles or merged. The usual reasons for the checkmark, such as being unreleased, or having a big potential for future growth, don't really apply here. So the options really are either GA status or merger. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  We considered merging but decided against it because these albums are notable enough for their own articles. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  This is more like the lists with checkmarks, not the articles - rst20xx (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Respectfully, if the albums are notable enough, the sources should allow them to grow to GA's, and if they can't, then the should be merged. I really don't think that the audited article provision applies to either of these articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree that every article that is as well researched as it truly can be should be able to get GA or even FA, but unfortunately this is demonstratedly not the case. Further, I do not support the merging of these articles as just because they've failed GA, that doesn't automatically mean they're not notable enough to exist at all - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  As has been said, both articles have been GA nom'd per their last FT nomination. Both failed. Merging was discussed, but decided against. After all, why would the "Audited article" criteria exist if we can't use it? Pleny of FTs have them. Blackngold29 19:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  This might not be the best place to bring up this point, but I believe for GTs, this type of ckeckmarks should be allowed if strong evidence is presented (as seems to be the case here), but simply not allow them when the issue comes of promoting the GTs to FTs (I agree to being 100% strict for featured content, but not sure it should be the case for good content too). Nergaal (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  This comment is effectively a proposed rule change, and as such should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria - rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — It should be possible to bring a reliced album to GA. As one of the GA noms said, it needs information on "reception, impact, and importance of this release". I don't think the small article check is valid here. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I assure you if any further information existed on "reception, impact, and importance" it would be there. But it just does not exist. See my comment above, if we could get it to a GA we would, but with the current sources we have we cannot; that's why the "audited article" class exists. Blackngold29 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's just been brought to my attention that the peer reviews on the two -articles have not concluded, despite what is stated in the nom here. Therefore, I oppose for the time being - rst20xx (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Ah yes, didn't notice that (I marked them as checkmarks after I opened the PRs; I've changed the icons I use now!) This nomination will be back. Gary King (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dangerously in Love

Note that this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song) was too short for a GA so it was peer reviewed instead. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - per the X-Men nom. Also, the peer review of What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song) hasn't finished yet. Also, I would like to see it try for GA, and fail solely due to being inherently short, before I will support - rst20xx (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, also, you're missing Dangerously in Love (song). And Work It Out (Beyoncé Knowles song) and '03 Bonnie & Clyde should possibly be included too. The reasons pile up - rst20xx (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  What's the current requirement for album topics? The precedent set has been only the album's singles are required. Does this include international singles? Where do we stand now? Gary King (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I believe it is ok to be less stringent about the broadness of the topic for GTCs, and for example allow GTs only with singles but relegate the FTs that contain only singles (unless there is a veeery good /clear reason not to include other songs). Nergaal (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be the same for both FT and GTs; the only difference between the two processes should only be the quality of the articles. Anyways, I don't care if it's singles or not, but it'd be nice to have that cleared up one way or the other. Gary King (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the same standards should be imposed on GTs and FTs, but I guess that should be figured out in the future by consensous. Nergaal (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the non-single songs, as far as I'm aware, no precedent has been set, but I would oppose if they weren't included myself - rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note the nomination's name has been changed due to the article being moved from Dangerously In Love to Dangerously in Love (a basic capitalization fix). Xnux the Echidna 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Confessions

Note that this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Album and its singles Gary King (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose - per the X-Men nom - rst20xx (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean films

Note that this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose - per the X-Men nom - rst20xx (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man films

Note that this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Meets the Good Topic criteria, all Spider-Man films so it's comprehensive. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Temporary oppose - per the X-Men nom. IMO you can't nominate things without even attempting to get the blessing of the guys who got the articles to GA - rst20xx (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  This was on my Goals page for FTC; GTC was open, so I submitted it while I continue working towards an FTC. I opposed GTC; I do not intend on reaping credit from this process. I intend on getting these topics through this process so I can focus on FTCs. You have got some double standards if you compare this to several FTCs such as Wikipedia:Featured topics/Galilean moons and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Gwen Stefani albums, to name a few. The difference here is there is no bot to grab the nominators, to list them on a special page, to rank them in order. And there shouldn't be one. Gary King (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Except that with the moons, the nominator actually bothered to expand one of the articles. Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, you are fishing for GTCs. Gary King (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  To some opposing GTCs_{see"I opposed GTC"} might sound greedy, and something on the lines of "I need time to work on these GAs so I can look good when I nominate the topics". Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Why would rst20xx oppose this nomination to work on the topic himself so he can nominate it? Gary King (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Congrats for reading exactly what I meant! Nergaal (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  No, I opposed GTC because then there will be people who nominate GANs prematurely to get more of them. Gary King (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  And how exactly is this argument making you either (1) a significant contributor to the topic, or (2) show that you've consulted regular nominators before nomination? Nergaal (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're just antagonizing me now. I will close the topics I feel should be closed. Gary King (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually same thing could be argued that happens with FAC/FTC already. There is probably no way that is going to be prevented. Anyways, these are just opinions. Nergaal (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - rst20xx (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

X-Men films

Note that this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Meets the newly minted GA topic criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Temporary oppose - this looks to be a good topic, but the rules state that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination." Can you point to me where you consulted the people who got the articles to GA? rst20xx (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  Oppose - Actually I'd oppose this topic anyway as you're missing X-Men Origins: Wolverine - rst20xx (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - rst20xx (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow

Note that this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow	Soma Cruz - Alucard (Castlevania)

Nominating this with the caveat that Soma Cruz and Alucard (Castlevania) be removed from the Aria of Sorrow topic to avoid unnecessary overlap. The Aria of Sorrow topic would still be comprehensive due to having the character list (which in turn lists Soma and Alucard, making their inclusion in the topic unnecessary). As for this topic, it is complete (as all other characters are non-notable and shouldn't have articles written on them) and all articles/lists are of featured or good status. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The AoS topic seems perfectly fine to me as it is, I don't see a compelling reason to split it up into two topics. Pagrashtak 21:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with Pagrashtak. The AoS topic is fine as it is and splitting would go against the fourth WP:FT? recommendation, "needlessly small". No need to mess with a good thing, and at 60% featured, the AoS topic is well above others. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
• Oppose - 100% overlapped by the parent FT, and I see no compelling reason why the articles should be broken out into their own topic without adding any new articles. --PresN (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but I have to agree with the above comments. Trying to break out a subtopic from such a small topic seems totally unfruitful. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - meh, well I had to try. Can someone withdraw this nomination? I'll try next with another idea. Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - this clearly constitutes oversplitting. It's not a competition to see who can get the most topics - rst20xx (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn - rst20xx (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Amateur radio in India

Note that this was a Featured Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
Amateur radio in India	Amateur radio frequency bands in India - Amateur Station Operator's Certificate

I'm trying to get as many articles on Amateur radio in India featured. I have about five-six seven more to go. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose- please explain why those 5-6 (such as Wireless and Planning and Coordination Wing) are not included in this topic. --PresN (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The seven additional topics include:

1. Wireless and Planning and Coordination Wing
2. Amateur Radio Society of India
3. Amateur radio licence categories in India
4. Amateur radio call-signs of India
5. Indian Wireless Telegraph (Amateur Service) Rules, 1978
6. Amateur Radio Society of India
7. Citizens Band radio in India

I'm new to featured topics. I thought I needed to get the core articles up to featured status and upto three recognised core feature quality articles. I guess I am mistaken. What do you suggest I do? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose 1d, per PresN --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, 1d. Nichalp, it sounds like you misunderstood the criteria. I suggest you withdraw this nomination until you have the entire set of articles ready. Pagrashtak 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll withdraw. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn - rst20xx (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)