Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/M-28/archive2

M-28

4 articles

M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)

U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan)

I'm nominating M-28 as a topic. The lead article is about the "parent route", the longest state trunkline highway in Michigan that isn't a US Highway or an Interstate Highway. M-28 has had 3 business loops associated with it over its history since 1919. The loop in the Ishpeming–Negaunee area is still extant, while the other two have been decommissioned and removed from the state trunkline system in Michigan. The loop in Marquette is listed under the BUS US 41 title because that was the designation used for most of that loop's history, but for a period in the 1970s, it was concurrently designated BUS US 41/BUS M-28. As such, the shown redirect does exist. The final loop is the one from Newberry, which existed in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Two of the business loop articles are GAs, the lead article and the current business loop are an FAs. The GAs are rated at A-Class by the associated WikiProject's A-Class Review process. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - for exactly the same reason this topic failed the first time you nominated it - with 4 opposes and no supports - a fact that you seem to gloss over completely. To repeat what Nergaal said there: "per large overlap with existing topic; 3 of the 4 articles are already part of another topic and the remaining article is LESS than 3k of text". I'm a bit confused to see this back here - rst20xx (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason I nominated it before: The other FT is based on geography (Marquette County) this one is based on parent (M-28) and its children (the business loops). If you don't like the overlap, then let's remove the county-based FT. The county-based classification scheme is not well received at the parent project, while this relationship scheme is much better received. 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As I recall, they aren't too well-received here, either. I'd vote for removal of the county topic in favor of this one, which seems like it wouldn't have such an overlap problem between topics. --Pres N 23:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the question then, is which of the two topics are preferable. If the other was removed I'd have no problem supporting this one. However I do feel that firstly that one should be removed first, and secondly I would probably favour keeping that one over this as I feel it is a more comprehensive topic. PresN and Imzadi1979 prefer this one. This one will be an FT after September and the other won't. Finally there are a few small problems with the presentation of this topic - is it called M-28 or M-28 (Michigan highway)? There should be no redirect link in the topic box - rst20xx (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Support this one as opposed to the other one. FT/GTs by highway should have a higher priority than by county. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well that makes it 3 to 1 in favour of this topic over the other. But you need to get the other one removed before this one can be promoted. This one can remain on hold whilst the FTRC takes place - rst20xx (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be willing to support this topic if the one for Marquette County was delisted, otherwise, I will have to oppose for the same overlap reason as in the first FTC. Dough 48 72 14:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The FTRC has been opened on the county topic.
The county topic would remain featured after September 1. (Five of the ten articles hold featured status already.)
The redirect in the topic box is only intended for nomination purposes.

Imzadi 1979 → 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending the removal of the Marquette County topic. See that topic's removal candidate page for my rationale. – T M F 22:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any further concerns rst? The other topic has since been demoted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like it after re-reading; he said he's support this when the other one was delisted, and now it has been. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]