Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/January 2008

Um, so yeah. Pretty self-explanatory. David Fuchs ^(talk) 03:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Ahh, at long last, these article have arrived...I have a thought though; perhaps this should be named "Halo video game series" or something like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Meets the criteria. In response to Judgesurreal777, it could be argued that "Halo Video Game Series" would need to include Halo Wars and Halo: Chronicles. I'm not opposed to calling the topic "Halo Video Game Series" though because the other 2 games are not part of this storyline, just occuring in the same fictional universe. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the topic should include all games in the universe. The other two articles are not GA class, but because they are not have not yet been released, they should be able to qualify under the featured topic critiria's "short article" clause, as long as the articles were brought up to GA once the games were released. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be done (I doubt it will take that long for the WikiProject to whip them into shape upon release) but since they won't be coming out for some time I feel a bit hesitant; I'd rather add them to the topic later. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The games are quite separate. Halo Wars takes place 27 years before the Halo: Combat Evolved and the story of Halo: Chronicles is completely unknown. The 3 games nominated were directly linked, the other 2 games are only linked by taking place in the same universe. It would be possible though so incase it is decided that Halo Wars and Halo: Chronicles are necessary I'll get to work on them. James086^{Talk | Email} 01:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they are quite separate in-universe is irrelevant. If they are made by the same company under the same brand name, than they can be grouped together for an academic study such as this; you can say within the articles themselves how they differ in-universe from each other. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see your point but they aren't made by the same company, Halo Wars is made by Ensemble Studios and Halo: Chronicles is made by Wingnut Interactive with help from Bungie. Also, they can be grouped together, but that doesn't mean they should be. Like the Star Wars films, I would be willing to bet that there has been a spin-off film which is in the same universe but isn't part of the 6 main ones. Should that be included in the FT (even though it's getting delisted). James086^{Talk | Email} 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There are 4 Starwars spin-off films; see the second line of Template:Star Wars. They are technically Star Wars films. That's why this topic was originally named "Halo trilogy", so that it only included the 3 main games. Personally I don't think it's cherrypicking but perhaps others do so I'm not going to fight consensus if it is decided to include them. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't require any work to add them to the topic, just put both articles with check marks in them until they come out, and rename it Halo video games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - never played any of these games, but the Halo articles' quality always impressed me, I mirror on them, the Zelda FAs and Metal Gear Solid to improve VG articles. igordebraga ≠ 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Halo 3 is up for FAC here, however because it is a GA and there are already 2 featured articles I don't think this should have any effect. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What image should be used for the topic? Do we have a Halo-like ring that's free use somewhere? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably make one easily, starting with the logo I used for WP:HALO. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, here's the logo David created. It would do the job I think, considering the image used on the Final Fantasy FTs. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could use that one, or we could use this one I had made but forgot about... the ring is more representative, at least. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind which image is used. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well done. Pagrashtak 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - 3 FAs out of 4 is pretty nice. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks good. Scope can be expanded to include the other two games after they become out and become GAs or whatever. Oh, and IMO, I prefer the first image. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Meets all of the criteria. I do not think this is cherry picking. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Meets criteria, great work. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close nomination as promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page	Articles
Gillingham F.C.	History of Gillingham F.C. - List of Gillingham F.C. players - List of Gillingham F.C. managers - Gillingham F.C. seasons - Priestfield Stadium - Gillingham F.C. records

Self nomination I feel that this set of six Featured Articles/Lists and one article of limited scope which has been audited for quality comprises a full and complete overview of this football (soccer) club, with no obvious gaps, and is worthy of FT status, but I await the judgment of the wider community ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. this is a comprehensive and complete set of articles. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a very impressive effort, and it'd be nice to see more sporting team articles following in the stead of this set. Rebecca (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Comment. On looking at the FT criteria, the only thing which might concern me is that the template linking them also includes one un-nominated article, Gillingham F.C. records. This is a small two-section list which was spun off from the relevant section of the main article when this was being prepared for FAC. I'm not well enough acquainted with the criteria to know whether its omission might cause a cherry-picking problem? I'd hope it doesn't – the set of articles nominated are uniformly excellent and provide a balanced overview of the topic, and otherwise I'd be happy to support the nomination. Struway2 (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, every single article relating to a topic doesn't necessarily have to be included in the FTC, only those which are needed to comprise a full overview of the subject. The stats article is almost a form of trivia, and I don't feel it is needed for a full overview. On the subject of it being included in the template, Wilco discography is a FT and contains a template which includes loads of articles which aren't bundled into the FT, including all their singles...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm sure you could include the stats article in this nomination and it would still pass. WP:WIAFT says "Items that cannot achieve a high rating due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality" and I believe this covers Gillingham F.C. records. However, it may need a wee bit of expansion, but not much. – PeeJay 11:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play, I'll put it up for a quick PR..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I support this FTC regardless of the inclusion of the stats article, but others might not. – PeeJay 12:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stats article might fall under the "short article clause", but I see no reason why it couldn't be improved to FL status. It has references, which should make it sable and uncontrovertable. If it was just cleaned up a bit and got some photos, it should be FL quality. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in which case, I shall definitely support. Well done. Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Stats article is pretty much as good as it could be. Support --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My take on it all. Either the records article is included (at FL standard) or it is not at all. I don't personally believe that the Records article will ever expand much beyond its current state, there simply aren't enough stats. I can see however, a point in the future where a big club (Liverpool, Villa (ha) etc) will come to FT with complete lists. Liverpool F.C. statistics and records is a case in point. I think in those instances, it will help build up a club overview. In Gillinghams case, it doesn't add to the overview, and as such it cannot be classed as cherry-picking. So... I think this is a complete topic, so have to Support. Woody (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is rare for a Gills fan to have something to be proud of that can be favourably compared with any other club in the country. This collection of articles is something that Wikipedia should be proud of and be able to offer as a model. Kevin McE (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the records article has now undergone a Peer Review, and most contributors felt it should be considered as part of the topic, I've added it in to the master list above..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic collection of articles, which presents the hard work that has gone into them. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brilliant set of articles, as Woody said as Gillingham is not as big as Liverpool or Aston Villa, theres is not much scope for records in that article so for me it passes NapHit (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great job well done. Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-I would wait until the peer review Gillingham F.C. records is finished before promoting. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 03:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming there are no further additions, the PR for that one will have been inactive for two weeks (and therefore finish-able) on Friday..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Motion to close. No real issues here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just giving it its customary two weeks. I'll close it today. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page	Articles
Powderfinger discography	Parables for Wooden Ears - Double Allergic - Internationalist (album) - Odyssey Number Five - Vulture Street - These Days: Live in Concert - Fingerprints: The Best of Powderfinger, 1994-2000 - Dream Days at the Hotel Existence

A fully formatted version is available at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Powderfinger FT - feel free to edit that where necessary. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 02:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Shouldn't Powderfinger be the lead or main article? Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't sure if I should include it or not. As it's an "albums" FT rather than one for the entire band, I thought the discog was more appropriate (as per the Wilco albums FT). But I'm not sure if Powderfinger should included, or not...what do you think? — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If Powderfinger is the main article, then I would expect all the individual band members to be present in the topic. If the topic is just the albums, however, then Powderfinger doesn't need to be included in my opinion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed Powderfinger from the topic then. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to most of these articles, in some way or another (though I've neglected contributing to many of their promotions to GA or FA), I believe it's definitely strong enough to be considered Featured topic material, especially since Odyssey Number Five is now also looking very likely o be promoted to FA, meaning four Featured articles (including the discography as a featured list) and every other important article is at least GA. I do believe, however, that the EPs should also be considered as part of the topic. Transfusion (EP) is a GA and the other two are in decent shape (though Mr Kneebone has suffered much due to the memory hole). I don't think it's considered essntial for all articles to be GAs, and all of the LP albums are at least that. PS: I've never contributed to a Featured topic discussion, but if it's appropriate, I of course offer my support. --lincalinca 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - fulfills all the criteria. Great work on the articles. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It appears to follow all the rules to my satisfaction. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, meets all of the criteria. Hopefully you have enough resources to later add EPs and/or singles in a supplementary nomination. Teemu08 (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing nomination as consensus to promote. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]