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

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Spanish Tanks

Spanish Tanks

Featured topic

5 articles

Verdeja

Leopard 2E

AMX-30E

Lince

I've worked on these five articles in the past six or so months, and I believe that it's ready to be nominated as a featured topic. The topic represents tanks developed (at least partially, such as is the case for the AMX-30E and the Leopard 2E) in Spain. All five articles are featured articles. Thank you. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work, plus is that they're all featured. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - topic needs a rename I think. "Spanish Tanks" implies to me all types of tanks used by Spain, not just those types developed by Spain. Could we call it "Tanks developed by Spain" or something? rst20xx (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well, originally it was going to be "Tanks in the Spanish Army", which would imply that the topic was on all tanks used by the Spanish Army. In this case, the title is just "Spanish Tanks" (or tanks developed by Spain). JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  Does "Spanish Tanks" imply only tanks developed by Spain though? rst20xx (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well, the way I see it is that there's a difference between a "Spanish tank" like the Leopard 2E or the Verdeja and an American M47 Patton tank used by the Spanish Army. But, I mean, the topic could easily be renamed. It just seems to me that it will mislead the reader when he or she actually clicks on the topic header to get to the main article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support with title re-named to 'Tanks developed by Spain' or some version of that. Skinny87 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support but "Tanks developed by Spain" seems unnecessarily wordy to me. If I say "German cars" or "Japanese cars" that would not imply cars driven in Germany or Japan, but rather cars developed by German or Japanese manufacturers. Similarly, "Spanish tanks" would most logically mean tanks developed or built by Spain. I favor the current topic name. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Rreagan007 makes a good analogy... I guess in light of this I'm not too bothered about renaming, but either way I think it's time I showed my support ;) rst20xx (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the users above about the main article name, but Spanish refers to Spaniards, so its okay. In addition, the topic is interesting and is complete.--SRX 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 02:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support —Chris! _ct 07:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic is complete as far as I can see, all featured, no problems. Woody (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - topic well constructed, written and complete from what I can see. Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Simpson family

Simpson family

6 articles

Homer Simpson

Marge Simpson

Bart Simpson

Lisa Simpson

Maggie Simpson

Main contributors: Myself, Theleftorium and Gran2.

Meets all the criteria. I would just like to note that there are other articles that COULD fit under the "Simpson family" banner - Abraham Simpson, Patty and Selma Bouvier, Mona Simpson (The Simpsons), Santa's Little Helper and Snowball (The Simpsons). However, my definition of the topic is the "immediate Simpson family", meaning the five main characters of the show. If wanted, I can change the topic name to that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The core Simpson family, in quality that I would not expect, fantastic work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Note: the end of the couch sequence shows these 5 characters (and almost always none other) therefore this group is enough. Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - I would prefer that the whole family is included, but this is certainly the core of it - rst20xx (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It works fine for me to just have the nuclear Simpson family (no pun intended). If the topic gets broadened later to include the extended family I'd be fine with that also. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Zginder 2008-12-10T23:10Z (UTC)
• Support, I reviewed a couple of these at WP:GAN and thought it would make a wonderful Good Topic/Featured Topic in the future. Nikki♥311 00:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - impressive how these articles got improved. igordebraga ≠ 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Nice work Scorpion. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 22:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see why not. Any chance of seeing Lisa, Maggie, or Marge get featured in the future? ^Tezkag₇₂ 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support -- I would also prefare if the whole family was there. Patty, Selma, Grandpa, all the extended family who are regular characters. -- ^[User]Jamie JCA_[Talk] 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Merry Christmas, from ComputerGuy ^talk 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

State touring routes in Hamilton County, New York

State touring routes in Hamilton County, New York

6 articles

New York State Route 8

New York State Route 10

New York State Route 28

New York State Route 28N

New York State Route 30

This featured topic nomination is the second of the county-divided state routes topics. I know 8, 28 and 28N are in Warren, but as I said in my last GTC, roads in topics will almost always overlap. Anyway, this is Hamilton County, next in line from Warren. (Of note 8 and 28N will be in an Essex topic).Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, NY 365 is not needed in the topic only because it was concurrent with three routes in the topic alone (28, 28N, and 30), and would be significantly redundant.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - I would prefer it if New York State Route 365 was included, but as per the precedent set by Warren, I think it is acceptable without. Also, an additional comment (may as well say this here) - can you give me a heads up when Essex is almost ready? The reason being, {{ArticleHistory}} can currently only handle articles being in 0-2 topics, and will require a pretty major rewrite to handle 3 - rst20xx (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2008-12-06T18:49Z (UTC)
• Comment Am I crazy or does NY 365's article says it goes through Oneida and Herkimer counties, not Hamilton? So unless I'm misreading a small bit of info, I don't see why it's being mentioned here. Circeus (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

365 once extended over four of the roads (8, 28, 28N and 30) in the topic through Hamilton and eventually all the way up to Plattsburgh in nearby Clinton. Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - congratulations Mitch, this is the 100th topic! rst20xx (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/State touring routes in Hamilton County, New York/addition1

Seasons of The O.C.

The O.C., Seasons of

Featured topic

5 articles

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

Season 4

Main contributors: Rambo's Revenge

I have just got the main article through FL, and have previously got all individual seasons to FL. I now believe this meets criteria, and am listing this as a featured topic nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well done, impressive stuff, and this is the first "seasons of" topic for a non-current show! - rst20xx (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2008-12-06T18:48Z (UTC)
• Support I've participated in peer reviewing and/or FLC-reviewing each of these. As Rst20xx said, impressive work. Well done, Rambo. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support these great pages on a great show (minus Johnny, heh heh). –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support great work -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of universities in Canada

previous FTC

List of universities in Canada

6 articles

List of universities in Atlantic Canada

List of universities in British Columbia

List of universities in the Canadian Prairies

List of universities in Ontario

List of universities in Quebec

After the discussion in the previous FTC, university lists for provinces in Atlantic Canada and the Canadian Prairies have been merged, and are now featured lists. There are no more audited articles in this topic; all items are of featured quality. Gary King (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support Congrats on changing the topic to meet the criteria. Zginder 2008-12-03T03:49Z (UTC)
• Support - nice work - rst20xx (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support (Hmm, these will be helpful soon). –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 13:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - can we rename this to "Lists of Universities in Canada"? I think promoting a topic called "Universities in Canada" that only contains lists of them is a bit off the mark - rst20xx (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  Done Gary King (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of men's major championships winning golfers

Men's major championships winning golfers, Lists of

Featured topic

5 articles

Masters Tournament champions

U.S. Open champions

The Open Championship champions

PGA Championship champions

I feel this topic should become a featured list, as it meets all the featured topic criteria, all the articles included in the topic are of featured quality. All the lists are factually accurate up to date and are fully referenced. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - can you unify the "See also" sections? rst20xx (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  could you explain what you mean by unify? NapHit (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  Well if you go through and look at the sections, they're a bit of a mess, some linking to some of the other majors, some linking (via redirect) back to the main article and others having no links at all. I don't mind if these sections are deleted entirely (cos the template's below) or if it's made so that all articles link to all other in the "See also" sections, but at the moment it's all a bit inconsistent... rst20xx (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for clearing that up, I've removed see also sections from every list. NapHit (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also (unrelated) could you replace {{topicnom}} with {{featured topic box}} in your nomination? Noms are meant to use the latter now, not the former, simply as it saves work for the promoting admin, and means the nominator gets the image they want for sure - rst20xx (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Done as well NapHit (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support Seems to fit the criteria. Zginder 2008-11-23T20:51Z (UTC)
• Comment Topic should probably be renamed to Lists of men's major championships winning golfers, with the added "s". Gary King (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Done NapHit (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - thank you for jumping through my nitpicky hoops - rst20xx (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I see no problem with these articles, well done! Grovermj 02:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 titles

Half-Life 2 titles

7 articles

Half-Life 2: Episode One

Half-Life 2: Episode Two

Half-Life 2: Episode Three

Half-Life 2: Lost Coast

Half-Life 2: Survivor

Codename: Gordon

After saving Half-Life 2 from FAR; bringing Episode One to FA; and Episode Two, Lost Coast, and Survivor to GA; and completing a PR on Episode Three, I believe this topic is now ready. It contains all Half-Life 2 video game titles. Gary King (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-11-23T00:02Z (UTC)
• Comment - I think Codename: Gordon (a GA) should be included. Codename: Gordon wasn't developed by Valve, but its plot is based on that of HL2, and it was released by Valve to promote the at that time upcoming Half-Life 2 - rst20xx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  Whatever the consensus goes is fine with me. That article is GA so it can be added without any fuss. Gary King (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, I would include Codename Gordon due to the official backing and game delivery from Valve. As a side note, wouldn't it make more sense to wait for the other Half-Life expansions to get GA and just make a "Half-Life" titles FT? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  I would support the addition of Codename Gordon, but I do not think it is necessary. Zginder 2008-11-23T19:29Z (UTC)

  I've added Gordon. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support and David Fuchs, why wait? We can promote this now, and then expand it later - rst20xx (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  ...Oh wait, only Opposing Force isn't a GA, and that's currently nominated... in that case maybe it would be worth putting this on hold for a bit, if needs be? It would be easier... rst20xx (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  Before nominating this, I discussed it with S@bre, who I'm working with on the full Half-Life topic. This topic is being nominated early because to get the Half-Life topic to featured status, it will need one more featured article and Half-Life (series) still needs a significant amount of work. We're aiming to get this done by the end of the year, but it's not a promise. Gary King (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  Ahhh yes I forgot the series article. Now I feel silly. Ignore my suggestion for waiting then! rst20xx (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely done. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Should this be renamed to simply "Half-Life 2"? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

  No, that would require the inclusion of Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• That sounds like a "Half-Life title" to me. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be renamed to "Half-Life 2 video games" then. The "titles" was to follow the convention set forth by existing topics at Wikipedia:Featured_topics#Video_gaming. Gary King (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Close as consensus to promote - I think that the meaning of the "titles" name is implied by precedent. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardy Boyz

Hardy Boyz

4 articles

Matt Hardy

Jeff Hardy

Amy Dumas

Main contributors: NiciVampireHeart, Nikki311, TJ Spyke, .mdk., and IMatthew

I am nominating the topic Hardy Boyz as a Good Topic. The group consisted of the real life brothers Jeff and Matt Hardy, and their long-term valet Amy Dumas, known by her ring name "Lita". The lead article (Hardy Boyz), as well as the three individual members' articles (Matt Hardy, Jeff Hardy, and Amy Dumas) are all current Good Articles. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Meets WP:WIAGT.--SRX 22:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per other user's. SteelersFan-94 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Passes the criteria.--WillC 01:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - needs a nav box (I should have said that for the Vince's Devils nom as well, sorry) - rst20xx (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? Do you mean a template at the bottom of the articles? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - that is what I meant, thank you - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem! :) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Added one to Vince's Devils. Nikki♥311 21:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Zginder 2008-12-16T15:37Z (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

U-20 class submarines

U-20 class submarines

5 articles

SM U-20

SM U-21

SM U-22

SM U-23

Major contributor: Bellhalla

Meah... Nergaal (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - rst20xx (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I can find nothing wrong with this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but has Bellhalla been notified of this nomination? –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

U-1 class submarines

U-1 class submarine

3 articles

SM U-1

SM U-2

Major contributor: Bellhalla

First class. Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment for all three noms - two things:

1. Could you possibly merge {{U-1 class submarines}}, {{U-3 class submarines}}, {{U-5 class submarines}}, {{U-10 class submarines}}, {{U-20 class submarines}}, {{U-27 class submarines}} and {{U-43 class submarines}}? None are very big, and I think it would be more useful in facilitating easy navigation to have them all merged into one template.
2. You need to find free-use images

- rst20xx (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How is {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} and the navy flag? Nergaal (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} to conform to standard WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST navigation box template style. But how about, instead, {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}}, a list of Austro-Hungarian submarine classes that is on each class article page. This keeps the individual submarine articles from being cluttered with two templates. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it decreases ease of navigation, because then the class pages don't link to the boat pages. Howsabout we simply merge the two templates by adding the classes from {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}} not currently in {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}, and then redirecting the former to the latter? (Flag looks good by the way) rst20xx (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How about now? Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Each class article still has its own class template. For example, if one is looking at the article on the U-1 class, one can switch to the individual submarines of the class via {{U-1 class submarines}} OR to other classes via {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}}. Having {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} attached to each page is a bit of overkill with such a large template (as it is currently structured), and adding all of the classes to it is a little silly in that several of the later classes, while documented and notable, never had any completed submarines, leaving large expanses of space in the template.

Further, the use of individual ship class templates, like {{U-1 class submarines}}, is a consensus approach for ship classes (per WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST) that is in wide use throughout Wikipedia. I see no compelling reason in this case to go counter to this established method. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

the other option would be to have entries only for the submarines that were actully completed and used and remove all the other ones - and just mention the classes for those that were never built. Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking of, Nergaal, and I think that is what should happen. I don't think the template would be too big if we do this. And the compelling reason would be that it is significantly more useful in easing navigation than having all the templates split up is. After all, the sole point of navigation templates is to act as aides to navigation - rst20xx (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Weren't you, Nergaal, the one that added most of the incomplete submarines to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}? And now you want to remove them?

As far as an aid to navigation, how is the set up on, for example, SM U-20 (Austria-Hungary), not conducive to navigation? And how is that on U-20-class submarine not conducive? And why, exactly, should the WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST consensus methods for navigation be thrown out the window? I'm not trying to be contrarian or anything, I genuinely don't understand why… — Bellhalla (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

They are not conducive if you want to jump from, e.g., SM U-2 (Austria-Hungary) to SM U-3 (Austria-Hungary). Further, try and think about the intent of the WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST consensus method - it's because, in general, following that consensus method gives templates which aren't excessively big, but still have a reasonable number of articles bound together by the template to help ease navigation. In this case, it seems to me that we can bind even more articles together in a template without having it become too big, and indeed some of the templates, if kept separate, are almost sillily small, eg {{U-3 class submarines}} - rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I only expanded the list, and then realized that it it unnecessarly chlunky - take my edits as test versions. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I withdraw support for this nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  What, because you're unhappy with {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}? rst20xx (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - if the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote with comment - I would still like to see the templates merged into the one Nergaal created, however this is no longer an issue for the GTC - rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

U-3 class submarines

U-3 class submarine

3 articles

SM U-3

SM U-4

Major contributor: Bellhalla

Second class. Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw support for this nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - If the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

U-5 class submarines

U-5 class submarine

4 articles

SM U-5

SM U-6

SM U-12

Major contributor: Bellhalla

Third class. Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw support for this nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - If the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I can not find anything wrong with the topic and it is good to see others are not obsessed with getting the main contrib. support. Zginder 2008-12-16T15:43Z (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Venus!

Hey Venus!

4 articles

"Show Your Hand"

"Run-Away"

"The Gift That Keeps Giving"

Main contributor: Cavie78

Hey Venus! is an album by British alternative rock group Super Furry Animals. As well as the main album article all three singles from Hey Venus! are good articles.Cavie78 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-12-04T18:11Z (UTC)
• Support - straightforward - rst20xx (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - personally I can't stand the music of this group, but I can see no problems with this GTC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support pretty easy -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Vince's Devils

Vince's Devils

4 articles

Candice Michelle

Lisa Marie Varon

Torrie Wilson

I am nominating the topic Vince's Devils as a Good Topic. The group was an all female alliance of wrestlers in World Wrestling Entertainment in 2005 and 2006. The lead article (Vince's Devils), as well as the three individual members' articles (Candice Michelle, Lisa Marie Varon, and Torrie Wilson) are all current Good Articles. Nikki♥311 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support iMatthew 20:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - GA main article, GA sub articles. Good work.--SRX 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Zginder 2008-12-04T03:51Z (UTC)
• Oppose - this is like the Quietly Confident Quartet nom. The point of featured topics is to provide comprehensive coverage of the subject in question, and here, that seems to me to not be the case unless the article Vince McMahon is included - rst20xx (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with you. For the QFQ, the individual races are very related to the swimmers who swam them and what made them famous. Here, however, Vince McMahon had nothing to do with the group except that it was named after him (because he is chairman of the company). He was not part of the group, and his only mention in the article (besides being the namesake) is the one match he made, but that was part of his job at the time...he announced/decided at least most of the matches on Raw. That is like making a Good Topic about the Atlanta Braves and including an article on Native Americans (namesake) and the head of the National League. Nikki♥311 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, maybe you're right, but would it not help if the article described the sequence of events that led to the team being named after him? rst20xx (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • As far as I can remember (and I haven't read anything differently when doing the research for the article) that they just kind of randomly began calling themselves that. I'll look again, though, and see if I can find anything more specific. Nikki♥311 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, the Torrie Wilson article says "Vince McMahon soon begin referring to the team of Wilson, Victoria, and Candice as "Vince's Devils."" That's not in the main article, that Vince came up with the name - rst20xx (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
          • It does say that, but I removed it because after some research, I believe it to be incorrect. I just watched every video on WWE.com with the girls in it and looked at every website that mentions the group. Torrie Wilson's official fansite says the girls renamed their alliance the night after New Year's Resolution and doesn't mention McMahon at all in relation to the rename. In all the videos I watched, Vince McMahon never once referred to the group as Vince's Devils (and curiously, the announcers never did either). I did, however, find a note about them flirting backstage with McMahon about a month after the group was renamed, so I added that, too. Nikki♥311 02:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
            • OK, I'll strike my oppose, I'm left with the impression that Vince McMahon wasn't as integral as I first thought - rst20xx (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support I also disagree with Rst20xx, QCQ's problem was that the group was that the group was famous and solely notable as a group from a single race, which was not included in the topic. V'D is not closely related to Vince McMahon, it's just named after him. ----PresN 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man films

previous FTC

Spider-Man films

4 articles

Spider-Man

Spider-Man 2

Spider-Man 3

Having the Batman and X-Men topics up made me think about this topic. I'm nominating this for good topic because it meets the criteria and should be given another chance. I have notified  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) who is a major contributor to some of the articles in the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-12-03T04:43Z (UTC)
• Comment - can you notify User:Alientraveller? It's only polite, after all - rst20xx (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - actually scratch that, he's already given his blessing to Wildroot - rst20xx (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - No complications with this one. Gran² 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - and for the topic image, this one (or just a part of it) would be perfect. igordebraga ≠ 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

30 Rock (season 2)

30 Rock (season 2)

16 articles

"SeinfeldVision"

"Jack Gets in the Game"

"The Collection"

"Rosemary's Baby"

"Greenzo"

"Somebody to Love"

"Cougars"

"Secrets and Lies"

"Ludachristmas"

"Episode 210"

"MILF Island"

"Subway Hero"

"Succession"

"Sandwich Day"

"Cooter"

I'm nominating this for Good Topic. This will need to become a sub-topic of Seasons of 30 Rock aswell. These articles have been mostly written by myself and Cornucopia, so much thanks and credit goes to them. -- ^[User]Jamie JCA_[Talk] 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well done - rst20xx (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2008-12-03T19:46Z (UTC)
• Support :) —97198 (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• I have never supported a GTC before, as I disagree with this new process' existence in the first place, but how could I say no to some good old-fashioned canvassing? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• I was told I'm supposed to say one word, so oppose! :) In all seriousness, support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• OMG, I was too. :) So ---> Support. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - looks good. TheLeftorium 17:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm impressed. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

X&Y

X&Y

5 articles

"Speed of Sound"

"Fix You"

"Talk"

"The Hardest Part"

Contributors: ThinkBlue and Efe

X&Y is the third album by English alternative rock band Coldplay. Aside from the album, all its released singles are good articles. Note: "What If" and "White Shadows" were never official singles off the album. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Question According to the lead there were five world wide singles and one regional single. Way do not last two not have an article? Zginder 2008-11-28T20:34Z (UTC)

The songs "What If" and "White Shadows" were not singles; radio stations played the songs, but the band never acknowledge them as "main" singles off the album. Also, there was a consensus to have the two songs redirect to the album. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - for ease of all voters - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What If (Coldplay song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Shadows. Seems both articles have been periodically recreated since, only to be redirected under the original deletion consensus - rst20xx (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I feel the proper procedures have been followed with regards to the deletion of the two song articles, however I would have appreciated it if an explanation was given with the initial nomination, as it seems to me to be something that was bound to come up - rst20xx (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2008-11-30T02:04Z (UTC)
• Support - igordebraga ≠ 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Parachutes

Parachutes

5 articles

"Shiver"

"Yellow"

"Trouble"

"Don't Panic"

Contributors: Efe and ThinkBlue

Parachutes is the debut album by English alternative rock band Coldplay. Aside from the album, all its released singles are good articles. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support I can not find anything that does not fit. Zginder 2008-11-28T06:36Z (UTC)
• Support - well done - rst20xx (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support ~- igordebraga ≠ 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)