Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured and Good topics in Wikipedia A featured topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles). A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) and that is of lesser quality than a featured topic. This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the good and featured topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates. Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured topic questions. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. Consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived. Purge the cache to refresh this page	Shortcuts: WP:FTC WP:GTC Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics ← Good content: Good articles Good topics Valued pictures Good and featured topic tools: Topic criteria Topic candidates Topic removal candidates Nomination procedure Topic log Former topics Topic questions
Nomination procedure For how to nominate topics or how to add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure. Supporting and objecting Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link). If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons. If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' or '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. For a topic to be promoted to featured topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate.

Contents 1 Featured topic nominations 1.1 York City F.C. (supplementary nomination) 1.2 Jesus College, Oxford (3rd supplementary nomination) 1.3 Samuel Johnson's Irene 1.4 Jupiter 1.5 Guitar Hero (supplementary nomination) 2 Good topic nominations 2.1 The Simpsons (season 7) 2.2 U.S. 7th Infantry Division 3 Featured topic removal candidates 4 Good topic removal candidates 4.1 USA PATRIOT Act, Title III

[edit] Featured topic nominations

Please add new nominations to the top.

13 articles State touring routes in Essex County, New York
New York State Route 3 New York State Route 8 New York State Route 9N New York State Route 22 New York State Route 28N New York State Route 73 State Route 74 (New York – Vermont) New York State Route 86 New York State Route 185 New York State Route 192 New York State Route 373 New York State Route 431

Yay! 12-13 months of work have finally finally paid off. Here's the 3rd in the series of NY Touring Routes in the county of Essex, New York. This project has been in the works for a very long time and has a lesser overlap with the other two topics:Hamilton and Warren. The only overlaps are NY 28N & 8 (which is in Warren and Hamilton) and NY 9N (which is in Warren only). The interesting part is that while this topic was in the works, the New York State Department of Transportation added a new route in Essex County, NY Route 185. Anyway,, there are 5 featured items and 8 good articles, so it meets that piece of the topic criteria. Also NY 73, although set as a Good Article, passed my WikiProject's A-class review and is A-class.

Note: The FLC promotion occurred after GimmeBot ran on 0000 UTC July 5, so the article has not been update it, but this addition to the Goings-on page proves that it has reached Featured List. Anyway, all comments are welcomed and thanks a lot to Rst20xx, who set up the topic thing for 3 topics. :) - Mitch/HC32 15:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] York City F.C. (supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/York City F.C. for the archived discussion of the topic's successful nomination. The additional items are:

1. Fulfordgate

edit | Topic discussion | Book 9 articles York City F.C.
List of players List of Clubmen of the Year List of managers History Fulfordgate KitKat Crescent List of seasons List of statistics and records

While I was in no way involved in the writing of any of these articles (full credit to Mattythewhite, who wrote the lot), it strikes me as obvious to add Fulfordgate, York City F.C.'s sole past stadium, to this topic. Honestly I think that all sports team topics should include all past stadia, as to do otherwise is a fail of WP:RECENT, however all 4 football teams with topics have no past stadia except this one, and here the past stadium is a GA so can simply be added, and hence I am pleased :) rst20xx (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support --PresN 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus College, Oxford (3rd supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Jesus College, Oxford for the archived discussion of the topic's successful nomination. The additional items are:

1. Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford

edit | Topic discussion | Book 10 articles Jesus College, Oxford
Buildings List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners List of Principals and Fellows List of Honorary Fellows List of alumni List of alumni: Clergy List of alumni: Law and government List of alumni: Mathematics, medicine and science Jesus College Boat Club

Here we are again... any questions? Hopefully it won't be a GA for long! Bencherlite^Talk 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - that was incredibly quick! I do have one question, simply because I'm curious - what exactly are your future plans for this topic? ;) rst20xx (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Get Buildings through FAC, write History of Jesus College, Oxford, get the lead article to FA, take over the main page, mwah-ha-ha... the usual, really. Can you think of any topics for potential new articles? (Incidentally, I think there's great potential for a series of "Buildings of Foo College, Oxford" articles – fancy helping with Catz?) Bencherlite^Talk 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• No completely new articles. Jesus Professor of Celtic stands out to me as the most obvious article to add. Then there's Hugh Price and also, I guess, Elizabeth I of England (ha! maybe not...) Beyond that, Turl Street Arts Festival seems to be the only other article that is "generally" related to the college, though isn't really notable/relevant enough, is it? I guess you could also consider doing subtopics on the principals and professors of Celtic, or you could go up instead of down, and work on something like Colleges of the University of Oxford ;) rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Johnson's Irene

3 articles Irene
Samuel Johnson Samuel Johnson's early life

This is a featured topic nomination based around Johnson's only play, Irene. The first Johnson page deals with Johnson as an author, and the early life page deals with the biographical aspects of the creation of Irene. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for very obvious reasons. Neither the author, or his life are subfields in a topic on Irene. Irene IS a subfield of any of the other two, but not the other way around. Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, an author is a subfield of his works. They always have been and always will be. Hence why on the works page the author does not come first. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Nergaal, I see the works of an author being a subset of the author, not the other way around. as for "the works page," I'm not sure of what you are talking about, but I know that there is a works subsection on the Samuel Johnson article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC) EDIT: When I see a Topic with the name "Samuel Johnson's Irene" the fact that the authors name is first indicates that the author is nominant. In order for me to accept this as a topic, I was expecting to see articles that are subsets of Irene. Eg articles on the major cast members, location, plot, etc. Not articles on the author who wrote the play. To prove that Irene is the subset of Johnson, ask a simple question: Can one write a quality essay on Johnson omitting Irene? Yes. can one write a quality essay on Irene omitting Johnson? No.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  It is only called Samuel Johnson's Irene because I didn't want "(play)" in the title. There are multiple "Irene"s. The play was only performed for a limited time, but was written over 15 years and spans his life. It is a closet drama for all purposes. And the fact that you point out that a quality essay requires Johnson only proves that Johnson is a subset of Irene, not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  From the lead - "written between 1726 and 1749 by Samuel Johnson." That is what makes the play something and why the biographies are subsets of the play. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  By the way, Johnson only wrote one play, so Irene is the page on Johnson's plays. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)\

  No, when there is a parent-child relationship, eg one is dependent upon the other, then the one that can stand on its own is the parent. Samuel Johnson can stand on it's own without referencing Irene, Irene is dependent upon Samuel Johnson. Samuel Johnson is the parent, Irene is the offspring. A quick look at other FT's will show a consistent trend: Mary Wollstonecraft, Nine Inch Nails, Powder Finger, Rock Steady. When dealing with a list, the parent is always listed as the main article while the children are the subtopics. As for your attempted slight on my talk page, I'm not biting. It would be like a taking "Carrie" and saying "Stephen King" is a subtopic of Carrie because Carrie is bigger print than Stephen King's name.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Please reread the rules for Featured Topic. Any topic can be chosen. All topics connected to that topic need to be included. This topic is Irene, which was a written play that is part of the closet drama genre and spans a large portion of his life. Thus, Irene is the topic with sub topics of Johnson. If this was all of Johnson's works, then sure. This is not. This is about a play. That is how Featured Topic works. If you want to change it and say that only the biggest pages can be in topics, then go ahead. However, your claims and the other claims are utterly absurd. The work Irene stands alone. It is an independent publication. You can read the work without having a clue about Johnson. This is common sense and you know it, so I can only think that your objection and the objections above and below without having any connection to the rules are disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, it can stand on its own... but standing on it's own it would be by itself and article, not a topic. As a topic, you have things backwards. Irene would work as a subset for Johnson, but the only person to whom it makes sense to have the parent as a child is you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, now you are really becoming absurd. You stated before that you search for works by author and it is a subset. That was proven wrong and now you are pulling straws. Did you actually read the featured topic page? It says to start with a topic and deal with articles that are part of that topic. That does not mean that the biggest topic must be the only topic. Furthermore, Samuel Johnson is NOT the biggest topic when it comes to the play. The author, in literary criticism, only plays a tiny portion. New Criticism was devoted to reading works without ANY understanding of the author, and guess what? Walter Jackson Bate, who wrote the prize winning biography, started off as a New Critic and analyzed Johnson's works as one. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Nergal: Irene would be a subarticle to the Samuel Johnson topic, not the other way around. Reywas92^Talk 18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Never bought a book before? If it is literature, it may have a tiny section on the author but it is not devoted to it. Logic contradicts and invalidates your oppose and the oppose above. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Also, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. Your oppose is not an actionable oppose under the criteria. Ottava Rima (talk)

  Yes I've bought books before, and when I am looking for a book, I go to the section (literature, history, sci-fi) and then look for the book by AUTHOR not title. You won't find IRENE listed with other books/plays called Irene, but with other books by Johnson. As for what is a FT, this fails 1(d) in that for a category on Johnson, it is clearly lacking key articles.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Authors are listed because multiple books can share titles, but rarely does an author write a book with the same title. And if you look at the title page at Irene, what comes first? It is right there at the GA. And it is not a category on Johnson so your claim does not stand. It is clearly a category on a play written by Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  And when you are looking for books, you are not looking for them because they have a title that is familiar, but rather because you know the author and his/her works. Author's build libraries of their work not the other way around.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  As proven by the title page, publishers and writers think you are 100% wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose my reasoning has already been established and I choose not to succumb any further into the name calling and insults that is undoubtably going to come with this topic. Irene is a single play that is part of Johnsons larger body of work. Johnson is in no way a subset of Irene. This is nothing more than an attempt to create an obscure topic to try to fit the pieces into the puzzle, cherry picking at its worse.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)I'm striking my oppose because apparently, I am trying to get in with the clique that is at FLC, and Ottava is going to start an RFC on me. Keeping my oppose would be a conflict of interest with a threatened RfC.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Accusing someone of "name calling and insults" without proof, as there are clearly none above, is against WP:CIVIL. You are also opposing on something that is not a grounds for oppose, so your oppose is a point violation. Are you happy to be disruptive along with being completely absurd? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per the others, I think this topic is upside down. Part of the Samuel Johnson article is dedicated to Irene, whilst most of it is not, whereas the entirety of the Irene (play) article is dedicated to Irene. Hence Samuel Johnson acts as a summary article for Irene (play), and I would expect any information relevant to the play that appears in the Samuel Johnson article to also appear in the Irene (play) article, and hence the rest of the article is irrelevant to this topic. As others have said, compare with other topics; the best comparison is for album topics, which do not contain the band articles, as they are considered to be of higher scope. Unfortunately for you, there are no subarticles to Irene (play) and so I do not think it is possible to make a topic out of it - rst20xx (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  As pointed out above, none of what you state is part of the requirement and therefore an invalid oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent articles on their own, but this isn't a valid topic I feel. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Per the definition of what a Featured Topic is at the page, it is, and it meets all of the requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  It should be noted that Ottava sought to get support for this topic, but the person he canvassed doesn't even agree with him.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Seeing as how he is a co-nom for two of the three articles listed, he is included in this discussion. Your claims of impropriety are just as absurd as your comments above. You have no shame. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Just so others can see exactly what your statement said, The field of New Criticism apparently doesn't exist! Forget close readings! Balloonman and the others have some nerve, and I am thoroughly disgusted by their lack of reason, sense, or even following the requirements that are really blatant and clear. Which is a clear violation of a neutral messge, thus CANVASS. Please, don't bother responding to me here, I am eagerly awaiting the promised RfC related to this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  A person with the status of co-nominator would not be allowed to support the article in any kind of way. So, your whole statement is laughable. Your striking above is just verification that you are far from operating in a logical manner. You can oppose all you want, it is your claims of personal attacks and canvassing that is in question. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• What's with all this wiki-drama? Pieces of art are part of the larger topic on bibliographies/discographies of artists, and each piece of art forms a topic with subarticles such as critical review of the art, characters/themes/topics in that art. Another example: the creator of Simpsons WILL NEVER be part of the topic on Simpsons simply because he has a ton of other stuff which together with The Simpsons form a topic on himself. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ps: this is a possible model topic: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Mary Wollstonecraft. Nergaal (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And a work like the Bible without an author? What? Would you require "God" or something ridiculous as the subject? Your argument has no basis in reality. Look at New Criticism for the fact that critical theory says that a book exists independent of an author and without knowledge of the author. The idea of close reading, which follows the above, is practiced in most major literary articles. And if the topic was "Samuel Johnson", his only play, a very minor work when compared to the author's works, would not be under that topic when there are over 200 actual major works to consider. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I believe Authors of the Bible would be included in a prospective "Bible" topic, just like List of writers of The Simpsons would be included in a Simpsons topic. However this is different as the contents of these two articles only pertains directly to the parent article (Bible and Simpsons, respectively), unlike here - rst20xx (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly think that authorship is required to understand any book, let alone the Bible, then I hope to God that you never edit an article dealing with literature. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, then why is there a Background section in Irene (play), giving context about Samuel Johnson's writing of the play? rst20xx (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that the information is limited to a Background section verifies that the background is secondary to the page. This should have been obvious while writing your question. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jupiter

12 articles Jupiter
Atmosphere Magnetosphere Moons Galilean moons Io Europa Ganymede Callisto Rings Trojans Exploration Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

Major contributors: Ruslik0, Serendipodous, Nergaal, RJH, Volcanopele

This is intended as a featured topic, and as a subtopic to the Solar System FT. Also, it is intended to replace the Galilean moons subtopic. Serendi^podous 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't Galilean moons still have to be part of the topic? Otherwise, support. ceranthor 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why. Moons of Jupiter covers them and they are all already in the topic anyway. Serendi^podous 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The one option would be to strip down the 4 moons from here and add the Galilean moons article itself instead; but I am not sure if that is actually better. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Yet another beautiful FT from the Solar System WP! I just want to see that last one featured too! Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Object. First of all, amazing work on these articles. However, I think the 4 moon articles (Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto) should be removed from the topic. As there is already the Galilean moons topic, the "overly overlap" provision in the topic criteria would seem to apply here. Also, there is the Moons of Jupiter article that is already in this topic. All the moons of Jupiter are already covered there, so separate articles for the 4 Galilean moons are not needed in this topic. Also, the Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 article seems out of place in the topic and is already covered by the Exploration of Jupiter article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, this topic is meant to replace the Galilean moons topic, so there is no overlap. The "Moons of Jupiter" article lists all 63 of Jupiter's moons; however, most of Jupiter's moons are too small to be of any interest. All the fifty-nine smaller moons combined are less than one five-thousandth the mass of the smallest of the Galilean moons. The Galilean moons are massive, dynamic objects, as important to the Solar System as any planets. They are integral parts of the Jovian system, just as the planets are of the Solar System. Shoemaker Levy I can take or leave, but it is part of Jupiter now. Serendi^podous 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ok so I missed that part. So as part of this nomination you're also proposing to eliminate the Galilean moons topic. I guess that's acceptable. But I do think the Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 article should be out. This is a general topic on Jupiter, and an article on a comet that no longer exists and whose only association with Jupiter is a collision seems to be too specific, especially since it's covered in another article already in the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Struck. Serendi^podous 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - really sorry, but I think you need to include Jupiter in fiction. From a scientific point of view, this topic is very comprehensive, and all the editors involved have done fantastic work, but from an artistic point of view, you are missing this sole key article - rst20xx (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is like asking United States Naval Gunfire Support debate to be a part of the Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleships topic. They are both fine articles to be included, but aren't truly a notable part of the topic which should prevent the topic from being comprehensive. Furthermore, Jupiter in fiction is an article that is never going to be truly complete/featurable as it is impractical to list all the occurences there. And one more thing: that article is almost a collection of trivia. Nergaal (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean we have to get Solar System in fiction into the Solar System FT? Or Asteroid belt in fiction into the asteroids FT? Serendi^podous 11:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Nergaal, United States Naval Gunfire Support debate does not solely or directly relate to the Iowa class of battleship, and hence is not as relevant IMO as Jupiter in fiction is to a Jupiter FT. I realise that Jupiter in fiction can never list every occurrence of Jupiter in fiction, but it shouldn't - see Cultural depictions of dinosaurs for probably the closest comparison GA to what I think this article should be. And finally, yes, I realise the article is currently just a collection of trivia (prime example of a failure of this), but this just reflects how bad a state it currently is in, not what it could become. In response to Serendipodous, yes, I think those 2 articles should be in those 2 topics. Again, I'd point towards Cultural depictions of dinosaurs as the best example of an existing article along these lines which shows what is possible - rst20xx (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, correction, I don't think Asteroid belt in fiction should be in the Asteroid belt topic because this link actually redirects to a more general article on Asteroids in fiction! If you were to make an Asteroids FT, then that would need to include Asteroids in fiction, along with Asteroid belt maybe, and a number of other articles. If you look back at the Asteroid belt FT nom, you'll see that there was discussion along similar lines for a number of other articles - rst20xx (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is asking too much. This is a scientific topic with a scientific subject matter. And you even say above that from a scientific point of view this topic is very comprehensive. Requiring a non-scientific article be included in this scientific topic seems inappropriate to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

But the topic's name is "Jupiter". You say "scientific" several times, but nowhere does the topic say "science". I will grant you that the authors of this topic likely have a scientific mindset, which makes it harder for them to write such a non-scientific article, but this is NOT an argument against the need to include such an article, as (if true) it is an observation on the authors and not on the content - rst20xx (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to chime in that Jupiter in Fiction is not necessary for the FT. The article topic is not about fiction, but about Jupiter itself. In other words, the oppose, IMO, lacks merit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Err so if the article is about Jupiter then surely it should be included...? Unless you meant that the topic is about Jupiter, in which case, I point out that the fiction is about Jupiter, by definition! rst20xx (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Could the fiction article be included? Sure, it could, but to be honest I think the topic is better without the article. The character and substance of the fiction article is tangibly different than the other "scientific" articles (yes there's that word again). I know you're focused on criterion 1.e, but I would say that including the fiction article in the topic would border on violating criterion 1.b. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree, all the articles are entirely on the subject of Jupiter, which is the name of the topic. Maybe the problem is that as it stands, Jupiter in fiction is a mess of low-brow trivia, but if it was reworked into an article along the lines of Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, starting from ancient mythology and working forwards, then it would fit in better - rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Redacted, did mean topic. But as for fiction, I see it as more of a fluff piece, not a serious piece contributing to the over all topic of Jupiter. (Note fluff <> necessary mean bad or poorly written, but rather a different tenor that this topic.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As above, if the article was reworked to be along the lines of Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, starting from ancient mythology and working forwards, then it would serve as a serious piece looking at the human significance of the planet, not the current low-brow trivia list it currently is - rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Even though i think Rst20xx is correct about Jupiter in fiction is needed, i really feel that this topic deserves promoting anyway. Is there any way to find a more specific title that would only cover scientific articles for this? Or should the guidelines be changes? As i read them, the guidelines say that if an "in Fiction" article exists, it should be included (probably better as an "in popular culture", then can have a section on its importance in religion/astronomy.) Based on the precedent of the Solar system topic, i give my weak support here (if we are going to be constant and delist the solar system topic, this would be a weak oppose). I would also think Galilean moons should be included: the use of summary style and sub-articles does not mean the topic should not include parent-sub-article combinations if articles for them exist.YobMod 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you think that the Galilean moons article should be listed here, and the Galileans kept in their subtopic? Serendi^podous 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually i meant this topic should completely subsume the moons one, including its main article. I don't see why merging the topic means that the Galilean moons article should not get included anywhere - it clearly serves a purpose (or was it only created to head the moon topic?) and is within the scope of the topic. Articles with different levels of detail can be very useful, and would make this topic more flexible for readers (even if tall the info is included already).YobMod 14:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. With the 4 individual moons articles and the Moons of Jupiter article in the topic, the Galilean moons article would be very redundant. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yobmod. If this is going to consume the Galilean moons topic, then I think it would be better to consume all of it - rst20xx (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I support the topic as it stands, without J in Fiction. I do not feel that it is required, though it is a possible addition. I would prefer if you included the Galilean moons article in this topic and left the G moons subtopic as it is, but I am willing to support either way. --PresN 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think the articles fit well and I don't really see a problem with the list. 12 articles is definitely more than enough so we don't need every little thing that could possibly be thrown in. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Fiction is not needed, it would change the nature of the topic. I do, however, like the idea of adding the Gallean Moons, I say that as a person unfamiliar with the concept prior to reading this (although I remember learning about it years ago---when it was breaking news?) While there would be some overlap in content with other articles, I think Gallean Moons is a solid enough concept for inclusion on its own.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• A consensus seems to be emerging to add Galilean moons, so I placed it in the template. Serendi^podous 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - the topic as it stands is comprehensive - Jupiter in fiction could be a nice addition, but it is not needed at this point—Chris! _ct 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - "....in fiction" definitely isn't needed IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• NOTE: one of the articles on this list is currently at GAR.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'll leave the FTC open until the GAR is resolved - rst20xx (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar Hero (supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero for the archived discussion of the topic's successful nomination. The additional items are:

1. List of songs in Guitar Hero: Metallica
2. Guitar Hero: On Tour series
3. Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series

Note that this also removes previous GA articles in the topic Guitar Hero: On Tour and Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades.

Main page

Articles

Guitar Hero series

Guitar Hero - Guitar Hero II - Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - Guitar Hero World Tour - Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - Guitar Hero: Metallica - Guitar Hero: On Tour series - Guitar Hero III Mobile - List of songs in Guitar Hero - List of songs in Guitar Hero II - List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour - List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - List of songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - List of songs in Guitar Hero: Metallica - Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series

There's two basic change here:

• The GH: Metallica song list has been promoted to FL, so this is officially being added to the series.
• Due to the nature of the articles with what is known for the upcoming Guitar Hero On Tour: Modern Hits which is highly similar to the other On Tour games, it was decided to merge the two existing GAs Guitar Hero: On Tour and Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades into one article to be able the series, and another for the list of songs, groupping them into one since they are cross-game compatible. Note that the content of these were both from GAs but I have not yet begun (but will be) working them up the quality ladder. There will be more information on Modern Hits in the next week or so to complete that for at least a PR level. The original articles are thus being removed from the topic. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support but are you saying you reckon the 2 new articles can't get GA/FL til Modern Hits comes out? You may well be right but I just wanted to clarify that - rst20xx (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, though with a bit more information I can likely at least PR them. --MASEM (t) 11:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, I've updated the retention period to reflect this. Just keeps getting more and more complicated with you, doesn't it? 9 retentions/future retentions, jeez! rst20xx (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - would waiting for the peer review of the combined article be a good idea, so change can be done all at once (I assume PR will not be so drawn out if it is a combination of GAs). Otherwise, support Metallica addition, now or later.YobMod 07:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point, if the two articles can't get included as GA/FL til Modern Hits is out, then you only need to include them as PR within the next 3 months. So maybe it would be simplest to list them both for PR now, and then add them and close this nom only once the PRs are finished? Will save another subsequent nom. Obviously this will only work if you want to do this, you have three months so... rst20xx (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you put the article up for PR and the list up for FLC - rst20xx (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The FLC failed. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article was created on 17 April, so doesn't need adding to the topic until 17 July, under the 3-month rule. (Although this does leave a temporary hole which is unfortunate but there you go) - rst20xx (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - what's going on here? The PR on Guitar Hero: On Tour series is completed so this article can be added now. List of songs in the Guitar Hero On Tour series failed its FLC but doesn't need adding until the 17th July - rst20xx (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've updated to ask for inclusion of the GHOT Series article (it only just got through PR). Of course, if Activision wouldn't kill me by announcing three new GH games before the years end.... --MASEM (t) 17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support --PresN 15:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - this has now hit an interesting snag (this topic is so complicated!) because Guitar Hero: Smash Hits (an article that hasn't been mentioned in this nom at all yet) should have been PRed and added to the article by the 4th June. My inclination Masem would be that it would be easiest if you just stuck it up for PR now and we close this (already epicly long) sup nom with the article included after the PR has finished. Otherwise, well then to be frank the topic is under threat from temporary demotion, which would be a bit silly over one PR and I don't think is something anyone wants to see. So would you be willing to get Smash Hits PRed now? rst20xx (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, activision is killing me here. I've put Smash Hits up on PR. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Also, I will note that due to size, a new article Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series has been split from the GA Guitar Hero main article; this article is presently in active GAN review (like, as of today) and it is likely not going to go forward based on their comments (see Talk:Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series/GA1) so I will modify and add that once that is completed. (I put this up for GA right after assuring the split was completed). Also, given that DJ Hero will be playable with guitar controllers, and suggestions from Activision that the DJ Hero controller will be usable in future GH titles, I will probably need to add this as future retention, and will PR it once I get a chance. I will note that if Activision keeps pulling this frequent release, I may need to consider this topic too difficult to maintain at least featured, but let's see what happens in the second half of this year. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Wow, it really does! I'll try and update the retention periods soon but erm the Cultural impact article has until 8 September to get GA and erm DJ Hero... 3 months from yesterday for PR? I dunno... Oh and the Van Halen article was created on 5 June so that has til 5 September for PR. And Guitar Hero 5 was created on 15 May so that has til the 15 August for PR. Also Modern Hits comes out this week, right? So you now have 3 months to get the two On Tour articles GAed/FLed. Think that's everything. Phew!

  Oh and then of course there is the actual release of Smash Hits giving you til September 16 to get a GA there, and Van Halen will have til November 4 for that, and GH5 will have til December 1 for that, and DJ Hero will have til January 27 for GA. Also I'm a bit confused as to why Guitar Hero III Mobile gets an article but eg Guitar Hero World Tour Mobile doesn't. Is the former more notable, or would it be worth creating a general article for GH games on mobiles like you've now done for games on the DS? rst20xx (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Given what I've seen on coverage, I would probably convert the Mobile article to cover all the mobile games in the same manner as the GH:On Tour games; I will try to work on that as soon as possible. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  OK sounds good. I guess when you do that, that will also get a 3 month retention before GA. So in summary for the time being we're waiting for the Smash Hits PR - rst20xx (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  I see that you have now made the mobile conversion - Guitar Hero Mobile series. Very nice work. This topic evolves so fast - rst20xx (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Noting that I've added the recently GA-passed "Cultural impact..." article to the nomination. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding to note that dabomb was kind enough to give a thorough PR for this that we've resolved. Will wait for PR closure to add to nom (and then will be tossing to GAN since it's mostly complete) --MASEM (t) 04:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good topic nominations

Please add new nominations to the top.

[edit] The Simpsons (season 7)

26 articles The Simpsons (season 7)

"Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part Two)" "Radioactive Man" "Home Sweet Homediddly- Dum-Doodily" "Bart Sells His Soul" "Lisa the Vegetarian" "Treehouse of Horror VI" "King-Size Homer" "Mother Simpson" "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming" "The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular" "Marge Be Not Proud" "Team Homer" "Two Bad Neighbors" "Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield" "Bart the Fink" "Lisa the Iconoclast" "Homer the Smithers" "The Day the Violence Died" "A Fish Called Selma" "Bart on the Road" "22 Short Films About Springfield" "Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in 'The Curse of the Flying Hellfish'" "Much Apu About Nothing" "Homerpalooza" "Summer of 4 Ft. 2"

Co-nominators: From Season 7 Topic Drive: TheLeftorium, Scorpion0422, Gran2, Cirt, Gary King, Nergaal, Maitch, ImperatorExercitus.

Good topic nomination, every article is a GA (except the main one, which is a FL). One step closer in Scorpion0422's evil plan to turn this site into Homerpedia... TheLeftorium 09:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - and with seasons 2 and 5 almost done, I think Homerpedia is a distinct possibility ;) I think you all should work on the "Seasons" topic, because it would look so so cool to have millions of ^(subtopic) links in one topic - rst20xx (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looked at the entries, looks good. Hekerui (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Keep up the good work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The Flash ^{talk} 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support of course. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support meets the good topic criteria. :) Alex Douglas (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. 7th Infantry Division

4 articles U.S. 7th Infantry Division
1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division 2nd Brigade, 7th Infantry Divison 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division

Nominating these articles for a Good Topic. Consists of four GA's, one for the Division itself and three for the subordinate divisional brigades serving under it. All are, of course, very closely related. -Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Per 1(c): There doesn't seem to be either any common category that includes all four of the topic articles, nor does there appear to be a template that connects the four articles.
• Per 1(d): Given the name of the topic and the fact that the lead of the main article notes that the division is "best known for its exploits during World War II", I would fully expect the topic to cover World War II units (most of which, however, seem to be redlinks). Also, there's no inclusion of World War I units, either.

— Bellhalla (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A template has been created linking the four articles. As for the units, the three subordinate brigades were parts of the Division during World War I under different names. Each of those articles explains the subordinate regiments of the 2nd and 3rd brigades, while the 1st brigade existed as a much smaller formation with no subordinate units. As for the World War II regiments, I did not see them as relavant to the 7th ID, as they are not assigned to the division permenantly as the three divisional brigades are. Several regiments were rotated in and out of the division during those conflicts and have no permenant connection to it, while the three divisional brigades were built to be permenantly a part of the division, and have all remained a part of it for much longer. -Ed!^(talk) 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly lay out here what other units have been part of the division, and which years these units were part? rst20xx (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. During World War I and the years after, the division consisted of two brigades:

13th Infantry Brigade 1917-1941 (became 2nd Brigade, 7th ID)

14th Infantry Brigade 1917-1941 (became 3rd Brigade, 7th ID)

During World War II the division was organized under 3 regiments, as part of an army-wide reorganization. For the next 20 years, three regiments would be attached to the division. This meant that any three regiments could fall under its command at any time. This meant that the regiments assigned to the division changed quite frequently, particularly in World War II. Here are the regiments that were assigned to the division at one time or another between 1941 and 1963:

17th Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1963)

32nd Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1963)

53rd Infantry Regiment (1941)

159th Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1943)

184th Infantry Regiment (1943 - ~1947)

31st Infantry Regiment (~1947 - 1963)

In 1963, 3 divisional brigades were created and assigned to the division. The 3 were created from the division's old headquarters element as well as the 13th and 14th Brigades. As far as the army is concerned, these are the same units as were active from 1917 - 1941, they were simply renamed.

1st Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1993 (from old Headquarters element)

2nd Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1993 (from 13th Infantry Brigade)

3rd Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1994 (from 14th Infantry Brigade)

The reason the regiments don't belong in this topic is that they are separate units from the division. They were only assigned to the brigade on a tactical basis (which was why two regiments happened to stay with the division for awhile while, for various reasons, the third regiment changed frequently.) They could be reassigned to other divisions as needed. However, in the case of the brigades, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division are part of the division on a permenant basis; they can't be reassigned to another division. As the three brigades were part of the division for over 50 years (compared to the 20 years of a few of the regiments) and since they are actually a part of the division (as compared to the regiments, which act as completely independent units) this topic is, from an organization sense, both complete and correct. -Ed!^(talk) 23:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I get that from an organisational sense, this topic is in some non-arbitrary sense complete, but I am wondering whether from a historical sense it is - 22 years is a long time to be associated with the battalion. And that span includes the whole of World War II and the Korean War. And the history is the most important thing - it's what the overwhelming bulk of each of the articles in the topic are about. As a result, I weak oppose, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support I was going to quickly oppose the topic, but on a more careful look I realized that this is a truly valid topic. It is not featured, so I don't have huge expectations, and unless I am missing something I am supporting the topic. The only major thing I would like is to have a clear sentence in the intro of the main article saying that currently the division is composed of the brigade 1, 2, and 3. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - this has been open for a month but has received very little feedback. More feedback would be appreciated - rst20xx (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured topic removal candidates

None at this time.

[edit] Good topic removal candidates

[edit] USA PATRIOT Act, Title III

edit | Topic discussion | Book 3 articles USA PATRIOT Act, Title III
Subtitle A Subtitle B

I know this topic technically has 2 months left on its grace period, but all 3 articles have been demoted and they're most likely not coming back. I see no reason to keep it around any longer. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Nergaal (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist - I agree, in this case it looks likely the articles will be unable to come back, and I think that every single article in a topic being demoted makes for exceptional circumstances - rst20xx (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)