Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:FTQ

This page is for asking any questions about a good or featured topic you are working on or about the criteria and process in general.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Slipknot discography 2 Possible FT: Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition 3 Which articles do album topics have to include? 4 Seattle Buildings GT? 5 Would this be considered a featured topic? 6 Which article to use for the lead of this topic: Canadian first ministers? 7 Thematic FT 8 An Itchy & Scratchy Show FT 9 Can this be a FT? 10 Is The Simpsons FT-able? 11 Not just articles? 12 Any gaps? 13 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team 14 Spice Girls discography FT? Is it possible? 15 query 16 Adding an article to an FT 17 Halo topic 18 How similar does formatting have to be? 19 World of Naruto topic 20 Author topics 21 Hawaii hotspot GT/FT? 22 Basketball Hall of Fame 23 Blond Bombers potential Good Topic? 24 Top Latin Albums 25 Battles of Ticonderoga 26 Gregorian mission 27 List of minor planets GT? 28 GT for a season of X sports team 29 Overlap? 30 Joanne Gair 31 Proposed FT 32 National Basketball Association awards FT 33 Jesus College, Oxford - additions to existing topic, or new sub-topic? 34 Millennium Park expansion 35 Discographies of Young Divas members FT 36 Trucking industry in the United States 37 2008 Summer Olympics 38 Gold Glove Award 39 3(c) Question 40 Obvious Gap 40.1 1996 PHS 41 List of Connecticut tornadoes 42 Inheritance Cycle book series GT? 43 Bird query

[edit] Slipknot discography

Thoughts on this? Are the two audited articles accepted or not? They have gone through a long history of events, including failed GANs, completed PRs, and passed AfDs. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
Slipknot discography	Slipknot · Iowa · Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) · All Hope Is Gone · 9.0: Live · Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. · Slipknot Demo · Welcome to Our Neighborhood · Disasterpieces · Voliminal: Inside the Nine

Gary King (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've filled in icons for you. I don't know about the unlisted articles. For the demo, could more not be written about the two songs that were later singles: charting etc? Have the band talked about the tape in interviews? I think that, if hit hard enough with a hammer, it could make GA. Then again, I don't know the subject matter. By the way, are video albums a necessary part of discographies? Only I'm working on No Doubt's discography and didn't think I needed to include their three video DVDs. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I purposely left the icons out since they don't affect which articles should be included. We've already had lengthy discussions at the GAN, PR, and AfDs and no, there isn't much else to add. Yes, video albums should be included. Gary King (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you'd just forgotten the icons. If the two audited articles have been discussed and peer reviewed, then it should be fine. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 20:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think video albums need including, the existing discography topics don't have them, though obviously including them is not going to hurt :) As for the real question here (the audited items), well I think you have done all you can really, there's nothing more to say, so I would vote for this topic. (Though note they should have s not s :P) rst20xx (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Slipknot discography Gary King (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible FT: Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition

I am considering a Featured Topic based on this major expedition of 1914–17. The topic would consist of six articles; the main expedition article, three sub-articles dealing with aspects of the expedition, and biographical articles for the two leaders. All of these articles exist; five are featured and one is GA.

The problem is that another editor (who is no longer active) started an article titled List of personnel of the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, which attempts to list the fifty-odd participants. Available information is very sketchy on many of these people, and it is hard to see how this list could ever become featured. So which of the following should I do:-

• Ignore the half-completed list, on the grounds that it adds little if anything to the topic, since the principal personnel are discussed in the "Personnel" sections of the main and sub-articles, and the expedition leaders have their own articles. But would this be deemed cherry-picking?
• Drop the idea of the topic until I, or someone else, can produce a version of the list that is of featured standard. This might be possible by about 2020.
• Add an unadorned personnel list as a appendix to the main expedition article.
• Something else, which I haven't thought of.

Suggestions would be very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured topics are in a sense not fair because not all topics are as easy to get featured as others. I'm sorry, but in my opinion that list needs including - rst20xx (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would the list not be easy to get featured? If information is very difficult to find, then surely we can give some leeway over at FLC. Gary King (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it you've looked at the list? About three-quarters of the people are unmemorable, there being no information available beyond their names. I'm not sure, either, about the PD status of some of the images. In short, even in its best state the list is likely to look uneven and incomplete, and may be a poor comparison with other FLs. But, if that is what is required, I will do my best with it, though this will take a while. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just use em dashes for empty cells to show that the information cannot be found. This method has been used in several featured lists such as those for alumni of universities where the birth and death dates are not known. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't like a list with too many blanks, although some are ok (especially in an "additional info column"). But the problem i see with the list is the lack of citations. Having no other info than name and rank for some would be fine for FL, as long as they are cited. How would we know anything about comprehensiveness though? The list should be at least approaching comprehenisive, if i read the criteria correctlyYobmod (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which articles do album topics have to include?

If a topic has a music album as its lead, which articles have to be included? Obviously, songs will have to be included. Does it only require songs officially released as singles? Or, all songs that have an article? Also, does it require all songs that even appeared on limited edition versions, or only appear on copies of the album in certain countries? Gary King (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say all notable songs (ie. all the songs that should have an article) on any version of the album because they are associated with the album. If you name the album you are considering, we could help clarify better. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Some albums are obvious as to which songs should be included. I think Dangerously in Love is a good example of an album that has different versions, each containing notable songs. Check out the track listing; which songs do you think should be included? Gary King (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say all songs with articles on all versions of the album. Apart from maybe cover songs, not sure about them. Anyway, Dangerously in Love would need all 7 songs, IMO - rst20xx (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. All songs on all versions. I should point out that something like this has been hanging around in Efe's sandbox for a while. I don't know who the contributers were but you may want to drop him a note. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Also going with all notable songs. If the song isn't notable enough to get a GA and be included, it probably shouldn't have a seperate article, and should redirect to a section in the album article.Yobmod (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Buildings GT?

I am considering making a good or featured topic about the twenty tallest buildings in Seattle (including the Space Needle). The main article, List of tallest buildings in Seattle, is an FL, and all 20 of the articles have a chance at GAN. Any suggestions on what I should include before I start? ~~ ComputerGuy 00:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it perhaps arbitrary to include the top twenty in the topic? I mean, sure, the list needs a cut-off otherwise it will go on endlessly, but I'm not quite sure if the topic is the same? Might as well iron this out here rather than in a future FTC. Gary King (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is how it will all play out:

21 articles 20 Tallest Buildings in Seattle

Columbia Center Washington Mutual Tower Union Square (Seattle) Seattle Municipal Tower 1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza Space Needle WaMu Center US Bank Centre Wells Fargo Center Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza Union Bank of California Tower Rainier Tower Fourth and Madison Building 1000 Second Avenue Henry M. Jackson Federal Building Smith Tower Qwest Plaza 1111 Third Avenue Westin Seattle North Tower Westin Building

~~ ComputerGuy 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gary King. You need to find a non-arbitrary cut-off point. I don't know that such a cut-off point exists so I am not sure this is a viable topic - rst20xx (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the main list got featured with some sort of cut off point, so I'm not sure why a topic couldn't become featured with the same cut off point. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

400 feet rather than top 20 sounds better as a topic name. Nergaal (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Would this be considered a featured topic?

If the following were all featured articles.. a girl group's discography and the discographies of all current and former members of the group? For example, if each member of the Pussycat Dolls or Spice Girls created a solo career and had more than ten releasese? Any ideas, please help. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that a topic about the "Discography of Spice Girls and its members" could work as a topic as long as your lead article talked about each of the solo carers and all of the discographies linked to each other. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good. I believe two of the five member's discographies may be ineligible for featured list status, due to their limited subject matter. There will still be at least three distinct articles and 25 percent featured class and thus I still think it might achieve featured topic status. The only real problem I can see is with the "linking of each discography". Any ideas. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would support this topic. I am not convinced that it makes sense to exclude the albums for any reason other than that it is less work. Also history suggests people are usually wrong about things not being able to make FL, so I will oppose until you at least give the lists a try - rst20xx (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's true that you can't get FL with fewer than ten items, then an artist with only a couple albums couldn't get their discography to FL status. That being said, all solo albums would have to be included in one way or another. There are probably several ways that you could accomplish this. For example, maybe there could be an amalgamated list along the lines of "discographies of former spice girls members". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Arctic Gnome, you forget singles ;) and if a band has less than ten of ANYTHING (singles + albums + EPs), well then they probably wouldn't have a separate list, it'd probably all be in the band's main article - rst20xx (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For featured lists, the minimum is technically ten items, so that would indeed include albums, singles, EPs, demos, etc. Gary King (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, each member of the Spice Girls have each released ten or more albums, extended plays, compilation albums, live albums, singles or music videos. I believe it could reach featured topic status. 203.63.185.102 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which article to use for the lead of this topic: Canadian first ministers?

User:Arctic.gnome and I are working on a topic of Canadian First Ministers, which includes the country's Prime Minister (head of the federal government) and its thirteen Premiers (heads of provincial governments). It's obvious that they are all related in some way, but we are unsure about what article to use as the lead. Originally, I used List of current Canadian premiers, but eventually Arctic.gnome suggested we move it to List of current Canadian first ministers, which expands the scope to include List of Prime Ministers of Canada. Here is the current topic below:

Main page	Articles
Current Canadian first ministers	Prime Ministers of Canada · Premiers of British Columbia · Premiers of Alberta · Premiers of Saskatchewan · Premiers of Manitoba · Premiers of Ontario · Premiers of Quebec · Premiers of New Brunswick · Premiers of Prince Edward Island · Premiers of Nova Scotia · Premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador · Premiers of Yukon · Premiers of the Northwest Territories · Premiers of Nunavut

What I'm wondering is, is this an acceptable lead for the topic, or should we get another article such as Premier (Canada) as the lead (which would require that we remove List of Prime Ministers of Canada from the topic)? Gary King (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the list of current first ministers might not work because there is little to no historical information in that article. The article Premier (Canada) has historical information, but nothing on the Prime Minister, and I'd like to have the prime ministers list in the topic, as anyone researching past premiers would likely also want to know about past prime ministers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic.gnome (talk • contribs)

Hmmm well this appears to me to actually be a "Lists of..." topic. If you include Premier (Canada), then my inclination would be to say that you should also include Premier of British Columbia, and so on and so forth. Maybe you can make an article List of Canadian first ministers, which would firstly act as a disambiguation to the other lists in your proposed topic, but beyond that could have some statistics about first ministers, such as the number each province/territory has had, any quirks to do with that province, who the longest and shortest serving first ministers of all the provinces/territories are, etc. The contents of this article would be distinct from the Premier (Canada) article as it would be more about what's happened with past first ministers, whereas Premier (Canada) would be more about the role that the position of premier fulfils, what their job description is, etc. Thoughts? rst20xx (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. We do need an article that links to the others outside of the navbox, either in the text or using {{main}}. A disambiguation/trivia could work, although it might be hard to get it to FL while avoiding WP:TRIVIA. I guess this article could have a mini table for each province summarizing number of premiers per party and average term length, that would be a meaningful list. I'll start looking into that. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

rst, thoughts on using List of current Canadian first ministers as the main article, though? Gary King (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that article would be a good inclusion in this topic but I don't think it should be the lead, it doesn't contain the whole topic within its scope - rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we've boiled it down to this, from what I understand. Keep the topic as it is at the very top of this thread, but replace the lead article with List of Canadian first ministers. The List of current Canadian first ministers may or may not be in the topic; either way is fine, at least to me, since it's already at FLC so hopefully it will be an FL soon. Gary King (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, rst, another question: Should we keep the List of Prime Ministers of Canada in the topic, or scrap it and change the lead to List of Canadian premiers? Gary King (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on that is that anyone researching the history of premiers would likely also want to know the history of PMs, so I think keeping it as part of the topic is helpful. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that a name like History of Canadian first ministers would be a more suitable name, as the list would not be a list of every premier ever, but rather a very quick overview of each province's political history with a link to the province's list. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arctic Gnome about the PMs list, it's not necessary but would be helpful. He might be right about calling the article "History of Canadian first ministers" as well - rst20xx (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay well I'll leave the initial creation of the article up to Gnome since he already has a format for it in mind. Gary King (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the article would look something like this. Do you think that is relevant enough to avoid WP:TRIVIA? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. Would this be going to FA or FL? I don't think I've ever seen a list like this, so I don't have anything to compare to. Gary King (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's similar to List of universities in Canada, albeit without the charts, and that went to FL. The problem is that I don't think it would have the word "list" in the title; as I said above, I don't think the name "List of Canadian first ministers" works because this doesn't have every first minister. I wonder if there is any precedent for giving it a title like "Overview of..." or "Summary of...". If this had been branched off of the Premiers of Canada article, what would we have called it? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The title doesn't need "List of"; don't worry about that. Gary King (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thematic FT

I've been working on a number of articles all related to Homosexuality in science fiction. I was hoping to make a featured topic on this, but am unsure which articles would be needed for this. It differes from most other topics in that it is not something that can be certainly delineated (like a game series), but it would be the most comprehensive collection of information on this topic in the world.
The five articles here include all the notable general aspects: the world's only notable organisation, both the notable awards, the only notable convention, and the GA on the general history. Would this be a viable topic? I could include 4 other featured lists of awards (currently going through review), which is currently there as a subtopic, but it seemed to skew the content towards one organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) Here's the plan:

5 articles Gay and lesbian SF
Gaylactic Network Gaylaxicon Gaylactic Spectrum Awards(subtopic) Lambda Awards for SF/F/H

What about List of lesbian science fiction and List of gay science fiction? They would be very, very hard lists to write, but I feel they'd need to be included. Horror is a genre of speculative fiction, so you might want to add Queer horror. And similarly for Slash fiction/Gayfic/Femslash. Also I'm unsure about LGBT characters in comics, because most comics are speculative fiction (superheroes!), but not all, so I guess that would probably not be a necessary addition.

I can't say I know much about this topic, so I will take you at your word that all notable organisations/cons/awards are included - rst20xx (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask for input from the LGBT and SF projects, but can probably even find references for these being the only notable convention & awards. I wrote the comics page too, but didn't include it, as i only wrote about superhero comics (the majority of which i summarised in the main article), and i suspect that most LGBT characters in comics are in different genres altogether, so there is not more overlap than that already given by the summary (Wikipedia just has a superhero comic bias!)

The problem with the list articles is that they can never be comprehensive, so cannot make FL - that's why i made the awards lists. I could make them audited articles - or i could source 500 books easily and ask at FLC if there is any number that they would consider comprehensive. Slash fiction i'll look into - i have no idea if this is especially related to SF, isn't there slash for everything nowadays? Queer Horror i purposely excluded by defining the topic as science fiction, if only cos i'm not convinced the genre really even exists (no sources!). With no sources, there is nothing to write, but i think it will be impossible to get it deleted.

But thanks for the input (its strange how many people avoid any comments on these at all the PR, FL, GANs.) If consensus is against it, i'll just have to make lots of mini topics, which in my opinion looks worse, but would get the recognition for the work. Maybe some discusion should be started about such broad topics getting recognised by different means, assuming FT will never grow beyond weather, battles and franchises with the current setup ;-). Yobmod (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists don't have to be comprehensive and still become FLs. Examples: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R, List of USAF Test Pilot School alumni Gary King (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, science fiction or speculative fiction? You put "SF" in the topic box above, but the lead article is "speculative fiction", and hence that includes horror. Science fiction obviously doesn't include horror.

I agree that some topics are harder to get to GT/FT than others, but all that means to me is that I am more impressed with some topics than others. It's just like how some articles are harder to get to GA/FA than others - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jepp. Well i started on the lists anyway, which will take a long while. In the mean time i'll try for smaller GTs on the sub-areas. Thanks for the comments!Yobmod (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] An Itchy & Scratchy Show FT

Would this be an acceptable topic, or is it too subjective?

8 articles The Itchy & Scratchy Show
"Itchy & Scratchy & Marge" "Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie" "The Front" "Itchy & Scratchy Land" "The Day the Violence Died" "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show" "Treehouse of Horror IX"

Those are the only episodes where Itchy & Scratchy figure into the main plot and are anything more than just a self-contained 30 second short. There really are none where they play a sort-of-major role. They either are the focus of the plot, or they are just 30 second jokes. However, the problem is that it can still be seen as an arbitrary cut-off based on POV about what makes an appearance major. Thoughts? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• But you can easily include the rest, by adding List of Itchy & Scratchy cartoons to the topic! Also you should possibly include The Itchy and Scratchy Game and Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness, because this topic does not seem to have any mandate for one form of media over others - rst20xx (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the official definition of this topic will be "The Simpsons episodes featuring The Itchy & Scratchy Show". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • And where does it say that? (Plus this still doesn't exclude the list from the topic...) rst20xx (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • "| title = The Simpsons episodes featuring The Itchy & Scratchy Show" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Ahhh you've misunderstood the "title" parameter. That's meant to be for the name of the topic, not its scope, and should match the piped main article link, ie in this case it should match "The Itchy & Scratchy Show" - rst20xx (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• To be honest, I think every Simpsons series will have its own topic before long; we've seen what the Wikiproject can do. And therefore I don't think this topic is really needed. It seems a little crufty. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can this be a FT?

Here is the topic I am thinking about.—Chris! _ct 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

edit | Topic discussion | Book 8 articles Los Angeles Lakers franchise
Accomplishments and records Head coaches Staples Center All-time roster History First and second round draft picks Seasons

Should be fine. It is similar to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Aston Villa F.C., Wikipedia:Featured topics/Gillingham F.C., Wikipedia:Featured topics/Ipswich Town F.C., and Wikipedia:Featured topics/York City F.C.. Gary King (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Could add Logos and uniforms of the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles D-Fenders, Los Angeles Lakers radio networks, List of Los Angeles Lakers broadcasters. Including the past stadiums would be nice - IIRC the only past football stadium not included in a topic is Fulfordgate, and that was only used for 10 years from 1922-1932, so not very notable - rst20xx (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the four articles you mentioned are fair, though including past arenas are less helpful, in my opinion, since they aren't part of the franchise anymore.—Chris! _ct 18:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is The Simpsons FT-able?

Main page	Articles
The Simpsons series	History · The shorts · Episodes · Movie · Awards won · Writers · Directors · Cast · The family · Characters

What articles in the list above are not (really) needed, and which others have to be added? Nergaal (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons family could be relegated to a Characters subtopic. I would say you also need List of guest stars on The Simpsons, Non-English versions of The Simpsons, Media in The Simpsons, Politics in The Simpsons, Religion in The Simpsons and List of fictional locations in The Simpsons (which needs reworking a bit to cover all the other location articles). Then optionally you could add The Simpsons opening sequence, The Simpsons Theme, Recurring jokes in The Simpsons, D'oh! and List of products in The Simpsons. Finally, other optional additions include List of advertisements featuring The Simpsons characters, The Simpsons DVDs, The Simpsons discography, List of The Simpsons video games, List of The Simpsons books, List of The Simpsons comics, Simpsons Illustrated, World of Springfield, Simpsons Jeopardy!, The Simpsons Trading Card Game and The Simpsons Ride. It might be sensible to create a "merchandise" article for this topic so you could subtopic DVDs to Ride to a merchandise topic. In fact I think this would be a very good idea.

This would be a very ambitious project. The Simpsons is one of the biggest TV shows of all time, and quite possibly the one with the most articles on Wikipedia. As a result, to get it to FT would require a lot of work, more than many (if not any) other show. But it also means the rewards would be all the sweeter ;) rst20xx (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

My question was what is the smallest set on which a Simpsons topic can be built? For example look at the Solar System topic: you could put 153,982 articles in the topic, but that is not really the point. The topic there was set up such that is comprehensive, but discards the less important material. Similarly, Religion in The Simpsons is not even worth considering in the grand topic of Simpsons, but might be a part of a subtopic of it. I just want the minimal set with which the topic "The Simpsons" would be able to stand as a comprehensive topic. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What subtopic could it be part of? I couldn't see any way to subtopic it, and it seems pretty important to me, hence I said you needed it. Basically I was trying to say that I thought the bare minimum is what you proposed - Simpsons family + the first 6 articles I listed, maybe + a newly created merchandise article - rst20xx (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could create Themes and Hallmarks articles too... rst20xx (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you keep the topic scope narrowed to just the tv show I think that would keep out things like merchandise. That would also kick out things like the movie and shorts articles though. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not just articles?

I thought of an idea. Could a good/featured topic be not a group of related articles, but one single topic being presented in multiple media? In other words, could a topic include Featured sounds or Featured Images? As far as I know, nothing like this has been proposed before. Here's one example I came up with:

3 articles American Robin
Photo of an American Robin Morning song of an American Robin

Eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Articles", "Lists", "Featured Articles", and "Featured Lists" are explicitly stated several times in the criteria. You could propose a change to the criteria if you'd like, though. Gary King (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been talked about before. The problem comes down to image cherry-picking. If you include one image on the subject, why not another, if there are dozens of other pictures on it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Right; also, there are probably a countless number of sounds that can be associated with almost any topic. Gary King (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. And in addition to the above, it has to be asked whether featured pictures/sounds are worth the same as featured articles/lists - rst20xx (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advocating this particular featured topic, but just for the sake of clarity, I'll address your arguments using the robin example:

• To Gary King: Yes, I suppose I am proposing a change to the criteria.
• To HurricaneHink: So in addition to the photo of the robin, you would expect to see photos of a robin in flight, robin eggs, male/female comparisons, etc.?
• To Gary King: In this case, I can't imagine what other sounds would be associated with this topic, besides maybe the a young Robin chirping.
• To Rst20xx: Perhaps I don't fully understand what you're arguing, what does worth have to do with anything?

  If featured pictures/sounds are not deemed to be of equal value to featured articles/lists, then your proposed topic would fail at FTC, as it does not have enough featured content. Also there is currently a requirement of at least three articles/lists, for both FT and GT - can pictures/sounds contribute to this minimum number of three? These things would need to be decided, if the rules are to be changed to allow the inclusion of pictures/sounds - rst20xx (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• To all: It seems that you would be hesitant to expand the guidelines to include pictures and sounds because of the increased potential for cherry-picking. I do admit that in most cases, we could expect to see this happen. However, imagine the perfect case: A central article, a series of featured images (if applicable) which accurately depict all aspects and variants of the subject, a series of featured sounds (if applicable) which do the same thing. In this case, it seems to me that making a good/featured topic would be entirely appropriate. Whether or not we adjust the guidelines should be based on the best possible scenario, not the worst. AGF!!11 lolz --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  But you don't seem to have thought about the impact on all the existing topics. If we simply change the criteria to allow for pictures/sounds, it is likely that every single one of them would suddenly fail the cherrypicking criteria.

  I like the idea of pictures and sounds being includable in topics, but I am not sure that they should count for anything, because they cause too many problems, as outlined above. Maybe we could have it that cherrypicking guidelines don't apply to them, but as a tradeoff for this extra slack towards them, they don't count towards any of the minimum number rules in WP:FT? criteria 3 - rst20xx (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine this for a hurricane topic. A hurricane has hundreds to thousands of images on it, of which only a few are used in an article. Only an extreme minority have a chance of becoming featured, since so many are so similar (not just of one storm, but so many storms look similar). That's only for hurricanes, but I'm trying to imagine for other topics, and I don't see how it could work. What about larger topics, such as a military one with 12+ articles and which have many, many images? I don't see this idea as very feasible. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if cherrypicking rules don't apply to pictures/sounds, then there would be no problems if topics don't have their pictures/sounds featured - rst20xx (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. It just makes it possible to group photos/sounds into topics without making the criteria more or less difficult. The way I see it, if a featured topic is about a subject for which there exists a featured image/sound, it would be silly not to add that media to the topic page.

Another possibility, which solves HurricaneHink's dilemma: If the topic's creators choose to exclude featured media, that's fine. If they choose to include featured media, they must include (at least) one piece of media for each of the subjects of that topic. Examples: The Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Saffron topic would need only one image: a picture of saffron. The 1998 Pacific hurricane season would need 3 images: One of each hurricane (Isis, Lester, and Madeline). It would be all-or-nothing, essentially. A little more structure without making it too difficult. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the example given would be insufficient. The sound and image can (and should) already be in the parent article, so the topic gives nothing to the reader that the single doesn't article give. However, i do think it would be nice to be able to include featured media as extras in an already featured topic, but only with discussion of each addition and a good rationale, ie, if the articles and lists already have enough images, so a featured image had to be exluded from the articles, but would still make a great addtion to the topic. I think this is pretty rare though.Yobmod (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Any gaps?

3 articles 1996 Pacific hurricane season
Hurricane Alma (1996) Hurricane Boris (1996) Hurricane Douglas (1996) Hurricane Hernan (1996)

Should there be any additions to this topic? User talk:Yellow Evan (sandbox)00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you think any of the other storms deserve articles (Cristina? Fausto? And the rest are fish spinners...), then I'd say that's complete. I suppose a Timeline might be merited - the Atlantic Season FT has one, and I've just found that one is under construction for the 1997 Pacific Season FT - rst20xx (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Christina and Fausto would probably need articles (with serious research put into them), and maybe even Elida. The timeline can easily be created, although it's not a considerable gap if it doesn't exist. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

Main page	Articles
GAC after the season 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team	Michigan Wolverines men's basketball · Manny Harris · DeShawn Sims

I am not sure what is required for a GTC, but I am thinking about nominating this at the end of the season. I may need to take John Beilein to GA. Is the coach necessary. The only other players I would take to GA would be players who end up being at least Honorable mention All-Big Ten or All-Freshman Big Ten. I think the only additional players might be Laval Lucas-Perry and Zack Novak. Is this a potential GT?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say that you should include the coach - a pretty important part of the team. Beyond that, I'll leave it up to your judgement as to which of the players merit their own articles, but in my opinion, any which do have their own articles when you nominate, will need to be included in the nomination. And any which have articles created at a later date, will need to have their articles added to the topic - rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I will create articles for every player who is notable. So far only two are. Will I have to do Crisler Arena?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the the Arena seems to be higher up the scope chain than the season. If you were doing a topic on Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, then it'd need to be included there, but for one season, I'd say no - rst20xx (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Suppose a freshman is not notable this season but becomes notable as a junior or later. Do I have to create a good article for him to maintain the article's GT status after it is achieved? I think above you are saying yes. Does this hold for any assistant coach who becomes a notable enough coach to have his own article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying yes for the players. I'm not sure about assistant coaches - I guess that means no - rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We can cross the bridge when we get to it. However, I think the line might be drawn by who is in the article. I guess assistant coaches have a smaller role than supporting players. You may be right. A person like Dave Balza who may go on to have a notable coaching career, but who would not have been in an article would not need to be added. These are not concerns for me. I just need to worry about Beilein and any other players that may prove to be notable this season for now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, you shouldn't include Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, because it's of a higher scope than the main article. It's like how discography topics don't include the band, or season topics don't include the show itself - rst20xx (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spice Girls discography FT? Is it possible?

6 articles Spice Girls discography
N Victoria Beckham discography N Melanie Brown discography Emma Bunton discography Melanie Chisholm discography Geri Halliwell discography

All of the band members have releases atleast ten albums, singles, music videos, compilation appearances, extended plays, compilation albums, live albums, video albums, etc. I don't believe is a band discography featured topic and don't believe one has been nominated as of yet. Victoria Beckham's discography and Melanie Brown's discography are not currently stand-alone lists and thus I would have to create new articles. I raised this question months ago, but I have now checked to see as to whether all of the band members have had ten releases and they all have.. so if I achieve featured list status for all the discographies named above, would it meet the featured topic criteria? Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I would support this, because a topic called "Spice girls discography" should IMO include the Spice Girls albums. In other words, the scope does not match the content. You might be able to call it "Spice Girls members discography" though, that might work, to distinguish it from a straight up discography topic - rst20xx (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A good name would be "The Spice Girls members' discography". But then, I don't know what the main article of the topic would be. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] query

Is this a good topic?

Main page	Articles
Battle of Grand Port	Action of 31 May 1809 - Action of 18 November 1809 - Action of 3 July 1810 - Invasion of Île Bonaparte

Nergaal (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not for you it isn't - rst20xx (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How did you even find this page? Nergaal (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looked who got all the articles to GA! rst20xx (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rst20xx: wiki-detective. --PresN 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adding an article to an FT

Physical geography of Somerset is already a Featured Topic. This morning River Parrett achieved GA status. Is it possible to add this to the FT?— Rod ^talk 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See the instructions. Gary King (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

...But be prepared to argue why River Parrett is more notable than any other river in Somerset, and hence why including that river but no others does not constitute cherrypicking - rst20xx (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for advice - hopefully I've followed al instructions & justified why the largest, longest etc should be included.— Rod ^talk 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Halo topic

edit | Topic discussion | Book 19 articles Halo media
Halo: The Fall of Reach Halo: The Flood Halo: First Strike Halo: Ghosts of Onyx Halo: Contact Harvest I Love Bees Halo Original Soundtrack Halo 2 Original Soundtrack Halo 3 Original Soundtrack Halo Graphic Novel Halo: Uprising Halo: Combat Evolved Halo 2 Halo 3 Halo 3 marketing Halo 3: ODST Halo Wars Halo: Chronicles

All the articles have gone through or are undergoing a peer review, as they are unreleased. Any glaring issues? (The Cole Protocol is due to be merged). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk)

Why is Halo: The Cole Protocol worthy of merging, when none of the other novels are? Where can it be merged to that won't give it undue weight? Apart from that, this seems good to me, but it would be my opinion that this would excessively overlap with the existing Halo trilogy topic, so I think that would need removing - rst20xx (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been aware of this topic for some time now, but I never noticed that the games were also included. Now that I do, though, it does make sense to merge the other topic into this one. Too bad for Halo (series), though! Gary King (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh, the series article is overrated :P As to The Cole Protocol, for whatever bizarre reason, aside from being a NYT/PW/USA Today bestseller, no one has bothered to actually write a review about it, let alone provide any sort of background. It's rather strange and pathetic... I've scoured all the journals and databases I can find and there's not a drop of info besides "it's gonna be released". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And yeah, this is intended to replace the Halo trilogy FT. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I expect to see the entire series topic here soon, ideally within a month, otherwise I will begin calling you a slow poke. Gary King (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing about The Cole Protocol, but if you merge it in satisfactorily (i.e. don't lose any information about it), then I would still support - rst20xx (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe in a few months it will be able to stand on its own again. In the meantime, Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Halo series media --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How similar does formatting have to be?

Sometime in the future, another editor and I would like to nominate professional wrestling halls of fame as a featured topic. I have structured the ones I have worked on a little differently (eg. in St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame, I wrote notes such as "Won NWA World Heavyweight Championship ten times and NWA Missouri Heavyweight Championship once." in the table. In NWA Hall of Fame, the other editor wrote notes like "Won the NWA Mid-Atlantic World Tag Team Championship (4 times) and the NWA World Tag Team Championship (4 times)"). Would I have to change my format to the parentheses, etc. to make it appear more uniform, or is this just considered a trivial detail? Is there anything noticeable that would need to be changed for more similarity between the two? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Uniformity would be nice but I don't think anyone will oppose because of the issue you've outlined above. I think the "similarity" referred to in 1.b), while certainly to an extent referring to similarity in formatting, is more referring to similarity in subject - rst20xx (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World of Naruto topic

Main page	Articles
World of Naruto	Jutsu (Naruto) - List of Naruto characters

I'm currently planning to expand World of Naruto so that the current "Ninja ranks" section becomes a section discussing "Ninja" in the series more generally (I would move the "Jutsu" section into this new section and expand a bit also), and would have a {{see also}} pointing to List of Naruto characters. As practically all characters in the series are ninja and reside in this fictional world, would this constitute a viable topic? Thanks, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yyyy-yes. I think so. World above Characters is not a perfect fit but it's alright. Also you're verging on oversplitting here, but again I think this is just about alright. The various Characters articles would of course be unneeded for now, due to subtopicing - rst20xx (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think such a topic should have the main Narutu article as the main article (although with a different topic name - "The Naruto fictional universe" or somesuch?) - 3 fictional articles with no real world overview is not so useful to those of us who don't know the series. Then the world, characters and jutsu would be the constituent articles of that.

[edit] Author topics

I couldn't find any author topics, so wanted to see what would be needed. I envisage a basic one similar to band topics, so the main authors bio page, a list of works, and a list of awards. An example:

Main page	Articles
Geoff Ryman	Geoff Ryman bibliography - List of awards and nominations received by Geoff Ryman

Chosen as he has enough works and awards to make featured lists, and enough sources to write at least a GA, and works in intersections that might get various projects input. Anything missing for this example or author topics in general? The only other author topic is Mary Wollstonecraft, which includes all her major works. But i think the bibliogrpahy as a subtopic is preferable for more prolific writers.YobMod 08:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. If articles such as "contributions to popular culture" or "media based on the author's works" are worth creating, then they'd need to be included too. In fact some authors would probably need loads of articles. But for Geoff Ryman it appears to me that those 3 articles you've outlined above would have all bases covered - rst20xx (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaii hotspot GT/FT?

edit | Topic discussion | Book 9 articles Major Volcanoes of the Island of Hawaii
Mauna Loa Mauna Kea Kīlauea Loihi Seamount Kohala (mountain) Hualālai Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes

Workgroup. Solid enough? ResMar 23:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1- you don't need to restate the lead article (Hawaii hotspot) in the body. 2- Why does it not include Puʻu ʻŌʻō and Kīlauea Iki? --PresN 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Expained here.

Alright, I see. As long as they're merged in by the time you bring it as a nomination, it all looks good to me. --PresN 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by...Ohhhhh! Yes, by the time of the nom they'll diffinetly be in Kīlauea. Ceranthor's working on in his sandbox, somewhere. ResMar 16:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Basketball Hall of Fame

edit | Topic discussion | Book 3 articles Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame
James Naismith Members of Basketball Hall of Fame

Just wondering if this is a possible GT/FT.—Chris! _ct 03:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Bob Cousy Award and Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award? Also, what would the prospects be of listing unsuccessful nominees somewhere? rst20xx (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by listing unsuccessful nominees?—Chris! _ct 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well for example if you look at Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2007, then that gives both the successful, and unsuccessful nominees for 2007. Is any data on unsuccessful nominees available for the Basketball Hall of Fame, or are the names of unsuccessful nominees kept secret? rst20xx (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they are kept secret.—Chris! _ct 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, well that answers that question then, thanks! rst20xx (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blond Bombers potential Good Topic?

I've been working on articles about the Blond Bombers professional wrestling tag team (consisting of Swede Hanson (wrestler) and Rip Hawk. All three articles are currently GAs. Would this be sufficient to create a Good Topic? My biggest concern would be that other tag teams have also used the name Blond Bombers (as noted and elaborated on in the main article). Is it possible to specify that the Good Topic is "Blond Bombers (Hanson and Hawk)" and use these three articles to create a Good Topic? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced, sorry. Only four out of 12 paragraphs of the lead article are about the proposed scope, so I would say this would be a case of the lead being too big for the scope. Have you considered creating a new article on just the first iteration of the team? Would this be notable enough? rst20xx (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Top Latin Albums

Hi. I was wondering if this could be a featured topic?. I'll be glad to receive your feedback, thank you. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

13 articles Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums, lists of

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1996, 1997 and 1998 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2001 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2002 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2003 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2004 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2005 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2006 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2007 List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2008

I think it has all the required articles for an FT. Gary King (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This looks pretty good to me, but what about Top Latin Albums Year-End Chart of 2008 and similar articles for other years? I think it would be acceptable to get around this problem by renaming the topic to "Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums, lists of" - rst20xx (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are not the year end charts also Billboard charts?

Yes, they are. But this topic is about number-one albums and some albums included on the year-end lists did not reach the top of the chart. Also, in the main article (Top Latin Albums) I put a section for year-end best selling albums. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the Lead article have to be featured?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a requirement, but I think everything else looks great! --haha169 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battles of Ticonderoga

edit | Topic discussion | Book 5 articles Battles at Fort Ticonderoga
1758 1759 1775 1777

I'm wondering if this makes a good FT/GT grouping. 1758 and 1777 will both get to GA eventually; the lead, 1758, and 1759, are all eventual FA contenders. The lead article is the article about Fort Ticonderoga; it includes summaries of the battles. There is a page Battle of Ticonderoga; is a DAB page listing all of these. (The war links are there for background/headers only.)

Thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 14:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not the way you have it set up. French and Indian War and American Revolutionary War shouldn't be there- they're larger subjects than the fort is. --PresN 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought they'd be useful as headers, but they're easy enough to remove... Magic♪piano 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This looks very good to me, though I'd be honest about the names of the battles and not hide them behind pipes. Also I'd pipe the whole topic name in the lead. And you forgot to set the title parameter, which should match the piped lead. Is there any reason you couldn't just call the topic "Fort Ticonderoga" though? A quick scan of the Fort Ticonderoga article suggests to me that this proposed topic would include all the articles necessary to name the topic more generally after the fort, than for the battles at the fort. I guess Battle on Snowshoes could be added, though the two Battles on Snowshoes were only fought near, and not at, the fort - rst20xx (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be indifferent to the presentation of the names, either as years or titles is no matter to me. This is just an idea I'm tossing about as I work on the articles. There are quite a few things that bear the name "Ticonderoga". Most of the military uses are presumably named for the fort, rather than the place (for which the fort itself is named); however, I've not seen any reliable sources that actually say this.

This is one reason I decided to ask questions. If I were to pursue this, is the fort article an adequate lead for these four articles (and possibly Battle on Snowshoes, which I could probably get to GA with reasonable effort)? I'm trying to avoid having to get to GA+ 20th-century naval vessels and vessel classes, not to mention pencil companies and small upstate NY communities, things I'm not really in a position to research. I could also write Battles of Ticonderoga as a non-DAB summarization of the battles and use that as a lead instead, but that seems somewhat contrived, as I'm not sure how much other use that sort of article is. It's OK if consensus seems to be that the idea doesn't work; like I said, this is only in the idea stage. Magic♪piano 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think what I outlined is fine. If you could try and verify that things are named for the fort and not the place, that would be good, but obviously the 4 battles took place in Ticonderoga because the fort was there, not just by chance, so I don't think this is too much of a worry. I guess the strongest argument amongst the articles you mentioned would be for including the community but I would support the topic without it, as I think the fort would be a subarticle of the community, not the other way around, and topics only include articles within the scope of the lead. The pencil company should probably be mentioned in the fort's article though :P rst20xx (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your feedback. (I added the pencil company note to the fort article.) Magic♪piano 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gregorian mission

11 articles Gregorian mission
Gregorian mission List of members of the Gregorian mission Augustine of Canterbury Laurence of Canterbury Mellitus Justus Honorius of Canterbury Paulinus of York James the Deacon Peter of Canterbury Romanus (Bishop of Rochester)

I was wondering if there is anything glaringly missing from this article that should be included? Just waiting on the promotion of Paulinus and I think I'm good to go for a featured topic. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe add Æthelberht of Kent? rst20xx (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I could, but then to be complete wouldn't I need to add Edwin of Northumbria, Rædwald of East Anglia, Bertha of Kent, and Saebert of Essex, at the least. This way, since I'm including no royalty, only the missionaries, I can justify excluding one. If I include one king, I'd think I'd need to include them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm well Æthelberht is certainly the most notable monarch to the mission, but you're possibly right - rst20xx (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of minor planets GT?

This are 210,454 numbered minor planets, and thus should be considered "overly large". Now, I don't think it would be possible to make them all good articles, but I think it would be possible to make twenty or twenty-five of them. I ask you how should this be split; into groups of 20 or 30 by the number preceeding the minor planets name? Also, what should be the main article and name of such topics? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm you ask an interesting question. Generally arbitrary cutoffs are discouraged, and cutting off based on numbers would be somewhat arbitrary, but with so many minor planets I'm not sure how best to get around this. We already have one FT related to minor planets - the Main asteroid belt topic. There, the nominators argued that those 4 minor planets were significantly more notable than others (due to being significantly bigger) and hence including these 4 planets and not others is not so arbitrary.

One solution that doesn't completely generalise but is a start is that you could work on an asteroid group/family such as the Neptune Trojans, of which there are only 6. There are also the near-earth Aten asteroids (34) and Apollo asteroids (33), the Mars Trojans (4)... more ideas can be seen here, here and here. As you say it may well be that not all can be good articles, but I would think the Trojan families at least would have a pretty good shot, and are quite doable size-wise as well.

Though obviously if you take this approach then it would restrict somewhat which asteroids you could work on - you wouldn't then be starting at 5 Astraea and working your way up, so maybe this wouldn't interest you so much, but it's a suggestion of how to break the problem down into non-arbitrary chunks - rst20xx (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your suggestions, List of minor planet groups is helpful. But I would be much more interested in creating a featured topic with the first twenty minor planets instead, as the articles would have a bit more variation and there would most probably be more sources on them. I understand it would be arbitury, but I think a title "Minor planets: 1–20" would define the scope of the topics. I just have a concern about the topic's main article?? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm but what would the lead article be? I cannot see any that would fit very well at all. Another idea that would allow you to work on early asteroids would be to try and work off discoverer, and do "Asteroids discovered by X" topics. Some examples of early discoverers: John Russell Hind (discovered 10), Annibale de Gasparis (discovered 9), Hermann Mayer Salomon Goldschmidt (discovered 14), Karl Theodor Robert Luther (24)... though obviously then you'd have to get the person's article up to scratch as well. And narrowing a topic from being on "X" to just "Asteroids discovered by X" is a little bit arbitrary - with some people the asteroids might be the only articles you would need to include either way, but with others, if you were to do a full topic on the individual, there might be a few more articles that would need including, for example many of these individuals have had later asteroids named after them which should be included in a general topic on them (so more asteroids :P) - rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still almost soley interested in creating a "Minor planets: 1–20" topic, but I suppose this cannot be a good/featured topic seeing as there are no appropriate lists or articles to use as an introductory/main article, and so I'll have to abandon the idea all togther. Thanks for all your suggestions though. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GT for a season of X sports team

If I wanted to make a GT for a single season of a sports team (say, 2008-09 Toronto Raptors season, would it be OK if I just got all the players (and maybe coaches) to be GAs? Would that be comprehensive enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Story (talk • contribs)

• I think so, yes. I think 2008–09 NBA season is of higher scope than 2008-09 Toronto Raptors season, in other words the latter would be included in a topic based around the former, not the other way round. So you don't need to worry about including it in a topic on the latter - rst20xx (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But I suppose having "X player in the 2008-08 NBA season" wouldn't be necessary for the topic? In other words, I could just use their main article? And I suppose if I did an earlier season, I could just re-use the same players? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 23:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

PS- Sorry for the stupid questions. This is my first time here.

No, there's no need to go around creating "X player in the 2008-08 NBA season" articles. The topic would be 2008-09 Toronto Raptors season and all of the important people on the team. If you went and later made a GT on the 2007-08 season, and some of the players overlapped, that's fine, unless almost all the articles were the same. Then, we'd have to figure something out, but that's a ways off to worry about right now. --PresN 00:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. Well, I guess I'll have to knuckle down to it. Thanks for taking time to answer. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey is working on an FT on the Invincibles - see {{Invincibles Advert}} - and it seems planning to include the players, season articles for the players, AND some of the matches they played in! But the Invincibles are particularly notable, so unlike here (no offence) merit season articles for the players. Plus there are no articles on individual matches that the 08-09 Raptors participated in, so there's nothing extra for you to include there, either - rst20xx (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overlap?

How is it determined if two featured/good topics overlap? How many (or what percent) of shared articles would be cause for comment or concern? I'm considering several topics that could eventually qualify as good or featured, where two might both encompass (by differing criteria) one or two articles in common.

Topics under consideration include:

• battles of Fort Ticonderoga (see my query above)
• battles of the Invasion of Canada (1775) (contains Capture of Fort Ticonderoga)
• battles of the Saratoga campaign (contains Battle of Ticonderoga (1777))
• battles of the French and Indian War (contains Battle of Carillon and Battle of Ticonderoga (1759))

-- Magic♪piano 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, all the proposed above are in principle acceptable overlaps, assuming all the "see also" battles are being included. It would maybe be a problem if for example the Saratoga campaign was only 2 battles, but i count 6 or 7, so having one or even 2 overlapping articles would not be too much, particularly with the different focuses (one on the location, and the others on campaigns).YobMod 07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, sort of what I figured. (The Canada and Saratoga campaigns currently have 9 and 7 sub-articles respectively, numbers that are not likely to shrink :).) Magic♪piano 16:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joanne Gair

Joanne Gair has been associated with three well known works of art. She was the primary artist for Demi's Birthday Suit and Disappearing Model (DM). She was also the make-up artist for More Demi Moore. I am trying to determine if she would be a good GT. I am having extreme difficulty finding substantial encyclopedic information about DM. I am not sure if More Demi Moore would be included in the topic and am not sure whether Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue would be included in the topic. I sort of think Gair might be more an article for a topic about the latter than vice versa. I doubt I will be able to get DM to GA, but was curious what it would take for a GT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd need to get Disappearing Model to GA, sorry. It's short but comprehensive and definitely notable, so maybe try and fill it out a bit more if you can, and then give it a shot? On the other hand, I think you're spot on about not including Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. What about Joanne Gair's books? Are any of them notable enough to deserve their own articles? At a cursory glance that seems like the most obvious possible omission, but I really don't know whether they merit articles or not. Something for you to think about if you haven't already - rst20xx (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I also wondered about the books. From my experience, many books do not yet have articles on wikipedia, but many could easily pass notability guidlines. I might suggest a bibliography type article that could cover them all, with redirect pointing to it: "Books by Joanne Gair" as a GA? Otherwise, if a fan comes along and creates the book articles with a contents synopsis, worldwide release info and some critical reception, i'm not sure arguements to merge into the main article would be correct (depending on length, number of sources etc), but would be a lot of work to get to GA, whereas merging into an already GA "Books by..." article would be much easier. This would also give a place to discuss her Sport Illustrated pictures in more depth, in the context of the collection book.YobMod 16:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any book is so notable that an article is a must, but each book could probably survive a notability challenge. I think her book articles would be a good subtopic, and I am not familiar with the "Books by..." type of article unless it is a "List of..." article. I do not think with three books she should have a "List of..." article yet. More feedback is appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well I don't think there ARE any "Books by..." types of articles, though that doesn't mean it isn't possible. I guess the closest comparison would be videogame series where each individual game doesn't have its own article, eg the recently created Guitar Hero: On Tour series article (which should be in the Guitar Hero FT before too long). Ultimately I find it a shame that merging 3 books into one makes them more GA-able, when there will in fact be no extra coverage in the resultant product. But that's how things go. I'm not sure how best to proceed - rst20xx (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there is not much to worry about, because I do not feel I will be able to find more content for Disappearing Model. However, I anticipate bringing forth two more GTCs next month if all goes well at GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one bibliography featured list i've seen (which this couldn't be as too few items), and i've seen "Lists of works/books/etc" articles, but don't think they were GA and are usually long enough to be lists, so it seems the concept is feasible, but not often done to a high standard. The other option would be allowing the topic as is, and only worrying about getting books to GA if they are created, but if one is created (even at GA level), then i guess that would leave a gap (why one book and not the others, etc).

In terms of Dis. Model, could it not be merged? If the sources really don't exist to write more, it would easily fit in the main article, and it seems much more reasonable for a single piece of modern art to not have a separate article, unless extremely notable (which would mean more sources were findable). Seems apurely editorial decision, rather than "of course it should/n't have an article".YobMod 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In terms of expanding Disappearing Model, I have hope that there is more expansive information available about it in general texts on body painting if such text exist. I have read Gair's books, but if there are other books that include this work, I may be able to expand the article. I have not, for example, gone to the library and researcheed body painting in general or even done google books searches on Disappearing model. I will try the latter today.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions to modify either http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Disappearing+Model%22+body+painting&btnG=Search+Books or http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Disappearing+Model%22+Gair&btnG=Search+Books ? It seems like further information should be somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, simply searching for "Disappearing Model" throws up nothing relevant... rst20xx (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed FT

edit | Topic discussion | Book 8 articles  Silver Slugger Award
Winners at first base  Winners at second base  Winners at third base  Winners at shortstop  Winners at outfield  Winners at catcher Winners at pitcher Winners at designated hitter

Just wanted to confirm that this FT will fly after the last two lists (currently at FLC) pass. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not - rst20xx (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] National Basketball Association awards FT

FL Walter A. Brown Trophy, a part of the National Basketball Association awards FT, was up at FLRC per the new FL criteria. It is proposed that the content be merged to FL List of NBA champions since both have similar content. I think it won't affect the FT because the topic is still complete. But still, I want to ask here to make sure if the topic will still fulfill the FT criteria. Thoughts?—Chris! _ct 05:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is merged then yeah, the topic will still meet the criteria, unless it is a weak failure of 1.d) - I say this because I don't think it should be merged and redirected outright. As I just said over at the FLRC, I think that the listy stuff should be removed and what is left should be rewritten to be a GA a la Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy. It was about for almost twice as long as the O'Brien Trophy has been. I think it is notable enough to merit a GA and not simply be redirected to List of NBA champions. If you decide to go down this route, you'd have 3 months to get the GA as well - rst20xx (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'll do is to temporarily merge the content to List of NBA champions. When I have time 2 weeks later, I will definitely start writing a GA for the trophy itself.—Chris! _ct 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK sounds good! :) rst20xx (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus College, Oxford - additions to existing topic, or new sub-topic?

Existing

edit | Topic discussion | Book 6 articles Jesus College, Oxford
List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners List of Principals and Fellows List of Honorary Fellows List of alumni Jesus College Boat Club

New

The list of alumni had expanded to unmanageable size, so it's generated three sub-lists:

List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government

List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Mathematics, medicine and science

List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy (at FLC at present)

If this last one passes, any thoughts on whether to make a FT out of "Lists of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford", with the main list as the lead and the three sub-lists in addition? Or should I just add them to the existing topic? Bencherlite^Talk 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

subtopic. n

I don't think you should split, no, and in fact I would oppose it. Add them to the existing topic! The combined total number of articles will be 9 which isn't that many, the only reason I can see to split is because it looks better but that's not a real reason. I'm sure you've looked around and seen other similarly narrowly scoped topics to what you're suggesting here (heck, there is even one on just University alumni!) but equally for those topics if they get a wider scoped parent topic up to scratch, and the article numbers are this low, I would advocate combining the two there as well - rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bencherlite^Talk 10:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Then how come Wikipedia:Featured topics/New York State Route 20SY exists? n

Hmm well 4 of the articles in that topic are in Wikipedia:Featured topics/New York State Route 20N. You are therefore probably right in that it overly overlaps with other topics. The difficulty there though can be seen in the way the topics came about - the topic on 20N was promoted first, and then when the topic on 20SY was brought about, well neither can be cleanly subtopiced to the other, neither is more deserving than the other, so the second one ended up being promoted. I think the whole concept of these two topics is a little strange, and having topics on the roads in Onondaga and Madison counties instead would be better, but these latter topics do not exist and there is no rule saying that topics may not overly overlap with or be overly split from theoretical future topics. I don't know, maybe you should open a demotion discussion and see if something can be sorted out with these two because you're right, it is silly and they do overly overlap.

On a side note, I think you need to sign your posts properly instead of just writing "n" - rst20xx (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium Park expansion

I am wondering if the Millennium Park GT will require expansion. Nichols Bridgeway has opened, but it does not seem to be an official park feature. Also, this summer two temporary structures will be unveiled.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm not sure, would be good to add the Bridgeway but up to you as far as I'm concerned - rst20xx (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I think it is officially an extension of the Art Institute of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another relevant link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discographies of Young Divas members FT

6 articles → Discographies of Young Divas members
Ricki-Lee Coulter Jessica Mauboy Paulini Curuenavuli → Emily Williams → Kate DeAraugo

Alright, I have brought three members discographies (Ricki-Lee Coulter, Jessica Mauboy, Paulini Curuenavuli) to featured lists so far. I am nominating another (Kate DeAraugo) and then the group's (Young Divas) discography shortly thereafter. However, my only problem is with the fifth member (Emily Williams), can her discography be deemed "ineligible for featured list status" because of it's "limited subject matter", because it has six releases 'or should it be removed from the topic altogether? Alex Douglas (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think if the article exists, it must be included in the topic. But for a discography of an artist with such meagre output (so far), i think the discography should be merged into the main article on the singer, at least until she releases an album. "working on" an album since 2006 makes it sound like this album may never be released (as she has lost of any buzz it might have had), so including the discogrphy in the topic could turn out to be including a peer reviewed list that can never grow. So i say merge for now, and consider splitting when there are more releases, with the grace period 3 months to get the split discog to FL. At the moment i would oppose FL status for that discog, not only because it is so short, but on the basis of the new "un-needed forking" criterion.YobMod 08:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. So, if I achieved featured list status for Young Divas discography and Kate DeAraugo discography, you would support it as a FT? A three-month grace period would apply from when the Emily Williams or any future member has ten releases, ie from when their discography article is created? Is that all correct? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

5 articles → Discographies of Young Divas members
Ricki-Lee Coulter Jessica Mauboy Paulini Curuenavuli → Kate DeAraugo

...so that's how it would look? Does that meet the featured topic criteria? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an artificial topic, and I kind of doubt it would pass FTC. Nergaal (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What is an artificial topic? Why is this an artifial topic? What criterion would it fail? I am hoping to achieve featured list for the remaining discographies (Young Divas & Kate DeAraugo) shortly. I hope you can help. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what Nergaal is getting at is that there is a mismatch between the scope of the topic and the contents of the lead. The lead in no way addresses the individual discographies of the members of the band and as a result there is an artificial feeling about the topic. I feel that there is something to this topic but equally can see where he is coming from. Maybe if the lead listed the individual members' albums, though this is not standard practice on Wikipedia. On the other hand the 6 articles are about 60k in total between them so for now are small enough to be combined into one, though that would probably change in about 2 years - rst20xx (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. So does this look better? Alex Douglas (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

5 articles → Discography of Young Divas and its members
Ricki-Lee Coulter Jessica Mauboy Paulini Curuenavuli → Kate DeAraugo

I changed the title of the topic. If I edited the Young Divas discography lead to include the member's studio album releases (not singles, eps, etc) then would you support this topic as a featured topic? Alex Douglas (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Discography of Young Divas and its members" - well that's the thing - it doesn't include the discography of Young Divas, or its members, it only contains its members' discography articles! rst20xx (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a title? The topic will also include the Young Divas discography, that will be the lead article. I don't know much about featured topics, so I'm learning about it slowly. Thanks. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well no, it won't, the topic will only include the article on the Young Divas discography. The discography itself, namely their two albums and four singles, are not included. Hence the original name of "Discographies of Young Divas members" was somewhat more apt, because to me that more refers to the discography articles, than the records in the discographies, so I would go back to the old name. Nergaal's point is that there is a disconnect in that the contents of the lead article in no way references the contents of the other articles, and you've suggested that you might edit the lead article to mention the albums of the individual members, in order to rectify this. Whether this change makes the topic acceptable for Nergaal is a question for him - rst20xx (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that it is somewhat artifical, in that the natural topics according to precedent would be:

Young Divas (containing member articles or subtopics and discography subtopic, possibly a tours article)

Young Divas' discography (containing the groups albums)

Young Divas album (containing the singles from the album)

New Attitude album (containing the singles from the album)

Member 1 subtopic (with discography and releases)

Member 2 subtopic (with discography and releases)

etc.

With few articles in each subtopic, combining some of them would be better imo, such as the discography topic containing both albums and singles, rather than sub-topicing. But combining discographies of the members seems strange as it is a combination of articles at the same level in the hierachy, rather than the typical comination of subtopics into parent topics. I think it is worth considering whether that can make a good topic, but it would be the first of its kind. Another point to think about is that this topic could have complete overlapp if each of the members articles and releases was brought to GA, and soe people may oppose based on future too much overlapp (even if it may never exist)YobMod 14:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of precedent topics. But I still don't see what criterion the topic fails. Furthermore, Kate DeAraugo discography has been merged with Kate DeArarugo because of limited subject matter.

4 articles → Discographies of Young Divas members
Ricki-Lee Coulter Jessica Mauboy Paulini Curuenavuli

Each of the discography articles could have subtopics; there is complete overlap. The lead article will mention the release of each of the member's solo studio albums. Alex Douglas (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Trucking industry in the United States

3 articles Trucking industry in the United States
Hours of service Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States

Hmm, I'm surprised I never heard of "good topics" or "featured topics" before now. So excuse me if I seem ignorant. I have been working on a set of articles involving the trucking industry in the US. The two FA-class articles are Hours of service and Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. While Trucking industry in the United States is only a GA-class article (This article has turned out to be much more of a chore than I originally thought, so much to cover and so little time. I'm thinking of splitting out the history section, it just keeps growing and growing, which might help cut down the work for FA status... but I digress). Also I have Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States, which would be a list-class article but still needs work for FA status. Those are the basic core articles. I have read the requirements and I assume it is up to the reivewers as to which articles constitute a topic. Do these four articles cover the basics of trucking? The only other article that might belong here is Commercial driver's license, but there is some debate as to whether that article should cover the world-wide definition of trucker's licenses, or just the United States. Commercial licenses go by many different names in other countries, but they have been added to the CDL article anyway, so I assume it should stay an international-focused article. There is also the navbox Template:Trucking industry in the United States, which shows all the articles that are associated with this topic. So if I improve the glossary to an FA-list, do I have a shot for at least a good topic? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This would be an Overview topic. I think if you look at the sections of {{Trucking industry in the United States}} you'll get a better idea of what I think you need. Hours of service and Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula are two forms of regulations, but there are others, such as National Network and indeed US-specific stuff on Commercial driver's license, that are missing, so I would suggest it might be worth creating a summary-style article to cover the entirety of regulation. Similarly I would expect any topic on the trucking industry to contain an article on US manufacturers, one on prominent carriers, and perhaps a US-focused article on the truck driver (which is indeed a very different type of person from his European counterpart). You'd also need to cover popular culture somewhere, perhaps in its own article but much of this could be covered in the truck driver article. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration could possibly be covered in the regulation article though some might think it deserves inclusion anyway. And yes you'd need Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States. So in summary, it's better to think more about which articles deserve exist to make this topic comprehensively covered in sub-articles, rather than thinking about which do exist already - rst20xx (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are good ideas! I could make articles such as "trucking regulation in the united states" which would include national network and CDL, and "truck drivers in the united states", I didn't even think of that. Carriers and manufacturers could probably go in the "trucking industry" article itself, no? If I summarize the history and split it into its own article, then I'd have more room for carriers and manufacturers. Thanks for your input.--ErgoSum•talk•trib 11:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm you could possibly make a list or 2 lists out of the manufacturers and carriers, at the moment many of them aren't even mentioned in the "trucking industry" article. But true, a history article could cover them well as well - rst20xx (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Summer Olympics

As a sort of long-term project, I was pondering the following:

3 articles 2008 Summer Olympics
Bids Concerns and controversies Medal table Venues Torch relay Chronological summary Marketing Opening ceremony Closing ceremony

What else would need to be included? There are a number of other related articles linked to in the main article, and I'm trying to figure out whether this topic would become so large as to be practically impossible. Beijing National Stadium? 2008 Summer Paralympics? List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners? 2008 Summer Olympics national flag bearers? Geraldk (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm I would say the articles you listed in the box, plus 2008 Summer Olympics broadcasting, possibly World records at the 2008 Summer Olympics and then there should be some article listing the events in more detail than the main does - List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners fills this role nicely, and probably deserves including anyway. Beijing National Stadium is one of the venues so can be "subtopiced" to the Venues article. Similarly the flag bearers are part of the opening ceremony. I am not sure about the Paralympics, is it considered to be part of the Olympics in any capacity at all, or is it a separate event of equal standing? If the former, then include it. If the latter, then you could exclude. These last 3 articles plus 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay route are ones you could think about including but I wouldn't oppose on if you did exclude. One final question: Should the Beijing olympic bid have its own article, a la all the bids for 2012? If so, then that probably deserves including in addition to the article on the general bidding process - rst20xx (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also needed are the medals winners and the bradcasting article. The opening and closing articles should not be 100% necessary; I also foresee a forking of the participants section into a distinct article, in which case it would become necessary too. Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Large project, but doable. Geraldk (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Glove Award

I'm planning a Gold Glove Award featured topic featuring the following articles:

8 articles Rawlings Gold Glove Award
Winners at first base Winners at second base Winners at third base Winners at shortstop Winners at outfield Winners at catcher Winners at pitcher

Most of these articles don't currently exist, but the AL and NL separated lists are having their data merged per a discussion at WT:MLB, so I'm doing the featured workup and the merging all at the same time. The question is: Does List of Gold Glove middle infield duos also need to be included in this topic? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think all the sublists should be included, so yes, but the infield duos list looks like it can be merged into the main list, or alternatively both the shortstop and second base lists - rst20xx (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am going to merge it into the main list because the information is already available in the tables and can therefore be cross-referenced. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 3(c) Question

I was wondering if someone could provide a more comprehensive rule on the standards for omitted articles? Take, for example, Golden Sun DS. It is a video game that has not been released, with very little information known about the game. Could that count towards an omitted article if I put it through peer review? --haha169 (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. 3(c) covers articles that can not become GA+, no matter how much effort you put into them. Unreleased media such as video games are actually the primary example we have for that criteria- you could try your hardest to get that article to GA, but you can't until it gets released because the information isn't there now and will be constantly changing as time passes, making the article inherently unstable and unGA-able. As the article exists, however, it would still need to go into a nominated "Golden Sun" topic, so it just needs a PR. --PresN 16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for the help! --haha169 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious Gap

Ok, I'm working on some aritcles right now. None have been reviewed yet, but I'd like to eventually submit them to become a FT. The problem is that one of the articles 1980 Super Bowl of Poker has zero chance of passing an FL or even GA. For there is almost no information on this particular event. The other 12 Super Bowl's of Poker we have enough that I have little fear of getting them passed as FL's, but there doesn't appear to be enough sources for this article. If all articles have to be Good/Feature status, what do I do when there is an obvious gap? (The SBOP ran from 1979-1991.) Is there a way to work with this?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the FT criteria do not allow audited articles. Personally I have a policy that I want to see something try for GA, and demonstrably fail for lack of notability, before I would accept the article to say have been merged into another one. It's surprising how often the article then passes GA. Having said that looking at the article here it appears you don't even know all the details of the tournament, which is clearly, objectively!, a problem. Why is so little known about it? rst20xx (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not much was perserved on this particular event... we have details from all of the other years, but I can't find anything about 1980 except that it was won by Gabe Kaplan. The 1979 one was recorded because it was the first event, but the second year it hadn't blossomed into what it would eventually become. From what I've been able to deduce, it wasn't until Stu Ungar won the event in 84 that it could stand on its own. Prior to that it was riding Amarillo Slim's coattails. The idea of merging it might be an option though.. combine it with 1979.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 PHS

4 articles 1996 Pacific hurricane season
Hurricane Alma (1996) Hurricane Boris (1996) Hurricane Douglas (1996) Hurricane Fausto (1996)

Speaking of obvious gaps, this could be considered cherry picking. Tropical Storm Cristina (1996) or Hurricane Hernan (1996) do not have enough info to get to GA which becomes a problem. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , Sandbox

If an article exists on it, it needs including as a GA. If not, it doesn't. But you need to argue in the nomination why the subject is not notable enough to merit an article - rst20xx (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Connecticut tornadoes

I was just looking to see if there was any problem with this as a featured topic (assuming I can get all to GA/FA status, of course):

5 articles List of Connecticut tornadoes
Four-State Tornado Swarm 1989 Northeastern United States tornado outbreak 1878 Wallingford tornado Windsor Locks, Connecticut tornado

The reason I ask is that there are a few articles, such as Late-May 1998 tornado outbreak and derecho and 2006 Westchester County tornado, as well as a few I plan on creating in the future, which contain information on one or more Connecticut tornadoes, but the main impact of these events was elsewhere. I just want to make sure this couldn't be construed as cherry-picking. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 09:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, you should include them - rst20xx (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inheritance Cycle book series GT?

4 articles Inheritance Cycle books
Eragon Untitled fourth book Eldest Brisingr

Can this become a Good Topic, or would I have to include the other articles in this template? Thanks, TheLeftorium 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes. Inheritance Cycle books is a clearly defined, rational scope. Inheritance Cycle media would be the next step up imo, with the film(s) and game added, and Inheritance Cycle would be the last step, with the characters and such added. Do note that you'll need Book 3 and the main article to be GA and Book 4 to be peer reviewed with all issues taken care of to get the topic promoted, and Book 4 would need to be GA three months after it is released. --PresN 16:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bird query

The Bird project has well over 100 featured or good articles but no FT. I was thinking of working up Chough, a genus article, to at least GA, to join the two species articles Red-billed Chough (FA) and Alpine Chough (GA}. Since there are no other members of the chough genus, that would appear to meet the criteria for an FT, assuming consistency of structure and presentation is fixed. The genus article will need a lot of work, so can you tell me if I've missed any obvious problem with eventually submitting this set for FT? Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that looks good to me! I would think that WP:BIRDS, and more generally other WP:TREE-descendant projects, would be ripe for such genus-based topics - rst20xx (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)