Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/July 2013
We believe it meets the criteria. The Bicentennial coinage issue consisted of the three coins listed. All three articles on the individual coins contain hatnotes linking to the main article and appropriate discussion of the main topic. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC) (appearance delayed because I forgot to transclude)
- Support the topic looks good, but it needs a template linking the articles in the topic. Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give me an example of what you are looking for? Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the big template at the bottom that actually links all the US coins. Nergaal (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give me an example of what you are looking for? Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support Everything is in order, great work. Et3rnal 17:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support My Dad bought several of the proof sets of these; I wish the burglar hadn't found them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, too bad on that!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. - GamerPro64 14:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Contributor(s): 12george1, Hurricanehink
I believe this set of article associated with the 1962 Atlantic hurricane season should be considered for Good Topic. This is mainly because they were all listed as GAs recently, within the last 2 years. It wasn't until March that I was able to create an entry for Hurricane Alma. Now that it has an article though, the 1962 Atlantic hurricane season meets the minimum criteria for number of articles (3). They have also been adjusted to accommodate the new accessibility "standards". I hope others will agree that this should be considered a Good Topic.--12george1 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC) --12george1 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Don't forget to make the book. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Complete topic. Adabow (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support what else do I have to say to you, GC? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 15:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Milwaukee-class monitor
edit
I'm nominating this group of articles on a class of monitors because they meet the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have a serious question: why do these ships deserve their own separate articles? I am no naval expert, but most of these ships don't seem to have a large impact, so I am pretty sure most of the information in the subarticles can actually be condensed into the class article. Also, the table in the main article does not link the ships themselves. Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good catch on the lack of table links. Haven't we had this conversation before? The individual ships meet WP:GNG and WP:SHIPS holds that any commissioned warship is inherently notable. You may not like it, but consensus is against you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong. I love ship topics, and I was the first one to nominate ship topics to GTC a long time ago. My issue is how low is the bar set for a ship. As an outsider, monitors seems to be a relatively obscure class of ships (not like say submarines). A good question would be what does commissioning mean in laymen's terms? Is a 20 meter personal yacht commissioned and therefore notable? If not, about how many ships have there been commissioned worldwide? I almost want to say that having the bar set so low would be equivalent to having an article on every chemical that is commercially available from the large chemical companies (which would be in the 10k's). Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I think that we got them chemists beat hands down, especially once you get into the merchant shipping. Just in warships alone, lessee, 530 battleships and battlecruisers, not much less in the number of aircraft and seaplane carriers, probably 2,000 cruisers, 5,000 destroyers, 4,000 submarines, all since 1890 or so and not even counting the 10,000+ destroyer escorts, corvettes, torpedo boats, and patrol craft. Couple hundred ironclads, plus lots and lots of early steam warships, plus thousands of sailing warships. And that commissioned for the duration 20-meter yacht, you bet, provided, of course, that you can actually find some info on it. Which, of course, is the real issue since so much documentation hasn't survived.
- Somebody bothered to transcribe a bunch of DANFS entries for the ad hoc patrol ships that the US commissioned during WWI. Personally, I thought that was a waste of time, but what the hell; it's not like there's a limited amount of room on the servers. Practically speaking, the lack of info on the little boys will limit article creation. If you want to argue for a higher bar, feel free to make your case over at WP:SHIPS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- A "20 meter personal yacht" is never commissioned - in layman's terms "commissioning" is the point at which a military vessel has been accepted for service by a national military force. Although the term "commissioning" is sometimes used in regard to large merchantmen, sensu stricto (and in the sense that it applies to notability) it is only applicable to military vessels. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong. I love ship topics, and I was the first one to nominate ship topics to GTC a long time ago. My issue is how low is the bar set for a ship. As an outsider, monitors seems to be a relatively obscure class of ships (not like say submarines). A good question would be what does commissioning mean in laymen's terms? Is a 20 meter personal yacht commissioned and therefore notable? If not, about how many ships have there been commissioned worldwide? I almost want to say that having the bar set so low would be equivalent to having an article on every chemical that is commercially available from the large chemical companies (which would be in the 10k's). Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good catch on the lack of table links. Haven't we had this conversation before? The individual ships meet WP:GNG and WP:SHIPS holds that any commissioned warship is inherently notable. You may not like it, but consensus is against you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- This is gonna need some Supports or Opposes. Really looks stalled right now. GamerPro64 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is hard for me to support a topic with articles that I am not convinced merit being separate from the lead. It would help if a link were to be provided showing where did a consensus come to decide that monitors or ships of similar obscurity and/or sizes merit their own article. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- You made the exact same point three years ago, but nobody agreed with you. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Pará class monitors/archive1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Curiously, Nergaal had no reservations about Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/John Ericsson class monitors/archive1. Parsecboy (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The consensus that ships of this "obscurity" are notable through being commissioned and should have standalone articles is by long-term consensus, WP:GNG, and WP:SHIPS. The consensus is through standard editing practice, and also through long-standing consensus through results at WP:AFD - a commissioned military vessel, assuming GNG/RS can be passed, is (and always is) notable by virtue of being a commissioned vessel of a national military force. Civilian vessels (like the aforementioned yacht) don't pass that bar - the standard for inclusion in WP:SHIPS' scope is a length of 100 feet (30 m) and/or a displacement of over 100 tons - while this isn't a notability standard by any means, it has been demonstrated over a long period of time that the vast majority of ships above that line will prove notable, while the vast majority of ships below that line will not. As an aside, while I'm sure that your viewpoint of the topic is a result of your not being familiar with warships (despite, as noted, this having been explained to you before, it's been awhile and must have slipped your mind), stating that monitors are "obscure" compared to other types of ships is both heading into WP:POV/WP:BIAS territory (after all, the corvette would be an extremely "obscure" ship type to most American readers, whereas it's quite widespread in the rest of the world), and doesn't reflect their history; the type's namesake is one of the most famous ships of all time, and the type was a mainstay of naval forces from 1862 through World War I (and, for the British, World War II). - The Bushranger One ping only 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's a bit too broad a brush, unless you think dreadnoughts and cruisers were monitors... ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- You made the exact same point three years ago, but nobody agreed with you. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Pará class monitors/archive1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - the proposed topic meets the criteria, and the articles are clearly notable enough (IMHO) for separate articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - these articles clearly surpass the bars at both GNG and WP:MILUNIT. Great work as usual, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Clears all notability policies and guidelines, meets the Good Topic criteria, nice work. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - just because a topic is "obscure" doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
8 articles
- Contributor(s): Robin
I'm nominating this because it seems to meet the Good Topic criteria. Regards. Robin (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Great topic, looks good to me! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! Robin (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good except that One Thing (One Direction song) has a weird redlink in the lede that looks accidental and needs to be fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. Vandalism. Robin (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why does Moments deserve its own article? Nergaal (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because it's a notable song. In addition to charting in 3 countries, it received work from reputable sources. Robin (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really understand how is the song really notable. In my opinion, having a song charting at best at number 60 in a country like Australia is not what I would call notable. I wouldn't be surprised if other of the band's songs that were not singles had charted better than that. Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you Nergaal. However, there seems to be a precedent that if a song charts, it gets an article if a fan can be bothered creating one. WP:NSONGS was changed recently, so there may be a case for higher standards of notability in such articles now, especially in recent years where songs chart based on downloads as an album track. Adabow (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really understand how is the song really notable. In my opinion, having a song charting at best at number 60 in a country like Australia is not what I would call notable. I wouldn't be surprised if other of the band's songs that were not singles had charted better than that. Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Because it's a notable song. In addition to charting in 3 countries, it received work from reputable sources. Robin (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support Complete topic. Adabow (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! Robin (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support All articles in the scope are GA, nice work! HĐ (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! Robin (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - good work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 19:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
3 articles
- Contributor(s): Neelix
I believe this topic meets all the GT criteria; there are three articles about She Has a Name, and all have at least good article status. --Neelix (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support Complete topic Adabow (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support have checked the articles, no major issues, and the topic seems complete. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - This topic needs to have a book. GamerPro64 21:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Done - Neelix (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 19:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
articles
"Terma"- "Paper Hearts"
- "El Mundo Gira"
- "Leonard Betts"
- "Never Again"
- "Memento Mori"
- "Kaddish"
- "Unrequited"
- "Tempus Fugit"
- "Max"
- "Synchrony"
- "Small Potatoes"
- "Zero Sum"
- "Elegy"
- "Demons"
- "Gethsemane"
- Contributor(s): Bruce Campbell, Gen. Quon, Grapple X, Igordebraga
Here is the final season of The X-Files that has yet to be promoted to Good Topic. This list includes all of the episodes from the series' fourth season, which has been regarded as one of the show's best (along with the early part of its run). Important entries, such as the post-Super Bowl show, Scully's diagnosis with cancer, Mulder's purported suicide are all contained in this season. I believe that this would be a great GT, as all of the articles are meant to be read as a series, and they are all of great quality (if I do say so myself).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Support - It meets all the criteria. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Small Comment - "Herrenvolk", "Tunguska", "Terma", and "Memento Mori" all have an "unknown parameter" in some of the references (DVDs). I also noticed that some of the older articles have smaller reception sections due to the inavaliability of materials at the time; I don't know if anything can be done to make them more consistent, but this is a minor niggle. Glimmer721 talk 21:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I believe I fixed all the parameter issues. Some of the episodes still have smaller reception sections, however, because there still is a lack of material for some.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't look at them that closely. You now have my Support. Glimmer721 talk 22:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Love these topics. Support! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support but I wish there was a picture with the haircut she actually had on the show. Nergaal (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 21:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
- Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, Yellow Evan
All articles in the season are GA's. The season's three deadliest storms, along with the strongest, all have articles, and I don't believe any other storms could support articles. It should be good to go! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support as writer of one article. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support I've checked each article for basic quality standards, no problems at all. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 22:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
6 articles
- Contributor(s): 12george1, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanefan25, and Hurricanehink
I am nominating the 1959 Atlantic hurricane season for Good Topic because I feel it deserves that recognition, mainly because most of the articles associated with it were listed as Good Article within just the last 2 years. The exceptions are Tropical Storm Arlene and Hurricane Gracie, both of which are in relatively good shape, IMO. The 1959 Escuminac disaster is also listed above because of it was a severe storm in Atlantic Canada, directly related to the remnants of Hurricane Three. --12george1 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Arlene and Cindy deserve separate articles. Nergaal (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Arlene is a rare May TS, part of the off-season GT, and Cindy did kill 6 people. That's pretty noteworthy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- But of those 6 people only one was a direct victim. There were plenty of people dyning of poor weather conditions back then, so putting the 5 with the storm is a bit of a stretch IMO. Nergaal (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- What does it having to be direct have to do with anything? And no, they were not "plenty of people dyning of poor weather conditions". And Arlene was an off-season storm. As I've said before, they have enough content to exist IMO. I just don't see the point in merging them. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I support this topic, BTW. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support nice collection of articles (I have previously checked them for basic quality standards). If User:Nergaal believes that items should not have separate articles then he should do more than just complain about it at this FTC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 19:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, TheAustinMan, 12george1
Everything is up to par. All articles are GA's. I don't believe any additional articles could be made, at least at this time. In the future, with more information, it is possible that Alma, Daisy, and Janice could warrant articles, but at the moment I don't believe that's the case. The only changes potentially to the topic is an FAC run for Helene by TheAustinMan, but that wouldn't affect the topic much. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support although I have not spot-checked the articles themselves. Nergaal (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support why not? YE Pacific Hurricane 02:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Both Cleo and Helene's articles claim that their storms were the strongest of the season at this time. Could this be sorted? Auree ★★ 06:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Clarified. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Im not sure Cleo is worth an article since the seasonal article could be expanded out a bit more to cover Cleo. I know it
"Supposedly"was a category 5 hurricane but i dont think category 5 hurricanes are notable unless they did something to land.Jason Rees (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)- I was thinking about that when I wrote the season article, and when I nominated the topic. I fully expect Cleo to be downgraded to C4 (or lower) when reanalysis gets there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why the hec is a Cat 5 not notable for an article????????????????????????? YE Pacific Hurricane 21:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Because it didnt affect land and can be handled quite easily in the seasonal article i dont think it deserves an article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- YE, I think your reaction was unnecessary. JR is right. It could easily fit in the season article. Remember that notability isn't inherent. The article doesn't show that this Cleo is that significant of a meteorological subject, no more than super typhoons in the 1950s that didn't affect land. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Notability is inherited. For instance, all big four sport league athletes are notable enough for articles. I do not think it is unreasonable for all NOAA AOR Cat 5/SUSC/VITC's (as for super typhoons and AUS/SPAC Cat 5's eh, they are a little to common enough) to have articles as they are almost certainly going to have sufficient information. And what does affecting land have to do with anything? Since when do storm's have to impact land to get articles? If they did have to impact land, why do we write an MH section in TC articles anyway? YE Pacific Hurricane 22:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Inherent notability. Generally, storms need impact in order to have articles, since that's when they actually affect humanity, and Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of human knowledge. And you said "sufficient information" is a criteria, but Cleo's content is barely 3 kb (excluding the lede), compared to the season section being 1.5 kb (so it could easily handle the limited additional information). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Notability is inherited. For instance, all big four sport league athletes are notable enough for articles. I do not think it is unreasonable for all NOAA AOR Cat 5/SUSC/VITC's (as for super typhoons and AUS/SPAC Cat 5's eh, they are a little to common enough) to have articles as they are almost certainly going to have sufficient information. And what does affecting land have to do with anything? Since when do storm's have to impact land to get articles? If they did have to impact land, why do we write an MH section in TC articles anyway? YE Pacific Hurricane 22:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why the hec is a Cat 5 not notable for an article????????????????????????? YE Pacific Hurricane 21:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking about that when I wrote the season article, and when I nominated the topic. I fully expect Cleo to be downgraded to C4 (or lower) when reanalysis gets there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I saw Wikipedia:Inherent notability. Why do we write the MH section then? You are correct in that WP is the sum of human knowledge, but it is known that Cleo 58 is a Cat 5. No, I said "as they are almost certainly going to have sufficient information" as Cleo may be an exception to this case. Almost all Cat 5's have sufficient information, so why not give articles to all? If a Hurricane Katrina-like storm had only say 2kb's worth of information, would it be merged? YE Pacific Hurricane 01:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get your point about the MH, nor your other arguments. There is minimal additional info in Cleo's article than what is in the season article. It's not a matter of something like Katrina or not. The season section has roughly the same content as the entire article, so JR's suggestion isn't that far-fetched. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I saw Wikipedia:Inherent notability. Why do we write the MH section then? You are correct in that WP is the sum of human knowledge, but it is known that Cleo 58 is a Cat 5. No, I said "as they are almost certainly going to have sufficient information" as Cleo may be an exception to this case. Almost all Cat 5's have sufficient information, so why not give articles to all? If a Hurricane Katrina-like storm had only say 2kb's worth of information, would it be merged? YE Pacific Hurricane 01:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
YE not every Category 5 tropical cyclone on either the Aus or the SSHS scales has enough information available to justify an article, Cleo is a good example of this IMO.Jason Rees (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- As is Patsy on the Pacific side. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I proposed a merger on Cleo's talk page. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, Cleo has been merged. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)