Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/January 2009

< Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates‎ | Good log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log/January 2009)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III edit

edit | discuss
  USA PATRIOT Act, Title III
3 articles
 
  Subtitle A
  Subtitle B
Main contribuitor: Ta bu shi da yu

Subtitle C does not have its own article. Nergaal (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Subtitle C have its own article? Gary King (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me it doesn't seem to be broad enough. Nergaal (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point Gary was making. Your statement is "Subtitle C does not have its own article", this isn't what you meant to say because clearly subtitle III does have its own article. I believe that you probably meant to write "Subtitle C should not have its own article". If that's the case, then I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree, and suggest that you should have taken this to AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I swear, I am SUCH an idiot. Forgive me, Nergaal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I was going to ask the same thing. Ta bu shi da yu retired on 16 November 2007, having got the articles to their current statuses in 2006, so it's not like he got 3/4 of the way through this project but then retired before he could create the Section C article. He doesn't have any rough drafts of a Section C article amongst his many subpages, either. But I am still not convinced that it can't merit its own article, so as a result I shall vote neutral.
I wish we had him here, because then he could explain to us why it is/isn't notable. This is why, where possible, topic contributors should be notified of nominations - rst20xx (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't looks like the notability is the main issue, but the length of the subtitle; it has about 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of sections compared to the other two. Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that notability has nothing to do with why the section C article doesn't exist?!? Do you in fact think it's notable enough to exist, then? rst20xx (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I am saying that since the subtitle C is significantly shorter than the other ones, all that is needed to be said about it is said in the main article. On the other hand, the other sections have more to be said about them so they go into more detail than C. Nergaal (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this User:Ta bu shi da yu/Focus article, might be relevant. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subtitle C has more subsections than Subtitle A on the Title III main article. That seems to suggest that it could be enough for a separate article —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Assuming that wikisource is right, there are 20/16/7 sections per subtitle. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Wikipedia-type subsections. But, knowing what you just said, I think that is more important. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the topic is complete. I could only speculate why the original editors did not create a separate article for Subtitle C, but I've looked at the articles and the text of the statute, and I don't really see much of a need for one. It looks to me like Subtitle C is a fairly straightforward criminal statute, and it is adequately covered in the main article. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this meets the criteria. WE do not need an artilce on every section of every law in every county. Zginder 2009-01-22T16:20Z (UTC)
  • Support - although a separate article for subsection C could have been of good use, I don't think its necessary to have all sections as articles. --TRUCO 01:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I misreading the featured topic criteria 3.(a)(i) when I interpret it as requiring at least two featured items per featured topic? This only appears to have one. As an additional point, Ta bu shi da yu has actually returned to Wikipedia in the form of User:Tbsdy lives, so those of you who were wishing he was still around might consider directing your questions there-wards. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good, not featured, topic nomination - rst20xx (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why it would be good to have split the GTC and FTC to separate pages.--TRUCO 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote this. It's good material, but the more I look at it, the less I think it should be featured. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First time I've ever seen featured topics, I thought that this was FARC! Silly me. In that case, I don't really see the problem, and also if the one submitting the article doesn't believe the Title III should have its own article, I must first strenuously disagree, and secondly urge them to take it to the correct area of Wikipedia, which is WP:AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with consensus to promote - despite some confusion about whether section C deserves its own article, I think that Tbsdy lives believes it shouldn't - rst20xx (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true. I said that I didn't think the quality was high enough, not that it doesn't deserve its own article. I got confused as to what I was debating. Sorry for any confusion. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HD 40307 edit

All four articles are Good Articles, so it should be a Good Topic. I reviewed the article on the star. My role here is to recommend and assist. Substantive questions should be directed to User:Starstriker7, User:Icalanise, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be formatted like this:
edit | discuss
  HD 40307
4 articles
File:Planets of HD 40307.jpg
  HD 40307 b
  HD 40307 c
  HD 40307 d
Yeah, that's better. --Starstriker7(Talk) 03:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a space between the plus symbol and the article titles. The template looks okay. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made one and added. --PresN 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men films edit

previous FTC

edit | discuss
  X-Men films
5 articles
 
  X-Men
  X2
  X-Men: The Last Stand
  X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Major contributors: Alientraveller and Wildroot
Note: X-Men Origins: Wolverine was not added until 12:05, December 23, 2008

Alientraveller brought the main article, X-Men (film series), and X-Men: The Last Stand to GA-status. I brought X-Men (film) and X2 (film) to GA-status, with Alientraveller contributing with minor help. Every film article is of GA status, which fulfills all criteria for a Good Topic. Also, concerning X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which is an upcoming film. Wikipedia's stance on adding articles like that to this Good topic gives the major contributors three months after release of Wolverine to get to GA-status. That's why X-Men Origins: Wolverine is not listed, yet. Wildroot (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware of that, but how do you exactly peer review an article that is Future-class? Wildroot (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same as any other article. Just open a peer review and ask for input from other people. Gary King (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that peer review won't happen for another five-six months, so how does it affect this current nomination? Wildroot (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be peer reviewed even if the film is unreleased. Issues that can be brought up include: prose, more information to add, etc. Gary King (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But will it affect the current nomination? Wildroot (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, criterion 3c of the FT criteria mandates that "Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter or due to inherent instability, must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." (italics are mine). The topic cannot be promoted until that article is peer reviewed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Alright then. I will get X-Men Origins: Wolverine peer reviewed, and then I shall re-nominate. Therefore this is Withdrawn by nominator, and since I'm not an administrator, I can't archive this page, so an administrator reading this message right now should do something about that. Wildroot (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have to be an administrator that does that. Anyone can do it; preferably someone who knows what they're doing though, of course. Gary King (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just one PR, this article can be put on hold until it's done. That way it saves having to include failed FTCs in all the article histories. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good Gary King (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds good to me as well. We'll put this nomination on hold for a couple of weeks to wait for X-Men Origins: Wolverine to get peer reviewed. I've already started. Wildroot (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is there a free use image that this topic could use? Always cool to have one! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can we rename the topic to "X-Men feature films"? The current name doesn't cover its entire scope due to Generation X (film) - rst20xx (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Generation X was more of a backdoor pilot, and has no continuity with these four films. Generation X is just one of those weird awkward things that I'm not sure of. Wildroot (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an X-Men film, though, per a few things including this. Gary King (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's really necessary either. "Film" can have different definitions. One very common definition of a "film" is a theatrically released feature film. I think just using "film" in this way as a shorthand is perfectly acceptable. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wildroot (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright: X-Men Origins: Wolverine has finished its peer review. Let the topic candidacy continue. Wildroot (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the Roman Republic edit

edit | discuss
  Constitution of the Roman Republic
5 articles
 
  History
  Senate
  Legislative Assemblies
  Executive Magistrates
Major contributors: RomanHistorian and me.

Mos maiorum. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote much of the article, and what you might be seeing is my American definition of "constitution". In the United States, the Constitution of the US is one in the same as "Governmental Structure of the US". The US constitution itself simply establishes the three branches of government, gives them powers, and establishes a system of checks and balanaces. The amendments to the US Constitution are a mixture of revisions to the body of the constitution (amendment 12 for example) as well as items of a legislative, rather than process nature (amendment 1 for example). I believe in Europe "constitution" has a broader meaning, concerning actual laws, rather than straight up process. As for your other points, I summarized History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic under Constitutional history (509-49 BC) and The transition from Republic to Empire (49-27 BC), and Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Republic under Legislative Assemblies. Conflict of the Orders, Constitutional Reforms of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Constitutional Reforms of Julius Caesar are among the topics discussed in History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Curiate Assembly, Century Assembly, Tribal Assembly and Plebeian Council are discussed in Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Republic. I tried to build this Roman Constitution series like a pyramid, where the higher levels (such as this article) simply summarize articles lower on the hierarchy.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Using the more traditional definition of constitution as being how a government is constituted is fine with me. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree with the above. This is a great example of a historic topic. Zginder 2008-12-24T16:23Z (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Good_log/January_2009&oldid=1000209893"