I've worked on these five articles in the past six or so months, and I believe that it's ready to be nominated as a featured topic. The topic represents tanks developed (at least partially, such as is the case for the AMX-30E and the Leopard 2E) in Spain. All five articles are featured articles. Thank you. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Excellent work, plus is that they're all featured. Ceran →(
cheer→
chime →
carol) 13:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - topic needs a rename I think. "Spanish Tanks" implies to me all types of tanks used by Spain, not just those types developed by Spain. Could we call it "Tanks developed by Spain" or something?
rst20xx (
talk) 17:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, originally it was going to be "Tanks in the Spanish Army", which would imply that the topic was on all tanks used by the Spanish Army. In this case, the title is just "Spanish Tanks" (or tanks developed by Spain). JonCatalán(Talk) 17:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Does "Spanish Tanks" imply only tanks developed by Spain though?
rst20xx (
talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, the way I see it is that there's a difference between a "Spanish tank" like the Leopard 2E or the Verdeja and an American M47 Patton tank used by the Spanish Army. But, I mean, the topic could easily be renamed. It just seems to me that it will mislead the reader when he or she actually clicks on the topic header to get to the main article. JonCatalán(Talk) 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support with title re-named to 'Tanks developed by Spain' or some version of that.
Skinny87 (
talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support but "Tanks developed by Spain" seems unnecessarily wordy to me. If I say "German cars" or "Japanese cars" that would not imply cars driven in Germany or Japan, but rather cars developed by German or Japanese manufacturers. Similarly, "Spanish tanks" would most logically mean tanks developed or built by Spain. I favor the current topic name.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 04:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Rreagan007 makes a good analogy... I guess in light of this I'm not too bothered about renaming, but either way I think it's time I showed my support ;)
rst20xx (
talk) 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - I agree with the users above about the main article name, but Spanish refers to Spaniards, so its okay. In addition, the topic is interesting and is complete.--SRX 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - The core Simpson family, in quality that I would not expect, fantastic work!
Judgesurreal777 (
talk) 05:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Note: the end of the couch sequence shows these 5 characters (and almost always none other) therefore this group is enough.
Nergaal (
talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support - I would prefer that the whole family is included, but this is certainly the core of it -
rst20xx (
talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. It works fine for me to just have the nuclear Simpson family (no pun intended). If the topic gets broadened later to include the extended family I'd be fine with that also.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support, I reviewed a couple of these at
WP:GAN and thought it would make a wonderful Good Topic/Featured Topic in the future.
Nikki♥311 00:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - impressive how these articles got improved.
igordebraga≠ 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. I don't see why not. Any chance of seeing Lisa, Maggie, or Marge get featured in the future? Tezkag72 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support -- I would also prefare if the whole family was there. Patty, Selma, Grandpa, all the extended family who are regular characters. --
[User]JamieJCA[Talk] 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
This featured topic nomination is the second of the county-divided state routes topics. I know 8, 28 and 28N are in Warren, but as I said in my last GTC, roads in topics will almost always overlap. Anyway, this is Hamilton County, next in line from Warren. (Of note 8 and 28N will be in an Essex topic).Mitch32(
Go Syracuse) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Also, NY 365 is not needed in the topic only because it was concurrent with three routes in the topic alone (28, 28N, and 30), and would be significantly redundant.Mitch32(
Go Syracuse) 14:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support - I would prefer it if
New York State Route 365 was included, but as per the precedent set by Warren, I think it is acceptable without. Also, an additional comment (may as well say this here) - can you give me a heads up when Essex is almost ready? The reason being, {{ArticleHistory}} can currently only handle articles being in 0-2 topics, and will require a pretty major rewrite to handle 3 -
rst20xx (
talk) 18:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Am I crazy or does NY 365's article says it goes through Oneida and Herkimer counties, not Hamilton? So unless I'm misreading a small bit of info, I don't see why it's being mentioned here.
Circeus (
talk) 05:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)reply
365 once extended over four of the roads (8, 28, 28N and 30) in the topic through Hamilton and eventually all the way up to Plattsburgh in nearby Clinton. Mitch32(
Go Syracuse) 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote - congratulations Mitch, this is the 100th topic!
rst20xx (
talk) 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I have just got the main article through FL, and have previously got all individual seasons to FL. I now believe this meets criteria, and am listing this as a featured topic nomination.
Rambo's Revenge(talk) 11:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - well done, impressive stuff, and this is the first "seasons of" topic for a non-current show! -
rst20xx (
talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support I've participated in peer reviewing and/or FLC-reviewing each of these. As Rst20xx said, impressive work. Well done, Rambo.
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email) 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support these great pages on a great show (minus Johnny, heh heh). –thedemonhogtalk •
edits 06:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
After the discussion in the previous FTC, university lists for provinces in
Atlantic Canada and the
Canadian Prairies have been merged, and are now featured lists. There are no more audited articles in this topic; all items are of featured quality. Gary King (
talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - can we rename this to "Lists of Universities in Canada"? I think promoting a topic called "Universities in Canada" that only contains lists of them is a bit off the mark -
rst20xx (
talk) 17:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I feel this topic should become a featured list, as it meets all the featured topic criteria, all the articles included in the topic are of featured quality. All the lists are factually accurate up to date and are fully referenced. Thanks in advance for your comments.
NapHit (
talk) 20:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - can you unify the "See also" sections?
rst20xx (
talk) 20:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
could you explain what you mean by unify?
NapHit (
talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Well if you go through and look at the sections, they're a bit of a mess, some linking to some of the other majors, some linking (via redirect) back to the main article and others having no links at all. I don't mind if these sections are deleted entirely (cos the template's below) or if it's made so that all articles link to all other in the "See also" sections, but at the moment it's all a bit inconsistent...
rst20xx (
talk) 23:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Cheers for clearing that up, I've removed see also sections from every list.
NapHit (
talk) 23:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Also (unrelated) could you replace {{topicnom}} with {{featured topic box}} in your nomination? Noms are meant to use the latter now, not the former, simply as it saves work for the promoting admin, and means the nominator gets the image they want for sure -
rst20xx (
talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Done as well
NapHit (
talk) 23:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Seems to fit the criteria.
Zginder 2008-11-23T20:51Z (
UTC)
Comment Topic should probably be renamed to Lists of men's major championships winning golfers, with the added "s". Gary King (
talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
After saving Half-Life 2 from FAR; bringing Episode One to FA; and Episode Two, Lost Coast, and Survivor to GA; and completing a PR on Episode Three, I believe this topic is now ready. It contains all Half-Life 2 video game titles. Gary King (
talk) 22:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think
Codename: Gordon (a GA) should be included. Codename: Gordon wasn't developed by Valve, but its plot is based on that of HL2, and it was released by Valve to promote the at that time upcoming Half-Life 2 -
rst20xx (
talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Whatever the consensus goes is fine with me. That article is GA so it can be added without any fuss. Gary King (
talk) 03:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I would include Codename Gordon due to the official backing and game delivery from Valve. As a side note, wouldn't it make more sense to wait for the other Half-Life expansions to get GA and just make a "Half-Life" titles FT?
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (
talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I would support the addition of Codename Gordon, but I do not think it is necessary.
Zginder 2008-11-23T19:29Z (
UTC)
Support and David Fuchs, why wait? We can promote this now, and then expand it later -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
...Oh wait, only Opposing Force isn't a GA, and that's currently nominated... in that case maybe it would be worth putting this on hold for a bit, if needs be? It would be easier...
rst20xx (
talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Before nominating this, I discussed it with S@bre, who I'm working with on the full Half-Life topic. This topic is being nominated early because to get the Half-Life topic to featured status, it will need one more featured article and
Half-Life (series) still needs a significant amount of work. We're aiming to get this done by the end of the year, but it's not a promise. Gary King (
talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Ahhh yes I forgot the series article. Now I feel silly. Ignore my suggestion for waiting then!
rst20xx (
talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close as consensus to promote - I think that the meaning of the "titles" name is implied by precedent. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs) 04:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I am nominating the topic Hardy Boyz as a Good Topic. The group consisted of the real life brothers
Jeff and
Matt Hardy, and their long-term
valetAmy Dumas, known by her ring name "Lita". The lead article (
Hardy Boyz), as well as the three individual members' articles (
Matt Hardy,
Jeff Hardy, and
Amy Dumas) are all current Good Articles. ♥
Nici♥
Vampire♥
Heart♥ 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Meets
WP:WIAGT.--SRX 22:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Passes the criteria.--
WillC 01:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - needs a nav box (I should have said that for the Vince's Devils nom as well, sorry) -
rst20xx (
talk) 13:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? Do you mean a template at the bottom of the articles? ♥
Nici♥
Vampire♥
Heart♥ 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I made some changes to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} to conform to standard
WP:SHIPS and
WP:MILHIST navigation box template style. But how about, instead, {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}}, a list of Austro-Hungarian submarine classes that is on each class article page. This keeps the individual submarine articles from being cluttered with two templates. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, but it decreases ease of navigation, because then the class pages don't link to the boat pages. Howsabout we simply merge the two templates by adding the classes from {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}} not currently in {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}, and then redirecting the former to the latter? (Flag looks good by the way)
rst20xx (
talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
How about now?
Nergaal (
talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
(ec) Each class article still has its own class template. For example, if one is looking at the article on the
U-1 class, one can switch to the individual submarines of the class via {{U-1 class submarines}} OR to other classes via {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}}. Having {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} attached to each page is a bit of overkill with such a large template (as it is currently structured), and adding all of the classes to it is a little silly in that several of the later classes, while documented and notable, never had any completed submarines, leaving large expanses of space in the template.
Further, the use of individual ship class templates, like {{U-1 class submarines}}, is a consensus approach for ship classes (per
WP:SHIPS and
WP:MILHIST) that is in wide use throughout Wikipedia. I see no compelling reason in this case to go counter to this established method. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
the other option would be to have entries only for the submarines that were actully completed and used and remove all the other ones - and just mention the classes for those that were never built.
Nergaal (
talk) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
That was what I was thinking of, Nergaal, and I think that is what should happen. I don't think the template would be too big if we do this. And the compelling reason would be that it is significantly more useful in easing navigation than having all the templates split up is. After all, the sole point of navigation templates is to act as aides to navigation -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Now I'm confused. Weren't you, Nergaal, the one that added most of the incomplete submarines to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}? And now you want to remove them?
As far as an aid to navigation, how is the set up on, for example,
SM U-20 (Austria-Hungary), not conducive to navigation? And how is that on
U-20-class submarine not conducive? And why, exactly, should the
WP:SHIPS/
WP:MILHIST consensus methods for navigation be thrown out the window? I'm not trying to be contrarian or anything, I genuinely don't understand why… —
Bellhalla (
talk) 21:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
They are not conducive if you want to jump from, e.g.,
SM U-2 (Austria-Hungary) to
SM U-3 (Austria-Hungary). Further, try and think about the intent of the
WP:SHIPS/
WP:MILHIST consensus method - it's because, in general, following that consensus method gives templates which aren't excessively big, but still have a reasonable number of articles bound together by the template to help ease navigation. In this case, it seems to me that we can bind even more articles together in a template without having it become too big, and indeed some of the templates, if kept separate, are almost sillily small, eg {{U-3 class submarines}} -
rst20xx (
talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I only expanded the list, and then realized that it it unnecessarly chlunky - take my edits as test versions.
Nergaal (
talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I withdraw support for this nomination. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - if the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote with comment - I would still like to see the templates merged into the one Nergaal created, however this is no longer an issue for the GTC -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I withdraw support for this nomination. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - If the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I withdraw support for this nomination. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - If the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - I can not find anything wrong with the topic and it is good to see others are not obsessed with getting the main contrib. support.
Zginder 2008-12-16T15:43Z (
UTC)
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - straightforward -
rst20xx (
talk) 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - personally I can't stand the music of this group, but I can see no problems with this GTC --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 12:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - this is like the
Quietly Confident Quartet nom. The point of featured topics is to provide comprehensive coverage of the subject in question, and here, that seems to me to not be the case unless the article
Vince McMahon is included -
rst20xx (
talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I disagree with you. For the QFQ, the individual races are very related to the swimmers who swam them and what made them famous. Here, however, Vince McMahon had nothing to do with the group except that it was named after him (because he is chairman of the company). He was not part of the group, and his only mention in the article (besides being the namesake) is the one match he made, but that was part of his job at the time...he announced/decided at least most of the matches on Raw. That is like making a Good Topic about the
Atlanta Braves and including an article on
Native Americans (namesake) and the head of the
National League.
Nikki♥311 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, maybe you're right, but would it not help if the article described the sequence of events that led to the team being named after him?
rst20xx (
talk) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)reply
As far as I can remember (and I haven't read anything differently when doing the research for the article) that they just kind of randomly began calling themselves that. I'll look again, though, and see if I can find anything more specific.
Nikki♥311 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, the Torrie Wilson article says "Vince McMahon soon begin referring to the team of Wilson, Victoria, and Candice as "Vince's Devils."" That's not in the main article, that Vince came up with the name -
rst20xx (
talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
It does say that, but I removed it because after some research, I believe it to be incorrect. I just watched every video on WWE.com with the girls in it and looked at every website that mentions the group.
Torrie Wilson's official fansite says the girls renamed their alliance the night after New Year's Resolution and doesn't mention McMahon at all in relation to the rename. In all the videos I watched, Vince McMahon never once referred to the group as Vince's Devils (and curiously, the announcers never did either). I did, however, find a note about them flirting backstage with McMahon about a month after the group was renamed, so I added that, too.
Nikki♥311 02:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, I'll strike my oppose, I'm left with the impression that Vince McMahon wasn't as integral as I first thought -
rst20xx (
talk) 13:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support I also disagree with Rst20xx, QCQ's problem was that the group was that the group was famous and solely notable as a group from a single race, which was not included in the topic. V'D is not closely related to Vince McMahon, it's just named after him. ----PresN 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 16:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Having the Batman and X-Men topics up made me think about this topic. I'm nominating this for good topic because it meets the criteria and should be given another chance. I have notified
BIGNOLE (Contact me) who is a major contributor to some of the articles in the topic.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 04:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm nominating this for Good Topic. This will need to become a sub-topic of Seasons of 30 Rock aswell. These articles have been mostly written by myself and
Cornucopia, so much thanks and credit goes to them. --
[User]JamieJCA[Talk] 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - well done -
rst20xx (
talk) 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support:) —97198 (
talk) 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I have never supported a GTC before, as I disagree with this new process' existence in the first place, but how could I say no to some good old-fashioned canvassing? –thedemonhogtalk •
edits 06:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I was told I'm supposed to say one word, so oppose! :) In all seriousness, support. –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 13:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
X&Y is the third album by English
alternative rock band
Coldplay. Aside from the album, all its released singles are good articles. Note: "What If" and "White Shadows" were never official singles off the album. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Question According to the lead there were five world wide singles and one regional single. Way do not last two not have an article?
Zginder 2008-11-28T20:34Z (
UTC)
The songs "What If" and "White Shadows" were not singles; radio stations played the songs, but the band never acknowledge them as "main" singles off the album. Also, there was a consensus to have the two songs redirect to the album. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 20:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - I feel the proper procedures have been followed with regards to the deletion of the two song articles, however I would have appreciated it if an explanation was given with the initial nomination, as it seems to me to be something that was bound to come up -
rst20xx (
talk) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Parachutes is the debut album by English
alternative rock band
Coldplay. Aside from the album, all its released singles are good articles. Thank you. --
Efe (
talk) 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support I can not find anything that does not fit.
Zginder 2008-11-28T06:36Z (
UTC)
Support - well done -
rst20xx (
talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I've worked on these five articles in the past six or so months, and I believe that it's ready to be nominated as a featured topic. The topic represents tanks developed (at least partially, such as is the case for the AMX-30E and the Leopard 2E) in Spain. All five articles are featured articles. Thank you. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Excellent work, plus is that they're all featured. Ceran →(
cheer→
chime →
carol) 13:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - topic needs a rename I think. "Spanish Tanks" implies to me all types of tanks used by Spain, not just those types developed by Spain. Could we call it "Tanks developed by Spain" or something?
rst20xx (
talk) 17:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, originally it was going to be "Tanks in the Spanish Army", which would imply that the topic was on all tanks used by the Spanish Army. In this case, the title is just "Spanish Tanks" (or tanks developed by Spain). JonCatalán(Talk) 17:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Does "Spanish Tanks" imply only tanks developed by Spain though?
rst20xx (
talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, the way I see it is that there's a difference between a "Spanish tank" like the Leopard 2E or the Verdeja and an American M47 Patton tank used by the Spanish Army. But, I mean, the topic could easily be renamed. It just seems to me that it will mislead the reader when he or she actually clicks on the topic header to get to the main article. JonCatalán(Talk) 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support with title re-named to 'Tanks developed by Spain' or some version of that.
Skinny87 (
talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support but "Tanks developed by Spain" seems unnecessarily wordy to me. If I say "German cars" or "Japanese cars" that would not imply cars driven in Germany or Japan, but rather cars developed by German or Japanese manufacturers. Similarly, "Spanish tanks" would most logically mean tanks developed or built by Spain. I favor the current topic name.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 04:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Rreagan007 makes a good analogy... I guess in light of this I'm not too bothered about renaming, but either way I think it's time I showed my support ;)
rst20xx (
talk) 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - I agree with the users above about the main article name, but Spanish refers to Spaniards, so its okay. In addition, the topic is interesting and is complete.--SRX 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - The core Simpson family, in quality that I would not expect, fantastic work!
Judgesurreal777 (
talk) 05:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Note: the end of the couch sequence shows these 5 characters (and almost always none other) therefore this group is enough.
Nergaal (
talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support - I would prefer that the whole family is included, but this is certainly the core of it -
rst20xx (
talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. It works fine for me to just have the nuclear Simpson family (no pun intended). If the topic gets broadened later to include the extended family I'd be fine with that also.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support, I reviewed a couple of these at
WP:GAN and thought it would make a wonderful Good Topic/Featured Topic in the future.
Nikki♥311 00:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - impressive how these articles got improved.
igordebraga≠ 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. I don't see why not. Any chance of seeing Lisa, Maggie, or Marge get featured in the future? Tezkag72 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support -- I would also prefare if the whole family was there. Patty, Selma, Grandpa, all the extended family who are regular characters. --
[User]JamieJCA[Talk] 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
This featured topic nomination is the second of the county-divided state routes topics. I know 8, 28 and 28N are in Warren, but as I said in my last GTC, roads in topics will almost always overlap. Anyway, this is Hamilton County, next in line from Warren. (Of note 8 and 28N will be in an Essex topic).Mitch32(
Go Syracuse) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Also, NY 365 is not needed in the topic only because it was concurrent with three routes in the topic alone (28, 28N, and 30), and would be significantly redundant.Mitch32(
Go Syracuse) 14:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support - I would prefer it if
New York State Route 365 was included, but as per the precedent set by Warren, I think it is acceptable without. Also, an additional comment (may as well say this here) - can you give me a heads up when Essex is almost ready? The reason being, {{ArticleHistory}} can currently only handle articles being in 0-2 topics, and will require a pretty major rewrite to handle 3 -
rst20xx (
talk) 18:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Am I crazy or does NY 365's article says it goes through Oneida and Herkimer counties, not Hamilton? So unless I'm misreading a small bit of info, I don't see why it's being mentioned here.
Circeus (
talk) 05:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)reply
365 once extended over four of the roads (8, 28, 28N and 30) in the topic through Hamilton and eventually all the way up to Plattsburgh in nearby Clinton. Mitch32(
Go Syracuse) 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote - congratulations Mitch, this is the 100th topic!
rst20xx (
talk) 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I have just got the main article through FL, and have previously got all individual seasons to FL. I now believe this meets criteria, and am listing this as a featured topic nomination.
Rambo's Revenge(talk) 11:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - well done, impressive stuff, and this is the first "seasons of" topic for a non-current show! -
rst20xx (
talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support I've participated in peer reviewing and/or FLC-reviewing each of these. As Rst20xx said, impressive work. Well done, Rambo.
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email) 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support these great pages on a great show (minus Johnny, heh heh). –thedemonhogtalk •
edits 06:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
After the discussion in the previous FTC, university lists for provinces in
Atlantic Canada and the
Canadian Prairies have been merged, and are now featured lists. There are no more audited articles in this topic; all items are of featured quality. Gary King (
talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - can we rename this to "Lists of Universities in Canada"? I think promoting a topic called "Universities in Canada" that only contains lists of them is a bit off the mark -
rst20xx (
talk) 17:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I feel this topic should become a featured list, as it meets all the featured topic criteria, all the articles included in the topic are of featured quality. All the lists are factually accurate up to date and are fully referenced. Thanks in advance for your comments.
NapHit (
talk) 20:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - can you unify the "See also" sections?
rst20xx (
talk) 20:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
could you explain what you mean by unify?
NapHit (
talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Well if you go through and look at the sections, they're a bit of a mess, some linking to some of the other majors, some linking (via redirect) back to the main article and others having no links at all. I don't mind if these sections are deleted entirely (cos the template's below) or if it's made so that all articles link to all other in the "See also" sections, but at the moment it's all a bit inconsistent...
rst20xx (
talk) 23:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Cheers for clearing that up, I've removed see also sections from every list.
NapHit (
talk) 23:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Also (unrelated) could you replace {{topicnom}} with {{featured topic box}} in your nomination? Noms are meant to use the latter now, not the former, simply as it saves work for the promoting admin, and means the nominator gets the image they want for sure -
rst20xx (
talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Done as well
NapHit (
talk) 23:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Seems to fit the criteria.
Zginder 2008-11-23T20:51Z (
UTC)
Comment Topic should probably be renamed to Lists of men's major championships winning golfers, with the added "s". Gary King (
talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
After saving Half-Life 2 from FAR; bringing Episode One to FA; and Episode Two, Lost Coast, and Survivor to GA; and completing a PR on Episode Three, I believe this topic is now ready. It contains all Half-Life 2 video game titles. Gary King (
talk) 22:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think
Codename: Gordon (a GA) should be included. Codename: Gordon wasn't developed by Valve, but its plot is based on that of HL2, and it was released by Valve to promote the at that time upcoming Half-Life 2 -
rst20xx (
talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Whatever the consensus goes is fine with me. That article is GA so it can be added without any fuss. Gary King (
talk) 03:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I would include Codename Gordon due to the official backing and game delivery from Valve. As a side note, wouldn't it make more sense to wait for the other Half-Life expansions to get GA and just make a "Half-Life" titles FT?
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (
talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I would support the addition of Codename Gordon, but I do not think it is necessary.
Zginder 2008-11-23T19:29Z (
UTC)
Support and David Fuchs, why wait? We can promote this now, and then expand it later -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
...Oh wait, only Opposing Force isn't a GA, and that's currently nominated... in that case maybe it would be worth putting this on hold for a bit, if needs be? It would be easier...
rst20xx (
talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Before nominating this, I discussed it with S@bre, who I'm working with on the full Half-Life topic. This topic is being nominated early because to get the Half-Life topic to featured status, it will need one more featured article and
Half-Life (series) still needs a significant amount of work. We're aiming to get this done by the end of the year, but it's not a promise. Gary King (
talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Ahhh yes I forgot the series article. Now I feel silly. Ignore my suggestion for waiting then!
rst20xx (
talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close as consensus to promote - I think that the meaning of the "titles" name is implied by precedent. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs) 04:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I am nominating the topic Hardy Boyz as a Good Topic. The group consisted of the real life brothers
Jeff and
Matt Hardy, and their long-term
valetAmy Dumas, known by her ring name "Lita". The lead article (
Hardy Boyz), as well as the three individual members' articles (
Matt Hardy,
Jeff Hardy, and
Amy Dumas) are all current Good Articles. ♥
Nici♥
Vampire♥
Heart♥ 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Meets
WP:WIAGT.--SRX 22:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Passes the criteria.--
WillC 01:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - needs a nav box (I should have said that for the Vince's Devils nom as well, sorry) -
rst20xx (
talk) 13:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? Do you mean a template at the bottom of the articles? ♥
Nici♥
Vampire♥
Heart♥ 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I made some changes to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} to conform to standard
WP:SHIPS and
WP:MILHIST navigation box template style. But how about, instead, {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}}, a list of Austro-Hungarian submarine classes that is on each class article page. This keeps the individual submarine articles from being cluttered with two templates. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, but it decreases ease of navigation, because then the class pages don't link to the boat pages. Howsabout we simply merge the two templates by adding the classes from {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}} not currently in {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}, and then redirecting the former to the latter? (Flag looks good by the way)
rst20xx (
talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
How about now?
Nergaal (
talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
(ec) Each class article still has its own class template. For example, if one is looking at the article on the
U-1 class, one can switch to the individual submarines of the class via {{U-1 class submarines}} OR to other classes via {{Austro-Hungarian submarine classes}}. Having {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}} attached to each page is a bit of overkill with such a large template (as it is currently structured), and adding all of the classes to it is a little silly in that several of the later classes, while documented and notable, never had any completed submarines, leaving large expanses of space in the template.
Further, the use of individual ship class templates, like {{U-1 class submarines}}, is a consensus approach for ship classes (per
WP:SHIPS and
WP:MILHIST) that is in wide use throughout Wikipedia. I see no compelling reason in this case to go counter to this established method. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
the other option would be to have entries only for the submarines that were actully completed and used and remove all the other ones - and just mention the classes for those that were never built.
Nergaal (
talk) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
That was what I was thinking of, Nergaal, and I think that is what should happen. I don't think the template would be too big if we do this. And the compelling reason would be that it is significantly more useful in easing navigation than having all the templates split up is. After all, the sole point of navigation templates is to act as aides to navigation -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Now I'm confused. Weren't you, Nergaal, the one that added most of the incomplete submarines to {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}? And now you want to remove them?
As far as an aid to navigation, how is the set up on, for example,
SM U-20 (Austria-Hungary), not conducive to navigation? And how is that on
U-20-class submarine not conducive? And why, exactly, should the
WP:SHIPS/
WP:MILHIST consensus methods for navigation be thrown out the window? I'm not trying to be contrarian or anything, I genuinely don't understand why… —
Bellhalla (
talk) 21:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
They are not conducive if you want to jump from, e.g.,
SM U-2 (Austria-Hungary) to
SM U-3 (Austria-Hungary). Further, try and think about the intent of the
WP:SHIPS/
WP:MILHIST consensus method - it's because, in general, following that consensus method gives templates which aren't excessively big, but still have a reasonable number of articles bound together by the template to help ease navigation. In this case, it seems to me that we can bind even more articles together in a template without having it become too big, and indeed some of the templates, if kept separate, are almost sillily small, eg {{U-3 class submarines}} -
rst20xx (
talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I only expanded the list, and then realized that it it unnecessarly chlunky - take my edits as test versions.
Nergaal (
talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I withdraw support for this nomination. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - if the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote with comment - I would still like to see the templates merged into the one Nergaal created, however this is no longer an issue for the GTC -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I withdraw support for this nomination. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - If the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I withdraw support for this nomination. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - If the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - I can not find anything wrong with the topic and it is good to see others are not obsessed with getting the main contrib. support.
Zginder 2008-12-16T15:43Z (
UTC)
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - straightforward -
rst20xx (
talk) 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - personally I can't stand the music of this group, but I can see no problems with this GTC --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 12:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - this is like the
Quietly Confident Quartet nom. The point of featured topics is to provide comprehensive coverage of the subject in question, and here, that seems to me to not be the case unless the article
Vince McMahon is included -
rst20xx (
talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I disagree with you. For the QFQ, the individual races are very related to the swimmers who swam them and what made them famous. Here, however, Vince McMahon had nothing to do with the group except that it was named after him (because he is chairman of the company). He was not part of the group, and his only mention in the article (besides being the namesake) is the one match he made, but that was part of his job at the time...he announced/decided at least most of the matches on Raw. That is like making a Good Topic about the
Atlanta Braves and including an article on
Native Americans (namesake) and the head of the
National League.
Nikki♥311 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, maybe you're right, but would it not help if the article described the sequence of events that led to the team being named after him?
rst20xx (
talk) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)reply
As far as I can remember (and I haven't read anything differently when doing the research for the article) that they just kind of randomly began calling themselves that. I'll look again, though, and see if I can find anything more specific.
Nikki♥311 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, the Torrie Wilson article says "Vince McMahon soon begin referring to the team of Wilson, Victoria, and Candice as "Vince's Devils."" That's not in the main article, that Vince came up with the name -
rst20xx (
talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
It does say that, but I removed it because after some research, I believe it to be incorrect. I just watched every video on WWE.com with the girls in it and looked at every website that mentions the group.
Torrie Wilson's official fansite says the girls renamed their alliance the night after New Year's Resolution and doesn't mention McMahon at all in relation to the rename. In all the videos I watched, Vince McMahon never once referred to the group as Vince's Devils (and curiously, the announcers never did either). I did, however, find a note about them flirting backstage with McMahon about a month after the group was renamed, so I added that, too.
Nikki♥311 02:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, I'll strike my oppose, I'm left with the impression that Vince McMahon wasn't as integral as I first thought -
rst20xx (
talk) 13:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support I also disagree with Rst20xx, QCQ's problem was that the group was that the group was famous and solely notable as a group from a single race, which was not included in the topic. V'D is not closely related to Vince McMahon, it's just named after him. ----PresN 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 16:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Having the Batman and X-Men topics up made me think about this topic. I'm nominating this for good topic because it meets the criteria and should be given another chance. I have notified
BIGNOLE (Contact me) who is a major contributor to some of the articles in the topic.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 04:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm nominating this for Good Topic. This will need to become a sub-topic of Seasons of 30 Rock aswell. These articles have been mostly written by myself and
Cornucopia, so much thanks and credit goes to them. --
[User]JamieJCA[Talk] 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - well done -
rst20xx (
talk) 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Support:) —97198 (
talk) 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I have never supported a GTC before, as I disagree with this new process' existence in the first place, but how could I say no to some good old-fashioned canvassing? –thedemonhogtalk •
edits 06:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I was told I'm supposed to say one word, so oppose! :) In all seriousness, support. –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 13:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
X&Y is the third album by English
alternative rock band
Coldplay. Aside from the album, all its released singles are good articles. Note: "What If" and "White Shadows" were never official singles off the album. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Question According to the lead there were five world wide singles and one regional single. Way do not last two not have an article?
Zginder 2008-11-28T20:34Z (
UTC)
The songs "What If" and "White Shadows" were not singles; radio stations played the songs, but the band never acknowledge them as "main" singles off the album. Also, there was a consensus to have the two songs redirect to the album. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 20:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - I feel the proper procedures have been followed with regards to the deletion of the two song articles, however I would have appreciated it if an explanation was given with the initial nomination, as it seems to me to be something that was bound to come up -
rst20xx (
talk) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Parachutes is the debut album by English
alternative rock band
Coldplay. Aside from the album, all its released singles are good articles. Thank you. --
Efe (
talk) 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support I can not find anything that does not fit.
Zginder 2008-11-28T06:36Z (
UTC)
Support - well done -
rst20xx (
talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply