Support - looks good to me -
rst20xx (
talk) 22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Just about ready to Support - but there is a citation needed/clarify tag listed in the
WP:LEAD which should probably be addressed. Otherwise great work! Cirt (
talk) 14:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Looking at that comment I decided to hide it until the FLC. It seems like a random comment added by a new user which probably deserves more attention once reviews of the season come out.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - All FLs. ~~ ComputerGuy 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Why would album topics (that link to discography articles) not be required to include all the released songs too (that do not appear on any released album), while this topic would be required to include the webisodes which were never even released on tv or on dvd's??
Nergaal (
talk) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Because the two webseries are still made up of episodes that are part of The Office. The fact that they were broadcast on a different medium to TV is irrelevant in the 21st Century.
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email) 19:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
But an artist becomes famous and gets money also for those singles that are not covered in any album. That's why those singles are part of their discography. Yet, the CURRENT FTs on those discographies are renamed as albums and do NOT cover those singles too. I don't see where does the parallel between those album FTs and this season FTC breaks. Also, webseries<>seasons.
Nergaal (
talk) 20:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The Accountants and Kevin's Loan are by definition webisodes, not seasons of the series. This topic is "Seasons of The Office". Therefore, that argument is null and void.
Mastrchf (t/c) 23:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. The topic is "Seasons of the Office." All season articles are in the topic. The webseries are not seasons, and therefore should not be included in the topic. Just because the main article of the topic includes them does not mean that the topic includes them.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Clearly defined topic, clear addition.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk) 17:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 15:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
But maybe that topic should include that list, too. I mean, look at all these articles - they're basically details of the award in question, and then a list of past winners. With the exception of
Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy, where the list was broken off into its own article,
List of NBA champions. So I think the list should be included. It's not an award, but it's a list of who won an award -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Good job.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 22:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote - I shall promote this topic to "The Office (US TV series) season 4" -
rst20xx (
talk) 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Essentially the twin to
Wikipedia:Featured topics/New York State Route 20N, this is the 2nd of the two topics that are falling under this series. NY 20SY, like 20N was assigned over several different highways, this time, NY 5, NY 92, NY 173, NY 321 and of course, NY 20N. Like 20N, it was decommissioned and the routes it was assigned over remained the same. Now, eventually, this will grow into a Featured Topic, but right now, its sufficient enough for a good topic. (Also you could say NY 174 counts now because its part of old 20SY currently, but for now, it is unrelated.) Mitch32(
UP) 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Question is it me or the 5, 20N, etc have only a part of them overlapping with the 20SY? Are the highways listed at the bottom truly within the scope of the main article?
Nergaal (
talk) 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Basically, yes. This follows the same as NY 20N, which were two special cases of highways being assigned over pre-existing state routes. Also, there is overlap with NY 20N, but there are differences - 5, 321 are new. The routes at the bottom are just what it intersected with, that has no relation at all. Again, the only route you could add is
New York State Route 174, which makes up part of the alignment in present time. 5, 20N, 92, 173, and 321 are the alignment that 20SY used. Those intersections at the bottom have no influence on this topic.Mitch32(
UP) 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Another roads-related topic. ~~ ComputerGuy 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Slight oppose I am unconvinced this is a valid topic. Correct me where I am wrong, but does it seem ok to have a highway 50km long that is the main article of a topic that includes highways several thousand km long? This topic seems to set the precedent for this type of example.
Nergaal (
talk) 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Um, I explicitly stated that there are only 2 of this kind. Why are you opposing when there is already a topic that has passed? There is precedent already and unless you wanna make a stink over it, there is no point in opposing it.Mitch32(
UP) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
To me it sounds like a Mississippi topic where the subarticles are the states that the river flows through. Intersecting should not be a criteria for a topic.
Nergaal (
talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Again, you has misinterpreted something. Read 20N's nomination and this nomination and you'll understand why. NONE of these are intersections, these are the routes that these two special routes followed. If I had put in the intersections, there would be at least 20 articles in this topic. I don't know what else I've said that's confusing.Mitch32(
UP) 10:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok here is an example: route 5 is 800km long, and less than 150km overlap with 20SY. How is 5 a subpart of 20SY???
Nergaal (
talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Why do you continue to do this? Read the dang article, because I can tell you are not understanding this.Mitch32(
UP) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support - I am left feeling quite uneasy that this topic shares 4/6 articles with another topic, and am unsure whether this constitutes excessive overlap, however I feel that both topics alone are structurally fine, so I shall weak support -
rst20xx (
talk) 12:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I understand you're point that it overlaps a lot, but that was part of the point with these two highways, its not something I can help.Mitch32(
UP) 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support per Juliancolton
Zginder 2008-11-10T17:22Z (
UTC)
Weak support - Seems okay, but I agree with some of the issues about overlap raised by
Rst20xx (
talk·contribs). Cirt (
talk) 14:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - I'm on the fence with this one. The overlap is a bit much, and two topics being subtopics for eachother is a bit odd. That being said, this does meet the other criteria well enough and it has its supporters. I think this should be left open for a couple more days and if there are no other objections in can probably be passed. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs) 04:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I am not going to ask that you change your votes, but, I cannot remove NY 92, 20N, and 173 from the topics, because then I would be cherry-picking. I also don't understand for whatever reason, you guys are making a problem out of this, when the prior one passed with no strings attached. Understand this, roads overlap, roads will always (on FT/GT) have at least 2 articles overlap at the least.Mitch32(
UP) 12:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The overlap suggests that that the two topics could be combined into one larger topic about this stretch of road. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs) 15:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)reply
That's a good question. Could these 2 topics be made into 1 topic, and would it make sense to do so?
Rreagan007 (
talk) 20:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Mitch, (I think I know what the answer would be but) care to comment on the feasibility of this?
rst20xx (
talk) 14:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I'll deal with it on 1 condition. Some actually help me get at least 2 articles to FA so I can keep its Featured Topic status, because even if it passes, the it will lose its Featured credit. I don't mind if they are merged, I do mind if it gets demoted.Mitch32(
Go Syracuse) 14:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote - based on Arctic Gnome's comments above, my reading is that this has consensus. I am not sure how these two topics would be made into one as they would have to have more than one lead article, something that has not been done before, and the feasibility of which would need to be discussed on the criteria page in advance -
rst20xx (
talk) 13:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Seems good to me. Of course, the more articles, the better, but the most noteworthy storms have articles. –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Juliancolton's comment has led me to ask, are there any storms that are notable enough to have articles, but do not?
rst20xx (
talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Because the 1994 season was relatively long ago, information is more scarce than it is for recent storms. Thus, only the most notable storms—those that make landfall or break several records—warrant an article. Many, if not all, of the other storms have little information outside of what is currently incorporated into the season article. –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 14:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - OK, thank you, that answers my question satisfactorily -
rst20xx (
talk) 14:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - looks good to me
Jason Rees (
talk) 23:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support, although this isn't far off Featured Topic status. Why not work to get another article to Featured status and nom it as an FT? -- Escape Artist SwyerTalkContributions 14:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
If another article in this topic becomes featured, and this topic is good, then the topic will automatically be bumped up to featured as well. So in a sense, it doesn't matter what order things are done in -
rst20xx (
talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - well written and all sub articles are GA or higher :) As stated before some more storm articles would be nice, but not having them wont prevent it from being a GT.
Cyclonebiskit (
talk) 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong support This should be quick-passed because it meets the criteria. --Dylan620 (
Home •
yadda yadda yadda •
Ooooohh!) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)reply
These go with a bang!
Nergaal (
talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment This looks pretty good, but I have a concern. With
History of observations being included in the topic, the scope of the topic seems to exceed just the different types of supernovae. Because of that,
Supernova nucleosynthesis and
Supernova remnant should also probably be included in the topic. I suggest removing the History of observations article to keep the scope focused on just the different types of supernovae for now and maybe later expanding the scope of the topic once the other articles are ready. One more minor point, I think the topic title should just be "Supernova" without the "(e)." I understand what it means, but I think some people would just be confused by it.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 14:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
the point of the history article was to have some kind of listings. also, the two article you list here do not overalp at all with the history one. what do other think?
Nergaal (
talk) 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I agree with Rreagan007, and would also point to
Hypernova and
Pair-instability supernova. Additionally, I see no attempt to consult RJHall before nominating - or am I missing something?
rst20xx (
talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment—I have no issue with this proposal or the inclusion of the history; the latter is a fork from the Supernova page. But you I do agree with the proposed additions. In fact I'd go so far as to propose an expansion of scope to include all
Cataclysmic variable stars. But tht's just a notion.—
RJH (
talk) 16:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Note: ok, how about without the history section?
Nergaal (
talk) 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support The topic covers all the basic types of supernovae.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 23:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I might consider supporting if the topic was renamed to the narrower "Types of Supernova". This is still a bit iffy as if I understand things right, some of the articles excluded would be types in the broader sense of the word, but not in terms of the Type numbering system. However I would probably be willing to accept this (provided you created a general navbox for all the supernova articles!) -
rst20xx (
talk) 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - looks good to me -
rst20xx (
talk) 22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Just about ready to Support - but there is a citation needed/clarify tag listed in the
WP:LEAD which should probably be addressed. Otherwise great work! Cirt (
talk) 14:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Looking at that comment I decided to hide it until the FLC. It seems like a random comment added by a new user which probably deserves more attention once reviews of the season come out.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - All FLs. ~~ ComputerGuy 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Why would album topics (that link to discography articles) not be required to include all the released songs too (that do not appear on any released album), while this topic would be required to include the webisodes which were never even released on tv or on dvd's??
Nergaal (
talk) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Because the two webseries are still made up of episodes that are part of The Office. The fact that they were broadcast on a different medium to TV is irrelevant in the 21st Century.
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email) 19:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
But an artist becomes famous and gets money also for those singles that are not covered in any album. That's why those singles are part of their discography. Yet, the CURRENT FTs on those discographies are renamed as albums and do NOT cover those singles too. I don't see where does the parallel between those album FTs and this season FTC breaks. Also, webseries<>seasons.
Nergaal (
talk) 20:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The Accountants and Kevin's Loan are by definition webisodes, not seasons of the series. This topic is "Seasons of The Office". Therefore, that argument is null and void.
Mastrchf (t/c) 23:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. The topic is "Seasons of the Office." All season articles are in the topic. The webseries are not seasons, and therefore should not be included in the topic. Just because the main article of the topic includes them does not mean that the topic includes them.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Clearly defined topic, clear addition.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk) 17:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 15:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
But maybe that topic should include that list, too. I mean, look at all these articles - they're basically details of the award in question, and then a list of past winners. With the exception of
Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy, where the list was broken off into its own article,
List of NBA champions. So I think the list should be included. It's not an award, but it's a list of who won an award -
rst20xx (
talk) 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Good job.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 22:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote - I shall promote this topic to "The Office (US TV series) season 4" -
rst20xx (
talk) 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Essentially the twin to
Wikipedia:Featured topics/New York State Route 20N, this is the 2nd of the two topics that are falling under this series. NY 20SY, like 20N was assigned over several different highways, this time, NY 5, NY 92, NY 173, NY 321 and of course, NY 20N. Like 20N, it was decommissioned and the routes it was assigned over remained the same. Now, eventually, this will grow into a Featured Topic, but right now, its sufficient enough for a good topic. (Also you could say NY 174 counts now because its part of old 20SY currently, but for now, it is unrelated.) Mitch32(
UP) 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Question is it me or the 5, 20N, etc have only a part of them overlapping with the 20SY? Are the highways listed at the bottom truly within the scope of the main article?
Nergaal (
talk) 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Basically, yes. This follows the same as NY 20N, which were two special cases of highways being assigned over pre-existing state routes. Also, there is overlap with NY 20N, but there are differences - 5, 321 are new. The routes at the bottom are just what it intersected with, that has no relation at all. Again, the only route you could add is
New York State Route 174, which makes up part of the alignment in present time. 5, 20N, 92, 173, and 321 are the alignment that 20SY used. Those intersections at the bottom have no influence on this topic.Mitch32(
UP) 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - Another roads-related topic. ~~ ComputerGuy 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Slight oppose I am unconvinced this is a valid topic. Correct me where I am wrong, but does it seem ok to have a highway 50km long that is the main article of a topic that includes highways several thousand km long? This topic seems to set the precedent for this type of example.
Nergaal (
talk) 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Um, I explicitly stated that there are only 2 of this kind. Why are you opposing when there is already a topic that has passed? There is precedent already and unless you wanna make a stink over it, there is no point in opposing it.Mitch32(
UP) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
To me it sounds like a Mississippi topic where the subarticles are the states that the river flows through. Intersecting should not be a criteria for a topic.
Nergaal (
talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Again, you has misinterpreted something. Read 20N's nomination and this nomination and you'll understand why. NONE of these are intersections, these are the routes that these two special routes followed. If I had put in the intersections, there would be at least 20 articles in this topic. I don't know what else I've said that's confusing.Mitch32(
UP) 10:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok here is an example: route 5 is 800km long, and less than 150km overlap with 20SY. How is 5 a subpart of 20SY???
Nergaal (
talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Why do you continue to do this? Read the dang article, because I can tell you are not understanding this.Mitch32(
UP) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support - I am left feeling quite uneasy that this topic shares 4/6 articles with another topic, and am unsure whether this constitutes excessive overlap, however I feel that both topics alone are structurally fine, so I shall weak support -
rst20xx (
talk) 12:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I understand you're point that it overlaps a lot, but that was part of the point with these two highways, its not something I can help.Mitch32(
UP) 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support per Juliancolton
Zginder 2008-11-10T17:22Z (
UTC)
Weak support - Seems okay, but I agree with some of the issues about overlap raised by
Rst20xx (
talk·contribs). Cirt (
talk) 14:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - I'm on the fence with this one. The overlap is a bit much, and two topics being subtopics for eachother is a bit odd. That being said, this does meet the other criteria well enough and it has its supporters. I think this should be left open for a couple more days and if there are no other objections in can probably be passed. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs) 04:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I am not going to ask that you change your votes, but, I cannot remove NY 92, 20N, and 173 from the topics, because then I would be cherry-picking. I also don't understand for whatever reason, you guys are making a problem out of this, when the prior one passed with no strings attached. Understand this, roads overlap, roads will always (on FT/GT) have at least 2 articles overlap at the least.Mitch32(
UP) 12:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The overlap suggests that that the two topics could be combined into one larger topic about this stretch of road. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs) 15:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)reply
That's a good question. Could these 2 topics be made into 1 topic, and would it make sense to do so?
Rreagan007 (
talk) 20:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Mitch, (I think I know what the answer would be but) care to comment on the feasibility of this?
rst20xx (
talk) 14:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I'll deal with it on 1 condition. Some actually help me get at least 2 articles to FA so I can keep its Featured Topic status, because even if it passes, the it will lose its Featured credit. I don't mind if they are merged, I do mind if it gets demoted.Mitch32(
Go Syracuse) 14:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote - based on Arctic Gnome's comments above, my reading is that this has consensus. I am not sure how these two topics would be made into one as they would have to have more than one lead article, something that has not been done before, and the feasibility of which would need to be discussed on the criteria page in advance -
rst20xx (
talk) 13:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Seems good to me. Of course, the more articles, the better, but the most noteworthy storms have articles. –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Juliancolton's comment has led me to ask, are there any storms that are notable enough to have articles, but do not?
rst20xx (
talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Because the 1994 season was relatively long ago, information is more scarce than it is for recent storms. Thus, only the most notable storms—those that make landfall or break several records—warrant an article. Many, if not all, of the other storms have little information outside of what is currently incorporated into the season article. –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 14:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - OK, thank you, that answers my question satisfactorily -
rst20xx (
talk) 14:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - looks good to me
Jason Rees (
talk) 23:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support, although this isn't far off Featured Topic status. Why not work to get another article to Featured status and nom it as an FT? -- Escape Artist SwyerTalkContributions 14:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
If another article in this topic becomes featured, and this topic is good, then the topic will automatically be bumped up to featured as well. So in a sense, it doesn't matter what order things are done in -
rst20xx (
talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - well written and all sub articles are GA or higher :) As stated before some more storm articles would be nice, but not having them wont prevent it from being a GT.
Cyclonebiskit (
talk) 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong support This should be quick-passed because it meets the criteria. --Dylan620 (
Home •
yadda yadda yadda •
Ooooohh!) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Close with consensus to promote -
rst20xx (
talk) 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)reply
These go with a bang!
Nergaal (
talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment This looks pretty good, but I have a concern. With
History of observations being included in the topic, the scope of the topic seems to exceed just the different types of supernovae. Because of that,
Supernova nucleosynthesis and
Supernova remnant should also probably be included in the topic. I suggest removing the History of observations article to keep the scope focused on just the different types of supernovae for now and maybe later expanding the scope of the topic once the other articles are ready. One more minor point, I think the topic title should just be "Supernova" without the "(e)." I understand what it means, but I think some people would just be confused by it.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 14:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
the point of the history article was to have some kind of listings. also, the two article you list here do not overalp at all with the history one. what do other think?
Nergaal (
talk) 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I agree with Rreagan007, and would also point to
Hypernova and
Pair-instability supernova. Additionally, I see no attempt to consult RJHall before nominating - or am I missing something?
rst20xx (
talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment—I have no issue with this proposal or the inclusion of the history; the latter is a fork from the Supernova page. But you I do agree with the proposed additions. In fact I'd go so far as to propose an expansion of scope to include all
Cataclysmic variable stars. But tht's just a notion.—
RJH (
talk) 16:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Note: ok, how about without the history section?
Nergaal (
talk) 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support The topic covers all the basic types of supernovae.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 23:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I might consider supporting if the topic was renamed to the narrower "Types of Supernova". This is still a bit iffy as if I understand things right, some of the articles excluded would be types in the broader sense of the word, but not in terms of the Type numbering system. However I would probably be willing to accept this (provided you created a general navbox for all the supernova articles!) -
rst20xx (
talk) 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply