This is my third VG Topic nom, but finally one where I played the game... all of those articles were in bad shape, with {{unferenced}}, {{cleanup}} and such. But recently huge improvements were made, with three articles pushed to GA status and one to FA.
igordebraga≠15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Kingdom Hearts II is almost ready for FA, it should be going up for nomination possibly within a few days. Should we put this FT nomination on hold until KHII passes or fails FAC? Also, should this topic be named Kingdom Hearts series, instead of Kingdom Hearts titles? That way related articles other than the game titles can be added later. (
Guyinblack2516:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC))reply
Actually, I put
another one at the FAC right now. It is "titles" because only the games are in good shape so far, once the characters and universe articles get improved can, like the
DMC one, become "KH game series", and when the music and manga go, "KH series".
igordebraga≠01:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it should be Kingdom Hearts series, or at least game series, because basically every other featured topic's name is related to the name of the lead article. After the game articles are finished I, and I believe other editors, intend to improve the support articles to at least GA to be included into the topic. Just trying to think proactively. (
Guyinblack2503:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC))reply
Put on hold, there are too many articles that are presently being improved to FA status. Let's wait for those to go full circle before considering this FTC.
Axem Titanium02:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now per the reasons explained above. Besides, you didn't even announce this FT nomination on the articles' talkpages; I wouldn't have been aware of it if I hadn't stumbled upon a message on Axem's talkpage, which doesn't concern me at all but was on my watchlist.
Kariteh08:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I've boldly moved it to the more general name. There's no sense in avoiding "series" solely because there are only titles in the current topic nom. The name is just a name; the scope is what we make of it.
Axem Titanium05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Why? The main article is "Kingdom Hearts (series)", not "Kingdom Hearts titles" or "List of Kingdom Hearts titles".
Kariteh14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, I object, for two reasons. 1) The above supporters approved of this FTC based on the previous list of articles in the nom; a good way to fix this is to speedy close this FTC and start a fresh, new one. 2) It is against FT criteria to pick and choose good articles out of the pack to include in a FT. They would be arbitrarily defined inclusion criteria, a very bad thing. In order to include Universe, both Characters and Music must reach GA and one of the three must reach FA as well. Sorry, guys, but rules are rules.
Axem Titanium15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Ok, I can't argue with the first reason. Besides I believe that there is a procedure for adding new articles into a FT, there's no hurry. Now at the risk of going off topic. I realize this might turn into a lengthy discussion, so I won't go into my reasons why I disagree with reason #2. I'll save that for a later date if it comes up. Don't get me wrong, I have every intention on trying to get the character and music articles up to GA. But at this point I'm not sure if enough content and references are available to accomplish that and I'd hate to see one of the articles that is GA excluded. If those are the rules those are the rules, but I feel that the inclusion of one by itself satisfies the rules. (
Guyinblack25talk16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC))reply
Just to clarify, the universe article would qualify as "supplementary" to the main articles and the topic would have to be defined as KH games and supplements to include universe, but since music and characters also qualify as supplements, they must be brought up first before nominating. A similar thing happened with certain parts of the Solar System FT nom.
Axem Titanium17:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it was taken by someone who put it under a Creative Common licence. Kind of like
this one which is used on the FFXII article. (These kinds of pictures are also used in Wikipedias in which fair-use screenshots are not allowed, like on the French Wikipedia.)
Kariteh22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, I know this is off topic, but does that mean I could take a picture of some of my KH merchandise, say like a group photo of the formation arts and playarts figures for use in maybe a merchandise section in the KH characters article? (
Guyinblack25talk22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC))reply
Unfortunately, photographs of toys of copyrighted characters like that are
Commons:Derivative works and that image will have to be deleted from Commons. I suggest you look for a different key image—something that's evocative of the series, maybe a simple
heart or something.--
Pharos04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Excuse me, it looked like a toy—but it doesn't make a difference anyway in this case. Freedom of panorama only applies to permanent statues (
commons:Freedom of panorama) when it does apply, and it doesn't apply to statues at all under American law. Canadian law thankfully does permit freedom of panorama for statues, and since your other examples seem to be permanent structures, they are all OK for us.--
Pharos17:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)reply
That key image wouldn't be bad. I have a question though, where did the image for the Final Fantasy topics come from? Could we make something similar for this topic image? (
Guyinblack25talk16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC))reply
This is my third VG Topic nom, but finally one where I played the game... all of those articles were in bad shape, with {{unferenced}}, {{cleanup}} and such. But recently huge improvements were made, with three articles pushed to GA status and one to FA.
igordebraga≠15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Kingdom Hearts II is almost ready for FA, it should be going up for nomination possibly within a few days. Should we put this FT nomination on hold until KHII passes or fails FAC? Also, should this topic be named Kingdom Hearts series, instead of Kingdom Hearts titles? That way related articles other than the game titles can be added later. (
Guyinblack2516:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC))reply
Actually, I put
another one at the FAC right now. It is "titles" because only the games are in good shape so far, once the characters and universe articles get improved can, like the
DMC one, become "KH game series", and when the music and manga go, "KH series".
igordebraga≠01:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it should be Kingdom Hearts series, or at least game series, because basically every other featured topic's name is related to the name of the lead article. After the game articles are finished I, and I believe other editors, intend to improve the support articles to at least GA to be included into the topic. Just trying to think proactively. (
Guyinblack2503:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC))reply
Put on hold, there are too many articles that are presently being improved to FA status. Let's wait for those to go full circle before considering this FTC.
Axem Titanium02:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now per the reasons explained above. Besides, you didn't even announce this FT nomination on the articles' talkpages; I wouldn't have been aware of it if I hadn't stumbled upon a message on Axem's talkpage, which doesn't concern me at all but was on my watchlist.
Kariteh08:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I've boldly moved it to the more general name. There's no sense in avoiding "series" solely because there are only titles in the current topic nom. The name is just a name; the scope is what we make of it.
Axem Titanium05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Why? The main article is "Kingdom Hearts (series)", not "Kingdom Hearts titles" or "List of Kingdom Hearts titles".
Kariteh14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, I object, for two reasons. 1) The above supporters approved of this FTC based on the previous list of articles in the nom; a good way to fix this is to speedy close this FTC and start a fresh, new one. 2) It is against FT criteria to pick and choose good articles out of the pack to include in a FT. They would be arbitrarily defined inclusion criteria, a very bad thing. In order to include Universe, both Characters and Music must reach GA and one of the three must reach FA as well. Sorry, guys, but rules are rules.
Axem Titanium15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Ok, I can't argue with the first reason. Besides I believe that there is a procedure for adding new articles into a FT, there's no hurry. Now at the risk of going off topic. I realize this might turn into a lengthy discussion, so I won't go into my reasons why I disagree with reason #2. I'll save that for a later date if it comes up. Don't get me wrong, I have every intention on trying to get the character and music articles up to GA. But at this point I'm not sure if enough content and references are available to accomplish that and I'd hate to see one of the articles that is GA excluded. If those are the rules those are the rules, but I feel that the inclusion of one by itself satisfies the rules. (
Guyinblack25talk16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC))reply
Just to clarify, the universe article would qualify as "supplementary" to the main articles and the topic would have to be defined as KH games and supplements to include universe, but since music and characters also qualify as supplements, they must be brought up first before nominating. A similar thing happened with certain parts of the Solar System FT nom.
Axem Titanium17:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it was taken by someone who put it under a Creative Common licence. Kind of like
this one which is used on the FFXII article. (These kinds of pictures are also used in Wikipedias in which fair-use screenshots are not allowed, like on the French Wikipedia.)
Kariteh22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, I know this is off topic, but does that mean I could take a picture of some of my KH merchandise, say like a group photo of the formation arts and playarts figures for use in maybe a merchandise section in the KH characters article? (
Guyinblack25talk22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC))reply
Unfortunately, photographs of toys of copyrighted characters like that are
Commons:Derivative works and that image will have to be deleted from Commons. I suggest you look for a different key image—something that's evocative of the series, maybe a simple
heart or something.--
Pharos04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Excuse me, it looked like a toy—but it doesn't make a difference anyway in this case. Freedom of panorama only applies to permanent statues (
commons:Freedom of panorama) when it does apply, and it doesn't apply to statues at all under American law. Canadian law thankfully does permit freedom of panorama for statues, and since your other examples seem to be permanent structures, they are all OK for us.--
Pharos17:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)reply
That key image wouldn't be bad. I have a question though, where did the image for the Final Fantasy topics come from? Could we make something similar for this topic image? (
Guyinblack25talk16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC))reply