Violation of criterion 1d. If our goal is comprehensiveness, this unfortunately does not make the cut. If the Simpsons topics can make notable and GA-class articles for every one of its episodes, then president has been set and Smallville should be able to make articles for each of its episodes too. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
04:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
1D does not state that you must make every subtopic its own article. It specifically states: "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." -- Funny, as there are no "obvious" gaps. An "obvious gap" would be the topic not including articles that ALREADY EXIST. I believe that you are missing the point of both the 1D criteria, and
WP:NOTE,
WP:FICT, and
WP:PLOT. The fact that 19 out of the 21 episodes are not notable enough to have their own articles does not change the fact that this topic meets the basic criteria for featured topic status. Also, not every show is The Simpsons (i.e. most shows don't last 20 years and develop the type of coverage The Simpsons does). So, if you have a problem with that, you might want to spend your time changing WP:NOTE and WP:FICT before coming here and trying to do it. The argument for removal has not grounds, as #1D is not referring to "creating articles" but whether or not there are missing pages to articles already in existence. P.S. If you've looked at the season 1 page, you'll note that it's actually the most comprehensive season article (note the intentional use of "article") on Wikipedia.
BIGNOLE (Contact me)04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I too disagree with removal. There needs to be an assertion with proof by Arctic Gnome or someone that there is sufficient evidence that the other episodes of Smallville's first season are sufficiently notable to warrant articles.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
My past reading of the "missing article" criterion does, indeed, apply to non-existent articles. Otherwise, you could do something silly like nominate a "presidents of country X" topic and leave out the boring president from 1890 that no one wrote an article about. I'm fairly sure that there have been a couple past topics that necessitated the creation of a new article before they were called comprehensive, though the only one I can remember off of the top of my head is the "National symbols of Belarus" topic, which is not a perfect parallel. Of course not every TV show can make articles about every episode, but in this case we are talking about a show that ran for eight seasons about the most iconic character in comic books. Such sources tend to generate lots of reliable sources in the form of books with titles such as "Inside Smallville" or "Philosophy of Smallville", are there truly no such publications for this series? I find it difficult to accept that no independent sources can be found that discuss these episodes enough to make them notable when there apparently are such sources for shows like Lost and the later, less popular, seasons of The Simpsons. That being said, the lead article is very good, and I'd like to see something done with it in FT, but I do not think that this show is obscure enough to violate the precedent that has been set regarding "season X" topics. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
14:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, what you're talking about is a show based on an iconic character that hasn't been popular for some time. Superman Returns was a flop. The comic books haven't sold well in almost a decade, and Smallville resides on the WB (not the CW), which IS an obscure television station. It gets no where near the publicity of shows like Heroes and House, which are are (not only at different times) but much larger networks that can afford to promote their shows on multiple stations. When was the last time you saw an advertisment (not for the DVD) for Smallville that wasn't on the CW? I've been writing these Smallville pages for years; I believe that I have exhausted just about all possible avenues to find reliable, professional reviews for these episodes. They don't exist. There is a lot of crap out there that doesn't actually "review" the episode, but gives a passing judgement of "it was good" (which is not an establishment of notability, not even if 100 professionals simply say "it was good"). As for the book titles you're talking about. The only books that are published about Smallville are the ones commished by the owners, Warner Bros.. Those are the companion books, which are already used as sources in the season articles. Unless there is a crap load of production information that would warrant a split from the main article, simple primary source information like that does not mean it is notable. Also, any books written about Smallville in general, will most like be just that, a general like at Smallville the television show and would be used at
Smallville (TV series). Just to assist some, here is a
Google books search, and a
Google scholar search. I either already own any directly related book material out there, or I have saved all the PDFs that contain journal articles written about the show. None contain detailed looks at the individual episodes. Here's a
Google News search for 2002. If you look at the abstracts and the titles, these aren't article about individual episodes, with the exception of the pilot (which you can see based on the dates of the articles). Here's one from
2003, to give you an idea of what the news results are for the entire first season of the show. They're all primarily about the show in general. You mention the fact that it is in its 8th season, but you have to remember what I said, it's on an obscure network. Four million viewers a week on a network like NBC or FOX will most likely get you cancelled. Four million viewers on the WB and the CW makes you their highest rated scripted show.
BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with Bignole and Judgesurreal777. I have to go do something, I plan to elaborate later.
Zginder 2008-09-27T07:02Z (
UTC)
Keep. I have to agree with the above comments. While I think it is great that the Simpsons wikiproject has been able to accomplish their goal of making an article for every episode in a season, there are
questions as to the notability of doing such a thing. I'm not a huge fan of this topic, but I think it meets the requeirements. The pilot and season finale are certainly the most notable episodes in the first season, and they are included. Unless someone can demonstrate that another episode in season one is notable enough that we should require an article on it, I vote for keeping the topic.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If find it amusing that I'm accused of misinterpreting the criteria given how long I've been working with them. Granted, the meanings of the rules have changed over time and even now are not always clear, but the fundamental purpose of FT is to promote comprehensiveness, and that requires both quality in a topics existing articles and the existence of those articles in the first place. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep but with one caveat: Comprehensiveness is met due to the main article for the topic covering the episodes that "complete" this set, but I would like to see redirects made for each episode (or when they overlap with disamb, an entry in the proper place), so that they are technically searchable. But making full episode articles without appropriate information will lead to AFD and edit wars with the current state of notability; AGF that the editors have found all sources they can,there's no point in tempting that fate. --
MASEM19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: Bignole has done an excellent job with the Smallville articles on Wikipedia and this topic does meet the criteria, however, I still have a problem with it. For example, take a couple articles that I wrote,
Eggtown and
Something Nice Back Home. They are both as comprehensive as can be, yet I am not about to nominate them for FA status because I do not feel that they are comprehensive (period). While the group of articles in this topic are comprehensive as can be, I would not necessarily say that they are comprehensive. –thedemonhogtalk •
edits23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - per my arguments in the topic's FTC. There is no need to create articles that are clearly not notable for the sake of the topic. If the topic is comprehensive, it is comprehensive. sephiroth bcr(
converse)23:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep There are no obvious gaps in the topic. Using non-existent articles to claim lack of comprehensiveness should only be used when there's sufficient evidence to suggest the missing articles should exist.
Jay32183 (
talk)
11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I was just using that to show that there are questions about whether every episode is notable enough for its own article. I think it's a gray area, so if someone (like the simpsons wikiproject) wants to spend the time doing it, I'm ok with it. But it shouldn't be required for the completeness of a topic that every episode have its own article. And I've seen a lot of the episodes from season one of Smallville. Most of them are all the same thing: meteor freak gets created, Clark pines after Lana, meteor freak goes crazy and starts killing people, Clark saves the day. Most of them don't deserve their own article if you ask me.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Perhaps relegate to GT? I strongly believe that smaller topics should be allowed to become "quality topics" to encourage people to work on such articles. Nevertheless, it might be a bit unfair for the other featured topics that are 100% complete. I think GTs can fill the gaps between a fully complete topic, and topics that are comprehensive but may not cover quite everything.
Nergaal (
talk)
16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Firs, nothing is 100% complete (ever). In fact, nothing in life is ever 100% true. Regardless, you cannot compare Smallville to The Simpsons, or any other show on Wikipedia for that matter. The reason being, no other show on here (that's zero percent) is set up the way Smallville is. Smallville is currently the only show that has season articles, as opposed to season lists. That's because, a part from The Simpsons and maybe a couple of others, all of those other shows refuse to acknowledge that there is no significant coverage from reliable sources about their individual episodes and create them regardless. The idea of a featured topic, and a featured article for that matter, is comprehensiveness. What featured topic does not state is that comprehensiveness equates to an individual article on every subtopic within the larger topic. In Smallville's case, the season 1 article is a comprehensive look at all of the episodes that could not have their own article because significant sources independent of the subject did not exist. Good topics are for articles that are not featured. This is not the case here, as all but one are featured (and the "one" might soon be going up for featured status ...or the potentially new "featured short article" category if that is passed). Featured topics have a limit, three articles, which this topic meets. This topic is comprehensive, as everything you would find with a topic of 22 articles is found here with the 3 articles. There is no difference other than the fact that there just are not 20 separate pages.
BIGNOLE (Contact me)16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree with this comment by
Bignole (
talk·contribs). This topic satisfies
WP:WIAFA, and so relegating it to
WP:GT is not an appropriate solution here. It seems that the general above consensus is to "Keep" its featured topic status, as it is indeed comprehensive. Cirt (
talk)
18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge to FFVIII and Chocobo articles - I do not believe the article has sufficient notability for its own article, and should be merged into those two articles and taken out of the topic.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove Chocobo World. It's just a minigame, not very needed (unlike the directly-related articles such as world and characters).
igordebraga≠23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - So Chocobo World was added to the topic, just because it achieved GA status, and not for the relevance to the topic? And now that it's lost that status, you're voting to remove it from the topic? This looks a lot like cherry picking. -
hahnchen17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment -
Chocobo World has been flagged as requiring further citations, yet it is not clear at first glance (hunting for citation-needed flags) what is missing. What the article does need is a lot of cleanup to meet standards, particularly in the following areas:
Referencing - references need to be brought up to date
Development - merge in Audio section, expand.
Story - expand using information from existing cited sources
Gameplay - link through to existing cited sources and fill in the blanks as needed. Compact where possible.
I think these are minor issues that can be resolved to bring the article back up to GA status. It's a bit of work, but it's definitely doable in a short timeframe. The major delay would be getting the article relisted as GA to meet FT criteria.
Gazimoff (
talk)
20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have proposed a merger of Chocobo World with Final Fantasy VIII. Chocobo World wont improve because it doesn't have enough reliable sourcing to get back to GA status, and will make a nice paragraph within the main FFVIII article.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Observation - Chocobo World wasn't even released as a stand alone game if memory serves me right. As a result, it really shouldn't have its own article. What about incorporating Chocobo World into
Minigames of Final Fantasy instead of
Final Fantasy VIII. After all, it is more of a minigame than a stand-alone game and doesn't belong in the main FFVIII article just as
Triple Triad doesnt. -
Noj r (
talk)
21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Update I have added Chocobo World as a section of minigames of Final Fantasy. I left out the audio, reception, and development sections because there were no citations and are not very notable. I am archiving the Chocobo World talk page and adding it to the minigames of Final Fantasy talk page. The chocobo world article has been changed to a redirect page and now points to chocobo world in the minigame article. Feel free to alter the chocobo world section if you wish. Chocobo World needs to be removed from the topic now. I dont know how to do that though. --
Noj r (
talk)
21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep now that Chocobo World is gone, all issues are addressed. I have put the reception section from Chocobo World into the Minigames article- it's useful content, and notable. --
PresN (
talk)
23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep: Of course I'm nominating for keep. Should we wait for a consensus before removing chocobo world from the topic and closing this assessment? After all, its basically a no-brainer. There is nothing to contend about now. --
Noj r (
talk)
00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Sigh, what is there to say? FIII needs more references but there aren't that many for it, and FFVII was totally fixable but no one was interested. I supposed it will come back within a year, once it has some more work done to it.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove Each article covers a very large subject in itself, and information updates are regularly needed all over the series; perhaps this topic is simply too huge to be manageable for the time being. Featured (sub)topics might be a more realistic goal for these articles for now. The FFVIII subtopic has always managed to maintain its high quality. Once more subtopics are produced I believe this main topic will become more easily manageable.
Kariteh (
talk)
16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't think this is too huge to work. Once each games gets a GA or FA, demotions should be rare, and it isn't asking too much to get each new game in the main series up to GA when they are released every other year. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove This topic was already kept once because of
Gerrymandering.
Zginder 2008-06-10T18:15Z (
UTC)
Remove. I'm sad to say it, but this topic does not currently meet the criteria. I do believe, however, it can be renominated quite quickly, and I'm planning on getting FFVII to at least GA status. When the next candidacy is up, I would like to see FFX-2 and Mystic Quest removed, as they are not part to the main series.
The Prince (
talk)
19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, this topic no longer meets the featured topic criterion 1.d. ("obvious gap") since Devil May Cry 4 was released on January 31, 2008 and hasn't been added to the FT yet, due to its failure to reach GA status. The grace period of three months has passed, so it is time for this topic to be demoted.
Kariteh (
talk)
13:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Has the editors involved, the Wikiproject and featured talk page, been notified of this?
Zginder 2008-05-17T13:23Z (
UTC)
Lovely, evidently no one noticed that I already began placing footnote templates in the article, and did so with a note saying: "begining FA push", with the rest of the project either inactive or not editing the page it will take a while but the article should be at GAC in around two weeks after
Puerto Rican Amazon is nominated, thanks a lot for not leaving a message on the article's or my talk page before opening a FTR. -
Caribbean~H.Q.13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Mmh, no need to give ironic thanks, I could thank you in the same way for not replying on the two talk pages links I mentioned above. The topic no longer meets the criteria, and thus it should have been nominated for removal on April 30 or May 1 (three months after the game's release date). If Devil May Cry will be at GAC in two weeks from now (May 31) and will pass, then the topic will be re-nominated at FTC and will pass again, that's all. The problem is that the topic can't and shouldn't be left in an unproper status for an entire month (from May 1 to May 31), especially since there are a lot of people currently criticizing the quality of the video game articles. It's just a question of credibility: featured topics are supposed to be "Wikipedia's best work".
Kariteh (
talk)
14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
It takes a minimum of a fortnight to demote. If you can get it to be a GAC by the n I do not think it will be demoted unless if fails.
Zginder 2008-05-17T16:26Z (
UTC)
Hold — I'd recommend a hold until June 1. That would give editors a fortnight to build up the needed article to GA quality (and please contact me if you need a reviewer -- I hate to see FTs cast away).
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove per nominator.
Zginder 2008-05-30T17:15Z (
UTC)
It's June 1 and Devil May Cry 4 is nowhere near GA status. I hate to see this topic tossed out, but once DMC4 is promoted, the topic can be re-nominated. --
haha169 (
talk)
23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Don’t worry. As I said, once DMC4 is promoted, you can re-nominate the topic. Its not incredibly difficult. But for now, I think we have to demote this topic. --
haha169 (
talk)
02:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)reply
For this topic's first FTRC nomination,
click here.
This topic contains a B-class article, violating criterion #3. It also is missing several articles about the topic with no justification, violating criterion #1(d). This topic will have used up its grace period by the time this nomination closes. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Reluctant Removal - It appears that this above named topic is much larger than the selection of articles listed below it. They should make a more focused topic about the university, such as Academics or some such.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
01:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Remove per nomination. You can't simply pick a handful of articles that fit the topic. The purpose is that all articles need to be at least good, if not featured. --
rm 'w avu12:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)reply
This topic has no lead article and thus violates criterion #2. The only possible lead article,
Star Wars is only B-class. This topic will have used up its grace period by the time this nomination closes. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)reply
RemovalKeepRemoveKeep This is definitely not the Star Wars topic, but simply a collection of the six articles on the films. The topic is much more expansive, including all kinds of media & etc.-
BillDeanCarter (
talk)
22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
You are correct that this is not the Star Wars topic. It is the Star Wars episodes topic, of which there are 6 and they are all either FAs or GAs, so the topic is complete. The question is whether it meets Criteria #2 "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article." and, by extention I guess, whether Criteria #2 is an absolute requirement or a flexible policy. --
maclean02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
You're right. The topic is complete as far as concerned, and unless someone can suggest an intro article that must be there and what it would constitute there isn't anything to be done about it.-
BillDeanCarter (
talk)
06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - There's no way a centralised article could be created to encompass the films. There is a category for the films and if necessary, I'm certain that this can be expanded as a kind of an article itself, but there's no criteria for the quality of display of a category page. --
lincalinca08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
There are no critiria for the quality of categories, but there is a criterion that featured topics have "an introductory and summary lead article", which this topic does not. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep In this case, I think the rules are at fault. The topic is complete. All six Star Wars films meet GA or FA criteria. It just seems silly to drop it because of a technicality.
WP:Ignore all rules seems to apply here. The general goal of featured topics is to feature series of articles covering the same subject. In this case, the subject = Star Wars films. There is no Star Wars films article. Big deal. We know the articles are good and that's what matters. I say keep it. I also think we should add a qualifies to that rule saying that topics should have "an introductory and summary lead article if such an article exists" or something like that.
Wrad (
talk)
04:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
If no lead article can be written to summarize a topic, than it isn't really a whole, unified subject worthy of being grouped as an FT. In this case, there already is an article that summarizes all six others: the
main Star Wars article. If that article was GA or higher, the topic could stay, but it is not. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
07:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
It seems ridiculous to me to claim that this is not a "whole, unified subject worthy of being grouped". It also seems ridiculous to require the Star Wars article to be the lead. It wouldn't be an appropriate lead. It summarizes the films, yes, but also the comics, the action figures, the popular culture, the novel series... Just doesn't make any sense to me. The only logical lead would be
Star Wars film series, along the lines of
Spider-man film series, but that article doesn't even exist. That communicates to me that no one feels that such an article is important enough to be included on wikipedia. If that attitude changed, then maybe it would be right to remove it (there is actually a discussion about the issue
here, but I just feel that it shouldn't be removed on such a technicality. I feel that it would hurt wikipedia not to feature this excellent article series.
Wrad (
talk)
22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
So maybe instead of removing this featured topic, let's give it a bit more time and figure out exactly what the intro article should be. There definitely is an intro article here that could be written, and I would suggest something more academic, looking at the themes, mythology & etc that is pervasive in the Star Wars episodes, rather than the entire Star Wars canon.-
BillDeanCarter (
talk)
22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree that an intro article could be written on the films. There is defiantly enough information about plot, making-of, and themes to write at least a GA-quality article about the films as a whole. However, I disagree with BillDeanCarter suggestion that we keep the topic until such an article is writen. This topic clearly violates one of the three major criteria for inclusion; I see no reason why this topic needs to have an exception to those rules made for it. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove. Plainly does not meet criteria. The WikiProject was informed months ago that
Star Wars (or another chosen lead aricle) would have to get to GA by Jan 2008.--
Pharos (
talk)
06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
AHEM!! Well, I've just created a potential lead article which centrally discusses the episodic films only. It's
Star Wars theatrical films. It's nowhere near GA at the moment, but with a little TLC and a lot of references, we should be able to get it there before long. Could this discussion be placed on hold pending vast improvements to that article (I think the title's more appropriate than Star Wars film series)? Maybe give it, say, a week or so? It shouldn't take that much to get it to find its feet. Most of the references and info can be found on other Wikipages. --
lincalinca13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Bingo! With such strong articles on each film, and an article on the franchise, a merger would make good sense without this extra consideration. --
kingboyk (
talk)
01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)reply
This discussion can certainly be put on hold while you fix up that article. If you ask for a GA assessment for your new article within the next few days, this discussion shall not be closed until the review is made. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Remove - I played a secondary role in to
User:The Filmaker in guiding these articles to FA, and even I must say that the rules are clear about Featured article requirements and they are correct, a lead article is needed and there is not one. I hope this will spur people to create a GA one so it can be brought back soon.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove or remove the rule about having a lead article. As it stands, this has to be removed and it's not even worth debating. Better outcome: get
Star Wars up to GA or FA and come back, hopefully real soon! --
kingboyk (
talk)
01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Close as "remove" Although there are some keep votes, I am closing this discussion as a removal. All of the keep votes are critiquing the criterion itself rather than how this topic relates to that existing rule. Those who voted to "keep" are encouraged to propose an amendment to the featured topic criteria to allow for a situation like this, but for now this topic will be judged by the rules as they currently stand. It should also be noted that the article being written as a possible lead article has been deleted during the course of this discussion. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Violation of criterion 1d. If our goal is comprehensiveness, this unfortunately does not make the cut. If the Simpsons topics can make notable and GA-class articles for every one of its episodes, then president has been set and Smallville should be able to make articles for each of its episodes too. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
04:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
1D does not state that you must make every subtopic its own article. It specifically states: "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." -- Funny, as there are no "obvious" gaps. An "obvious gap" would be the topic not including articles that ALREADY EXIST. I believe that you are missing the point of both the 1D criteria, and
WP:NOTE,
WP:FICT, and
WP:PLOT. The fact that 19 out of the 21 episodes are not notable enough to have their own articles does not change the fact that this topic meets the basic criteria for featured topic status. Also, not every show is The Simpsons (i.e. most shows don't last 20 years and develop the type of coverage The Simpsons does). So, if you have a problem with that, you might want to spend your time changing WP:NOTE and WP:FICT before coming here and trying to do it. The argument for removal has not grounds, as #1D is not referring to "creating articles" but whether or not there are missing pages to articles already in existence. P.S. If you've looked at the season 1 page, you'll note that it's actually the most comprehensive season article (note the intentional use of "article") on Wikipedia.
BIGNOLE (Contact me)04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I too disagree with removal. There needs to be an assertion with proof by Arctic Gnome or someone that there is sufficient evidence that the other episodes of Smallville's first season are sufficiently notable to warrant articles.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
My past reading of the "missing article" criterion does, indeed, apply to non-existent articles. Otherwise, you could do something silly like nominate a "presidents of country X" topic and leave out the boring president from 1890 that no one wrote an article about. I'm fairly sure that there have been a couple past topics that necessitated the creation of a new article before they were called comprehensive, though the only one I can remember off of the top of my head is the "National symbols of Belarus" topic, which is not a perfect parallel. Of course not every TV show can make articles about every episode, but in this case we are talking about a show that ran for eight seasons about the most iconic character in comic books. Such sources tend to generate lots of reliable sources in the form of books with titles such as "Inside Smallville" or "Philosophy of Smallville", are there truly no such publications for this series? I find it difficult to accept that no independent sources can be found that discuss these episodes enough to make them notable when there apparently are such sources for shows like Lost and the later, less popular, seasons of The Simpsons. That being said, the lead article is very good, and I'd like to see something done with it in FT, but I do not think that this show is obscure enough to violate the precedent that has been set regarding "season X" topics. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
14:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, what you're talking about is a show based on an iconic character that hasn't been popular for some time. Superman Returns was a flop. The comic books haven't sold well in almost a decade, and Smallville resides on the WB (not the CW), which IS an obscure television station. It gets no where near the publicity of shows like Heroes and House, which are are (not only at different times) but much larger networks that can afford to promote their shows on multiple stations. When was the last time you saw an advertisment (not for the DVD) for Smallville that wasn't on the CW? I've been writing these Smallville pages for years; I believe that I have exhausted just about all possible avenues to find reliable, professional reviews for these episodes. They don't exist. There is a lot of crap out there that doesn't actually "review" the episode, but gives a passing judgement of "it was good" (which is not an establishment of notability, not even if 100 professionals simply say "it was good"). As for the book titles you're talking about. The only books that are published about Smallville are the ones commished by the owners, Warner Bros.. Those are the companion books, which are already used as sources in the season articles. Unless there is a crap load of production information that would warrant a split from the main article, simple primary source information like that does not mean it is notable. Also, any books written about Smallville in general, will most like be just that, a general like at Smallville the television show and would be used at
Smallville (TV series). Just to assist some, here is a
Google books search, and a
Google scholar search. I either already own any directly related book material out there, or I have saved all the PDFs that contain journal articles written about the show. None contain detailed looks at the individual episodes. Here's a
Google News search for 2002. If you look at the abstracts and the titles, these aren't article about individual episodes, with the exception of the pilot (which you can see based on the dates of the articles). Here's one from
2003, to give you an idea of what the news results are for the entire first season of the show. They're all primarily about the show in general. You mention the fact that it is in its 8th season, but you have to remember what I said, it's on an obscure network. Four million viewers a week on a network like NBC or FOX will most likely get you cancelled. Four million viewers on the WB and the CW makes you their highest rated scripted show.
BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with Bignole and Judgesurreal777. I have to go do something, I plan to elaborate later.
Zginder 2008-09-27T07:02Z (
UTC)
Keep. I have to agree with the above comments. While I think it is great that the Simpsons wikiproject has been able to accomplish their goal of making an article for every episode in a season, there are
questions as to the notability of doing such a thing. I'm not a huge fan of this topic, but I think it meets the requeirements. The pilot and season finale are certainly the most notable episodes in the first season, and they are included. Unless someone can demonstrate that another episode in season one is notable enough that we should require an article on it, I vote for keeping the topic.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If find it amusing that I'm accused of misinterpreting the criteria given how long I've been working with them. Granted, the meanings of the rules have changed over time and even now are not always clear, but the fundamental purpose of FT is to promote comprehensiveness, and that requires both quality in a topics existing articles and the existence of those articles in the first place. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep but with one caveat: Comprehensiveness is met due to the main article for the topic covering the episodes that "complete" this set, but I would like to see redirects made for each episode (or when they overlap with disamb, an entry in the proper place), so that they are technically searchable. But making full episode articles without appropriate information will lead to AFD and edit wars with the current state of notability; AGF that the editors have found all sources they can,there's no point in tempting that fate. --
MASEM19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: Bignole has done an excellent job with the Smallville articles on Wikipedia and this topic does meet the criteria, however, I still have a problem with it. For example, take a couple articles that I wrote,
Eggtown and
Something Nice Back Home. They are both as comprehensive as can be, yet I am not about to nominate them for FA status because I do not feel that they are comprehensive (period). While the group of articles in this topic are comprehensive as can be, I would not necessarily say that they are comprehensive. –thedemonhogtalk •
edits23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - per my arguments in the topic's FTC. There is no need to create articles that are clearly not notable for the sake of the topic. If the topic is comprehensive, it is comprehensive. sephiroth bcr(
converse)23:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep There are no obvious gaps in the topic. Using non-existent articles to claim lack of comprehensiveness should only be used when there's sufficient evidence to suggest the missing articles should exist.
Jay32183 (
talk)
11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I was just using that to show that there are questions about whether every episode is notable enough for its own article. I think it's a gray area, so if someone (like the simpsons wikiproject) wants to spend the time doing it, I'm ok with it. But it shouldn't be required for the completeness of a topic that every episode have its own article. And I've seen a lot of the episodes from season one of Smallville. Most of them are all the same thing: meteor freak gets created, Clark pines after Lana, meteor freak goes crazy and starts killing people, Clark saves the day. Most of them don't deserve their own article if you ask me.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Perhaps relegate to GT? I strongly believe that smaller topics should be allowed to become "quality topics" to encourage people to work on such articles. Nevertheless, it might be a bit unfair for the other featured topics that are 100% complete. I think GTs can fill the gaps between a fully complete topic, and topics that are comprehensive but may not cover quite everything.
Nergaal (
talk)
16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Firs, nothing is 100% complete (ever). In fact, nothing in life is ever 100% true. Regardless, you cannot compare Smallville to The Simpsons, or any other show on Wikipedia for that matter. The reason being, no other show on here (that's zero percent) is set up the way Smallville is. Smallville is currently the only show that has season articles, as opposed to season lists. That's because, a part from The Simpsons and maybe a couple of others, all of those other shows refuse to acknowledge that there is no significant coverage from reliable sources about their individual episodes and create them regardless. The idea of a featured topic, and a featured article for that matter, is comprehensiveness. What featured topic does not state is that comprehensiveness equates to an individual article on every subtopic within the larger topic. In Smallville's case, the season 1 article is a comprehensive look at all of the episodes that could not have their own article because significant sources independent of the subject did not exist. Good topics are for articles that are not featured. This is not the case here, as all but one are featured (and the "one" might soon be going up for featured status ...or the potentially new "featured short article" category if that is passed). Featured topics have a limit, three articles, which this topic meets. This topic is comprehensive, as everything you would find with a topic of 22 articles is found here with the 3 articles. There is no difference other than the fact that there just are not 20 separate pages.
BIGNOLE (Contact me)16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree with this comment by
Bignole (
talk·contribs). This topic satisfies
WP:WIAFA, and so relegating it to
WP:GT is not an appropriate solution here. It seems that the general above consensus is to "Keep" its featured topic status, as it is indeed comprehensive. Cirt (
talk)
18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge to FFVIII and Chocobo articles - I do not believe the article has sufficient notability for its own article, and should be merged into those two articles and taken out of the topic.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove Chocobo World. It's just a minigame, not very needed (unlike the directly-related articles such as world and characters).
igordebraga≠23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - So Chocobo World was added to the topic, just because it achieved GA status, and not for the relevance to the topic? And now that it's lost that status, you're voting to remove it from the topic? This looks a lot like cherry picking. -
hahnchen17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment -
Chocobo World has been flagged as requiring further citations, yet it is not clear at first glance (hunting for citation-needed flags) what is missing. What the article does need is a lot of cleanup to meet standards, particularly in the following areas:
Referencing - references need to be brought up to date
Development - merge in Audio section, expand.
Story - expand using information from existing cited sources
Gameplay - link through to existing cited sources and fill in the blanks as needed. Compact where possible.
I think these are minor issues that can be resolved to bring the article back up to GA status. It's a bit of work, but it's definitely doable in a short timeframe. The major delay would be getting the article relisted as GA to meet FT criteria.
Gazimoff (
talk)
20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have proposed a merger of Chocobo World with Final Fantasy VIII. Chocobo World wont improve because it doesn't have enough reliable sourcing to get back to GA status, and will make a nice paragraph within the main FFVIII article.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Observation - Chocobo World wasn't even released as a stand alone game if memory serves me right. As a result, it really shouldn't have its own article. What about incorporating Chocobo World into
Minigames of Final Fantasy instead of
Final Fantasy VIII. After all, it is more of a minigame than a stand-alone game and doesn't belong in the main FFVIII article just as
Triple Triad doesnt. -
Noj r (
talk)
21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Update I have added Chocobo World as a section of minigames of Final Fantasy. I left out the audio, reception, and development sections because there were no citations and are not very notable. I am archiving the Chocobo World talk page and adding it to the minigames of Final Fantasy talk page. The chocobo world article has been changed to a redirect page and now points to chocobo world in the minigame article. Feel free to alter the chocobo world section if you wish. Chocobo World needs to be removed from the topic now. I dont know how to do that though. --
Noj r (
talk)
21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep now that Chocobo World is gone, all issues are addressed. I have put the reception section from Chocobo World into the Minigames article- it's useful content, and notable. --
PresN (
talk)
23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep: Of course I'm nominating for keep. Should we wait for a consensus before removing chocobo world from the topic and closing this assessment? After all, its basically a no-brainer. There is nothing to contend about now. --
Noj r (
talk)
00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Sigh, what is there to say? FIII needs more references but there aren't that many for it, and FFVII was totally fixable but no one was interested. I supposed it will come back within a year, once it has some more work done to it.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove Each article covers a very large subject in itself, and information updates are regularly needed all over the series; perhaps this topic is simply too huge to be manageable for the time being. Featured (sub)topics might be a more realistic goal for these articles for now. The FFVIII subtopic has always managed to maintain its high quality. Once more subtopics are produced I believe this main topic will become more easily manageable.
Kariteh (
talk)
16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't think this is too huge to work. Once each games gets a GA or FA, demotions should be rare, and it isn't asking too much to get each new game in the main series up to GA when they are released every other year. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove This topic was already kept once because of
Gerrymandering.
Zginder 2008-06-10T18:15Z (
UTC)
Remove. I'm sad to say it, but this topic does not currently meet the criteria. I do believe, however, it can be renominated quite quickly, and I'm planning on getting FFVII to at least GA status. When the next candidacy is up, I would like to see FFX-2 and Mystic Quest removed, as they are not part to the main series.
The Prince (
talk)
19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, this topic no longer meets the featured topic criterion 1.d. ("obvious gap") since Devil May Cry 4 was released on January 31, 2008 and hasn't been added to the FT yet, due to its failure to reach GA status. The grace period of three months has passed, so it is time for this topic to be demoted.
Kariteh (
talk)
13:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Has the editors involved, the Wikiproject and featured talk page, been notified of this?
Zginder 2008-05-17T13:23Z (
UTC)
Lovely, evidently no one noticed that I already began placing footnote templates in the article, and did so with a note saying: "begining FA push", with the rest of the project either inactive or not editing the page it will take a while but the article should be at GAC in around two weeks after
Puerto Rican Amazon is nominated, thanks a lot for not leaving a message on the article's or my talk page before opening a FTR. -
Caribbean~H.Q.13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Mmh, no need to give ironic thanks, I could thank you in the same way for not replying on the two talk pages links I mentioned above. The topic no longer meets the criteria, and thus it should have been nominated for removal on April 30 or May 1 (three months after the game's release date). If Devil May Cry will be at GAC in two weeks from now (May 31) and will pass, then the topic will be re-nominated at FTC and will pass again, that's all. The problem is that the topic can't and shouldn't be left in an unproper status for an entire month (from May 1 to May 31), especially since there are a lot of people currently criticizing the quality of the video game articles. It's just a question of credibility: featured topics are supposed to be "Wikipedia's best work".
Kariteh (
talk)
14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
It takes a minimum of a fortnight to demote. If you can get it to be a GAC by the n I do not think it will be demoted unless if fails.
Zginder 2008-05-17T16:26Z (
UTC)
Hold — I'd recommend a hold until June 1. That would give editors a fortnight to build up the needed article to GA quality (and please contact me if you need a reviewer -- I hate to see FTs cast away).
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove per nominator.
Zginder 2008-05-30T17:15Z (
UTC)
It's June 1 and Devil May Cry 4 is nowhere near GA status. I hate to see this topic tossed out, but once DMC4 is promoted, the topic can be re-nominated. --
haha169 (
talk)
23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Don’t worry. As I said, once DMC4 is promoted, you can re-nominate the topic. Its not incredibly difficult. But for now, I think we have to demote this topic. --
haha169 (
talk)
02:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)reply
For this topic's first FTRC nomination,
click here.
This topic contains a B-class article, violating criterion #3. It also is missing several articles about the topic with no justification, violating criterion #1(d). This topic will have used up its grace period by the time this nomination closes. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Reluctant Removal - It appears that this above named topic is much larger than the selection of articles listed below it. They should make a more focused topic about the university, such as Academics or some such.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
01:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Remove per nomination. You can't simply pick a handful of articles that fit the topic. The purpose is that all articles need to be at least good, if not featured. --
rm 'w avu12:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)reply
This topic has no lead article and thus violates criterion #2. The only possible lead article,
Star Wars is only B-class. This topic will have used up its grace period by the time this nomination closes. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)reply
RemovalKeepRemoveKeep This is definitely not the Star Wars topic, but simply a collection of the six articles on the films. The topic is much more expansive, including all kinds of media & etc.-
BillDeanCarter (
talk)
22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
You are correct that this is not the Star Wars topic. It is the Star Wars episodes topic, of which there are 6 and they are all either FAs or GAs, so the topic is complete. The question is whether it meets Criteria #2 "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article." and, by extention I guess, whether Criteria #2 is an absolute requirement or a flexible policy. --
maclean02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
You're right. The topic is complete as far as concerned, and unless someone can suggest an intro article that must be there and what it would constitute there isn't anything to be done about it.-
BillDeanCarter (
talk)
06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - There's no way a centralised article could be created to encompass the films. There is a category for the films and if necessary, I'm certain that this can be expanded as a kind of an article itself, but there's no criteria for the quality of display of a category page. --
lincalinca08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
There are no critiria for the quality of categories, but there is a criterion that featured topics have "an introductory and summary lead article", which this topic does not. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep In this case, I think the rules are at fault. The topic is complete. All six Star Wars films meet GA or FA criteria. It just seems silly to drop it because of a technicality.
WP:Ignore all rules seems to apply here. The general goal of featured topics is to feature series of articles covering the same subject. In this case, the subject = Star Wars films. There is no Star Wars films article. Big deal. We know the articles are good and that's what matters. I say keep it. I also think we should add a qualifies to that rule saying that topics should have "an introductory and summary lead article if such an article exists" or something like that.
Wrad (
talk)
04:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
If no lead article can be written to summarize a topic, than it isn't really a whole, unified subject worthy of being grouped as an FT. In this case, there already is an article that summarizes all six others: the
main Star Wars article. If that article was GA or higher, the topic could stay, but it is not. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
07:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
It seems ridiculous to me to claim that this is not a "whole, unified subject worthy of being grouped". It also seems ridiculous to require the Star Wars article to be the lead. It wouldn't be an appropriate lead. It summarizes the films, yes, but also the comics, the action figures, the popular culture, the novel series... Just doesn't make any sense to me. The only logical lead would be
Star Wars film series, along the lines of
Spider-man film series, but that article doesn't even exist. That communicates to me that no one feels that such an article is important enough to be included on wikipedia. If that attitude changed, then maybe it would be right to remove it (there is actually a discussion about the issue
here, but I just feel that it shouldn't be removed on such a technicality. I feel that it would hurt wikipedia not to feature this excellent article series.
Wrad (
talk)
22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
So maybe instead of removing this featured topic, let's give it a bit more time and figure out exactly what the intro article should be. There definitely is an intro article here that could be written, and I would suggest something more academic, looking at the themes, mythology & etc that is pervasive in the Star Wars episodes, rather than the entire Star Wars canon.-
BillDeanCarter (
talk)
22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree that an intro article could be written on the films. There is defiantly enough information about plot, making-of, and themes to write at least a GA-quality article about the films as a whole. However, I disagree with BillDeanCarter suggestion that we keep the topic until such an article is writen. This topic clearly violates one of the three major criteria for inclusion; I see no reason why this topic needs to have an exception to those rules made for it. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove. Plainly does not meet criteria. The WikiProject was informed months ago that
Star Wars (or another chosen lead aricle) would have to get to GA by Jan 2008.--
Pharos (
talk)
06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
AHEM!! Well, I've just created a potential lead article which centrally discusses the episodic films only. It's
Star Wars theatrical films. It's nowhere near GA at the moment, but with a little TLC and a lot of references, we should be able to get it there before long. Could this discussion be placed on hold pending vast improvements to that article (I think the title's more appropriate than Star Wars film series)? Maybe give it, say, a week or so? It shouldn't take that much to get it to find its feet. Most of the references and info can be found on other Wikipages. --
lincalinca13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Bingo! With such strong articles on each film, and an article on the franchise, a merger would make good sense without this extra consideration. --
kingboyk (
talk)
01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)reply
This discussion can certainly be put on hold while you fix up that article. If you ask for a GA assessment for your new article within the next few days, this discussion shall not be closed until the review is made. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Remove - I played a secondary role in to
User:The Filmaker in guiding these articles to FA, and even I must say that the rules are clear about Featured article requirements and they are correct, a lead article is needed and there is not one. I hope this will spur people to create a GA one so it can be brought back soon.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Remove or remove the rule about having a lead article. As it stands, this has to be removed and it's not even worth debating. Better outcome: get
Star Wars up to GA or FA and come back, hopefully real soon! --
kingboyk (
talk)
01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Close as "remove" Although there are some keep votes, I am closing this discussion as a removal. All of the keep votes are critiquing the criterion itself rather than how this topic relates to that existing rule. Those who voted to "keep" are encouraged to propose an amendment to the featured topic criteria to allow for a situation like this, but for now this topic will be judged by the rules as they currently stand. It should also be noted that the article being written as a possible lead article has been deleted during the course of this discussion. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)reply