There's only one conspirator whose article isn't a GA or FA, and that's
Robert Keyes. I'm not convinced there's enough out there to write about, so perhaps I might merge it with other minor plotters, like Thomas Bates. There are a few figures on the sidelines who haven't yet been improved, but essentially the contents of the box above includes all the major players. Parrotof Doom 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Since Keyes is currently at GAN, why not wait until he's passed? Otherwise, great work, though I'm sure there'll be some discussion about what to include and exclude.
Ucucha 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm not yet certain he will be, the article is very scant and to be honest I'd forgotten it was even nominated. Keyes is an unimportant character. Parrotof Doom 00:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry but oppose. Keyes should be included, and probably
Elizabeth of Bohemia also. The biggest hole in the topic though is
Gunpowder Plot in popular culture. The topic cannot be complete without it as there have been so many representations of it in culture.
Ashby St Ledgers and
Holbeche House are also worth mentioning to put into the topic.
Henry Garnet,
Humphrey Littleton (plotter) and
Edward Oldcorne were executed because of the plot. The article
Oswald Tesimond seems to exist only because of the plot, so... While some of the articles I've listed won't belong here, at least the popular culture one definitely is. Try creating a book also.
Nergaal (
talk) 21:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Gunpowder Plot in popular culture exists only because people were repeatedly adding V for Vendetta to
Guy Fawkes, created purely to keep the rubbish out of the main article. I'm certainly not going to work on improving that. I doubt there's much to say about the two houses you mention, and the Princess Elizabeth played no real part in the plot, being so young at the time. Once you start knocking on the doors brothers-in-law and associates, where do you stop? What about Robert Cecil, Edward Coke, Thomas Knyvet? Anne Vaux? Parrotof Doom 21:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Noting that Robert Keyes is under review at GAN, so that should be able to be included shortly. Also, a book should be made for it.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear 21:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The nomination as it stands sounds like an overview topic, and that would have to include all articles within the scope of the topic that do not fall within the scope of subtopics. That would male the pop culture one a must. However, if the king is dropped and the title is changed to "Gunpowder Plot plotters" that would be fine as it would not be an overview topic.
Nergaal (
talk) 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)reply
SupportIff Keyes passes GA. Elizabeth of Bohemia is suitable for expanding the topic down the road, but not essential. I would oppose the whole lot if
Gunpowder Plot in popular culture were added, as the topic is about the event, and fiction is out of scope. (If I thought it had any chance, I'd actually AFD that article.)
Courcelles 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keyes just passed GA.
Ucucha 11:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The last class of completed German dreadnoughts built before the war, the four Königs saw heavy service during the war, including leading the German line at the
Battle of Jutland. All four were scuttled at Scapa Flow at the end of the war, though only one was raised for scrapping - the other three are one of the only remaining sources of radioactivity-free steel on Earth. I've never used this new automatic generator before, and I probably screwed it up, so can someone check it for me? Thanks.
Parsecboy (
talk) 09:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - meets all the criteria. All the articles showcase Parsec's normal high standards.
Ed[talk][majestic titan] 09:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support – looks good.
Zginder 2010-12-24T19:31Z (
UTC)
First hurricane nomination in a while! Over the past year I've been working to get this to good topic, so here it is. The sub-articles are based on the individual storms with enough info to have an article, and none of those without articles have enough info to make an article. I hope you enjoy it - this is the first season where storms are named! --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 15:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - worthwhile/notable season and the content seems unified enough to justify promotion to GT, as long as the necessary updates are made once HURDAT comes around.
Juliancolton (
talk) 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Don't worry, I will, but I have a feeling it'll be a while, given they're only at 1925 (and the preliminary analysis of 1944-1953 was just a student's paper, albeit a highly-researched one). --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Any reason why this topic does not include a timeline article?
Nergaal (
talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I think hurricane timelines are useless and redundant, that's the main reason ;) --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)reply
What did the wikiproject decide about this? I remember more than a year ago that there was a debate about having or not such lists. If the consensus is to have such lists, FT shouldn't override it; if not, then the existing timelines should be AfDed/merged into the season ones and then the topics nominated for article removals.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
There is no firm agreement whether timelines should exist or not, that's sort of the issue. For example, the 1994 PHS doesn't have a timeline, and that's a GT. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Have you tried FLRCing the existing timeline FLs?
No, but in the past, I have done an FARC for an article that I did not believe should have existed, and they said how that wasn't the right venue, that AFD was the right place. Suffice it to say, I'd rather not propose the deletion of several lists (not yet and not without some sort of project consensus, which doesn't exist yet). I'd also like to point out
this discussion, fwiw. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support but I wold strongly suggest FLRCing any list timelines that is repetitious since more recently people have become more stringent about
wp:CFORK.
Nergaal (
talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The result of over six years of work (on and off), this topic can now be considered a good topic. It includes
Governor of Kentucky as a main article,
List of Governors of Kentucky as a
featured list, and every governor's article – including the two
Confederate governors – as either a good or featured article. I hope you will find this topic complete and interesting and will support its nomination for GT. Acdixon(
talk •
contribs •
count) 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The count should be 62 as it includes the confederate article.
Nergaal (
talk) 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I went ahead and fixed it.
Nergaal (
talk) 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
That article wasn't intended to be part of the topic, only an explanatory link for the navbox. However, it is an FA, and if consensus dictates that it should be included, that's no problem. Acdixon(
talk •
contribs •
count) 15:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Btw, full support for a topic that will seemingly become the largest we have. Very impressive! Also, the Confederate government seems to be within the scope of the topic.
Nergaal (
talk) 15:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Not sure I'd favor removing the Confederate government topic. Some folks who would be interested in that topic by itself, like Civil War buffs, might miss it if it's buried in here. Still, I'll defer to consensus. Acdixon(
talk •
contribs •
count) 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support the topic - very impressive! I'm neutral on the inclusion of
Confederate government of Kentucky, since that is relevant but goes beyond the scope of this topic (encompassing not just the Confederate governors, but the government as a whole). But, wow! that's impressive.
cmadler (
talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Brilliant work from the most dedicated of editors.
Reywas92Talk 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support the topic - good job, but also support removal of the Confederate government article because a government is more than a governor (though I realize it would make the sorting here easier), the two Confederate governors can stay.
Hekerui (
talk) 18:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support: that's some impressive work. I agree with Hekerui, though there might be other reasonable ways to handle the issue with the Confederate government.
Ucucha 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I would remove the Confederate governors entirely since they operated a separate government. Those governors could form their own GT. The two topics look like different scopes to me. But I see that others disagree. —
Designate (
talk) 19:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Just to note, the Confederate Gov't already has a subtopic that went through here a while back, so that's already been done.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear 04:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Why don't you remove the two indented articles and just have "Confederate government (subtopic)" ? (with links, obviously)
Ed[talk][majestic titan]
Question: would the topic template look better if we include the years of Governorship for each of the 40+ entries?
Nergaal (
talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose in the current form if the topic is on "Governors of Kentucky" and not on "List of Governors" then it should also include
Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky and an yet nonexistant article
Kentucky gubernatorial elections. If the lead article is dropped entirely (and the confederate one) and replaced with the List, then the topic is fine. After that, this list topic would be a subtopic on one including the articles on the Confederate one, the Lieutenant one, and the elections one.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not sure I follow or agree with your logic that a topic about the governors of Kentucky must necessarily include the lieutenant governor or one about gubernatorial elections. In fact, doing some quick spot checks, I didn't find any states that have general "gubernatorial elections" articles, although there are many articles about specific notable elections. The governor and lieutenant governor weren't even elected on the same ticket until 1992. I really don't see how those articles should be required for this topic. Acdixon(
talk •
contribs •
count) 14:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Parks and Recreation (season 1) is already a GT. I've been working on these second season articles for quite a while and now I believe the topic is ready, just in time for
season three to start! :D — HunterKahn 16:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - All articles GT or FT?: Check. At least 2 sub articles and a parent article?: Check. All articles related by topic?: Check. Seems to meet criteria for to me.
BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm nominating this for good topic status, because... well, I'm not exactly sure why.
ThinkBlue ought to be doing this. Main article passed FLC, and all the episode articles are GA's, though my involvement in the topic was limited to the main article and doing a couple of the GA reviews. Staxringold also had a good deal to do with this finally being able to be here, and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone.
Courcelles 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support But could you move "Floyd" to the third column for balance?
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support I was wondering why wasn't this nominated earlier.
Nergaal (
talk) 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Good to see this FLC pass, both to support this new GT, and to keep the FT which was up for delisting. --
Admrboltz (
talk) 04:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Hmm, Parks and 30 Rock season FT's at the same time? Where is the Office and Community! Oppose without them!Support! ;) --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 21:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Why am i nominating this? Well, i have worked my butt off on these articles and have personally written each one. All the articles are good articles and i watch and monitor them daily to maintain their original passing standards. So with the support of my fellow editors, I would like to promote this topic to a good topic. Please leave your comments below and thank you :) -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 21:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I actually never thought of that. Im leaning towards 'no because the version from Kesha's album, is a different version that was released as a single. Although it is a GA as well im gunna oppose the addition. If others disagree i will gladly add it. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 21:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Nice work from CK over the months. I italicised Animal, though, per the MoS.
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs) 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I used it because its the highest quality picture of her that shows her face. If you would like to suggest another image please do. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 22:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose this should contain both
Dirty Picture (which should have a separate section on this cover/version) and also
Cannibal (EP). Furthermore, the image in use now can be cropped to better depict the singer (only).
Nergaal (
talk) 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Cannibal is its own album and will have its own good topic. Cropping the image will disrupt articles that the image is used in. Dirty picture is not from her album, its a song on a specific deluxe edition and differs from the single released. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
This is what the Cannibal intro says: The EP is a follow up companion to her previous record, Animal. Originally the record was set to only be released as a deluxe edition of Animal, but was instead sold and released as both an EP and a deluxe edition of Animal. As for the extra song,
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Like a Virgin/archive1 has a somewhat similar discussion.
Nergaal (
talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Ive added the song but im still opposing this for now. I may just do "Animal + Cannibal" and merge the two once i can nominate Cannibal, it wasnt included due to WP:RECENTISM. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Just to note that Cannibal can be added now (it would have until Feb 19 to get to GA) and I don't think having a separate Cannibal topic would make sense since A & C seem so well linked together.
Nergaal (
talk) 02:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I should easily be able to GA it by then. As well as We R Who We R and what ever other singles she releases. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 02:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
No, I oppose the addition of Cannibal. They are two completely different in terms of era, and is better suited as a separate GT. CK, don't add it. —
Legolas(talk2me) 04:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Sweet, now I know you will antithesize any opinion I have. Anyways, if you read through
wp:FP? you will see among the recommendations: Conversely, a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of five articles is better than two topics of three each. These recommendations were created a long time before music topics were first nominated, and they were made by the people who created this whole process (and presumably have/had a better idea of what topics should be like).
Nergaal (
talk) 07:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Crop the image and upload it to the Commons under a separate title, not over the existing one. That will solve that problem. Just remember to attribute it as a modification of the current image.
Courcelles 23:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Good job! Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I just realised something, the nomination name needs to be changed. A common topic like Animal will be more prevalent, hence I believe this should be renamed to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Animal (album)/archive1 or
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Animal (Kesha album)/archive1. —
Legolas(talk2me) 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Done and i dont think it requires any clean up after the redirect. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 17:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
It needed some cleanup- for housekeeping reasons we don't generally leave featured content candidate redirects around, so I updated everything (talk pages of the articles, FTC page, and incoming links) to point here directly and deleted the redirect.
Courcelles 17:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support A great effort from Lakeshade. Good job!
Novice7 |
Talk 06:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Cannibal could be included but does not have to be. All songs on the main album version that have articles need to be GA. Deluxe versions can, but are not required to, be included.
Zginder 2010-12-19T21:39Z (
UTC)
Support, and I don't think Cannibal should be included at all. The fact that it's sold along Animal doesn't change the fact that it's a new separate body of work.
Xwomanizerx (
talk) 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
There's only one conspirator whose article isn't a GA or FA, and that's
Robert Keyes. I'm not convinced there's enough out there to write about, so perhaps I might merge it with other minor plotters, like Thomas Bates. There are a few figures on the sidelines who haven't yet been improved, but essentially the contents of the box above includes all the major players. Parrotof Doom 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Since Keyes is currently at GAN, why not wait until he's passed? Otherwise, great work, though I'm sure there'll be some discussion about what to include and exclude.
Ucucha 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm not yet certain he will be, the article is very scant and to be honest I'd forgotten it was even nominated. Keyes is an unimportant character. Parrotof Doom 00:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry but oppose. Keyes should be included, and probably
Elizabeth of Bohemia also. The biggest hole in the topic though is
Gunpowder Plot in popular culture. The topic cannot be complete without it as there have been so many representations of it in culture.
Ashby St Ledgers and
Holbeche House are also worth mentioning to put into the topic.
Henry Garnet,
Humphrey Littleton (plotter) and
Edward Oldcorne were executed because of the plot. The article
Oswald Tesimond seems to exist only because of the plot, so... While some of the articles I've listed won't belong here, at least the popular culture one definitely is. Try creating a book also.
Nergaal (
talk) 21:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Gunpowder Plot in popular culture exists only because people were repeatedly adding V for Vendetta to
Guy Fawkes, created purely to keep the rubbish out of the main article. I'm certainly not going to work on improving that. I doubt there's much to say about the two houses you mention, and the Princess Elizabeth played no real part in the plot, being so young at the time. Once you start knocking on the doors brothers-in-law and associates, where do you stop? What about Robert Cecil, Edward Coke, Thomas Knyvet? Anne Vaux? Parrotof Doom 21:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Noting that Robert Keyes is under review at GAN, so that should be able to be included shortly. Also, a book should be made for it.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear 21:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The nomination as it stands sounds like an overview topic, and that would have to include all articles within the scope of the topic that do not fall within the scope of subtopics. That would male the pop culture one a must. However, if the king is dropped and the title is changed to "Gunpowder Plot plotters" that would be fine as it would not be an overview topic.
Nergaal (
talk) 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)reply
SupportIff Keyes passes GA. Elizabeth of Bohemia is suitable for expanding the topic down the road, but not essential. I would oppose the whole lot if
Gunpowder Plot in popular culture were added, as the topic is about the event, and fiction is out of scope. (If I thought it had any chance, I'd actually AFD that article.)
Courcelles 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keyes just passed GA.
Ucucha 11:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The last class of completed German dreadnoughts built before the war, the four Königs saw heavy service during the war, including leading the German line at the
Battle of Jutland. All four were scuttled at Scapa Flow at the end of the war, though only one was raised for scrapping - the other three are one of the only remaining sources of radioactivity-free steel on Earth. I've never used this new automatic generator before, and I probably screwed it up, so can someone check it for me? Thanks.
Parsecboy (
talk) 09:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - meets all the criteria. All the articles showcase Parsec's normal high standards.
Ed[talk][majestic titan] 09:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support – looks good.
Zginder 2010-12-24T19:31Z (
UTC)
First hurricane nomination in a while! Over the past year I've been working to get this to good topic, so here it is. The sub-articles are based on the individual storms with enough info to have an article, and none of those without articles have enough info to make an article. I hope you enjoy it - this is the first season where storms are named! --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 15:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - worthwhile/notable season and the content seems unified enough to justify promotion to GT, as long as the necessary updates are made once HURDAT comes around.
Juliancolton (
talk) 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Don't worry, I will, but I have a feeling it'll be a while, given they're only at 1925 (and the preliminary analysis of 1944-1953 was just a student's paper, albeit a highly-researched one). --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Any reason why this topic does not include a timeline article?
Nergaal (
talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I think hurricane timelines are useless and redundant, that's the main reason ;) --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)reply
What did the wikiproject decide about this? I remember more than a year ago that there was a debate about having or not such lists. If the consensus is to have such lists, FT shouldn't override it; if not, then the existing timelines should be AfDed/merged into the season ones and then the topics nominated for article removals.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
There is no firm agreement whether timelines should exist or not, that's sort of the issue. For example, the 1994 PHS doesn't have a timeline, and that's a GT. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Have you tried FLRCing the existing timeline FLs?
No, but in the past, I have done an FARC for an article that I did not believe should have existed, and they said how that wasn't the right venue, that AFD was the right place. Suffice it to say, I'd rather not propose the deletion of several lists (not yet and not without some sort of project consensus, which doesn't exist yet). I'd also like to point out
this discussion, fwiw. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support but I wold strongly suggest FLRCing any list timelines that is repetitious since more recently people have become more stringent about
wp:CFORK.
Nergaal (
talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The result of over six years of work (on and off), this topic can now be considered a good topic. It includes
Governor of Kentucky as a main article,
List of Governors of Kentucky as a
featured list, and every governor's article – including the two
Confederate governors – as either a good or featured article. I hope you will find this topic complete and interesting and will support its nomination for GT. Acdixon(
talk •
contribs •
count) 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The count should be 62 as it includes the confederate article.
Nergaal (
talk) 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I went ahead and fixed it.
Nergaal (
talk) 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
That article wasn't intended to be part of the topic, only an explanatory link for the navbox. However, it is an FA, and if consensus dictates that it should be included, that's no problem. Acdixon(
talk •
contribs •
count) 15:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Btw, full support for a topic that will seemingly become the largest we have. Very impressive! Also, the Confederate government seems to be within the scope of the topic.
Nergaal (
talk) 15:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Not sure I'd favor removing the Confederate government topic. Some folks who would be interested in that topic by itself, like Civil War buffs, might miss it if it's buried in here. Still, I'll defer to consensus. Acdixon(
talk •
contribs •
count) 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support the topic - very impressive! I'm neutral on the inclusion of
Confederate government of Kentucky, since that is relevant but goes beyond the scope of this topic (encompassing not just the Confederate governors, but the government as a whole). But, wow! that's impressive.
cmadler (
talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Brilliant work from the most dedicated of editors.
Reywas92Talk 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support the topic - good job, but also support removal of the Confederate government article because a government is more than a governor (though I realize it would make the sorting here easier), the two Confederate governors can stay.
Hekerui (
talk) 18:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support: that's some impressive work. I agree with Hekerui, though there might be other reasonable ways to handle the issue with the Confederate government.
Ucucha 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I would remove the Confederate governors entirely since they operated a separate government. Those governors could form their own GT. The two topics look like different scopes to me. But I see that others disagree. —
Designate (
talk) 19:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Just to note, the Confederate Gov't already has a subtopic that went through here a while back, so that's already been done.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear 04:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Why don't you remove the two indented articles and just have "Confederate government (subtopic)" ? (with links, obviously)
Ed[talk][majestic titan]
Question: would the topic template look better if we include the years of Governorship for each of the 40+ entries?
Nergaal (
talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose in the current form if the topic is on "Governors of Kentucky" and not on "List of Governors" then it should also include
Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky and an yet nonexistant article
Kentucky gubernatorial elections. If the lead article is dropped entirely (and the confederate one) and replaced with the List, then the topic is fine. After that, this list topic would be a subtopic on one including the articles on the Confederate one, the Lieutenant one, and the elections one.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not sure I follow or agree with your logic that a topic about the governors of Kentucky must necessarily include the lieutenant governor or one about gubernatorial elections. In fact, doing some quick spot checks, I didn't find any states that have general "gubernatorial elections" articles, although there are many articles about specific notable elections. The governor and lieutenant governor weren't even elected on the same ticket until 1992. I really don't see how those articles should be required for this topic. Acdixon(
talk •
contribs •
count) 14:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Parks and Recreation (season 1) is already a GT. I've been working on these second season articles for quite a while and now I believe the topic is ready, just in time for
season three to start! :D — HunterKahn 16:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - All articles GT or FT?: Check. At least 2 sub articles and a parent article?: Check. All articles related by topic?: Check. Seems to meet criteria for to me.
BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm nominating this for good topic status, because... well, I'm not exactly sure why.
ThinkBlue ought to be doing this. Main article passed FLC, and all the episode articles are GA's, though my involvement in the topic was limited to the main article and doing a couple of the GA reviews. Staxringold also had a good deal to do with this finally being able to be here, and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone.
Courcelles 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support But could you move "Floyd" to the third column for balance?
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support I was wondering why wasn't this nominated earlier.
Nergaal (
talk) 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Good to see this FLC pass, both to support this new GT, and to keep the FT which was up for delisting. --
Admrboltz (
talk) 04:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Hmm, Parks and 30 Rock season FT's at the same time? Where is the Office and Community! Oppose without them!Support! ;) --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 21:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Why am i nominating this? Well, i have worked my butt off on these articles and have personally written each one. All the articles are good articles and i watch and monitor them daily to maintain their original passing standards. So with the support of my fellow editors, I would like to promote this topic to a good topic. Please leave your comments below and thank you :) -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 21:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I actually never thought of that. Im leaning towards 'no because the version from Kesha's album, is a different version that was released as a single. Although it is a GA as well im gunna oppose the addition. If others disagree i will gladly add it. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 21:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Nice work from CK over the months. I italicised Animal, though, per the MoS.
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs) 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I used it because its the highest quality picture of her that shows her face. If you would like to suggest another image please do. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 22:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose this should contain both
Dirty Picture (which should have a separate section on this cover/version) and also
Cannibal (EP). Furthermore, the image in use now can be cropped to better depict the singer (only).
Nergaal (
talk) 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Cannibal is its own album and will have its own good topic. Cropping the image will disrupt articles that the image is used in. Dirty picture is not from her album, its a song on a specific deluxe edition and differs from the single released. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
This is what the Cannibal intro says: The EP is a follow up companion to her previous record, Animal. Originally the record was set to only be released as a deluxe edition of Animal, but was instead sold and released as both an EP and a deluxe edition of Animal. As for the extra song,
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Like a Virgin/archive1 has a somewhat similar discussion.
Nergaal (
talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Ive added the song but im still opposing this for now. I may just do "Animal + Cannibal" and merge the two once i can nominate Cannibal, it wasnt included due to WP:RECENTISM. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Just to note that Cannibal can be added now (it would have until Feb 19 to get to GA) and I don't think having a separate Cannibal topic would make sense since A & C seem so well linked together.
Nergaal (
talk) 02:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I should easily be able to GA it by then. As well as We R Who We R and what ever other singles she releases. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 02:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
No, I oppose the addition of Cannibal. They are two completely different in terms of era, and is better suited as a separate GT. CK, don't add it. —
Legolas(talk2me) 04:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Sweet, now I know you will antithesize any opinion I have. Anyways, if you read through
wp:FP? you will see among the recommendations: Conversely, a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of five articles is better than two topics of three each. These recommendations were created a long time before music topics were first nominated, and they were made by the people who created this whole process (and presumably have/had a better idea of what topics should be like).
Nergaal (
talk) 07:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Crop the image and upload it to the Commons under a separate title, not over the existing one. That will solve that problem. Just remember to attribute it as a modification of the current image.
Courcelles 23:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Good job! Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I just realised something, the nomination name needs to be changed. A common topic like Animal will be more prevalent, hence I believe this should be renamed to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Animal (album)/archive1 or
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Animal (Kesha album)/archive1. —
Legolas(talk2me) 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Done and i dont think it requires any clean up after the redirect. -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me - 17:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
It needed some cleanup- for housekeeping reasons we don't generally leave featured content candidate redirects around, so I updated everything (talk pages of the articles, FTC page, and incoming links) to point here directly and deleted the redirect.
Courcelles 17:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support A great effort from Lakeshade. Good job!
Novice7 |
Talk 06:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Cannibal could be included but does not have to be. All songs on the main album version that have articles need to be GA. Deluxe versions can, but are not required to, be included.
Zginder 2010-12-19T21:39Z (
UTC)
Support, and I don't think Cannibal should be included at all. The fact that it's sold along Animal doesn't change the fact that it's a new separate body of work.
Xwomanizerx (
talk) 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply