Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/January 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contributor(s): Hurricanehink

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]

          • 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]

Governors of Kentucky

[edit]


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]

Fixed. Hekerui (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 January 2011 (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. Wizardman Operation 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]
That works. I've modified the topic as such. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:59, 4 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 2)

[edit]

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 — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock (season 4)

[edit]

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]

Done. Courcelles 21:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal

[edit]

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]
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]
Maybe this or this. I suggest the current for a topic related to her (like her discography). Tbh®tchTalk © Happy Holidays 22:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She looks beyond drunk in both lol. Ive changed the image, will this suffice? :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support - lol, actually in all. OK with that. I support it, well done CK. Tbh®tchTalk © Happy Holidays 22:40, 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]
Don't be absurd Nergaal. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:41, 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]
Thank you,  Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:01, 16 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]
I saw that, thank you very much :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:58, 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]