Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/November 2008

The Simpsons (season 4)[edit]

Major contributors: From Season 4 Topic Drive: Scorpion, Gran2, Maitch, Xihix, Cirt, Zagalejo, Ctjf83, Simpsons fan 66, Qst, Gary King, TheLeftorium, Nergaal

Every episode article from this season is of GA status, except for A Streetcar Named Marge and The Simpsons (season 4) which are featured. It fulfills all criteria for a Good Topic. --TheLeft orium 14:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good to see WP:SIMPSONS is able to push so many articles into a nice shape. igordebraga ≠ 14:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All FLs, FAs, and GAs. ~~ C o m p u t e r G u y 17:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues. Well done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm impressed -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good job. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2008-11-16T19:36Z (UTC)
Support Nice work --Skizzik ^talk 20:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - rst20xx (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice work, everyone. I haven't done squat with Simpsons articles, and this impresses me. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very impressive indeed.--Music26/11 17:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Office (US) – Season 4[edit]

The Office (US TV series) season 4

15 articles

"Fun Run"

"Dunder Mifflin Infinity"

"Launch Party"

"Money"

"Local Ad"

"Branch Wars"

"Survivor Man"

"The Deposition"

"Dinner Party"

"Chair Model"

"Night Out"

"Did I Stutter?"

"Job Fair"

"Goodbye, Toby"

Major contributors" Mr.crabby, Mastrchf91, Nergaal, Red Thunder

Nergaal (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - why has everyone else been holding off? rst20xx (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work, complete WP:GT. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All FLs and GAs. ~~ C o m p u t e r G u y 17:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! --TheLeft orium 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2008-11-16T19:41Z (UTC)
Support Good job. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - I shall promote this topic to "The Office (US TV series) season 4" - rst20xx (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 20SY[edit]

New York State Route 20SY

6 articles

New York State Route 5

New York State Route 20N

New York State Route 92

New York State Route 173

New York State Route 321

Essentially the twin to Wikipedia:Featured topics/New York State Route 20N, this is the 2nd of the two topics that are falling under this series. NY 20SY, like 20N was assigned over several different highways, this time, NY 5, NY 92, NY 173, NY 321 and of course, NY 20N. Like 20N, it was decommissioned and the routes it was assigned over remained the same. Now, eventually, this will grow into a Featured Topic, but right now, its sufficient enough for a good topic. (Also you could say NY 174 counts now because its part of old 20SY currently, but for now, it is unrelated.) Mitch32^(UP) 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question is it me or the 5, 20N, etc have only a part of them overlapping with the 20SY? Are the highways listed at the bottom truly within the scope of the main article? Nergaal (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes. This follows the same as NY 20N, which were two special cases of highways being assigned over pre-existing state routes. Also, there is overlap with NY 20N, but there are differences - 5, 321 are new. The routes at the bottom are just what it intersected with, that has no relation at all. Again, the only route you could add is New York State Route 174, which makes up part of the alignment in present time. 5, 20N, 92, 173, and 321 are the alignment that 20SY used. Those intersections at the bottom have no influence on this topic.Mitch32^(UP) 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Another roads-related topic. ~~ C o m p u t e r G u y 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, these twin topics will have "subtopic" links to each other. Weird. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 20:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose I am unconvinced this is a valid topic. Correct me where I am wrong, but does it seem ok to have a highway 50km long that is the main article of a topic that includes highways several thousand km long? This topic seems to set the precedent for this type of example. Nergaal (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I explicitly stated that there are only 2 of this kind. Why are you opposing when there is already a topic that has passed? There is precedent already and unless you wanna make a stink over it, there is no point in opposing it.Mitch32^(UP) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me it sounds like a Mississippi topic where the subarticles are the states that the river flows through. Intersecting should not be a criteria for a topic. Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you has misinterpreted something. Read 20N's nomination and this nomination and you'll understand why. NONE of these are intersections, these are the routes that these two special routes followed. If I had put in the intersections, there would be at least 20 articles in this topic. I don't know what else I've said that's confusing.Mitch32^(UP) 10:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is an example: route 5 is 800km long, and less than 150km overlap with 20SY. How is 5 a subpart of 20SY??? Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to do this? Read the dang article, because I can tell you are not understanding this.Mitch32^(UP) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - I am left feeling quite uneasy that this topic shares 4/6 articles with another topic, and am unsure whether this constitutes excessive overlap, however I feel that both topics alone are structurally fine, so I shall weak support - rst20xx (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're point that it overlaps a lot, but that was part of the point with these two highways, its not something I can help.Mitch32^(UP) 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I'm not too concerned about the topics overlapping. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Juliancolton Z gin der 2008-11-10T17:22Z (UTC)
Weak support - Seems okay, but I agree with some of the issues about overlap raised by Rst20xx (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - I'm on the fence with this one. The overlap is a bit much, and two topics being subtopics for eachother is a bit odd. That being said, this does meet the other criteria well enough and it has its supporters. I think this should be left open for a couple more days and if there are no other objections in can probably be passed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to ask that you change your votes, but, I cannot remove NY 92, 20N, and 173 from the topics, because then I would be cherry-picking. I also don't understand for whatever reason, you guys are making a problem out of this, when the prior one passed with no strings attached. Understand this, roads overlap, roads will always (on FT/GT) have at least 2 articles overlap at the least.Mitch32^(UP) 12:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overlap suggests that that the two topics could be combined into one larger topic about this stretch of road. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. Could these 2 topics be made into 1 topic, and would it make sense to do so? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch, (I think I know what the answer would be but) care to comment on the feasibility of this? rst20xx (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with it on 1 condition. Some actually help me get at least 2 articles to FA so I can keep its Featured Topic status, because even if it passes, the it will lose its Featured credit. I don't mind if they are merged, I do mind if it gets demoted.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote - based on Arctic Gnome's comments above, my reading is that this has consensus. I am not sure how these two topics would be made into one as they would have to have more than one lead article, something that has not been done before, and the feasibility of which would need to be discussed on the criteria page in advance - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Main page	Articles
1994 Pacific hurricane season	Hurricane Emilia (1994) - Hurricane Gilma (1994) - Hurricane John (1994) - Hurricane Rosa (1994)

This time, I'm going for Good Topic status. I'm nominating this topic because it meets the criteria. The articles arte interlinked with Template:1994 Pacific hurricane season buttons and share a common category. This is a self nomination, as I have worked on several of the articles. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems good to me. Of course, the more articles, the better, but the most noteworthy storms have articles. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Juliancolton's comment has led me to ask, are there any storms that are notable enough to have articles, but do not? rst20xx (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a discussion about spinoffs; see Talk:1994_Pacific_hurricane_season#Spinoffs. Based on the comments I'd hardly say there is a consensus for any more articles. (The ones under discussion were Rosa, Olivia, and Li). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the 1994 season was relatively long ago, information is more scarce than it is for recent storms. Thus, only the most notable storms—those that make landfall or break several records—warrant an article. Many, if not all, of the other storms have little information outside of what is currently incorporated into the season article. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - OK, thank you, that answers my question satisfactorily - rst20xx (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to me Jason Rees (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good for me. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 02:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although this isn't far off Featured Topic status. Why not work to get another article to Featured status and nom it as an FT? -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If another article in this topic becomes featured, and this topic is good, then the topic will automatically be bumped up to featured as well. So in a sense, it doesn't matter what order things are done in - rst20xx (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well written and all sub articles are GA or higher :) As stated before some more storm articles would be nice, but not having them wont prevent it from being a GT. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2008-11-01T21:32Z (UTC)
Support ~~ C o m p u t e r G u y 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This should be quick-passed because it meets the criteria. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classes of supernovae[edit]

~~Supernova(e)~~

Main page	Articles
Supernova	Type Ia · Type Ib and Ic · Type II · ~~History of observations~~

major contributor: RJHall

These go with a bang! Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks pretty good, but I have a concern. With History of observations being included in the topic, the scope of the topic seems to exceed just the different types of supernovae. Because of that, Supernova nucleosynthesis and Supernova remnant should also probably be included in the topic. I suggest removing the History of observations article to keep the scope focused on just the different types of supernovae for now and maybe later expanding the scope of the topic once the other articles are ready. One more minor point, I think the topic title should just be "Supernova" without the "(e)." I understand what it means, but I think some people would just be confused by it. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the point of the history article was to have some kind of listings. also, the two article you list here do not overalp at all with the history one. what do other think? Nergaal (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I agree with Rreagan007, and would also point to Hypernova and Pair-instability supernova. Additionally, I see no attempt to consult RJHall before nominating - or am I missing something? rst20xx (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have no issue with this proposal or the inclusion of the history; the latter is a fork from the Supernova page. But you I do agree with the proposed additions. In fact I'd go so far as to propose an expansion of scope to include all Cataclysmic variable stars. But tht's just a notion.—RJH (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ok, how about without the history section? Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The topic covers all the basic types of supernovae. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I might consider supporting if the topic was renamed to the narrower "Types of Supernova". This is still a bit iffy as if I understand things right, some of the articles excluded would be types in the broader sense of the word, but not in terms of the Type numbering system. However I would probably be willing to accept this (provided you created a general navbox for all the supernova articles!) - rst20xx (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or "Classes of supernovae"? Nergaal (talk)
OK - rst20xx (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - consider me appeased - rst20xx (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 02:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~ C o m p u t e r G u y 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2008-11-02T19:45Z (UTC)
Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]