Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/July 2009

Bloc Party studio albums

Bloc Party studio albums

4 articles

Silent Alarm

A Weekend in the City

Intimacy

This is a Featured Topic nomination that easily fulfils the criteria in the vein of Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/M.I.A. albums. Thanks to Garden for working on them with me, and to Timmeh for his speedy and always excellent GA reviews. Shout out to everyone else who commented at FAC for two of the articles. Rafablu88 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I feel we all need to get the bottom of this, for future reference if anything, because I don't think "Bloc Party studio albums" is that appropriate. The grey area is remix albums, which the entity in question has no input in the creative process. Do we consider the new songs half-band/half remixer, or 10%/90%, or 100% band, or 100% remixer? Because the answer will have a bearing on this. Personally, I consider them all 100% remixer in the vein of hip-hop artists who use small/large samples to create something their own under license, free use or otherwise. But if I make this "Bloc Party albums" (which I did originally) then someone will object as below that the remix albums are the band's albums and should be included. Having "studio albums" is also problematic because a live album IS 100% a band's work and would have to be included, but "studio and live albums" is just plain wrong. So, I don't mind if you object, just shed some light into this conundrum. Rafablu88 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - pains be to do this becuase I love Bloc Party (saw them at the iTunes Festival last week!) but you're missing Silent Alarm Remixed and Intimacy Remixed. Precedent (e.g. with M.I.A. albums, and every other "albums" topic even) is that "albums" topics have to include all albums, studio or otherwise. Both the remix albums got a decent number of reviews so they should be GAable - rst20xx (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  Examples: M.I.A. albums contains mixtape Piracy Funds Terrorism. Powderfinger albums contains live album These Days: Live in Concert and compilation album Fingerprints: The Best of Powderfinger, 1994–2000. Wilco albums contained live album Kicking Television: Live in Chicago but was recently demoted for missing Mermaid Avenue and Mermaid Avenue Vol. II - rst20xx (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  Hmmm, the remix albums are not really their work though. It's other artists moulding their songs. Piracy Funds Terrorism is explictly the work of M.I.A albeit with a producer, but the key is that she actually went into the studio to do it. I'm gonna change this to "Bloc Party studio albums" and that should qualify. Rafablu88 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  The two remix albums are the work of Bloc Party, in collaboration with whoever remixed them. I'm going to continue to oppose, because the name change is basically an arbitrary scope reduction to get around the fact that the remix albums aren't up to scratch. The scope of the topic is now too narrow, IMO. People didn't agree with a potential topic rename for Wilco albums, either. And both the remix albums were pretty big releases for Bloc Party too, getting lots of reviews, and the second even got a single - rst20xx (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  I'm afraid none of your examples match this one. I've explained Piracy Funds Terrorism. The Powderfinger albums are either live or singles from STUDIO albums merged into one compilation. The Wilco albums missing are both studio. Finally, Bloc Party did not collaborate with whoever did the remix albums. The label, Wichita Recordings, sent copies of the songs to random artists and compiled a tracklist with the best that were sent back. Bloc Party neither worked with said artists or even entered the remix making process. The scope is fine. Rafablu88 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  OK I didn't mean to imply they actively collaborated but I did mean to imply they had a hand in it, in that they created the songs remixed, so in that sense the end product is the result of both parties. This is indeed different from the past examples in that it deals with remix albums and not compilation/live albums but the fact still stands that it was agreed that the other topics couldn't narrow their scopes to just "studio albums" and I don't see why this is any different. If the band releases a live album, then what? You rename the topic to "studio and live albums"? rst20xx (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  I would have totally objected to those articles being renamed, too. This is different. Bloc Party had no input in the process. They produced studio albums which the label then sent off to other artists. Also, if a live album was released then I would gladly remove the FT myself until I GAd all live and remix albums to nominate "Bloc Party albums". Rafablu88 23:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  You could just as easily say that Powderfinger had no creative input in their greatest hits album in that it was put together by their label. Same level of input as Bloc Party had in the remix albums- rst20xx (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  You can't. Powderfinger's compilation is simply songs from their STUDIO albums cherrypicked to create a new record, hence it is totally and utterly their work. If the label sent those songs to other artists to change and Powderfinger had no input in the process, either contractually or physically/musically, then it is not their compilation. If I was nominating "Franz Ferdinand (studio) albums", then I would definitely have to include Blood as, whilst a remix of sorts (dub), it was created with the band's input in the studio whilst the producer Dan Carey was remoulding the songs himself. Again, I stress that this nom is different. Rafablu88 23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  But what I'm saying with Powderfinger is that all the songs on the compilation album are already included in the topic, namely on their original studio albums, so Powderfinger's creative input on that album is already represented elsewhere. I just don't see how that album has anything more to do with Powderfinger than the remix albums have to do with Bloc Party. I feel we're going in circles now... rst20xx (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  That compilation IS Powderfinger's work and should be included. Silent Alarm Remixed and Intimacy Remixed are the works of other artists who used elements of Bloc Party songs to create something new under license from Wichita. It doesn't make them Bloc Party songs. That's why we don't say "SAR is the first remix album by Bloc Party". We say "SAR is the remix album to Bloc Party's first studio album". The term "cover" may be more appropriate for the songs on those remix albums regardless of what the marketing says. Or even samples like in hip-hop records which use elements of other songs and have to acknowledge that in the credits. Rafablu88 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - in response to your question above, I think it depends on the style of usage going on. Samples will use less of the song being sampled than a remix does. Also I wouldn't necessarily muddle in the issue of ownership of the end product, because even if someone owns something 100%, does not mean they 100% created it. There's also the issue of officiality - the Bloc Party remix albums are officially Bloc Party albums, unlike The Grey Album which is a bootleg (whoever owns that...), and that gives the Bloc Party albums some weight. In the case of a licensed remix, as per the ones we're dealing with here, I'd say the end product is probably partly band and partly remixer (and no doubt so would many of the Bloc Party fans who go out and buy the remix albums), the remixer is augmenting the work of the band. As a result of all these factors, I feel that the Bloc Party albums are partly the work of Bloc Party. And finally and most importantly, this is reflected in the fact that they have their name on the box! I think that topics should include "official" remix albums like this one - rst20xx (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (for the time being) - Since the BPI have redesigned their website, the certification level for A Weekend in the City in both the album article and the discography article are unverified. We can but hope that the BPI get the awards database back online soon, but it isn't looking good. --JD554 (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I've removed the nom. I can't be arsed with all the pedantry here. I could use my time more constructively to get more articles to GA/FA. And the AWITC certification was verified by every one when it was free to do so (ask Garden and others) and by me now it is a subscription service after I signed up. Even at FAC they accept Subscription services on good faith if nothing conscientious is cited. Also I'm sure you can add up the sales data and you'll see it's easily Gold in the UK following the certification limits. Rafablu88 10:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying you have verified it and how you verified would have sufficed without the arseyness. Hey ho. --JD554 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment wasn't meant to be personal. I'm just generally frustrated with all the Wikipedia legalese that goes on sometimes. I was right in always focusing on just improving articles. Although, when I bring this nom back with the remix albums, you better support... or else. ;) Rafablu88 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Make it a mighty fine nomination and I'll see what I can do ;-p --JD554 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• This nomination was withdrawn by the nominator on 01:08, 29 July 2009. I'm going to archive it properly - rst20xx (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

M-28

M-28 (Michigan highway)

4 articles

M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)

U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan)

M-28 Business (Marquette, Michigan)

M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan)

I'm nominating M-28 as a topic. The lead article is about the "parent route", the longest state trunkline highway in Michigan that isn't a US Highway or an Interstate Highway. M-28 has had 3 business loops associated with it over its history since 1919. The loop in the Ishpeming–Negaunee area is still extant, while the other two have been decommissioned and removed from the state trunkline system in Michigan. The loop in Marquette is listed under the BUS US 41 title because that was the designation used for most of that loop's history, but for a period in the 1970s, it was concurrently designated BUS US 41/BUS M-28. As such, the shown redirect does exist. The final loop is the one from Newberry, which existed in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. All of the business loop articles are GAs, the lead article is an FA. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per large overlap with existing topic; 3 of the 4 articles are already part of another topic and the remaining article is LESS than 3k of text. Nergaal (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nergaal, I believe this fails the "excessive overlap" guideline - rst20xx (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - While in theory this would be a natural candidate for GT, Nergaal and rst20xx are right, this does overlap with the Marquette County FT, and per WP:WIAFT, it is recommended (but not reqiured) that "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic." Based on this guideline, I feel it is redundant for this to be a GT. Dough4872 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppse Per above. Is there any way to combine the topics? (I don't know the US road system, so maybe there isn't a natural grouping?)YobMod 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• The topics can't be combined. The FT is a grouping based on the highways that exist in a single county. This GTC is based on a highway and its business loops. The Newberry business loop is 3 counties over and about 100 miles east of the other two business loops. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. 7th Infantry Division

U.S. 7th Infantry Division

4 articles

1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division

2nd Brigade, 7th Infantry Divison

3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division

Nominating these articles for a Good Topic. Consists of four GA's, one for the Division itself and three for the subordinate divisional brigades serving under it. All are, of course, very closely related. -Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Per 1(c): There doesn't seem to be either any common category that includes all four of the topic articles, nor does there appear to be a template that connects the four articles.
• Per 1(d): Given the name of the topic and the fact that the lead of the main article notes that the division is "best known for its exploits during World War II", I would fully expect the topic to cover World War II units (most of which, however, seem to be redlinks). Also, there's no inclusion of World War I units, either.

— Bellhalla (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A template has been created linking the four articles. As for the units, the three subordinate brigades were parts of the Division during World War I under different names. Each of those articles explains the subordinate regiments of the 2nd and 3rd brigades, while the 1st brigade existed as a much smaller formation with no subordinate units. As for the World War II regiments, I did not see them as relavant to the 7th ID, as they are not assigned to the division permenantly as the three divisional brigades are. Several regiments were rotated in and out of the division during those conflicts and have no permenant connection to it, while the three divisional brigades were built to be permenantly a part of the division, and have all remained a part of it for much longer. -Ed!^(talk) 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly lay out here what other units have been part of the division, and which years these units were part? rst20xx (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. During World War I and the years after, the division consisted of two brigades:

13th Infantry Brigade 1917-1941 (became 2nd Brigade, 7th ID)

14th Infantry Brigade 1917-1941 (became 3rd Brigade, 7th ID)

During World War II the division was organized under 3 regiments, as part of an army-wide reorganization. For the next 20 years, three regiments would be attached to the division. This meant that any three regiments could fall under its command at any time. This meant that the regiments assigned to the division changed quite frequently, particularly in World War II. Here are the regiments that were assigned to the division at one time or another between 1941 and 1963:

17th Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1963)

32nd Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1963)

53rd Infantry Regiment (1941)

159th Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1943)

184th Infantry Regiment (1943 - ~1947)

31st Infantry Regiment (~1947 - 1963)

In 1963, 3 divisional brigades were created and assigned to the division. The 3 were created from the division's old headquarters element as well as the 13th and 14th Brigades. As far as the army is concerned, these are the same units as were active from 1917 - 1941, they were simply renamed.

1st Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1993 (from old Headquarters element)

2nd Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1993 (from 13th Infantry Brigade)

3rd Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1994 (from 14th Infantry Brigade)

The reason the regiments don't belong in this topic is that they are separate units from the division. They were only assigned to the brigade on a tactical basis (which was why two regiments happened to stay with the division for awhile while, for various reasons, the third regiment changed frequently.) They could be reassigned to other divisions as needed. However, in the case of the brigades, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division are part of the division on a permenant basis; they can't be reassigned to another division. As the three brigades were part of the division for over 50 years (compared to the 20 years of a few of the regiments) and since they are actually a part of the division (as compared to the regiments, which act as completely independent units) this topic is, from an organization sense, both complete and correct. -Ed!^(talk) 23:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I get that from an organisational sense, this topic is in some non-arbitrary sense complete, but I am wondering whether from a historical sense it is - 22 years is a long time to be associated with the battalion. And that span includes the whole of World War II and the Korean War. And the history is the most important thing - it's what the overwhelming bulk of each of the articles in the topic are about. As a result, I weak oppose, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support I was going to quickly oppose the topic, but on a more careful look I realized that this is a truly valid topic. It is not featured, so I don't have huge expectations, and unless I am missing something I am supporting the topic. The only major thing I would like is to have a clear sentence in the intro of the main article saying that currently the division is composed of the brigade 1, 2, and 3. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - this has been open for a month but has received very little feedback. More feedback would be appreciated - rst20xx (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  Request made at WikiProject Military history - rst20xx (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - If this topic were renamed "7th Infantry Division 1964–1994", would the issues surrounding the validity of the topic be resolved? As far as I can see, the 7th Infantry Division has had three phases of existence, and this topic is complete in so far as the third phase is concerned. An argument could be made that the first phase is equivalent to the third phase, but it is clear that the 2nd phase is very different. Technically speaking, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd brigades only existed for thirty years (even if they can trace their lineage back further); as rst20xx points out, some of the regiments formerly attached to the division had nearly as long an association with the division as these brigades. I realise it isn't the most elegant of compromises, but it would remove some of the debate. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would be willing to compromise on that. -Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• If that were the case, I would definitely support the nomination. Right now, I do not oppose the nomination, but am somewhat uncertain. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I actually like this idea less than what we had before. It's cherrypicking by scope reduction, as particularly evidenced by how it came about - rst20xx (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Close with no consensus to promote - with 1 support (for an alternative formulation), 1 weak support, 1 weak oppose and 1 querier I do not feel this topic has sufficient consensus to promote. Further the nomination has been open for quite a while and it appears no-one else has feedback. Sorry it took so long - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson's Irene

Irene

3 articles

Samuel Johnson

Samuel Johnson's early life

This is a featured topic nomination based around Johnson's only play, Irene. The first Johnson page deals with Johnson as an author, and the early life page deals with the biographical aspects of the creation of Irene. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for very obvious reasons. Neither the author, or his life are subfields in a topic on Irene. Irene IS a subfield of any of the other two, but not the other way around. Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, an author is a subfield of his works. They always have been and always will be. Hence why on the works page the author does not come first. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Nergaal, I see the works of an author being a subset of the author, not the other way around. as for "the works page," I'm not sure of what you are talking about, but I know that there is a works subsection on the Samuel Johnson article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC) EDIT: When I see a Topic with the name "Samuel Johnson's Irene" the fact that the authors name is first indicates that the author is nominant. In order for me to accept this as a topic, I was expecting to see articles that are subsets of Irene. Eg articles on the major cast members, location, plot, etc. Not articles on the author who wrote the play. To prove that Irene is the subset of Johnson, ask a simple question: Can one write a quality essay on Johnson omitting Irene? Yes. can one write a quality essay on Irene omitting Johnson? No.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  It is only called Samuel Johnson's Irene because I didn't want "(play)" in the title. There are multiple "Irene"s. The play was only performed for a limited time, but was written over 15 years and spans his life. It is a closet drama for all purposes. And the fact that you point out that a quality essay requires Johnson only proves that Johnson is a subset of Irene, not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  From the lead - "written between 1726 and 1749 by Samuel Johnson." That is what makes the play something and why the biographies are subsets of the play. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  By the way, Johnson only wrote one play, so Irene is the page on Johnson's plays. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)\

  No, when there is a parent-child relationship, eg one is dependent upon the other, then the one that can stand on its own is the parent. Samuel Johnson can stand on it's own without referencing Irene, Irene is dependent upon Samuel Johnson. Samuel Johnson is the parent, Irene is the offspring. A quick look at other FT's will show a consistent trend: Mary Wollstonecraft, Nine Inch Nails, Powder Finger, Rock Steady. When dealing with a list, the parent is always listed as the main article while the children are the subtopics. As for your attempted slight on my talk page, I'm not biting. It would be like a taking "Carrie" and saying "Stephen King" is a subtopic of Carrie because Carrie is bigger print than Stephen King's name.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Please reread the rules for Featured Topic. Any topic can be chosen. All topics connected to that topic need to be included. This topic is Irene, which was a written play that is part of the closet drama genre and spans a large portion of his life. Thus, Irene is the topic with sub topics of Johnson. If this was all of Johnson's works, then sure. This is not. This is about a play. That is how Featured Topic works. If you want to change it and say that only the biggest pages can be in topics, then go ahead. However, your claims and the other claims are utterly absurd. The work Irene stands alone. It is an independent publication. You can read the work without having a clue about Johnson. This is common sense and you know it, so I can only think that your objection and the objections above and below without having any connection to the rules are disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, it can stand on its own... but standing on it's own it would be by itself and article, not a topic. As a topic, you have things backwards. Irene would work as a subset for Johnson, but the only person to whom it makes sense to have the parent as a child is you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, now you are really becoming absurd. You stated before that you search for works by author and it is a subset. That was proven wrong and now you are pulling straws. Did you actually read the featured topic page? It says to start with a topic and deal with articles that are part of that topic. That does not mean that the biggest topic must be the only topic. Furthermore, Samuel Johnson is NOT the biggest topic when it comes to the play. The author, in literary criticism, only plays a tiny portion. New Criticism was devoted to reading works without ANY understanding of the author, and guess what? Walter Jackson Bate, who wrote the prize winning biography, started off as a New Critic and analyzed Johnson's works as one. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Nergal: Irene would be a subarticle to the Samuel Johnson topic, not the other way around. Reywas92^Talk 18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Never bought a book before? If it is literature, it may have a tiny section on the author but it is not devoted to it. Logic contradicts and invalidates your oppose and the oppose above. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Also, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. Your oppose is not an actionable oppose under the criteria. Ottava Rima (talk)

  Yes I've bought books before, and when I am looking for a book, I go to the section (literature, history, sci-fi) and then look for the book by AUTHOR not title. You won't find IRENE listed with other books/plays called Irene, but with other books by Johnson. As for what is a FT, this fails 1(d) in that for a category on Johnson, it is clearly lacking key articles.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Authors are listed because multiple books can share titles, but rarely does an author write a book with the same title. And if you look at the title page at Irene, what comes first? It is right there at the GA. And it is not a category on Johnson so your claim does not stand. It is clearly a category on a play written by Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  And when you are looking for books, you are not looking for them because they have a title that is familiar, but rather because you know the author and his/her works. Author's build libraries of their work not the other way around.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  As proven by the title page, publishers and writers think you are 100% wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose my reasoning has already been established and I choose not to succumb any further into the name calling and insults that is undoubtably going to come with this topic. Irene is a single play that is part of Johnsons larger body of work. Johnson is in no way a subset of Irene. This is nothing more than an attempt to create an obscure topic to try to fit the pieces into the puzzle, cherry picking at its worse.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)I'm striking my oppose because apparently, I am trying to get in with the clique that is at FLC, and Ottava is going to start an RFC on me. Keeping my oppose would be a conflict of interest with a threatened RfC.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Accusing someone of "name calling and insults" without proof, as there are clearly none above, is against WP:CIVIL. You are also opposing on something that is not a grounds for oppose, so your oppose is a point violation. Are you happy to be disruptive along with being completely absurd? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per the others, I think this topic is upside down. Part of the Samuel Johnson article is dedicated to Irene, whilst most of it is not, whereas the entirety of the Irene (play) article is dedicated to Irene. Hence Samuel Johnson acts as a summary article for Irene (play), and I would expect any information relevant to the play that appears in the Samuel Johnson article to also appear in the Irene (play) article, and hence the rest of the article is irrelevant to this topic. As others have said, compare with other topics; the best comparison is for album topics, which do not contain the band articles, as they are considered to be of higher scope. Unfortunately for you, there are no subarticles to Irene (play) and so I do not think it is possible to make a topic out of it - rst20xx (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  As pointed out above, none of what you state is part of the requirement and therefore an invalid oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent articles on their own, but this isn't a valid topic I feel. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Per the definition of what a Featured Topic is at the page, it is, and it meets all of the requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  It should be noted that Ottava sought to get support for this topic, but the person he canvassed doesn't even agree with him.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Seeing as how he is a co-nom for two of the three articles listed, he is included in this discussion. Your claims of impropriety are just as absurd as your comments above. You have no shame. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Just so others can see exactly what your statement said, The field of New Criticism apparently doesn't exist! Forget close readings! Balloonman and the others have some nerve, and I am thoroughly disgusted by their lack of reason, sense, or even following the requirements that are really blatant and clear. Which is a clear violation of a neutral messge, thus CANVASS. Please, don't bother responding to me here, I am eagerly awaiting the promised RfC related to this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  A person with the status of co-nominator would not be allowed to support the article in any kind of way. So, your whole statement is laughable. Your striking above is just verification that you are far from operating in a logical manner. You can oppose all you want, it is your claims of personal attacks and canvassing that is in question. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• What's with all this wiki-drama? Pieces of art are part of the larger topic on bibliographies/discographies of artists, and each piece of art forms a topic with subarticles such as critical review of the art, characters/themes/topics in that art. Another example: the creator of Simpsons WILL NEVER be part of the topic on Simpsons simply because he has a ton of other stuff which together with The Simpsons form a topic on himself. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ps: this is a possible model topic: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Mary Wollstonecraft. Nergaal (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And a work like the Bible without an author? What? Would you require "God" or something ridiculous as the subject? Your argument has no basis in reality. Look at New Criticism for the fact that critical theory says that a book exists independent of an author and without knowledge of the author. The idea of close reading, which follows the above, is practiced in most major literary articles. And if the topic was "Samuel Johnson", his only play, a very minor work when compared to the author's works, would not be under that topic when there are over 200 actual major works to consider. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I believe Authors of the Bible would be included in a prospective "Bible" topic, just like List of writers of The Simpsons would be included in a Simpsons topic. However this is different as the contents of these two articles only pertains directly to the parent article (Bible and Simpsons, respectively), unlike here - rst20xx (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly think that authorship is required to understand any book, let alone the Bible, then I hope to God that you never edit an article dealing with literature. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, then why is there a Background section in Irene (play), giving context about Samuel Johnson's writing of the play? rst20xx (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that the information is limited to a Background section verifies that the background is secondary to the page. This should have been obvious while writing your question. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Burger King

Burger King

2 articles

Burger King legal issues

These two articles are the first in a series of Burger King articles which have achieved good article status. The company is one of the largest global fast food restaurant chains. I am working on at least two more to add to the group as well. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - the very first item in the Featured topic criteria state that you need 3 items to make a topic. Also, don't add a nomination to this page and simultaneously add the topic to the "passed" page. --PresN 18:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - criteria 1.d says there must be no obvious gap. This topic will be an overview topic. As such, you need to get all the most important, top-level articles to GA before this topic can become a good topic. In my opinion, this means you must also include Burger King products, Burger King advertising, Burger King franchises and possibly some article on the history of Burger King. Maybe also some list of the number of Burger Kings in each country. But you need the first 3 articles I said for sure before I'd think about supporting this - rst20xx (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - per above —Chris! _ct 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, but you can't set up a "holding" GT consisting only of those articles which have already reached GA and plan to add the rest as they get GA - all core articles need to be at GA before the topic is even nominated -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per panel above. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Quick fail - I am going to quick fail this because as it does not meet the requirement of having 3 items minimum, it cannot possibly pass as a topic. However please don't be discouraged - you're certainly heading in the right direction! rst20xx (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)