Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/October 2008

National Basketball Association awards

Main page

Articles

National Basketball Association awards

Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy - List of Walter A. Brown Trophy winners - NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award - NBA Coach of the Year Award - NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award - NBA Executive of the Year Award - NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award - J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award - NBA Most Improved Player Award - NBA Most Valuable Player Award - NBA Rookie of the Year Award - NBA Sixth Man of the Year Award - NBA Sportsmanship Award - NBA All-Defensive Team - All-NBA Team - NBA All-Rookie Team

I am nominating with User:SRE.K.A.L.24 since we think this topic has fulfilled the criteria—Chris! _ct 05:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question Can you explain why List of Walter A. Brown Trophy winners should be considered audidited and ineligible for FL? Zginder 2008-10-30T14:28Z (UTC)

I've added the article, List of Walter A. Brown Trophy winners, because the Walter A. Brown Trophy was on the main article, National Basketball Association awards. It is eligible for FL, but Chrishomingtang didn't ask me first for nominating this FTC. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess we could add that one, too.—Chris! _ct 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've updated the icons—Larry O'Brien is not an FL, but an GA, from what I can see. Also, Walter A. Brown can be an FL; it went through the process twice, and failed because of issues unrelated to its length. Gary King (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean we need to nominate Walter A. Brown for FL now?—Chris! _ct 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and withdraw this FTC. Gary King (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We are withdrawing this FTC.—Chris! _ct 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

2002 Atlantic hurricane season

Main page	Articles
2002 Atlantic hurricane season	Tropical Storm Arthur (2002) - Tropical Storm Bertha (2002) - Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002) - Tropical Storm Dolly (2002) - Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) - Tropical Storm Fay (2002) - Hurricane Gustav (2002) - Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) - Hurricane Isidore - Tropical Storm Josephine (2002) - Hurricane Kyle (2002) - Hurricane Lili - List of storms

All the storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why isn't List of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season included in the topic? --Admrboltz (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Because it is redundant to the main season article. There is currently a discussion about it at WT:WPTC, so it is not feasible to merge the list at this time. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to Weak Support per arguments by Rreagan007 (talk · contribs) --Admrboltz (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - while List of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season exists, it should be included. If it ends up merged, then that's fine, but that hasn't come to pass, so I oppose for now - rst20xx (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) See below for reasoning - rst20xx (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it be better if the topic is changed to "Storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season"? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No. That's an attempt at cherrypicking by scope reduction and I don't think it even succeeds in reducing the scope as desired anyway - rst20xx (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well there's nothing I can do about the list. I can't merge it, nor can I FLC it. Do you have any suggestions? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes. You withdraw this nom, wait until WP:WPTC decides what to do with this type of list, and at that point, if the list is to be merged, you merge it, and if it is not, you get it to FL. And THEN you rebring the nom - rst20xx (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See below - rst20xx (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This topic should not be withdrawn by any means (in case anyone was thinking that). Worst comes to worst, we could merge the list article, and then unmerge it once the article is promoted, then get the three month waiting period once the article is de-merged. The topic is pretty much "Storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season", whether explicit or implied, since the linking feature for all of the articles is the button bar; the list article is not included in the button bar. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well could it be that the list item maybe should be on the button bar? And as for your "possible merge" idea: if you were to go down that route, you'd need to actually do the merge before the topic could pass, not afterwards, and what is more, to do that would be deleting an article so a topic can pass, which is not on in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It does seem to me that it would be ashame to kill this topic just because of the list issues. The topic looks like a great topic except that there is this list hanging out there in limbo at the moment. I guess we could go ahead and approve the topic, see how the list issue gets resolved in the future, and then take appropriate action at that time. I'm not sure I really like that solution, but I'd hate to punish all the hard work that has been done to get this topic in shape just because there is debate about whether or not a list should exist. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  How would it be punishing the hard work? Just because the topic fails now, that doesn't mean it can't pass in the future, once WP:WPTC has resolved the list issues! (Which really shouldn't take that long) What you're basically proposing we do is pass a topic that doesn't meet the criteria just because it has had an impressive amount of work put into it. And there's no guarantee that anything will ever get resolved if we pass it now - rst20xx (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  Ok I've had another thought. The list failed FLC because of instability, so then it should qualify under 3.c to be audited. If it passes the quality audit then it should still qualify under the topic criteria. So we can just put this nomination on hold until the audit is performed. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  ...yes. That makes sense. Thank you. In this case, I oppose until the list goes through PR - rst20xx (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - so what's happening here Julian? rst20xx (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delayed response. I forgot to check in here recently. I still believe that the list is not needed to complete the topic, as it is redundant to the main article. But, as of right now I'm waiting for WPTC to come to an agreement regarding what to do with such articles. I don't know if it's possible to suspend this nomination, but in any event, it seems unlikely that the topic will pass at this point. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you saying you want to withdraw it, or put it on hold? rst20xx (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't want to withdraw it, so putting the nom on-hold seems like the only choice. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment this topic has 13 articles and only 4 are featured => good topic? Nergaal (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• 4/13=30% Rreagan007 (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

---

On hold, pending the conclusion of the discussion at WT:WPTC about "List of storms in seasons" articles - rst20xx (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - as far as I can tell, no-one has said anything in the discussion in 7 days now. What was the conclusion, if anything? rst20xx (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think the list should either be required to begin the audit process immediately or the nomination should be dropped. Who knows when the storm list debate will be resolved. It could be months, and the nomination process is not meant to have a nomination open indefinitely. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Audit process started. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Response to Rreagan007 - if it's going to be months, that suggests to me that the conversation is effectively going to be forgotten about for most of that time. I think it would be fair to say that if the conversation isn't resolved in one month (and there is no active discussion), then it's likely forgotten about. So can we agree to place this topic into 3-month retention either as soon as the conversation is resolved, or one month from when this topic passes (if there is no active discussion in a month)? (Basically I'm looking for some kind of setup to dictate that the topic will not indefinitely have an audited article) rst20xx (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I think you make a good point. If the discussion is inactive for a month then I would say it has been effectively dropped. At that point the list should be able to make it through FLC, so I would support putting it into retention at that time. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Juliancolton, does this sound reasonable to you? rst20xx (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure. It seems as if the discussion at WT:WPTC is on-and-off, and no real decision has come from it as of yet. A month might be enough time to hash out an article format and get the list to FLC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support The PR is complete. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support now the list of storms is included. This is going to be a complicated retention period to carry out, but hopefully a fair one - rst20xx (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the list of storms should be a FL before this can become a FT. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What about the auditing process? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not convinced the list cannot become a FL. In the past, articles that did not seem to be GA-able were still listed for GAN to prove that they would fail. Unless it is proven by a failed FLC that this is not featurable, then a PR does not suffice IMO. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The list was already nominated at FLC, at which time several users agreed that, because of potential instability associated with a WikiProject discussion regarding it and similar article, it could not be featured until the project comes to a decision over how to format such lists. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
        • The first attempt at FLC was a failure. Therefore, the audit process is more than appropriate in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
        • So you are saying that this is featurable, but because of a project where almost nobody votes it is too unstable? In principle even TFA's are unstable, yet they do appear on the mainpage. IF something is EVER decided, then the presumably-FL would be FLRed, or reviewed. The FLC was not a failure, but a withdrawing. As such, in order to prevent future mayhem, this topic should be featured or at least clearly shown that is unfeaturable for now by a comprehensive FLC. Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I understand your concern, but once the list discussion is settled (or has gone dormant for a period of time) the topic will be put into retention and the list will have to go through FLC. I think that's a reasonable approach in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
            • How about promoting this to GT but NOT FT until the issue is solved? I think it would be a fair outcome. Nergaal (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I don't think that's really an option. As you know, the only difference between a FT and a GT is the percentage of featured articles, and this topic still has 28% featured even with the audited article. It's either a FT or it's not. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • ←I jsut think that adding the label "featured" when the containing articles are not featured due to wiki beaurocracy is a slippery slope. Nergaal (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
      • [1][2][3] Nergaal, if you want to change the rules, please don't propose the change in the topic nom - rst20xx (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Although the rest of the articles are GA-class or better (with Edouard, Gustav, Kyle, and the topic's main article being featured), the list of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season is only Start-class; that should quick-fail this topic because not all of the articles are at least GA-class. --Dylan620 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand the FT process; the article was audited for quality, as it cannot at this time become featured. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dylan620, from your comment it does not appear you have read the above discussion about this topic. Please read the above discussion first and then make your comment in the context of what has already been discussed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note — Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) just passed FAC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed as no-consensus after more than a month I have been following this discussion from the beginning, but I have not commented. After more than a month of discussion, it is obvious a few regular and not so regular contributors to featured topics have a problem with this set up. I suggest that you go back and get the main disagreement with the list worked out with the wikiproject and then renominate. It would only be detrimental to the encyclopedia if FT discussions decide to delete or merge articles in order to create an acceptable FT. While there a lot of support, consensus is like the snowball clause, if someone is likely to objects to a declaration of consensus there is no consensus. Zginder 2008-10-26T00:11Z (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe

Main page	Articles
Edgar Allan Poe	Death of Edgar Allan Poe - Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe - Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe

Giving this a shot - today is the anniversary of Poe's death in 1849. Two articles are featured, one is at good status, and one is a featured list. These four, I believe, give a good overview of the biography of Poe, with his works represented in the bibliography. Never done this before, so let me know if I messed up. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What about the other articles in {{PoeTopics}}: Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, Edgar Allan Poe and music and Edgar Allan Poe in television and film? The music one states he has had a longstanding influence on music. These would seem to be important parts of a topic, though I can see how they are somewhat peripheral. Woody (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They are more than a little peripheral and border on trivia; I doubt I could ever get them up to GA quality or better. They don't seem to add much to the biography of Poe anyway. What do others think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support The other artilces are trivia, do not have to do with what he did, but others, and are not needed. Zginder 2008-10-07T22:41Z (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry, but I feel the three articles Woody listed should be included. The topic is incomplete without them - rst20xx (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to feel sorry. I'm close to nominating those other articles for deletion, so you'll notice my feeling on them. I'm just not sure how a list of songs that mention "Annabel Lee" is particularly relevant to Poe's biography. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm no literary expert, but I'm thinking that a few of Poe's most notable works should probably be included in a general topic about him. I know, I know, cherry picking. But before reading some of the articles in this nomination, the only thing I knew about Poe was that he wrote "The Raven." I'm not sure how you could have this topic without at least including what "The Raven" article points out is "one of the most famous poems ever written." If you changed this topic from a general one to one that is more specific like "The life of Edgar Allan Poe" then this nomination might work as it currently stands. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point and I don't disagree. I would support either renaming to "Life of Edgar Allan Poe" or I would support adding some of his major/exempletive works ("The Raven" is an FA, "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" and "Eureka: A Prose Poem" are at GA). Otherwise, I do feel having the full Bibliography article included covers his works, at least superficially. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 and episodes

previous FTC

I am restarting this nomination because the last one went on for too long; it was on hold while Half-Life 2 was at FAR (which it passed), and there was a dispute regarding this topic's name. Let's start this from scratch, shall we? Gary King (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support-ish as long as a better name is found. Nergaal (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support under any reasonable name. (Fossil fuel for spark-plug-containing internal combustion engines is not a reasonable name for Gasoline, but short of that I should be fine with it.) Zginder 2008-10-15T19:36Z (UTC)
  • Comment The name of this nomination that is being voted on is "Half-Life 2 and episodes." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support under this name or "Half-Life 2 episodes", but not under "Half-Life 2 titles" or "Half-Life 2 episodes". Beyond that, open to further suggestions - rst20xx (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Additional comment - as per Rreagan007's penultimate comment on the previous nomination, I would prefer to see a general "Half-Life 2 titles" topic, that also includes Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Half-Life 2: Survivor. However, I feel that this just about passes the "does not overly overlap" and cherrypicking rules as is, without them - rst20xx (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• I still believe it would be more prudent to work towards a full Half-Life series topic (not focusing exclusively on HL2 titles, but including HL1, its expansions and the series article), but as long as that can be addressed through supplemental nominations later, I guess I can support. -- Sabre (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per overlap recommendation at WP:FT?. All articles are already listed as part of the Orange Box. Here I am obviously discounting Episode 3 as it is only a Peer Reviewed stub. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've had a lot of time to think about this one, and the more I think about it the less I like it. I'm sure everyone here would agree that it would be much better if this could be a larger "Half-Life 2" or even "Half-Life" topic. Unfortunately, those topics aren't ready yet. If it weren't for the large degree of overlap with The Orange Box topic I probably would have supported anyway, but the overlap pushes me over the edge to oppose. Sorry guys. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I once thought that while there was a lot of overlap orange box was a totally different ball game, but with the only new article being an audited article, I see no reason to promote until episode three is released or more artilces are added. Sorry. Zginder 2008-10-16T15:06Z (UTC)

---

• Question What do you guys think if Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Half-Life 2: Survivor were added to this topic and it is renamed to "Half-Life 2 titles", once they reach GA? Gary King (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be much more in favour of this. You may also need to add/discuss if Half-Life 2: Deathmatch should be split back out. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It would definitely make it a much better topic and I think I would most likely support that. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I supported this, and would also support that - rst20xx (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  To clarify, I would support this when either three is promoted or other artilces that would not create a gap are added. Zginder 2008-10-18T01:07Z (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn following a request by the nominator - rst20xx (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 episodes

Gary King (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Here's the link for the Half-Life 2: Episode Three peer review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
• Support - Nice work. This has a large amount of overlap with the orange box topic, which is unprecedented, though not unnatural I feel. So this gets my support - rst20xx (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for the reason of overlap. I have nothing against the articles, but I would far rather see a featured topic for the Half-Life series as a whole, including Half-Life (video game), Half-Life: Opposing Force, Half-Life: Blue Shift and Half-Life: Decay. Making this a featured/good topic would mean that in the future there would be three featured topics with the articles for Half-Life 2, Episode One and Episode Two, as there's already overlap with The Orange Box featured topic. I strongly recommend a FTC on any Half-Life series articles is just left alone until the articles related to Half-Life 1 and the series article are improved to good article status or higher, so we can have a complete topic detailing the series in its entirety with minimal overlap. -- Sabre (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I don't agree with this. An overall Half-Life series topic isn't ready yet, but when it is, I'm sure what would happen is that this topic would be folded into that one, not that they would both exist. See also Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Characters of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow - rst20xx (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep; we can just build up, either with a new nomination or with supplementary ones. Gary King (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if we can transform this into a Half-Life series featured/good topic when the HL1 articles reach good article status, then I lend my support to this. -- Sabre (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Nice subtopic for the Half life featured topic. Meets all the criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support But I am not sure about the title. Zginder 2008-09-14T00:19Z (UTC)
• Comment Half-Life 2 is currently at FAR. Pagrashtak 04:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - so close, but Half-Life 2 is now at FAR, so that's no good there. --PresN (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It did make GA before getting promoted to FA, so if it was demoted would it just revert to GA and therefore be acceptable here? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It would drop to B. Gary King (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It would become unassessed, but not GA. Zginder 2008-09-18T15:28Z (UTC)

Arg. It seems very unfair, but I don't feel this can pass until the FAR is over - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why unassesed? It was passed as a GA, and it did not go through a GAR. Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it loses its GA status when it becomes a FA. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe FAs should be a subset of GAs, but I guess this is not the place to discuss it. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• On hold - I guess this nomination should be considered on hold pending the outcome of the Half-Life 2 FTR, and then either promoted or not promoted depending on what that outcome is - rst20xx (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yep that's fine with me. I'm obviously hoping that the FAR will pass; it currently looks that that's the way it's headed, because there are a few people pitching in to help out. Gary King (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Review is about to close favorably, path is clear to make this a Good Topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• FA review has closed with the article being kept as a FA. There shouldn't be any more barriers to this becoming a GT. -- Sabre (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to leave it up for a couple more days so people can check it over for any other objections, but yes, well done with the FAR - rst20xx (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Object to the name I believe the "episodes" label is misleading. The main article is not an episode, and the episodes are actually expansions. Why not simply have it as "HL2"? Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  The main article doesn't need to be an episode. Just like Noble gas is itself not a noble gas. The episodes are still episodes, just like Star Wars episodes. Gary King (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  I don't see the connection. Noble gas describes each of the gases, while here, HF2 is a standalone game&article, and the episodes are continuations/expansions. As I've said, the label episodes is misleading, and I would rather prefer something extremely akward like "standalone-games" or "releases" rather than something that is misleading; HL2 the game, is not episode 0 nor covers the other episodes. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  "Half-Life 2 titles"? Then all we need to do is knock off the "2" when HL1 stuff gets around to being integrated. -- Sabre (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  Hm, I think there are a few other games that have "Half-Life 2" in their title, aren't there? I think my Star Wars example is similar to this situation; it isn't a reason to go through with this, but it does describe it fairly well in my opinion. These are episodes of Half-Life 2, as officially described by Valve themselves. Gary King (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with Gary. A "Half-Life titles" topic would also need to include Half-Life 2: Lost Coast, Half-Life 2: Deathmatch (not sure this should have been merged myself), probably Half-Life 2: Survivor, and maybe also Codename: Gordon and The Orange Box - rst20xx (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Half-Life 2 Deathmatch was merged because there simply isn't much to say about it - no real development info, no major reception, not even much to say on gameplay. A large bulk of the article was game guide content, and as its just Half-Life 2 in multiplayer, its far easier to cover it within the main Half-Life 2 article. -- Sabre (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  I would think it's notable enough for its own article, and capable of GA, but anyway, this is a bit off topic now - rst20xx (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• Comment - if possible, I am disinclined to promote this topic until the name dispute is resolved, as renaming categories is a right pain. Can I propose we have a quick vote on which name people would prefer? I'll go first - rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support current "Half-Life 2 episodes" name over all other possible names - per the arguments of Gary King above - rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose current name. I have to say I agree with Nergaal. If the lead article just focused on the episodes that would be one thing, but from what I can tell it focuses almost entirely on a separate game. I think either "Half-life 2 titles" or "Half-life 2 series" would be a more appropriate name for this topic. I've looked at all the other articles rst20xx mentioned, and I don't think a name change would require the inclusion of any of those articles. The only one that might should be in would be the arcade game version, but from what I can tell it doesn't seem to be in the same continuity as the main Half-life 2 so I would be inclined to say it's not necessary either. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  "Half-Life 2 titles" sounds good to me as it's not really a wholly separate series. Gary King (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  second to the "titles" proposal Nergaal (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  I have renamed the topic. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Promote under any name the criteria does not say anything about having an good title, opposes for a bad title are non-actionable. Zginder 2008-10-12T17:31Z (UTC)

  A name can clearly lead a topic to fail other criteria, for example if this topic was called "Half-Life titles" it would clearly have notable gaps - rst20xx (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the topic now under the new name. It clearly does not include all the Half-Life 2 titles, Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Half-Life 2: Survivor are missing, so to promote it under this name would IMO be cherrypicking. To promote it under the "episodes" name would be fine, a la the Star Wars topic or the "Halo trilogy" topic. Jeez Gary, before you decided to change your mind and rename the vote was 2-2, I think renaming was a bit premature - rst20xx (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  Okay I renamed it back and am going to be hands-off for a few days from this topic. Gary King (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've never played these games before. All of my knowledge comes from reading these articles, so this is a completely honest question. How does Half-Life 2: Lost Coast count as a "title" if it is merely an extra level you can download for Half-Life 2? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  Well I have played it, but I don't think it really matters much here. Okay, Lost Coast is only one level, but I don't see how that means it ISN'T a Half-Life 2 title - rst20xx (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• All this over a few mere words, seems a bit pointless when there's agreement that the topic itself is valid. Come on guys, lets get this settled, if you don't like the current name, suggest something else. Let's throw another title in: "Half-Life 2 and episodes". -- Sabre (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  That name sounds a bit silly, but I suppose at a stretch I would be willing to settle for it - rst20xx (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  Not a great name, but I'd go along with it also. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see why Half-Life 2 is part of this. The Expansions and modifications section makes my point best I think - "Newell admits that a more correct title for these episodes should have been "Half-Life 3: Episode One" and so forth, having referred to the episodes as Half-Life 3 repeatedly through the interview". With this in mind it just seems like the inclusion of HL2 is to meet the minimum of three articles. For me this fails 1d. Cherrypicking. I'd be happy with a HL2 Expansions if you could include Half-Life 2: Lost Coast GA . Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  Valve planned on releasing Episodes one through three as Half-Life 3, but they decided to break the game up into three separate episodes that became a part of the Half-Life 2 series. Gary King (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, to clarify on that further, they later wanted to release the three games as a single expansion pack, entitled Half-Life 2: Aftermath but then basically decided to release it as three separate games, but still together making up a single expansion pack for Half-Life 2. Valve made a fairly big deal about releasing the one game as three episodes. Here's some more information. I'm currently working on Half-Life 2: Episode One, which also has some information in the Development section. Gary King (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Start a poll? I think this is what all of this is about. IMO "episodes" is misleading. "series" or "titles" would be fine. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Honestly I think this FTC should be restarted. Some of the people who were involved at the beginning are not aware that this discussion is still going on. Gary King (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I hate to be the one to say this, but I think this nomination should probably just be withdrawn. The conflict over the name of the article highlights bigger issues with this topic concerning scope and cherry picking. All of the articles in this topic (except the audited article) are already included in The Orange Box topic, and that is also possible overly overlapping of topics. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think that the articles are obviously related in some way; perhaps what way that is is where the problem lies, not the relationship itself. The three episodes are strongly related to each other, and they are branched off from Half-Life 2. Gary King (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  The best option is probably to restart this FTC and get everyone's opinions in here again, because only the people who are concerned about the name of this topic are currently involved in this discussion. Gary King (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ok well if you'd like to give it a second try I would suggest just withdrawing this nomination and renominating it from scratch. It's probably not a bad idea anyway since this nomination has been open over a month now. That has to be some kind of record. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Yep! This nomination has went off its tracks a few times already. I'll just archive this and renominate it again. Gary King (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy titles

Main page	Articles
Final Fantasy	Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy IX, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy XI, Final Fantasy XII, Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Mystic Quest

See also Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Final Fantasy titles/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Final Fantasy titles/addition1 and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Final Fantasy titles/addition2

Time to reboot this former featured topic. Since demotion, FFIII and FFVII regained Good Article status, and FFXIII was peer reviewed, so there are no gaps. igordebraga ≠ 14:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Worst timing ever, unfortunately. FF1 got demoted right as you were nominating this. --PresN (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose a quick close per above, no office to igordebraga. Zginder 2008-10-12T17:24Z (UTC)

Plus we're still working on this topic. Please let us work and then nominate it when we consider it ready. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, every time I opened the FF1 article, I wondered when it would be demoted (FF3 took some time...). Due to the bad news, quick closing and Withdrawing. igordebraga ≠ 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Original Quatermass Chronology

Main page	Articles
Bernard Quatermass	The Quatermass Experiment - Quatermass II - Quatermass and the Pit - Quatermass (TV serial) - Nigel Kneale - Rudolph Cartier

As Quatermass (TV serial) has just made it through GAN, I'd like to nominate these articles as a featured topic. User:Angmering (who should turn up to co-nom at some point) deserves all the credit here, having promoted the six featured articles. I just got Quatermass (TV serial) up to GA-standard. This is a complete topic, Kneale and Cartier being the writers; the whole series is summed up in the main article. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - rst20xx (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm - I am a bit weary of not including the films too. Perhaps change the chronology to series? Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Why is The Quatermass Memoirs not included in this topic? - Joe King (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Perhaps "Quatermass on television" would be a better title for the topic, if you want to exclude the films and The Quatermass Memoirs. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  The Quatermass Experiment (2005)... rst20xx (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  D'oh! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by nom It was meant to be the original TV series. If you look at the infoboxes of the different serials, they have "preceded by" and "followed by" on them so they're clearly a series of 4. Angmering, who wrote almost the entire topic, is a TV buff and knows these things. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's not beat around the bush here. This is an artificial topic created specifically to exclude the Quatermass articles that aren't up to FA/GA standard in order to get a Featured Topic. We can either argue round in circles as to whether this is a legitimate topic or we can get to grips with the real task at hand - getting the remaining Quatermass articles up to scratch and then submitting them as a featured topic. There are only five articles involved - it's not a Herculean challenge. I think I have enough material lying around the house that I could rework The Quatermass Xperiment and Quatermass 2 up to GA standard. However, I'm far too busy in real life at the moment and wouldn't be able to even start work until late October/early November. The Quatermass Memoirs could probably be nominated for GA now; I don't think there's much that can be added to the article to be honest. That just leaves Quatermass and the Pit (film) and The Quatermass Experiment (2005); I'm sure there are enough good sources out there that we could get them up to GA too, if we just look. Thus, I feel that we need to have some patience, roll up our sleeves and come back here once we have all of the Quatermass articles up to the required standard. - Joe King (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I disagree, my understanding is that everything to do with the original chronology is included in the topic, and the other TV/film/radio stuff is set in later, unrelated continuities. Hence, the topic name. It's true that the films were made whilst the original TV series was ongoing, but I don't see how any of these things make it such that this FTC isn't a unified topic - rst20xx (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I think that Joe's suggestion is that focusing on narrative chronology or continuity is a bit arbitrary and "fannish", especially when there are only a handful of articles being excluded from the more natural topic grouping, "Quatermass". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think that this makes a complete topic. Zginder 2008-10-06T16:45Z (UTC)
• Close with no consensus - I'm sorry, but I don't feel 2 supports and 1 oppose constitutes consensus - rst20xx (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)