Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/July 2008

Super Smash Bros. series

Nominating this for Featured topic...because it meets criteria. Lets start the nitpicking. :) --haha169 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - None needed, these are all the articles Wikipedia has that are Smash related, and we have 50% featured, so it is all set to be added. The only question that remains is, what free use image do we want to use for the topic? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Judge - don't tell me you forgot about the taskforce? Go check it out! --haha169 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that image copyright? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Click on it, and check its Wikimedia Commons profile. --haha169 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweeeet!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, I'm pretty clever to figure that out, eh? :P It took a bit of research, but I determined that a shape as simple as that couldn't be copyrighted. Only the smashball with all the rainbow-y things and random designs can be copyrighted. --haha169 (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, check out the Legend of Zelda FT for a precedent. --haha169 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This meets all the criteria, no key articles are left out. Absolutely no reason why this shouldn't become a featured topic. Artichoker^[talk] 16:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I've never been here before, but I've checked the criteria and everything seems fine. Nice to see this happen as the major contributor of Melee. Well done on Brawl, by the way. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ashnard! --haha169 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Hard to find a nit to pick- there's only three games and they're all there, and 50% FA, sounds like a support. --PresN (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support: It seems to fit all the criteria for a featured topic, and I can't see any problems at the moment. Deamon138 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --haha169 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. and above. Zginder 2008-07-16T20:47Z (UTC)
  • Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good Gary King (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Question: The character pages got deleted? bibliomaniac15 04:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, there never was a character page. The only place where they mention the list of characters is in the series page. --haha169 (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Never was a character list, but there was an awesome looking template once. —Giggy 10:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, no need to thank me. Pagrashtak 07:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support because saying "oppose" would be impolite :) Just kidding. A lot of work went into those articles and it really shows. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. —Giggy 10:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. ;-) —Giggy 10:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Lol. :P --haha169 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - nice work, the copyright thing is brilliance, I liked the old template with characters though :( but that aside, fantastic stuff - rst20xx (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Far be it from me to add the first oppose here; that, and I really can't see any reason to object anyway. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• 'Suport igordebraga ≠ 21:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Hooray for a new video game featured topic! Xnux the Echidna 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support good work Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Meets all criteria TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 21:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to me. Forte X (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Devil May Cry titles

Renominating an old Featured Topic. Gary King (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good job on getting Devil May Cry 4 to GA. Zginder 2008-07-13T21:43Z (UTC)
  • Clarifying since this is the same topic that was featured before, with an additional article for completeness, to require more would be changing the criteria without changing the words. Zginder 2008-07-14T17:56Z (UTC)

• Comment—I'm not sure about this. What's the topic definition? Why is Music of Devil May Cry not included? Pagrashtak 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  This is for the game series. Characters is the characters in the game; music is outside of the game universe. Just like the novels, manga, and anime are their own separate mediums. Gary King (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  Isn't it the music from the game, though? Is your argument that it's not in-universe, i.e. the characters don't hear the music, we do? Pagrashtak 00:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  Pretty much. If there was a "Weapons from Devil May Cry" list, then that should be included, for instance. Gary King (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely convinced, as the music is part of the games. This is a bit silly, but couldn't one argue that the video game Devil May Cry doesn't exist in the game universe and shouldn't be included in the topic? Instead of a real/fictional division, I'd rather see game/non-game. If you had just the game articles, I think that would be a definite yes, and if you had games, characters, and music that would also be a yes (if music was GA, of course). Pagrashtak 13:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  So then do you think only Characters should be removed, or Dante as well? Gary King (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  Both. Dante without the character article would be worse. Pagrashtak 01:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  Oook done Gary King (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  Supporting below. Pagrashtak 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm a bit iffy about that definition that excludes music, because while I see what you're saying, I feel more strongly that in-universe or not, as the music still forms part of the game series, then it should be included (unlike the novels/manga/anime which are completely separate works). I don't feel strongly enough to oppose, however, so I'll just abstain from voting - rst20xx (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Perhaps the controversy would dissipate if we removed the characters article,so this would be only the games of DMC. Then later, do a supplimentary addition when the music, characters, and any other DMC articles are ready to be added. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Comments above this were made when Characters in Devil May Cry and Dante (Devil May Cry) were included in the nomination and may not reflect a statement on the current proposed topic. Pagrashtak 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

---

• Oppose as per my understanding of the criteria and per the discussion below at NIN. If, however, I were to IAR and vote for what I felt should be a featured topic this would be one... personally, I'm for a looser version of the criteria but that's a discussion for another time and place. gren グレン 09:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I said the above based on my reading of the criteria which I think have serious problems. I think we could do them in a better way with "inclusive" featured topics and "enough articles" featured topics or something. I think the series implies the characters and everything in the series... not just the game articles but I think that makes it overly restrictive. So, I don't like the criteria but I don't think this fits them how they are written now. But, I won't vote on this. gren グレン 00:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well do you think it meets the criteria now it's been renamed? rst20xx (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support This topic defined as "Devil May Cry video games" and with no Dante and Characters article is definitely comprehensive. You could perhaps rename the topic (not the main article) "Devil May Cry video games" to clarify, but I think it does meet the criteria anyway. It's not the first topic of this kind to be nominated (The Legend of Zelda, etc.) so I don't see what this one has that is different than the others. Kariteh (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support now that the topic's new definition clearly doesn't exclude any articles. Pagrashtak 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - ignore what's going on below, that one's failing when it shouldn't be. Though I wouldn't oppose a rename, but can we make it to "Devil May Cry titles" for consistency with the Zelda topic? - rst20xx (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, done; it was series before the articles were removed but it's titles now; more appropriate. Gary King (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Good. DMC4 is now GA'd. --haha169 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Important Comment - Game #1 and #2 have 3 dead external links each, while #3 has 2. Please fix them. The dead links can be found here. Oddly, the two GA articles have no dead links at all. --haha169 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    They should be fixed now. Gary King (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    According to my link, its still there ([1]). Perhaps there is a delay. I'll check back in a bit to see. ...Why'd you change all the accessdates, [2]? --haha169 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    It's all automated by the link checker tool; it changes the access dates automatically when it reaches the links successfully. Gary King (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Did you check the archives you added to Devil May Cry? One doesn't load for me and the other doesn't support the statement. Pagrashtak 15:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Replaced Gary King (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support though you didn't have to remove Dante and the characters. igordebraga ≠ 21:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support In my opinion, the omission of the music is acceptable as the topic's name is Devil May Cry titles, not All Devil May Cry Related Articles TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It wasn't when we were discussing that. Pagrashtak 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1998 Pacific hurricane season

Main page	Articles
1998 Pacific hurricane season	Hurricane Isis (1998) - Hurricane Lester (1998) - Hurricane Madeline (1998)

After two more articles were added and GA'd by User:Juliancolton, I am nomming this topic for FTC, after I got the first two articles to FA. It's a short one, but it's complete. No other storms in the season have articles, and there aren't likely to be any more. They're all linked by a single template, and the three storm articles are all of the same general format. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support as co-nom. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• There were other storms listed in 1998 Pacific hurricane season that reached hurricane-level. Why do you think that these three storms are the only ones that can have articles about them? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Because the remainder of the storms would fail notability guidelines, as they generally stayed out at sea and had little or no effects on land. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support This topic looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - quick question though. I feel like I'm being really thick, but where is this template?!? rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, appears we forgot about the template. Added {{1998 Pacific hurricane season buttons}} to the articles. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's better! rst20xx (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm certain that there has got to have been more hurricanes in 1998, but if that's all the articles there are on Wikipedia, then I'm all for it. 50% FA isn't bad at all, though I'd like to see the topic expanded if possible. --haha169 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • All of the other storms are adequately covered in the season article, which is featured. The topic could be expanded greatly if every storm got an article, but none of them are really notable enough for their own article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Close as promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)