Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/June 2014

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season

1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season

4 articles

Cyclone Sina

Cyclone Joy

Timeline

Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, Jason Rees

It's a fairly small topic, but all articles related to the 90/91 SPAC season are either GA or FA. There were two sub-articles for storms that formed in the year, as well as a standard season article and an accompanying timeline article. Most of the articles were promoted fairly recently, so I'm pretty sure everything should be up to par. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support meets featured topic criteria. Secret ^account 00:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support I also believe this meets the criteria for featured topic.--12george1 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support With one featured article, one featured list, and one good article, this meets the criteria for a featured topic. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. --十八 06:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Australia at the 2014 Winter Paralympics

Australia at the 2014 Winter Paralympics

13 articles

Jessica Gallagher

Christian Geiger

Mitchell Gourley

Toby Kane

Victoria Pendergast

Melissa Perrine

Andy Bor

Cameron Rahles-Rahbula

Steve Graham

Joany Badenhorst

Trent Milton

Ben Tudhope

Although we haven't finished improving the 2012 Summer Paralympics articles, Aussiesportlibrarian and myself have brought all the articles on the Australian participation in the recent 2014 Winter Paralympics up to GA standard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support but with a title along the lines of "Australian athletes at the 2014 Winter Paralympics".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. --十八 19:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking Glass Studios video games

Looking Glass Studios video games

17 articles

Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss

John Madden Football '93

Ultima Underworld II: Labyrinth of Worlds

System Shock

Flight Unlimited

Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri

Voyager

British Open Championship Golf

Flight Unlimited II

Thief: The Dark Project

Command & Conquer

System Shock 2

Flight Unlimited III

Destruction Derby

Thief II: The Metal Age

Jane's Attack Squadron

Contributor(s): User:JimmyBlackwing, User:Hahc21, User:PresN

Looking Glass Studios was one of the most innovative, interesting and all-around amazing developers of the 1990s. The company's staff members, who came and went with some regularity, were generally amateurs in the field. They were musicians, physics geniuses and (almost always) overly-ambitious MIT students. They didn't have great business sense, and their development processes tended to be chaotic. Somehow, it usually worked out in the end, and LGS managed to produce legend after legend: Ultima Underworld, System Shock, Thief, System Shock 2, Thief 2. Projects like Flight Unlimited and Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri aren't remembered as well today, but they were acclaimed at the time.

There will inevitably be controversy about the scope of this topic. Most of this stems from the question of Looking Glass Studios' true origin. The company took its name after a merger between Blue Sky Productions (developer of Ultima Underworld) and the little-known Lerner Research (whose development credits are difficult to ascertain). Depending on one's interpretation, this might mean that the topic should include Car & Driver (video game)--or perhaps even F-22 Interceptor. I have tried to hash this issue out multiple times, and the current scope reflects the consensus reached then. Please read the discussions here, here and here for more information.

In conclusion, I'll just say that this topic has been seven years in the making. I started back in 2007 with System Shock and, via off-and-on editing in the years since, the LGS video games topic has become a reality. Most of the users who helped with this topic are now inactive. User:Zeality, User:TKD and User:Prime Blue assisted me at various points with copyediting; User:Noj r co-wrote Thief with me and single-handedly took System Shock 2 to GA. The only major contributors to the topic still kicking around Wikipedia are User:PresN—a FL grandmaster, who did much of the work on List of Looking Glass Studios video games—and User:Hahc21, who got System Shock 2 featured. I've listed them both as contributors above. Finally, all thanks go to User:David Fuchs for creating the beautiful topic icon. This topic has been the work of my Wikipedia career, and I plan to retire from article writing if and when it passes GTC. Thanks for reading this overlong introduction; and I hope you find the topic to be worthy of a green circle. --JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yay to you finally completing the whole topic; boo to you retiring. You've done some great work over the years on this thing, not to mention all your other work around the place. I guess I can't officially support, since you named me as a co-editor, but I fully support in spirit- I was really excited to see you pop back up this Spring and finish this off. Also, that icon is great, nice job David. --PresN

• Support Nergaal (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I feel terrible about the idea of my vote contributing to you leaving, but you seem quite comfortable so I can only offer you my blessing. I've heard of Looking Glass and of most of these games but had no idea it was the developer of all of them. (Reminds me of a few weeks ago, when I learned that Joss Whedon had done Buffy, Angel, Firefly, and The Avengers. Weird.) This seems quite comprehensive and well-done, and none of the GAs or FAs looks flagrantly out-of-date as far as satisfying the GA/FA criteria (from cursory glances), so... nice job keeping everything in order over the years. Tezero (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm very happy about all this work done within seven years! You managed to maintain this long-term goal of improving these Looking Glass video game articles, and despite your retirement, this good topic has great quality. Thank you! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 00:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. very good job. Lucia Black (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Question Is that their actual logo, or is it a Wikipedia invention? —Designate (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's an original work by User:David Fuchs. Their actual logo changed over time (the final one is here), but it never resembled the one used for this topic. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think, as a rule, we should avoid inventing fake logos for real companies. It's unencyclopedic. Also, even if the company no longer exists, it seems like a bad precedent with regards to trademark protection. See WP:TRADEMARK—"When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones)". —Designate (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The image is not a fake logo for the company. Keep in mind that this topic is "Looking Glass Studios video games", rather than "Looking Glass Studios". As there are no images in existence to represent all of their games considered as a whole, a bit of creative license had to be taken. See David's Book of Myst or StarCraft icons for similar examples, or this icon used for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Neither WP:TRADEMARK nor WP:LOGO are relevant to this case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support, but please don't retire! The previous discussions linked in the nom makes me confident the scope is appropriate, and the chosen icon seems perfectly fine in respect since it is mostly for "internal" usage, kinda like Taskforce icons. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Don't worry; I'm only retiring from article writing. I'll still be around WPVG. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. --十八 06:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

2013 Atlantic hurricane season

2013 Atlantic hurricane season

5 articles

Tropical Storm Andrea

Tropical Storm Barry

Hurricane Ingrid

Timeline

Contributor(s): 12george1, Hurricanehink, TropicalAnalystwx13

Let me start off by saying this was a disappointing season for us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Although a total of 15 tropical cyclones developed, none reached major hurricane status and there was no significant damage, except in the case of Hurricane Ingrid. The season even fell below most of the professionals expectations! In contrast, these articles are not disappointing. You see, because the season was lame, we were left with fewer articles and more time to improve them (compare this to the 2012 AHS, for instance). Hurricanehink and TropicalAnalystwx13 are co-nominators. Finally, this will be a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• WHat makes the two storms notable enough to deserve separate articles? Nergaal (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• • What makes them not notable?--12george1 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Outside of hurricanes, I've seen extremely few disasters with sub-10 fatalities and sub-$100k damages with separate articles. Nergaal (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, there's a general agreement that all tropical cyclones are notable. Named storms all get mentions in a variety of scientific documents, so there are always a bunch of verified independent sources. Andrea, Barry, and Ingrid are all essentially sub-articles. As content forks are allowed, I think they are all legitimate articles, considering I believe the season article would be too long (and overly focused with undue weight) with Andrea and Barry. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • • You're not thinking about it the right way. Think about it like they are sub-articles of the season. 04:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow Evan (talk • contribs)
• Delegate comment This nomination has been up for a month, and really needs some more discussion to establish a consensus.--十八 21:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, nice but disappointing season. Quality of articles are great.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Season gets a lot hate along weather forums, but it is still GT-worthy. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support The articles are fantastic. --ȸ (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 16:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking 4 Myself

Looking 4 Myself

9 articles

"Climax"

"Scream"

"Lemme See"

"Numb"

"Dive"

"Can't Stop Won't Stop"

"Sins of My Father"

"Euphoria"

Contributor(s): User:Et3rnal, User:Status, User:Tomica, User:Dan56

The album and all songs article from the album are all good articles, therefore they all meet criteria for being a good topic. 和DITOREtails 20:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• A note: The nominator didn't make any significant edits to the articles. All of them were built and GANed by Et3rnal (talk · contribs), Status (talk · contribs) and me. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another note: Yes. that's true. I have, however, added chart positions to the articles. Also, keep in mind that the good topic criteria does not make any mention of the nominator having to make major edits to the articless. 和DITOREtails 22:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • When creating this page, you clearly removed the "nominators" section which says you should list "yourself and other important contributors to the topic". You did not contribute to the articles at hand, as Tomica pointed out. There's nothing preventing you from nominating it yourself, but you excluded the editors who actually worked on them. Also: "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination." I have added our names and the missing count of articles to properly complete this nomination. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delegate Comment - Barring the fact that the nomination was improperly prepared, this review needs to have some discussion. GamerPro64 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• I was looking at Looking 4 Myself#Tour to see whether there is (or should be) a tour article, but that section is severely outdated and inconclusive and I don't feel happy supporting this GTC at the moment per 1d. Otherwise, the topic meets the criteria. Adabow (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Et3rnal:, @Status:, @Tomica:, @Dan56: to see if they are interested in addressing the issue Adabow brought up. If not, this nomination may have to be closed with no promotion. GamerPro64 04:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The tour never happened... There's nothing to add. I readded the information about it being postponed, I don't know why that was removed. The dates were never rescheduled. — Status (talk · contribs) 07:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I could support if the "nominator issue" isn't enough to bar this topic from promotion... igordebraga ≠ 23:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Looks good now. Adabow (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 19:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)