Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/March 2010

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

John Douglas

John Douglas

Featured topic

5 articles

List of his new churches

List of his church restorations, amendments and furniture

List of his houses and associated buildings

List of his non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works

This is nominated as a featured topic as it consists of a comprehensive account of the life and works of the architect John Douglas. All the articles are featured. If successful it would form the first FT in an Arts and Architecture section. Please help with the creation of the template and the book.

• John Douglas (architect): FA (lead)
• List of new churches by John Douglas: FL
• List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas: FL
• List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas: FL
• List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas: FL

(5 articles)

Suggested image File:John Douglas (architect).jpg

--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Made the box for you. Interesting topic! --PresN 18:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - though maybe the topic should be called "Lists of works of John Douglas"? As this topic contains the lists of his works, not the articles on the works themselves - rst20xx (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem about that, as I see it, would be that if that were the title of the lead article, when you click on to it you would be into his biography, and not to a list.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But you don't go to a work either, do you? rst20xx (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not as such. But if you take the section of the lead article entitled Significant works plus the subsection on Styles, I estimate that about half the article concentrates on his works; the lists just give more details.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Great topic with excellent articles/lists. Well done! Pyrrhus16 19:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support The last list made me realize this topic was being worked on, very cool! Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though I can't immediately see the problem with having the title as simply "John Douglas", and the lists piped as "List of his new churches", etc. Someone looking at the box will get the point very quickly that he's an architect. Bencherlite^Talk 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I like it! Done.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, having checked out all the other John Douglases, I don't think any of them will merit a topic, so I agree with this change (slightly obsessive I know, but IMO necessary) rst20xx (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Help! I haven't dealt with the book yet; can anyone advise how to do this. Thanks.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, but someone might want to check whether it needs more categories. Bencherlite^Talk 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That's amazing; thanks a million. I'd no idea this sort of thing could be done. WP is a phenomenon.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Great job on a topic in an underrepresented area in WP:FT. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Battlecruisers of Germany

Battlecruisers of Germany

13 articles

SMS Von der Tann

Moltke class battlecruisers

SMS Moltke

SMS Goeben

SMS Seydlitz

Derfflinger class battlecruisers

SMS Derfflinger

SMS Lützow

SMS Hindenburg

Mackensen class battlecruisers

Ersatz Yorck class battlecruisers

O class battlecruisers

Here's all of the battlecruisers ever built or planned by the German navies. This does not include the Scharnhorst class ships built before World War II. The reason they are not included is explained here. Note that the Derfflinger FT will need to be subsumed by this one. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - needs a book! rst20xx (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Also, can you clarify the difference between a battleship and a battlecruiser, ie why it's ambiguous as to which the Scharnhorst class belongs to? rst20xx (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I'll get to the book in the morning. As to the battleship/battlecruiser bit, battlecruisers are basically battleships that sacrifice either armor or main guns for speed, so they can act as scouts/cruiser killers/other specialized roles apart from battleships, which are basically designed to just fight other battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  Rst, the reason it is ambiguous is clearly stated in the note in Parsecboy's initial statement: "The two Scharnhorst class warships have been referred to as battlecruisers, especially in British works. The Kriegsmarine classified them as battleships, and a significant majority of scholarly works refer to them as such". That should be sufficient. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  The book is up. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  You can't format it like that. All article names must have one : preceding them. Any italics must be within a pipe eg like this. You need to take the templates out - rst20xx (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Out of curiosity, what's wrong with the {{SMS}} and {{sclass}} templates? Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Support - oh maybe they would have been ok actually, to be perfectly honest I didn't bother looking at them and just assumed that the italics in them would be outside any link, not inside a pipe - rst20xx (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support even though I much prefer the layout of having class sub-topics and this be a topic of the classes and unique vessels instead. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Full Support Looks perfectly fine and very organized. And sorry about the oppose. Buggie111 (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose I might be a noob, but as I remember, SMS Mackensen, SMS Graf Spee, SMS Prinz Eitel Friedrich and SMS Fürst Bismarck (1915), four battlecruisers of the Mackensen class, should be a GA. They are redirects as of now. Buggie111 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • They are redirects because there is not enough individual information on each vessel to be able to sufficiently have enough for an individual article aside from the standard information that is reported in the class article. This oppose is spurious and should be struck since the proposed articles cannot meet the comprehensiveness requirements to meet the GA criteria. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Seconded, see the histories of the now-redirected articles USS Philippines (CB-4), USS Puerto Rico (CB-5) and USS Samoa (CB-6); they were basically duplicates of information already in the class article. Mackensen etc. would be the same way. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Although could the Seydlitz be moved to the third column so that Hindenberg can be with the rest of the Derfflinger's in column 2? Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I moved it, was bothering me too. --PresN 15:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• It was that way to keep the topic in chronological order. Now it is disingenuous since Seydlitz came before the Derfflingers yet the topic box now suggests the opposite. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah. It may look worse, but I think it should be moved back - rst20xx (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, I've moved it back. Chronological order trumps aesthetics. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - meets the criteria. Congrats Parsec! We'll have to get the O class battlecruisers to FAC sometime. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - well done. I will merge the other topic into this one - rst20xx (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 1)

South Park (season 1)

14 articles

"Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"

"Weight Gain 4000"

"Volcano"

"Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride"

"An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig"

"Death"

"Pinkeye"

"Starvin' Marvin"

"Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo"

"Damien"

"Tom's Rhinoplasty"

"Mecha-Streisand"

"Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut"

This is an FT candidate, and the culmination of the first season effort of the WikiProject South Park featured topic drive. More than one third of the articles are FA and the rest are GA, so I believe the criteria has been satisfied. I'm nominating this on behalf of those who have contributed, including Awadewit, Cirt, Nergaal, Music2611, TerrenceandPhillip, TheLeftorium, ImperatorExercitus and myself. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 06:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - if you get one more FA, that will be half, which will enable this topic to stay featured after the criteria rise on September 1. Very good work by everyone involved, but I have one request: you need some kind of nav box to get between the different articles of the season. Maybe the format that can be seen at eg Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire (top right nav box)? rst20xx (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Does anybody know how to make that template? — Hunter Kahn 01:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • SP articles used to utilize such a template, but it was decided to not use it as it took up too much space. I'd suggest using something like the nav templates used at Lost and Desperate Housewives episodes. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 22:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • But there is a difference between the Simspons nav box he is referring to and what the SP articles used to have because the Simpsons box can be expanded and hidden, whereas in SP before it was just a long list in the infobox that made it too big. Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to something like that, or something like the DP template... — Hunter Kahn 02:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, when I said like the Simpsons, I had hiding/showing in mind. But I'd be equally happy with a navbox down the bottom, in the style of Lost or DH - rst20xx (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
          • ...Any progress here? rst20xx (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Sorry it took me a while. I made a template of episodes similar to that of Lost, and added it to each of the Season 1 articles. Before I added it to the other seasons, I wanted you to see it and let me know if it's what you had in mind. I also added a list of Season 1 episodes to the "episodelist" field, along with the list of overall episodes; some individual episode articles had that already, but some didn't. They all do now. — Hunter Kahn 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
              • Support - yeah, that looks good thanks. Though I'd add the episodes template to the season 1 article, as well. The links are already there in the table above but the user might expect to be able to find it at the bottom as well - having it there is more convenient for them. Anyway, support - rst20xx (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Wonderful job, all yee who participated. If you do shoot for another FA, might I suggest "Pinkeye"? It's the closest to FA out of all of them, IMO. That or "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride." The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I did not end up significantly contributing content to this drive, though I did help to set up the content drive itself, and get it started. Truly, some excellent work all around. Great job improving South Park content on the project. :) Cirt (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I really really hate South Park, but it seems the topic can't be faulted..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural (season 2)

Supernatural (season 2)

Featured topic

3 articles

"What Is and What Should Never Be"

"All Hell Breaks Loose"

I am nominating this because I feel that FA's All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural), What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural), and Supernatural (season 2) qualify for a featured topic. I don't really understand how to do the book part of the nomination, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ωphois 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not convinced that the season's lowest ratings episodes deserve articles while the other ones (especially the season premiere) do not deserve stand-alone articles. Nergaal (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  Higher ratings does not equal higher notability. In fact, the two were critically praised, and one is the season finale. Standalone articles for the rest are unnecessary, as the little info available on them is already covered in the topic article. Ωphois 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  This sounds like a pile of original research. Just looking quickly at the reception section here, I found this He also found "Nightshifter" to be the "best action hour of Supernatural's second year", deeming it "riveting from beginning to end" which makes your argument not stand well. Anyways, especially for a show's second season, it is important to include the premiere; presumably, it was renewed because the first season gave a good impression so many critics must have bothered to review the first episode of the next season, saying at least that it sucked. Nergaal (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not understanding your argument. If little-to-no information is present about an episode, then how is an article supposed to be created for it? For the premiere, any information available applies to the overall storyline, so it is more appropriate for the season article. Repeating the same exact information in another article would be pointless. Likewise, the few tidbits about "Nightshifter" are already included in the season article. Ωphois 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I don't know much about FTs. I'm pretty sure that more than two eps are notable, but that that doesn't mean they have to have their own articles. As long as their covered in the season page, then I think it's fine. It only becomes an issue if one of the eps receives it's own article, then I think you get a certain amount of time to get it to GA/FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Meets all the featured topic criteria, and since all three articles are featured, it will survive the September 1 criteria update too. Sarilox (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have to take Ophois' word that there is not enough coverage in reliable sources for the other episodes of season 2 to be notable enough to merit their own articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - like Nergaal I am surprised that no other articles are notable enough for their own article - in particular I would expect the premiere to be notable. The requirement for FT here is that if an article is notable enough to exist, it should exist. So far you have been arguing that there is no point in the premiere having an article because the information in such an article is already found in the lead. Firstly I would find it surprising if there is no more information on the premiere than what is found in the lead. Maybe it is the case that any story information available for the premiere also apply to the overall storyline (though I don't see why this would be more true for the premiere than the finale) but what about reviews? Secondly, you should be arguing in terms of notability, not repetition. These two things taken together lead me to ask - is the premiere notable enough for its own article? rst20xx (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  By repetition, I mean in production info, not story info. For example, the main bit of info (even at that, only about a sentence or two) that would be included would be about the death of one of the major characters. That has to do with the main storyline of the series, so it is already in the season article. There is little-to-none notable information available otherwise to create an article, merely a few random facts already present in the season article. Ωphois 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  What exactly makes the last two episodes that much more notable? Nergaal (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  The first is a highly-praised and award-winning episode that featured the return of two characters, and the second is a two-part episode that ends one of the main storylines of the season. Ωphois 16:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per above. It meets criteria; just because there are few episodes notable enough production and reception wise to warrant articles does not deter from this FTC's qualification. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - I read this as having 3 supports and 1 oppose - I'm discounting Peregrine Fisher's support because actually, if an ep is notable enough to have an article, it DOES have to have one. I feel that this is right on the threshold of having enough support to pass. If however at any stage any more episodes gain articles, then you will have 3 months to get these articles to GA and into the topic - rst20xx (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Major League Baseball awards

Major League Baseball awards

20 articles

Commissioner's Trophy

World Series champions

National League pennant winners

American League pennant winners

Most Valuable Player

Cy Young Award

Rookie of the Year

Manager of the Year

Rawlings Gold Glove Award ^(subtopic)

Silver Slugger Award ^(subtopic)

Hank Aaron Award

Roberto Clemente Award

Rolaids Relief Man of the Year

DHL Delivery Man Award

Comeback Player of the Year

World Series Most Valuable Player

League Championship Series Most Valuable Player

All-Star Game Most Valuable Player

Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award

• Support as co-nominator This has been a long-coming project of WP:MLB to bring the MLB awards list up to snuff with the already featured NBA and NHL topics. In sum total all of these editors deserve credit and co-nom status for their roles in finished off this topic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I knew it would get done eventually, but I never expected this huge amount of help from so many valuable editors. Cheers, everyone! Support as co-nom — KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support as co-nom for work on the MVP list. There are no gaps, as proved by MLB's list of awards in the dropdown menu [1], all articles contain {{MLB awards}}, all but one are featured (with the other being a GA), and the topic is well-defined. Mm40 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Congratulations are in order for your excellent work. Pity Commissioner's Trophy (MLB) isn't at FA-level to make this a fully featured topic, but the topic is excellent as is. NW (Talk) 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, original intention there was a featured list, but it was considered to be a content fork, failing FL criterion 3b. I'm good with the GA. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Wonderful job! Just a couple consistency concerns: Some have the Key within the winners section, but others have a separate section for it. Some lists have the section title Winners, but others have List of winners or Award winners. Also, some have National League winners and American League winners as subsections of Winners/List of winners/Award winners, but others have them as the top-level sections. I don't care which, but pick one and be consistent. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe that's a topic criteria, though setting a consistent format would be fine. The articles have all passed their FLCs with the format they have. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Perfectly identical formatting isn't a requirement for a featured topic, per WP:FT?. The structures and formatting are "similar" as recommended by the optional criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I know it's not an absolute requirement, but the same section titles is recommended. Individually, of course, they are fine, but this is really easy to take care of. Consistancy is a very important part of looking professional, and I believe that the prestigious FT should look professional. Reywas92^Talk 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not too bothered about the different section headers, since several awards articles have different layouts according to their contents. I did remove "List of" from one article where the more concise "Winners" sufficed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Reywas92 here. Just because the topic criteria doesn't require consistency, that doesn't mean we should stop at making the topic better and more professional.—Chris!_c/t 05:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as co-nominator Awesome job guys! --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support Except for the Commissioner's Trophy, which was a GA, I have had the pleasure of reviewing or promoting (only when there was sufficient consensus to, of course) the FLCs for these lists in the past 14 months. This FT is an example of the Wiki collaborative spirit at its finest. Kudos to everyone involved in making this achivement possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - can't fault the topic. I only wish there were equivalent awards in association football so that WP:FOOTY could work on a similar topic....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  (This is off topic but) you could make an Awards in English football article that includes a summary of all the awards in English football awards and then go about and get them up to scratch. Or a trophies topic with Premier league winners, Championship winners, First Division, FA Cup, League Cup, etc - rst20xx (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  An even better one: FIFA awards. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  FIFA only awards player of the year, so, that doesn't work... unless you had something else in mind? rst20xx (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - great topic! As an aside, I do think Reywas92's concerns are valid. As WP:FT? says, while the recommendations are not mandatory, they are, err, recommended. And addressing his concerns in a constructive manner, as opposed to dismissing them as unnecessary, will improve the quality of the topic., Nobody has even attempted to argue otherwise - rst20xx (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  Forgive me, but to me, this basically sounds like "Just do it, even though it's not necessary". Whether the concern is warranted or not, the criteria are fulfilled. Many of the lists follow different formats; that's what comes from collaboration. We have a bunch of different editors with a bunch of different editing styles here, and it's previously been debated ad nauseum that articles and lists don't have to march to an absolutely identical drum when meeting FA/FL/GA criteria. If the aforementioned criteria are met, then I don't see the logic behind changing the lists, especially when several of them follow different formats. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  I understand why the lists have got to here with different formats. Again, you're just appealing strictly to the criteria, and not thinking about what is best for the reader. I supported because a strict reading of the rules earns a support. However, I also suggested you should consider Reywas92's points because I felt that addressing his issues would improve the quality of the topic. The identical drum has maybe been debated ad nauseum AT FA/FL/GA, but we are not at FA/FL/GA, we are at FT. The difference here is that you are presenting the articles together, not one by one, so it is much more useful here for the reader to have a unified structure/presentation. Obviously unifying the lists won't always be possible simply because they'll have different types of content, but that's fine and I only said I felt that his concerns should be addressed in a constructive manner (i.e. it should be discussed as to whether they can be unified, especially when it requires little effort). But at any rate, I did support, so keep your hair on, lol - rst20xx (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unrelatedly to the discussion above, I change to oppose, sorry. I realise there is a pretty glaring gap in this topic, and a second more subtle one. The more obvious gap is the lists of the pennant winners are not included, either through List of National League pennant winners and List of American League pennant winners, or through Warren C. Giles Trophy and William Harridge Trophy (which could be expanded to include those lists). So these two trophies are awards without their winners listed in the topic. Compare this to the other similar topics. The NHL topic includes Clarence S. Campbell Bowl and Prince of Wales Trophy, which are directly comparable articles to the MLB pair. The NBA topic does not include a List of Eastern Conference (NBA) champions and List of Western Conference (NBA) champions, and maybe it should. Though as far as I can tell, no trophies are awarded for the winners of the conferences, so this is slightly less comparable.

The second more subtle issue is that the list of MLB winners only goes back to the start of the World Series, in 1903, and not to the founding of the MLB in 1869. List of pre-World Series baseball champions, Temple Cup and Chronicle-Telegraph Cup should hence be part of the topic (though the last two are probably mergable into the first). To compare again with the NHL and NBA topics, they go all the way back to the founding of their leagues - rst20xx (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• MLB does not recognize those championships, as evidenced by official championship counts for the Athletics, Red Sox, and Cubs (White Stockings) who all won championships in those earlier forms. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  I realise your inclusion criteria for lists in this topic was those officially recognised by the MLB, which is a good criteria, but I think this one list is in a bit of a greyer area than others. I'm reminded of the History of the NHL FT nom, where there was a dispute over official history vs actual history. At the time these games were played, the winners were no doubt considered MLB champions, with any championship games actually deciding the MLB champion. It is only subsequently that the MLB has decided not to count these wins in team totals etc. But these were still wins at the time, and the list still says these were the champions. (Are you saying there were no MLB champions before the World Series? In which case, you're directly contradicting this article's name!) Hence I'd prefer to see this list included - rst20xx (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm saying they are not currently MLB champions so do not belong in an MLB awards article. When the NCAA makes a team vacate wins (like this) because of cheating they are taking what were at the time wins, but making them not anymore. Including those articles would be like including those wins on the USC Trojans season. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• But the 2007–08 USC Trojans men's basketball team article, if it were well written, would still list the scores of those matches, would it not? There would just also be a note stating that the wins were later vacated. Similarly, I feel that here, the winners of the MLB pre-World Series should be listed, again with a note that the results are no longer taken into consideration for championship counts etc - rst20xx (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is simply not the same thing. The World Series is, without controversy, recognized as Major League Baseball's championship. Other championships may or may not have been recognized by all leagues. These are not part of Major League Baseball's championship history, they are not awards presented or recognized by Major League Baseball as a sanctioning body (which is the most basic criterion for inclusion in this topic), and thus they are excluded. You mention above that the NHL and NBA topics go back to the founding of their leagues. This one does too - because MLB was not founded until 1901 1903. Before that, all components of the league were separate entities. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• If the MLB were not founded until 1901, then I wouldn't have a problem here. But the Major League Baseball article says "For its founding year, Major League Baseball (the current official organization) uses 1869—the year in which the first professional team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings, was established". Therefore we have a contradiction - rst20xx (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• And that is written in a section tagged for possible original research and without any reliable sources. The National Agreement of 1903 solidified the American League as a major league (see page xv of the Introduction). 1901 is the American League's founding date, and the two leagues have existed since that time, but there was no formal consolidation of the governing body Major League Baseball until 1903.

• I find it interesting that you say the topic must only follow the official line, but then link to an unofficial book to show that the MLB was founded in 1903. Where does it say that anyway? All I can see is it explains the history, but not when the MLB officially considers it was founded. Unless I'm missing something? I think we need a citation here - rst20xx (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I did provide a citation; the link above is a published reliable source. Page xv in the introduction section of that source says "The leagues came to an understanding in the National Agreement of 1903, which ratified the AL's major league status." This was further solidified in 1921 with the ratification of the Major League Baseball constitution.1 I can't locate an "official source" (meaning a source published by the league) at the moment, but self-published sources are not always tantamount to published scholarly third-party sources, especially according to WP:RS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• ...but your source does not say that this is when the MLB was founded! Just that something very significant in the history of the MLB happened at this time. The notion that this is the start of the MLB is ambiguous. As the (yes, unsourced) MLB article states, there is debate as to when exactly the MLB was founded - 1869 is the earliest candidate date. Hence I think the best approach is to take this earliest date, and by doing so all other possible later dates for the start of the MLB will be covered. If however we take a later date, then we are saying that all earlier dates are wrong, which it seems not everyone agrees with. And I was only querying the use of an official source because it is only official sources that are being used to decide the inclusion criteria of this topic, which seems a little bit hypocritical - rst20xx (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• While I don't appreciate being called a hypocrite, I will say again that I cannot locate any official sources at this time. Thus, we use the sources at our disposal, which point to the early 20th-century establishment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• No offense, Rst, but this is ridiculous. MLB was founded in 1903. Period. The inclusion of earlier dates because some members existed back then or because whatever is like including Presidents of the Continental Congress under List of Presidents of the United States or something. The Temple Cup is not an MLB award. Period. It has no place in any MLB awards topic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• First, again, what matters is what MLB recognizes, and they do not recognize those championships. This is the same reason things like the Warren Spahn Award are not included. Many awards are presented by third party bodies, like this award, so that's not what defines MLB-ness. It is recognition by the league. And again, pre-WS champs, the Temple Cup, etc, etc even occured before the organization existed. MLB founded 1903, 1903 National Commission, etc, etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I think it's worth clearing up here that I think this topic has enough consensus to pass - I'm just arguing this to its conclusion first of all. With that said, I just find it strange that you're now all lining up behind 1903 when the primary article in your WikiProject contradicts this - rst20xx (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Which is why I mention the other factor, recognition. It doesn't matter if MLB was founded yesterday, they don't recognize those titles. As such they are not MLB Awards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Who knows why the article says it... it's obviously contested as there's an OR tag on it. That's not the project's main article either... Baseball is. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• What's the status here? Rst20xx himself said there is enough consensus to pass so I'm not sure why this is still open. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Was kind of wondering the same thing myself... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Really sorry, I need to promote this, I'm just having an incredibly busy week. But don't worry, it's coming - rst20xx (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

---

• Additionally, and related to the NL/AL championship trophies: there is not significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant separate articles for the Giles and Harridge trophies, which is why they are included in the main list article only. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  I don't know whether the trophies are notable enough to merit their own articles, but there is certainly enough coverage to give List of American League pennant winners and List of National League pennant winners their own articles - they have them already! And these need including. I was just suggesting that you give the trophies articles as logical places to put these two lists, a bit like the NHL topic has done (here and here) - if you did that, then the trophy articles WOULD be notable enough - rst20xx (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  "if you did that, then the trophy articles WOULD be notable enough" - No, they would not. The trophies themselves have not received significant coverage in reliable sources, whether their winners have or not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  The ARTICLES, not the trophies, because the articles won't then just be about the trophies! Whatever the names of the articles are, the scope of the articles will be the trophies AND the lists of winners. And trophy details + list of winners = notable list - rst20xx (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  I disagree, but obviously you and I differ in our opinions of what makes an award notable, especially considering that we can't establish how long these particular awards have been presented. Agree to disagree; others can comment at will. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  I think List of National League pennant winners 1876–1968 and List of American League pennant winners should be merged/deleted to List of World Series champions, per this conversation. Clearly they are redundant because the winners move on the World Series and are listed there. However, I still stand by my consistency concerns. Although not required, it is recommended and expected, and I see no reason to dismiss something so simple to do. Yes, these passed FA/FL by themselves, but here they are together. I don't care at all how it's done as long as there is some uniformity. Reywas92^Talk 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  In their current form, they're redundant, but they shouldn't just list the winners, they should also list the runners up, win numbers and match scores - rst20xx (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  There is no point to listing the runners-up to early pennant-winners, as they are simply the teams with the best record in the leagues. I don't know what you mean by match scores, unless you're referring to the teams' records in the NLCS and ALCS, which did not exist until 1969. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  I meant, once the playoff matches were being played. Look, if these two lists are not notable, then I think you should put your money where your mouth is, and get them merged or deleted. Otherwise, they should be added, as this topic is currently violating WP:Overview topics: there are two sections of the lead with direct subarticles that are not included in this topic - rst20xx (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  What he's saying is that prior to the LCS introduction all we will have is just a list of pennant winners, because the best record won the pennant period. The trophies (awards) are not notable enough for heavy coverage, hence their simple inclusion in the main awards article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, I got that, but after the LCS introduction there's still other stuff to list. At any rate, as I said before, it boils down to: either the two lists are not notable/redundant, and so should be merged or deleted. Or they are notable/unique enough to merit existence, and so then they should be included - rst20xx (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just to be clear moving forward, the two lists you want added are NL and AL pennant winners? I suppose we could have that with pre- and post- LCS sections so you can have differently formatted tables for each area (maybe like "Next closest team in standings" for pre-LCS). Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, this is correct, and multiple tables as you suggest would be the best way forward. Or the lists could be moved to cover the trophies that go with them as well - rst20xx (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kk, then KV5, as we discussed you wanna take the NL and I'll take the AL? Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a note, this list is not in violation of the criteria for overview topics. The main sections in the article that are about awards (the scope of this topic) all have main articles, while the lists of pennant winners are merely "See also" links, as the pennants are not an award. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Aren't they? Why not? The winner gets a trophy! The Warren C. Giles section of the lead article calls this trophy an award! rst20xx (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• You're making the Warren Giles trophy and the National League pennant the same thing. They are not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• The trophies are not notable enough for their own article, so are merged into the main awards list as is proper. The pennants are notable enough. Lets just do List of American League pennant winners and List of National League pennant winners (with merges of the NLCS winners) and be done with it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Can this nomination be placed on hold, or must it be tabled and renominated? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• "You're making the Warren Giles trophy and the National League pennant the same thing. They are not." What exactly is the difference? Quote lead: "The Warren C. Giles Trophy is presented annually to the champion of the National League." And my understanding was that the NL champion is the pennant winner (e.g. quote: "the National League champion (the "pennant winner")...") Is this wrong? rst20xx (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Both of your above statements are correct, but the pennant (a flag that signifies a championship in a division, league, or World Series) is separate from the trophies (a relatively recent invention that is presented to AL/NL winners only). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• ...but in this case, the pennant and the trophy are awarded in exactly the same circumstances. (Or, at least, have been since, the 60s?) So the only difference between them, then, is that the trophies have only recently started to be awarded. Is that right? rst20xx (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• We don't know when the trophies began to be presented, as we can't find any verifiable sourcing for that. At the moment, both a trophy and a pennant are presented for winning the NLCS, but there are also pennants presented for winning the division and the World Series. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Right, well, given that the trophies haven't always been presented, I can see that it'd not be appropriate to cover all the NL/AL pennants going back to the start in an article on the trophies. But I still think a pennant is a form of award so the lists should be included, and certainly the winners since the trophies began have won an award. It might be appropriate to duplicate the trophy coverage in the two lists as well - rst20xx (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• {outdent) Well, I've already started work on the list of NL pennant winners, having merged information out of the NLCS article. That should be ready within a couple of days. My earlier question about the status of this FTC is still unanswered, though. Do we need to table this nomination and start over, or can the candidacy remain on hold until the lists of pennant winners are finished (I think Stax is going to handle the AL list)? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry. I'm happy for it to remain on hold. FLs don't take that long. rst20xx (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I'm on it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• NL pennant winners is now at FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• to rst20xx: Writing an FL usually doesn't take too long, but because of the backlog and lack of reviewers, most FLCs these days last at least three weeks. I promise I'll review the NL list ASAP and the AL list when it comes to FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Update: the NL pennant list has been promoted to FL status. However, the AL pennant list is still open and needs reviews. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, the book will need updating with these pennant winners added. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The AL pennant list has been promoted. Good work. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• A citation needed tag in the main article needs to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've added one from the WS MVP article. Mm40 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabomb has promoted AL pennant winners! We should be ready to restart! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:52, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)

South Park (season 13)

15 articles

"The Ring"

"The Coon"

"Margaritaville"

"Eat, Pray, Queef"

"Fishsticks"

"Pinewood Derby"

"Fatbeard"

"Dead Celebrities"

"Butters' Bottom Bitch"

"W.T.F."

"Whale Whores"

"The F Word"

"Dances with Smurfs"

"Pee"

This is a good topic nomination. I've been working on this for some time in conjunction with the South Park Featured Topic Drive, and since all the articles are now GA status, I believe it's ready for GT. Nergaal and other WikiProject South Park users have helped out along the way. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - you've not formatted the book correctly; I suggest you copy Book:South Park (season 1) more closely. Also, as per the Season 1 FTC, you need to put {{South Park episodes}} everywhere - rst20xx (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I've fixed the book, but please let me know if I didn't. And sorry I completely forgot about {{South Park episodes}}, but they are now added. — Hunter Kahn 14:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Support - rst20xx (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: All criteria met. Great work. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Why is Dances with Smurfs out of order in the box? Zginder 2010-03-19T21:17Z (UTC)
  • Not sure how I mixed them up, but its fixed. — Hunter Kahn 21:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Support Zginder 2010-03-20T02:24Z (UTC)

• Hell ya —Terrence and Phillip 08:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Well done. Pyrrhus16 19:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - keep 'em coming! rst20xx (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

German Type UB I submarines

German Type UB I submarine

22 articles

SM UB-2

SM UB-3

SM UB-4

SM UB-5

SM UB-6

SM UB-7

SM UB-8

SM UB-9

SM UB-10

SM UB-11

SM UB-12

SM UB-13

SM UB-14

SM UB-16

SM UB-17

Austro-Hungarian U-10 class

SM U-10 (ex-UB-1)

SM U-11 (ex-UB-15)

SM U-15

SM U-16

SM U-17

Main contribuitor: Bellhalla

He has suddenly stopped editing two months ago and I have left a notification on his talkpage about a month ago. This might be one of the last contributions that Bellhalla has given to Wikipedia. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I believe the subtopic should be separated because it has 5+1 article by itself and because I plan on nominating a super-topic on Austro-Hungarian classes or submarine list which would need the U-10 class as a subtopic by itself. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree as I do not think the topics are big enough to merit splitting. I definitely think that SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary) (the only one of the 5 not a GA but at GAN) and SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary), in particular, should be part of this topic, as they were originally used by the German navy, and were only later sold to Austria-Hungary (while the other three boats in the U-10 class were built for and used from the start by Austria-Hungary). Also I don't think your plans to nominate a supertopic are relevant as the U-10 class article can appear in such a supertopic whether it has its own topic or not. While it would make for nice visual structures, I don't see why this supertopic would need the U-10 class to appear as a subtopic at all. More than that, the subtopic link could actually point back to this topic - rst20xx (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you are suggesting to remove the class article and add 10 & 11, then in the supertopic put the class article but link here for the subtopic? Or you want the class and the five other articles here? Nergaal (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the second option would be better, and after all, 10 is the only one of the 6 articles that isn't a GA already - rst20xx (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What should happen to the image in that case, as some of the boats did not run under the German flag. Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As the Germans made all the boats, I don't see a problem with still using this flag, or maybe the German national flag - rst20xx (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I've gotten SM U-11 to GA status and the GA for SM U-10 was a quick pass. All articles are at GA status now.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - so uh then the Austro-Hungarian boats, all GAs now, are SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-15 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-16 (Austria-Hungary) and SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary). As I understand it, they were all built with the UB Is, and the first two were in fact formerly used by Germany in the UB I class. I think all 5 should be added to this topic, and certainly the first two - rst20xx (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes to all, Nergal promoted SM U-10 and I promoted SM U-11. However credit goes to Bellhalla for the whole thing. But all articles are now at GA.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - so, uh, it seems most people would favour adding the articles (well, 2 out of 3). I've added them above and struck my oppose. I would support the 22-article layout above. Feedback from others would be appreciated - rst20xx (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but should the U-10 class be a subtopic? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  Well, that's what all the discussion before your vote was about... rst20xx (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  ...and I continue to demonstrate my lack of reading skills. ;) Thanks Rst. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Saratoga campaign

Saratoga campaign

9 articles

Siege of Fort Ticonderoga

Battle of Hubbardton

Battle of Fort Anne

Siege of Fort Stanwix

Battle of Oriskany

Battle of Bennington

Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery

Battles of Saratoga

This topic is based on the contents of {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Saratoga campaign}}, which are unified by the article on the Saratoga campaign. Magic♪piano 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - book please - rst20xx (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It just took me a bit to figure out how to do it (I didn't find the book tool helpful). Magic♪piano 19:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Support - I would have thought you'd have just copied another book! Anyway I removed the piping out of battle/siege etc above as better to let people see which it was. Also colons not bullet points. Support - rst20xx (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Support - I think these articles have much for info than they did a few months ago. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 08:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Support - Everything checks out. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - sorry about the delay - rst20xx (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Quietly Confident Quartet

Quietly Confident Quartet

6 articles

Mark Kerry

Peter Evans

Mark Tonelli

Neil Brooks

Men's 4 x 100 metre medley relay at the 1980 Summer Olympics

Main contribuitor: YellowMonkey

Last time one article was missing. Nergaal (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No votes (even opposing) in a whole week? Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't vote; I'll give the main race another run-through YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 01:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - everything seems covered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this is comprehensive, now the race's article is included. Nice work - rst20xx (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support —Terrence and Phillip 09:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - book please - rst20xx (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • check Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I fixed the formatting, which has to follow strict rules for books - rst20xx (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)